About this I will say only that Wittgenstein is making an observation not a criticism.239. I believe that every human being has two human parents; but Catholics believe that Jesus only had a human mother. And other people might believe that there are human beings with no parents, and give no credence to all the contrary evidence. Catholics believe as well that in certain circumstances a wafer completely changes its nature, and at the same time that all evidence proves the contrary. And so if Moore said "I know that this is wine and not blood", Catholics would contradict him.
I will change the color of the font to identify my additions to the original post by -1- that was rejected:
I am not religious, was never raised to be religious. So I have several, some not even complicated, questions to which I would kindly like to ask the religious experts in our midsts to supply answers. Ensuing discussion of right or wrong of the rites, customs and beliefs is encouraged, but not mandatory.
1. In the Roman Catholic sect of Christianity, there are deadly sins and non-deadly ones. Can someone proceed to heaven if he dies with an unconfessed and unabsolved deadly sin? Can deadly sins be absolved in the first place? I am asking because I am curious about the fate of state executionaires who commit murder as a profession, but not due to other motivations.
2. IN the RC mass, one takes the bread and wine as the flesh and blood of JC. Literally, there is a supposed trans-something (it has its own proper name) happening, so it's no longer bread and wine. This practice therefore can be regarded as cannibalistic. Is cannibalism otherwise frowned upon among the followers? Or is it NOT cannibalism, because the faithful eat the
flesh and blood of a god, not of a feller human?
Transubstantiation - the miraculous change in substance from bread and wine to the the body and blood of Christ. The belief is transubstantiation of bread and wine to the body and blood of a god is much older than Christianity.
I can see how the question of cannibalism might be seen as antagonistic, but you are right, the Church is quite clear that it is not meant to be taken symbolically.
The belief that one may acquire the characteristics of an animal or a man by eating his body and drinking his blood is almost as old as the dawn of man. (The Final Superstition, Joseph L. Daleiden)
Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3. (http://mtc.org/eucharst.html)
3. My uncle, who is a devout Catholic, keeps telling everyone that the immaculate conception of Jesus the Fetus was not due to no male zygote impregnating the egg in Mary, but instead, the immaculate conception was a process where god made Mary void of any sins (according to my uncle, at her birth), and Jesus was conceived the regular human way. Is there any acceptance of this version among RC faithfuls? My uncle is a physician, so I suppose he rationalized his cognitive dissonance of not believing that a
child can be born form the egg alone and therefore my uncle created his own, to himself believable, version of the Immaculate Conception. Is his a maverick approach? Or is it still acceptable by the Church? Or is it plain heresy to believe the way my uncle believes the Immaculate conception?
4. Is there a comprehensive script describing the death process as it is written in the Bible? I asked some Evangelist street preachers to tell me about the process, and to show me passages from the Books that support the interpretation, and I'm telling you, it's not an easily conceptualized process. I need to see some accurate description which takes all bible lines into consideration when it establishes the process of dying and also the crossroads in that process. Under "crossroads" I meant places in theFrom the Catholic Encyclopedia on Immaculate conception:
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
journey where decisions are made by some bodies, which way to proceed. (Hell or heaven, for instance.)