From: djdaneh@pbhyc.pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:12:53 GMT
Reply-To: djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Oct.7.01.49.00.1992.10899@geneva.rutgers.edu> memco@cns.nyu.edu writes:

I think our friend at rutgers is not aware of the intrinsic horror of our
faith.

I assure him that we are not only aware of it, we glory in it even as we are
shamed by it.


>1)	My understanding of Jewish tradition concerning the
>sacrifice of animals in the Temple is that their blood
>(along with the sincere repentance of the offender) washed
>away the sin. Humans were strictly forbidden as sacrificial
>objects. Christians, along with conveying deityship on Jesus,
>also describe him as fully human. If, as you say, he was killed
>to "wash away the sins of mankind", wouldn't this fall into
>the category of human sacrifice? If not, why not?

Yes, it was, and more: it was _divine_ sacrifice.  God was sacrificed to God;
Man was sacrificed for Man.

It has been suggested that the reason human sacrifice was forbidden -- aside
from the question of morality -- was that Man, unlike the animals, was tainted
with (original?) sin, and thus was not an "acceptable" sacrifice, not a pleasing
smell in God's virtual nostrils.  If this is so, then Jesus, as a sinless Man,
was not only acceptable but -- as the standard Christian terminology goes -- a
"perfect" sacrifice.

The question of whether sacrificing sinless humans should be considered immoral
is reserved until sinless humans can be found.  (Note that in many sects' views,
even "innocent" newborns are *NOT* sinless.)


>2)	There has also been some suggestion that Jesus went
>willingly (to some extent) to the cross specifically to
>"wash away" said sins. Wouldn't this be considered suicide?

That depends on definitions, I suppose.  Is a soldier volunteering for a
certain-death mission to save his fellows guilty of the "crime" of suicide?
Or is he a hero?  The same logic applies here.


>3)	Finally, it is my understanding that
>when Christians consume the host and drink the
>sacremental wine, at the moment they enter the mouth, they are
>supposedly transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus
>respectively. Considering the human aspect of his body,
>why shouldn't this be considered as cannibalism?

Heavens, it's not merely anthropophagy ("cannibalism"), it's _theophagy_.

Of course, even those who believe that it is "actually" changed don't mean
it the way you think they do.  The term used by the Catholic church (TM) is
"transubstantiation."  This refers to the Aristotelian difference between
_substantia_ and _materia_.  Simply, _materia_ is what a thing is _made_of_;
_substantia_ is what a thing _is_.

For example, I have a plastic mug on the desk in front of me right now.  By
applying heat and pressure, but without burning it, I could convert it into a 
useless lump.  Its _materia_ would remain the same (red plastic), but its
_substantia_ would change from "a useful object for drinking cold fluids" to
"a useless lump of plastic."  This is transubstantiation.

When a Catholic priest elevates the Host, it continues to be _made_of_ bread
and wine; but it _becomes_ the body&blood of etc.  Whether this is more than
a symbolic change is a matter of some hot debate between Catholics and their
brethren.


		Houston, Houston, do you read? I'd mortgage half my soul
		If I could see it one more time - Apollo, Ground Control
		The Devil take the men who killed the dream that died too soon
		For all my dreams are haunted by a fire on the Moon.
			-- Visual Purple

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.