Ceeboo wrote:In most (all?) Bible based Christian churches, the sacrament (small s) is simply done to remember Jesus and the Last Supper. In my church, we do this about once a month. This has nothing to do with forgiving sin and/or salvation.
The Roman Catholic church has an entirely different view of this and it's called the "Holy Eucharist"
Ceebs do you know what the origin is regarding the RC interpretation and understanding of the Eucharist? Is it prescribed in specific scripture particular to the RC church?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Ceeboo wrote:In most (all?) Bible based Christian churches, the sacrament (small s) is simply done to remember Jesus and the Last Supper. In my church, we do this about once a month. This has nothing to do with forgiving sin and/or salvation.
The Roman Catholic church has an entirely different view of this and it's called the "Holy Eucharist"
Ceebs do you know what the origin is regarding the RC interpretation and understanding of the Eucharist?
I don't know the origin (I remember reading something about it starting around the year 1,000 - but what I read might be completely untrue) - The understanding is that the Catholic priest performs what is know as "transubstantiation" - meaning, the process by which the Catholic priest transforms the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Jesus - Know as the "Real Presence" or "Holy Eucharist"
Jersey Girl wrote: ceebo remarked; "In most (all?) Bible based Christian churches, the sacrament (small s) is simply done to remember Jesus and the Last Supper. In my church, we do this about once a month. This has nothing to do with forgiving sin and/or salvation.
The Roman Catholic church has an entirely different view of this and it's called the "Holy Eucharist" ...........
We do this once a month in my church as well. As Ceeboo states it has nothing to do with forgiving sin and/or salvation. It's done in remembrance.
I don't attend church.
I am a noncatholic which usually attends mass, Catholic, so do not take the Eucharist regularly. In fact it is as rarely as Christmas eve at an Episcopal service when I partake. I participate in the mass by being at regular services however. I believe it is more than a rememberance though it is that. It is real presence and a communion with the group of people and God.
Though I understand it can be said that Jesus completed the foundation and structure of our salvation. I understand it can be said that that salvation is applied by God to us by grace. I think it is essential to Gods purpose and to our purpose that we participate in living with God for our sanctification. That is kind of a prissy word, sanctification, but it refers to the important reality of our changed or reborn life we receive from God being not just a one time thing but something started in this life and continuing. It is composed of good times bad times happy times and suffering as we learn to love. It is a change never completed in this life but awaits completion with the rest of people in eternity.
Chap wrote:Um, the theme of that story is that God is the kind of loving parent who ... throws his kids out onto the street if they break his rules about eating the wrong kind of fruit.
Oh yes, then he hires armed security to make sure the kids can't get back into his gated community. Really a caring parent.
(etc.)
Chap, is this the reading of the story you developed back in your days as true Bible thumper or was it developed after your naturalist rebirth?
I mean a real question as your reading strikes me as a bit perverse. I realize you may see me a perversely naïve about Bible stories. I do read the story as God making the most kindly action for the situation. I can see the story could be read as a thing to frighten youth. Show what a devouring ogre god is.
The story is worse than what Chap describes. They ate the fruit and god introduced death to the world. Getting thrown out of the gated community was just the beginning.
Not sure how you get love from that. If there was ever a character who had a problem making punishments fit the crime, it's this god dude.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
The funny thing about the Garden of Eden story is that by eating the fruit, they had to be fulfilling god's plan all along. Without that plot point, there's no movie. If that's the case, they never had a choice. They were punished for something god planned to have them do in the first place.
Forgive my memory, but aren't Mormons the ones who think this is where free will began? They got to choose whether or not to eat the fruit? That's funny. If you believe the Bible, Adam and Eve were in control of what happened, not god. He was a slave to their choice. He had to punish them, because he was programmed to.
So... which is it? God controlled Eve or Eve controlled god?
There is no way to look at the Bible favorably without superimposing your own narrative over top of what's written; who wrote it, how to read it, what it's for, what your mindset should be, when it's literal and when it's myth, etc. So much of the Bible makes no sense at all, so if you want to believe it, you have to claim bad is good and up is down...
...unless you come across a verse that's easy to agree with in today's culture. Those, you can leave alone.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Schmo, I think most Judeo-Christian religions believe Adam and Eve could have multiplied and built up the garden. God gave them the opportunity to build a paradise and instead they supposedly messed it up starting with Eve. The LDS view is much more charitable to Eve in her being the one to recognize a need to take the fruit in order to multiply and progress, but it's not the general understanding outside Mormonism.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Lemmie wrote:I know you asked chap, so my apologies for intruding, but if you don’t mind another response to me it is just too illogical. It’s as though the story was started, and then when the teller realized something was not making sense, a new rationale had to be created for that conflict, and then again for another conflict, and another. After a while, the layers of rationalizing are just too much, and it begins to look silly, which is the context in which I read chap’s post.
Lemmie, I am stuck making guesses about what you may be referring to. Perhaps you are reading as though it is a literal story of historic events. I think that is quite improbable. I cannot imagine it having been written that way. It reads like a dream story functioning as a parabolic reflection introducing the puzzle of human evil. Why are humans inclined to be awful to each other? It is true that the story though introducing the matter does not really have a complete answer. It has at best suggestions which are explored with further stories in Genesis. As a literary matter the incomplete answers in Genesis foreshadow concerns that run through the rest of the Bible.
So the Garden of Eden story explains "why humans [are] inclined to be awful to each other?" I think we are in similar places re making guesses what the other is thinking, because I don't get that either, nor does it correspond to any LDS teaching I can recall from my past.
And your statement, "the story though introducing the matter does not really have a complete answer," pretty much makes my point about the ad hoc nature of interpretations. It's a story, and after the fact people try to make it fit, but it doesn't quite fit anything, and in fact requires the explanation that it is a "dream story functioning as a parabolic reflection."
To me, that puts it beyond any level of usefulness, but since this is Bible studies, a dead end like that is not a useful contribution so I will bow out of the conversation.
Lemmie wrote:To me, that puts it beyond any level of usefulness, but since this is Bible studies, a dead end like that is not a useful contribution so I will bow out of the conversation.
I can't think of anywhere more pertinent than "Bible study" to discuss the usefulness of the Bible, Lemmie. It's the only serious question about it that's of any importance, really.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Lemmie wrote:To me, that puts it beyond any level of usefulness, but since this is Bible studies, a dead end like that is not a useful contribution so I will bow out of the conversation.
I can't think of anywhere more pertinent than "Bible study" to discuss the usefulness of the Bible, Lemmie. It's the only serious question about it that's of any importance, really.
Thanks, PomM! I don’t feel so bad for interrupting, now.
