Communion - Symbolic or Real?

[Stravinsk]

Yopu mena because of the repetitive posts or trying to control content?

Both, but mostly trying to control the conversation through deceptive straw men.

Josiah went on and on about my quoting him, when if he just took a minute and thought about it, I was simply summarizing his position when I said:

Wow. Nice standard. "You have no position unless you dogmatically agree with my personal take on theology"

The quoted text isn't his, it's mine - but it's a summary of his position at that point. I don't understand why I should have to clarify this, but apparently some people need it?

The following is a perfect example of Straw man argument using a cut off quote. This is my original quote:

There is none. But there is against eating it RAW, mate! It still contains BLOOD!!! Try it mate - doesn't matter how many prayers you offer - you'll still be very very sick.

This is in response to Josiah's statement about there being no law against eating chicken. However, when he responded, this is only what he quoted:

"There is none" Post #188.

Then responded with:

It's irrelevant. This thread is not about whether eating chicken is good or bad for you. And the post to which was responding has NOTHING to do with chicken or food safety....

The selective quoting is what I have a problem with. He cut off the rest of my statement as if it didn't exist then just responded to half quote as if that's all there was. Obviously the law against eating blood is relevant to the thread. Do it, especially with certain animals like chicken (even though it's a clean animal by the law) - and one gets very sick. It's also relevant to the sub conversation between me, him and visionary, where it was brought up again. This business of "hijacking" is just a bunch of bullocks. Josiah himself brought up the accusation that those who quote the law are probably hypocrites who enjoy Lobster and McDonald's egg mcmuffin or whatever it was.

Anywho - I dislike conversing with people who use deceptive straw men when they lack a response to a point, and that is what is being done.

 

[TurtleHare]

Not sure what chickens have to do with Holy Communion.

 

[visionary]

Communion and all the strange heresies attached

- a person had to partake of Holy Communion in order to have their sins forgiven.

Q. What good does this eating and drinking do?

A. These words tell us: "Given for you" and "Shed for you to forgive sins." Namely, that the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation are given to us through these words in the sacrament. Because, where sins are forgiven, there is life and salvation as well.

SOURCE: Luther's Small Catechism, The Sacraments of the Altar

Salvation is not obtained by quoting “these words in the sacrament.” A person cannot have their sins forgiven through partaking of Holy Mass or Holy Communion, which Lutherans and Catholics believe. In fact, the terms “Holy Mass” and “Holy Communion” aren't even found in the Bible. The heresy called, consubstantiation, where they believe that a special grace is bestowed upon those who partake of Holy Communion.

- eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus

 

[MoreCoffee]

I agree with you so lets get that straight on what you said but again does this mean you were literally born again or was it figuratively? If figuratively how can that fit with how you interpreted the other

It means that I was in fact born from above through baptism as the Lord said. His words are not a metaphor nor do they describe a symbolic ritual. They can be taken at face value. The same is true of the Holy Supper of the Lord. His words "this is my body" and "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" can be taken at face value. They are not metaphors. They are not describing a symbolic ritual.

 

[Josiah]

Communion and all the strange heresies attached

- a person had to partake of Holy Communion in order to have their sins forgiven.

Q. What good does this eating and drinking do?

A. These words tell us: "Given for you" and "Shed for you to forgive sins." Namely, that the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation are given to us through these words in the sacrament. Because, where sins are forgiven, there is life and salvation as well.

SOURCE: Luther's Small Catechism, The Sacraments of the Altar

Salvation is not obtained by quoting “these words in the sacrament.” A person cannot have their sins forgiven through partaking of Holy Mass or Holy Communion, which Lutherans and Catholics believe. In fact, the terms “Holy Mass” and “Holy Communion” aren't even found in the Bible. The heresy called, consubstantiation, where they believe that a special grace is bestowed upon those who partake of Holy Communion.

- eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus

1. Consubstantiation is a ROMAN CATHOLIC theory from the middle ages; Lutherans denounce it. The theory was invented and promoted by the Catholic scholar Duns Scotus, an Aristotelean and Scholastic, hundreds of years before Luther was even born. In this context, Luther never once even uttered the word and it's never found in the Lutheran Confessions. In fact, Lutherans specifically reject this Aristotelian theory for much the same reasons as Lutherans reject the other major Aristotelian theory: transubstantiation. Catholics - beginning at Trent - have TRIED to associate Luther with the theory of Duns Scotus (which Trent rejected) but it's baseless and has been denied. Lutherans do use the word, but in reference to the Two Natures of Christ, not the Sacrament.


2. Lutherans do NOT teach that one "HAS" to receive the Sacrament in order to be forgiven. That's absurd. That's NOT the Lutheran position (as the snippet you quoted proves).


3. Lutherans do NOT teach that the Sacrament grants salvation (as the snippet you quoted proves); Lutherans teach that forgiveness and salvation are joined.


4. True, "Mass" is a word not found in the Bible (however, "Communion" is!). So what? Are we forbidden to use words not found in the Bible?


5. True, unlike post 16th Century Catholics and Zwinglian "Evangelicals," Lutherans believe that Jesus and Paul meant what they said. It's the post-Trent Roman Catholics and the followers of Zwingli who believe that Jesus and Paul did NOT mean what they said/penned, and that HALF of what follows the "is" well.... is not. The Zwinglians and modern Catholics debate endlessly as to WHY Jesus and Paul are wrong, WHY half of what is stated doesn't actually fully exist - but this presumption (that we must reject what is stated) is a Catholic and Evangelical thing since the 16th Century. Lutherans accept that Jesus and Paul meant what they said and said what they meant.





.

 

[Josiah]

Obviously the law against eating blood is relevant to the thread.

Stravinsk,



I stated that IF the premise of the poster is true (that all OT Laws still apply and still are to be obeyed).... and IF the poster actually agrees with his/her own premise there (thus keeping all the laws and obeying them all).... THEN I stated they have a point. I guess you just didn't read what I posted. And I stated that I disagree with the premise.... and I strongly suspect, so does the poster.


But the post to which I responded and in my post responding to it, NOTHING was stated about varies species of birds or seafood, NOTHING was said about food safety. You insisting on IMPOSING your hijacking upon me, INSISTING I participate in your hijack.


And you indicating you were QUOTING ME but you just made it up. Out of thin air. You stating you were QUOTING ME making all kinds of really weird things in order to rebuke me for stating these things ( I never said - although you QUOTED me saying it). But I never said them. YOU DID. You wrote the words, I did not. It was deceptive. It was dishonest. It was rude. And I called you on it. Rather than confessing.... rather than apologizing and stopping, you persisted in this.

It's also relevant to the sub conversation between me, him and visionary, where it was brought up again.

PERHAPS..... maybe..... but you QUOTED ME as stating words and then you rebuked ME for saying the things I never said. You made it up. YOU wrote those things, I never did. And when I called you on it, you CONTINUED to do this.

I'm not you, "him," or visionary. Do you realize that? Thus your attacks on me, your made up quotes of me, your insisting on dragging me into your obsession about birds, seafood and food safety was.... well..... inappropriate if not absurd.

Josiah himself brought up the accusation that those who quote the law are probably hypocrites who enjoy Lobster and McDonald's egg mcmuffin or whatever it was.

No. I was questioning the PREMISE - that all OT laws are still in effect and are still to be followed and 0beyed. Again.... yet again....As I stated (but I don't think you read it), IF (I.F. - it sets up a conditional clause), IF all the OT laws are still in effect and must be fully employed..... and IF the poster actually believes his/her own point by fully obeying and applying ALL the OT laws...... IF that is met (and I stated, I do doubt that), THEN (T.H.E.N. - the other part of the conditional clause) THEN I accept the point being made - I just disagree with it.


But rather than responding to anything I wrote, you made up stuff I never said. You just made it up. Out of thin air. Then had the gull to QUOTE ME specifically stating things I never remotely said - then mocked me, on and on and on - for posting what I NEVER posted, you just were being dishonest. When I called you on it, rather than apologizing and ceasing, you kept it up.

deceptive

What I think is deceptive and "intellectually dishonest" is to make up quotes, to supply QUOTES of things the poster never stated. And when they are called on it, just continue to do it. Rebuking the one they misquoted for the quotes that were just made up. IMO, that's dishonest, deceptive. See my point? Probably not. You still haven't apologized, you still haven't admitted that all your rude posts to me had NOTHING TO DO with what I actually posted but with the made up stuff you WRONGLY, DECEPTIVELY, DISHONESTLY quoted ME as saying.

The selective quoting is what I have a problem with. He cut off the rest of my statement as if it didn't exist then just responded to half quote as if that's all there was.

I quoted the part I responded to. I didn't quote the things you insisted I posted and promoted because I didn't post or promote it - you made it up. The rest of that paragraph had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING in the post I was responding to and had NOTHING to do with my reply post to it. It just was perpetuating your misquotes, the stuff YOU MADE UP and then had the gull to specifically QUOTE ME as saying - but I never did. Yes, I realized, you seemed obsessed to drag me into your hijack (thus you wanted me to supply your whole paragraph) but I reminded you I NEVER participated in your hijack. The thread is not about food safely. Obviously, you are obsessed with that.... and you THINK (anyway) that two other posters are too.... and I know you made up things about this and QUOTED ME as promoting it in order to try to drag me into your hijack and obsession, but again - I never said those things. Your quotes me of were all made up. Yeah, pretty dishonest, pretty deceptive. I didn't quote your whole paragraph because your attack on me is based on your deceptive, made up QUOTING of me saying things I never said.






- Josiah





.

 

[Stravinsk]

Stravinsk,



I stated that IF the premise of the poster is true (that all OT Laws still apply and still are to be obeyed).... and IF the poster actually agrees with his/her own premise there (thus keeping all the laws and obeying them all).... THEN I stated they have a point. I guess you just didn't read what I posted. And I stated that I disagree with the premise.... and I strongly suspect, so does the poster.


But the post to which I responded and in my post responding to it, NOTHING was stated about varies species of birds or seafood, NOTHING was said about food safety. You insisting on IMPOSING your hijacking upon me, INSISTING I participate in your hijack.

Your argument about the validity of the law or it's invalidity is summed up in an "all or nothing" position. First you attacked the person(s) referring to it by insinuating they were likely hypocrites who eat Lobster and McMuffins at McD's. When countered with the affirmation of one person that she does keep those particular laws, your position was to attack that position by saying that unless one keeps ALL the OT laws, then the law in question as it relates to this thread is not valid.

About the Hijacking - mate, just admit it - my view about the law with reference to eating blood is nowhere near "hijacking". It is relevant to the thread. You keep wanting to take that context out. So I am AGAIN asking you, why don't you swallow some raw chicken, mate. You know, with the BLOOD still in it. How about some raw pork too.

And you indicating you were QUOTING ME but you just made it up. Out of thin air. You stating you were QUOTING ME making all kinds of really weird things in order to rebuke me for stating these things ( I never said - although you QUOTED me saying it). But I never said them. YOU DID. You wrote the words, I did not. It was deceptive. It was dishonest. It was rude. And I called you on it. Rather than confessing, rather than apologizing and stopping, you persisted in this.

Didn't I quote you numerous times already in the thread? Yes. You are singling out a single sentence where I summarized your position and attitude with the " quote " symbols, and it should have been obvious I was not directly quoting you THERE, I was summarizing your position of "all or nothing" with regards to the context of what I DID quote.

PERHAPS..... maybe..... but you QUOTED ME as making really weird things and then you rebuked ME for saying the things I never said. You made it up. YOU wrote those things, I never did. And when I called you on it, you CONTINUED to do this.

Dude, like I said above, I have quoted you numerous times. Also, like I have already said, when I didn't actually use the quote feature but summarized your position with my own words and put these " " around it, you completely misconstrued it. And the reason you misconstrued it? You read what you want, and ignore what you can't or won't respond to.

Unlike you, at least I am quoting your full statements and not snipping them off at the relevant points like you like to do with mine.

You are making WAY more of it than I did...... You are mischaracterizing what I stated. I was questioning the PREMISE - that all OT laws are still in effect and are still to be followed and 0beyed. Again.... yet again....As I stated (but I don't think you read it), IF (I.F. - it sets up a conditional clause), IF all the OT laws are still in effect and must be fully employed..... and IF the poster actually believes his/her own point by fully obeying and applying ALL the OT laws...... IF that is meant (and I stated, I do doubt that), THEN (T.H.E.N. - the other part of the conditional clause) THEN I accept the point being made - I just disagree with it.

Again, who made the assumption or stated that all the OT laws were in effect? Not me. Not Visionary. YOU.

How do I know the blood laws are still in effect?

Still waiting for you to eat that raw chicken or pork.

But rather than responding to anything I wrote, you made up stuff I never said. You just made it up. Out of thin air. Then had the GULL to QUOTE ME specifically stating things I never remotely said - then mocked me, on and on and on - for posting what I NEVER posted, you just were being dishonest. When I called you on it, rather than apologizing and ceasing, you kept it up.

I only used the quote feature for what you actually said. I used the quote symbol " " for summarizing your position in my words. And, I've already explained this, because apparently it wasn't obvious when I did it, to you. I don't take back my words there, you came out with lots of attitude and then when someone acknowledged that she keeps those food laws - you started lumping all the law together to discredit and minimize the obedience of someone acting in good faith. Nice work, Christian.

What I think is deceptive and "intellectually dishonest" is to make up quotes, to supply QUOTES of things the poster never stated. And when they are called on it, just continue to do it. Rebuking the one they misquoted for the quotes that were just made up. IMO, that's dishonest, deceptive. See my point? Probably not. You still haven't apologized, you still haven't admitted that all your rude posts to me had NOTHING TO DO with what I actually posted but with the made up stuff you WRONGLY, DECEPTIVELY, DISHONESTLY quoted ME as saying.

.

I won't apologize for making my statement. I thought it was obvious that in that initial statement, I was only summarizing what I saw as your attitude and position using the " " symbol. If I had wanted to actually quote you, I would have done what I have done throughout this very post.

Notice I have quoted you in full for every point you make?

Next time, please have the courtesy of doing the same for my posts, instead of snipping them into straw men to whack down.

 

[Josiah]

First you attacked the person(s) referring to it by insinuating they were likely hypocrites who eat Lobster and McMuffins at McD's.

I "attacked" no one.

Again.... yet again..... one more time (and this would be obvious if you read what I posted rather than the made up quotes you've substituted)..... I made a conditional clause. IF (please note that word - it sets up a conditional clause)..... IF all of the Old Testament laws still fully apply and are to be fully employed...... and IF the poster believes that by fully embracing and employing all the Old Testament laws...... THEN that poster as a point: and I can understand why they would conclude that Jesus would be promoting sin if His words are accepted "at face value." Again.... I made a conditional clause. IF (please note that word - it sets up a conditional clause)..... IF all of the Old Testament laws still fully apply and are to be fully employed...... and IF the poster believes that by fully embracing and employing all the Old Testament laws...... THEN that poster as a point: and I can understand why they would conclude that Jesus would be promoting sin if His words are accepted "at face value." Is there any part of that which still confuses you, that is yet unclear?

Yes... I did question the premise, and I did state that I disagree with it. But no one was attacked. Only you attacking me.

About the Hijacking - mate, just admit it - my view about the law with reference to eating blood is nowhere near "hijacking".

The thread is not about food safety. If others desire to participate in your hijack, fine. I don't know why you continue to be obsessed that I be dragged into it, even going to inventing quotes from me and demanding I defend the quotes YOU INVENTED, YOU MADE UP, and CLAIM I posted.

Again, who made the assumption or stated that all the OT laws were in effect? Not me. Not Visionary. YOU.

Quote me stating that.




.