The Catholic church teaches in transubstantiation when taking the eucharist/communion. In layman's terms, this means that the bread and wine/juice literally turns into and becomes the blood and flesh of Jesus. One of the scriptures Catholics will point to is John 6:53 - "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."

Now if Jesus was speaking literally here, the disciples should have gone up to Jesus and started to bite him and eat his flesh and drink his blood. Obviously this was not literal but symbolic of taking communion. Jesus spoke often in symbolism. One time he warned the disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees. The Pharisees took it literally and thought Jesus mentioned leaven because they had no bread. But Jesus was not speaking of literal leaven but that the leaven symbolized the false doctrine of the Pharisees.

Even at the last supper when Jesus said of the bread and wine/juice - "This is my body and my blood", that was not literal because Jesus hadn't yet suffered the beatings and crucifixion. It was symbolizing and foretelling what was soon to take place. Jesus even told them why to take communion. He said to do it in remembrance of him, not to literally eat his flesh.

In Hebrews 10:10,12 it says - "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God."

And in Hebrews 9:25-26 it says - "Nor yet that Jesus should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

It's clear from these verses that Jesus was only sacrificed once and that he only suffered once and does not have to often suffer. If we are literally eating and drinking Jesus' flesh and blood every time we took communion, Jesus would be sacrificed and suffering every time we took it.

Does Jesus want us to be cannibals? I don't think so. What about you?

Since God cannot be proven, when there's a discussion or debate on the God of the bible, for the sake of discussion, it is done under the presupposition that he exists. Otherwise the discussion is moot. It doesn't mean that an atheist is admitting God exists, but is debating as though he did. Admittedly, atheists can bring forth good arguments such as possible bible contradictions and God being unjust, but that is not what I want to talk about here. I want to address something I've never understood that atheists just refuse to accept. And that is:

1 - If an eternally existing God is real (this is the presupposition of the argument)
2 - Has the power to create the universe
3 - Knows the future before it happens
4 - And is infinite in wisdom and understanding;

Then why is it that they refuse to accept that we as sinful finite beings in wisdom and understanding(the presupposition of discussion), have no right to judge and accuse God? And if these presuppositions about God are true, which is what Christians are living by, then it's completely logical to trust God. An atheist might reply, but what if God isn't those things? That's a red herring. It's possible that could be true, but Christians are not living under that premise, and when we say that we trust God, it's a manifestation of our faith in what we believe to be true about God. Don't confuse this with proof, which is what atheists mistakenly try to assume. The point I'm trying to get atheists to comprehend is that when this particular point is brought up by Christians in a debate, it's not logical to attack us on this. I understand saying that you don't believe this God exists, but in the context of the argument I am speaking of, it's not logical to think that we are wiser than God. It would be like thinking that a 3 year old is smarter than Einstein, but even many times more extreme than that. A lot of atheists I have spoken with seem very intelligent, but I just shake my head every time they stumble on this one point. And what baffles me even more is because atheists don't have an answer or just flat out refuse to acknowledge this, they cry that it's a cop-out. That's only because they're not allowing themselves to logically think it through from the Christian world-view. It's a cop-out for them to say it's a cop-out. Now remember what I'm speaking about here and don't attempt to apply this to a different argument. It's one thing for atheists to say that they don't believe God exists and have that debate, but that's a completely different argument. Honestly, the only reason I can think of that atheists refuse to concede this point I'm speaking of, is their sinful nature, ego, and pride. It just doesn't make sense for atheists to not comprehend what Christians are saying when they explain this to atheists. Again, this is not in any way proclaiming proof for God but just an attempt to maybe get atheists to understand this the next time a Christian explains why they trust God.

Atheists: What is your explanation?
Christians: Have you encountered this?