|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | This was one of the reasons early Christians were persecuted by the Romans. They thought the Christians were cannibals. [[Special:Contributions/76.20.159.250|76.20.159.250]] 00:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC) | + | This is a raelly intelligent way to answer the question. |
| − | | |
| − | :Did they actually though that or did they only used it as pretext for persecution? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Isn't he making fun of that doctrine?[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 07:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Transubstantiation isn't about bread literally turning into flesh. I don't know how to explain it properly, but it is based on Middle Age Christian philosophy (scholastic, St. Thomas, I think) that differentiates the accidents (appearance, taste etc.) of a thing from its true substance. Transubstantiation means that the bread becomes flesh (acquires the substance of Jesus' flesh) even though it retains the appearance and all qualities of bread.
| |
| − | This doctrine is of course highly outdated and I can't think of why the Catholics haven't dropped it yet. It also causes a lot of confusion. --[[User:Artod|Artod]] ([[User talk:Artod|talk]]) 09:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :If it's middle age Christian, what was the explanation before that? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::I would think that the original interpretation is symbolism. Jesus and his diciples were eating the {{w|passover}} meal, and the central piece was a {{w|Korban Pesach|sacrifical lamb}}. I think that it's a way for Jesus to say that the purpouse of the lamb is becoming dated, cause I'm about to be murdered, and that is what will save you in the end, not sacrifices. From start christians have called him the {{w|Lamb of God}}. Hope you had a merry Christmas! -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::The "lamb of God" is thought to be a malpropism from one ancient language to another. I don't have my source material to hand, but it seems likely that the original was "word of God", and "lamb" had a similar sound and so became entangled in the confusion
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::Thomism (the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas) is built on Aristotle's thought and thus this understanding has always been applied to the Eucharist, albeit possibly not as explicitly as through Thomism.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::In fact, Wikipedia does have a pretty good article about transubstantiation.--[[User:Artod|Artod]] ([[User talk:Artod|talk]]) 11:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::It does seem quite good. Were you thinking about anything in particular? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | The 'punchline' and title text are two of the most macabre things I've ever seen Randall write in this comic - and the hilarity still comes across!--[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Has anybody figured out what the '1970s murder victim' reference in the hovertext is referring to? Lot of people died then - I have no idea how to even start narrowing it down [[Special:Contributions/76.116.83.55|76.116.83.55]] 16:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Will it referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_in_the_Box_(Philadelphia) [[User:Ykliu|Ykliu]] ([[User talk:Ykliu|talk]]) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Just remind me of a film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baby_of_Mâcon
| |
| − | | |
| − | Speaking as a Catholic, my first reaction was "Oy, I've never heard ''that one'' before (eye roll)". It is a pretty old gag, but Randall definitely has a gift for putting comedic timing into 2-dimensional comic panels; I still laughed. [[User:Tractarian|Tractarian]] ([[User talk:Tractarian|talk]]) 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Randall misspelled "parishioner". [[Special:Contributions/87.189.145.75|87.189.145.75]] 12:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | The last sentence of the explanation is is really awkward to me. I want to rewrite it but I'm not too smart on theology so I'm not sure if this is the right way. What do you think?
| |
| − | | |
| − | : ''Protestant denominations (e.g., Baptists, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Pentecostals) reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation, with some taking the words as wholly symbolic of Jesus' sacrificial death. Others (e.g, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist) believe Christ is actually present in the bread and wine although the bread and wine are not changed in any physical way .'' --[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 03:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Hold on a minute. The church in the title text is evidently ritually sacrificing/apotheosizing persons and then transubstantiating their flesh and blood for consumption in order to redeem their sins. (Presumably ritual sacrifice is kosher.) Now the police have a blood sample from a 1970 murder victim as a result of confiscating the transubstantiated materials. How did they get the blood from the victim for comparison if he was killed by the church and they disposed of the remains? I hope Dexter isn't involved on this one. [[Special:Contributions/98.225.182.131|98.225.182.131]] 09:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
