I’m often chastised by some folks when I use the word delusional to describe many Christians, but the evidence is often overwhelming even among what could be considered mainstream denominations. Take the Roman Catholics for example. Usually they demonstrate their delusional state by seeing piss-poor images of Jesus Christ or his mother in random inanimate objects, but you could write that off as just them being quirky in a (mostly) harmless way. Every now and then, however, they’ll do something that reveals just how nuts they really are.
Things such as freaking out when someone doesn’t participate in the cannibalistic ritual communion the way they’re supposed to like this guy:
“When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him,” Cook said. “I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they’d leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth.”
A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that’s why he brought it home with him.
“She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand,” Cook said, adding she wouldn’t immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.
Webster Cook is a UCF Student Senator down in Florida and he has caused quite a ruckus because he didn’t eat Jesus’ flesh. That’s what this is all about after all: Transubstantiation—that the cracker they give you during communion literally becomes the body of Christ after the priest blesses it. Which, as I said before, when you think about it makes this a cannibalistic ritual which is kinda scary in its own right.
Had this incident ended here then I’d probably write it off as just a minor confrontation between mildly crazy people and move along to the next news item, but it doesn’t end there. No, the Catholic church has to take the lunacy up a couple of notches:
“We don’t know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was,” said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. “However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it.”
A hate crime? Are they fucking serious? You bet your sweet Jesus cake they are:
“It is hurtful,” said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. “Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family.”
Gonzalez said the Diocese is willing to meet with Cook and help him understand the importance of the Eucharist in hopes of him returning it. The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF’s campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist and in hopes Cook will return it.
Look out! He’s kidnapped our cracker! Quick! Call in the Eat Your Damned Jesus Nuns to make sure this never happens again!
This is, in two words, fucking insane. It doesn’t just stop with the church officials either. Reports are that Catholics “worldwide” were outraged and bombarded Cook with hate mail, death threats, and other abuse prompting him to finally return the cracker and end the hostage crisis:
Cook said he just wanted to show the Eucharist to a friend he brought with questions about Catholicism before consuming it. But outraged Catholics across the globe didn’t believe him and suspected he intended all along to steal the Eucharist and bloggers sent out e-mail messages damning him to Hell.
“I am returning the Eucharist to you in response to the e-mails I have received from Catholics in the UCF community,” Cook wrote in a letter to the church. “I still want the community to understand that the use physical force is wrong, especially when based on assumptions. However, I feel it is unnecessary to cause pain for those who are not at fault in this situation.”
Cook said some threatened to break into his dorm room to rescue the Eucharist. Brinati said the Diocese of Orlando didn’t condone those threats, but was happy Cook had a change of heart and returned it.
“We’ve been praying about that,” she said.
And I’m sure those prayers made all the difference as opposed to, say, the death threats. Cook could still end up being suspended by his university over the incident and he’s filed his own complaint against the Church over the use of physical force. Both complaints are still pending.
Finally, I found this last bit rather humorous:
“I want to thank the individuals who explained the emotional and spiritual pain my possession of the Eucharist caused them to experience,” he wrote. “They have demonstrated that the use [of] reason is more effective than the use of force.”
The last thing anyone involved in this episode has been using is reason. They’re going ape shit insane over a fucking cracker that they literally believe becomes the flesh of Christ. There’s no reason involved in that kind of thinking. That’s pure delusion plain and simple. That’s the crazy talking. If this had been a Hostess Cupcake they’d be locked up and drenched in Thorazine.
The problem is that they don’t keep their beliefs private, they do all they can to impress their religious beliefs upon society. The Catholic church is currently controlling or trying to control birth control and gay laws. For many years the Catholic church tried to hide and even abet pedophile priests; it wasn’t until some dioceses became close to bankruptcy did the church reverse its stance.
http://www.population-security.org/liew-92-03.htm
And we resist that. It is right they are stopped from forcing their beliefs of others, but if we are to say this we cannot then turn round and say “But it’s ok for us to walk into your church and take the piss”. “You did it first” is a childish argument. If there is a line they can not cross, then no one can cross it.
Actually, these sorts of actions are more likely to militate hardliners and make people close ranks. Grabbing a Catholic by rhetorical shoulders and shouting, “IT’S A CRACKER! A DAMNED CRACKER!” is not going to lead to a reasoned reaction, even if their personal theology already sees the eucharist as more symbolic than transubstantial.
How terribly mature of PZ Meyers. I suppose if he dislikes how a dinner party conversation is going he considers it okay to pour his wine on the carpet, too, just to make a point that hospitality and good behavior are merely social constructs.
Andd fans the flames of the “There are militant anti-Catholics / anti-Christians who want to see us destroyed and religion outlawed and are persecuting us in doing so” meme.
And when they do so, it’s perfectly legitimate (and, to my mind, desirable) to contest against them if warrented . (I say if, because some of the acting out of religious beliefs by Catholics are actually beneficial to society, e.g., various charitable acts. Others are not, e.g., political militation against gay marriage, anti-abortion efforts, etc.)
My opposition to the Catholic Church, and individuals working on its behalf, are (a) when illegal and reprehensible acts are performed and/or covered up (e.g,, the pedophilia scandal), and (b) when they oppose societal issues that I support (or vice-versa). I note, however, that in the latter case, that’s still a legitimate exercise of political opinion and expression of differences, no matter how much of creep Donohue is; my opposition must be to their opinions, not to their right to express them.
None of the above has anything to do with, or is forwarded by, taking a consecrated host and using it for anything other than what it’s intended, whether out of ignorance or as an intentionally rude and hurtful act.
Yep. I hope otherwise, but… yep.
One of the most destructive rhetorical memes that has emerged in skepticism on the web is to call someone who raises such entirely valid objections a “concern troll”. It’s an ad-hominem attack, an instant way of shutting off debate on how to confront issues between skepticism and religion. I think some ScienceBloggers™ must have a hotkey for it. And I have no idea how to cut through it. Because this would be a perfect time to stop and think about how best to proceed.
All the gaps in that wall closed when Matt Nisbet pretty much said that Dawkins and Myers should just stop blogging and “let others speak for science” because Nisbet was, you know, a professional communicator and stuff and should be that “other”.
I doubt it. To all reports he is gentle and kind in person, only Cthulu on the web. I interpret this disparity as physical cowardice though I’m sure he has another explanation. This might well be the incident in which the backlash to his confrontational side spills out into “meatspace” for him though. He has received several threats.
I have not seen anyone trying to shut Donohue up.
I Googled “cathoic bully” and the first page was almost all about Bill Donohue and the Catholic League bullying PZ Myers and their trying to get him fired from the University of MN. Trying to get someone fired from their job doesn’t sound very christian to me.
I suggest that the previously held-hostage host in question be sold on e-Bay or similar site and the monies raised be used to pay off a few of the lawsuits involving Roman Catholic priests who sexually abused kids.
spike
I agree.
If ‘Christian’ is a proxy for whatever virtue is in play, in this case tolerance. That convention we’ve all internalized is Christianity saying; “All your virtues are belong to us”.
I wonder if other religions do it the same way. Do people in India say; “That doesn’t sound very Hindu to me”?
No.
In the case of Roman Catholics, “Christian” means assholes.
Julian – it sounds like you have some first-hand knowledge. If you could elaborate, I’d appreciate because that difference would be very interesting!
That’s exactly where I’m struggling not to go (having been there too often myself). By creating a set called “Catholics” and containing it within the larger set of “assholes” we have a platform for prejudice. Substitute any group for “Catholics” in that rubric and you will see what I mean. In a thousand or so comments I’ve read from this whole incident, many Catholics have spoken against the overreaction of Donohue and company.
Christians, and Catholics, and Atheists, and every other group are made up of humans. Some of us are certainly assholes. I don’t know how to address an event like this without saying; “Catholics” but there must be a way around it. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Of course I recognize this isn’t a simple problem. How to get around group-identity politics. Hence the struggle.
It’s very difficult to answer mainly because our culture is so very different from yours.
For one thing we generally spend hardly anytime discussing morals. And when we do, it’s generally ethics we discuss which of course means we cannot use religion as a source.
My mother’s family is catholic and they do make statements like that (i.e. that’s not a christian way to behave etc). But the majority religion here is Hinduism as you pointed out. And Hinduism isn’t a religion in the sense of Islam, Christianity Judaism etc. They don’t consider Hinduism as a source for their ethics or morals.
To round off my reply, I just got off the phone with one of my muslim friends. He said that they do use “un-islamic” when discussing certain issues like drinking, money-lending etc, but they do not use “islamic” as a synonym for “good” or “charitable”. I don’t know if I’m making the distinction clear. I’ll elaborate further if you like.
Many Christians use the word “Christian” to mean behavior that is virtuous or “good”. Some make a distinction between “Christian” and “Christ-like”.
I know many Catholic individuals who are decent people, however, they are normally “cafeteria” Catholics; they pick and choose which Catholic dogma they believe in. The official Catholic line and the teaching and proclamations of the pope are very assaholic, and the word “asshole” is quite descriptive.
Julian, that helped and thanks again. If you were to sometime write a post (SEB allows post submissions by readers) on how Hinduism and ethics relate plus whatever you’d like to throw in on Islam and Catholicism and the kitchen sink in India, I’d love to see it.
Sometimes I think here in the US that culturally we are trying to see up out of a hole, and we can’t see very far.
India is, indeed, a gold mine of humanistic information and affords an opportunity to see the world through many different eyes. I read Fisher’s biography of Gahndi. I have also read and studied the Bhagavad Gita and some of the Upanishads. I am currently a Buddhist group leader and was a card-carying Mormon for twenty years, even served a two-year mission in Brasil. One thing I have come to appreciate is that there are a lot more ways than one to view the world, and at this time I don’t feel any of them has a patent on the one best way to live. I would also love any input that Julian could provide and look forward to reviewing with an open mind.
Oh I’m hardly an expert. As for writing a new post, I wouldn’t
know where to begin.
And I should have added a caveat much earlier that as a Bombay resident, my experiences are not necessarily a reflection of the country as a whole. Big cities and rural areas – you know what I mean I’m sure. So although I have access to people from small villages all over India, my personal experience is somewhat limited.
Obviously I’d be willing to answer any questions you or leguru might have. I may have to ask around but I can probably find some kinda answer to almost any question – if you’re willing to accept me being vague.
And I’m willing to continue this is email if you like – to avoid derailing this thread.
And one more caveat – All I know of American culture is what I learned from Television, the Internet and my years working for AOL. So I’m certain to have some pretty big misconceptions about you.
Ironically, there are a wide array of Christians who would not consider Catholics (any more than Mormons) part of that religion.
I have read expert reports on religion in India but they are very dry. More interesting would be your personal perspective. It could be just some experiences you’ve had and your reflections on them.
So not to pressure you but to put the idea in your head; if something should come together I’d love to see it as a separate post where an open thread could get rolling.
Sounds good. I’ll start putting together something when time permits. Just understand that nothing I say should be taken as an expert opinion (I am after all channeling a country of more than a billion people).
I hope to hell no one’s taking anything I say as an expert opinion. It’s just my opinion.
Like George W. is an expert on how to run the country? Just because someone has a position of authority does not mean that they can be considered an expert. All that most of us can hope to express is our own opinion, colored by our unique experiences and world view. When we can dialogue about our opinions in a civilized fashion, as most of the posts are done, here, all of us can benefit. OK, SOME of the posts are done, here.
I’ve managed to reach my present senescence without becoming an expert on anything. I’m a generalist, a mile wide and an inch deep.
It is stupid when any Christians claim that other Christians aren’t really Christians. I find it especially stupid when protestants claim that Roman Catholics aren’t Christians.
Having been raised Catholic, it always struck me as a bit odd.
Later on, once I’d studied some theology, I began to see some of the distinctions made—the Catholic emphasis on works, the priestly hierarchy, the reliance on authority other than the Bible, saints and other intercessors, the various cruft and absorption of traditions and holidays and saints and all that from the various pagan groups they absorbed. Oh, and of course, all the idols. And there’s still a lot of irk, politically and theologically, extending back to the Reformation.
I’d tend to lump Catholics in with Christians, but reading some American history, in particular, it’s been interesting to see where some folks—back to the founding of the country—did not.
In the fundy churches I knew in Tennessee, some Christians disavowed the Christianity of other Christians for having musical instruments in their churches. And a few handled rattlesnakes to show that God would protect them. Though many of the ‘rattlers’ were king snakes, about as dangerous as a pet turtle.
AFAIK, the Roman Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox Churches are the original and prototypical Christian churches. By definition, the protestant churches were formed after the Roman Catholic church.
Another Christian church claiming that the RC church is not Christian is like Tim Hortons claiming that Dunkin’ Donuts isn’t a donut shop.
It’s a piece of unleavened bread. Not a cracker. It is not cannibalism, either, though it may seem as such to the uninitiated.
Do I believe it is right to use physical force to defend the Eucharist? No. Is it the body of Christ, and is it required for those who seek salvation? Yes, I believe so. Do I understand how it might look to an outsider that Catholics “eat” their God? Yes. But this is a practice that has gone on for 20 centuries in western civilization, and is not exactly a practice of a deranged fringe group.
As for the Catholic Church; people tend to hate it because it doesn’t negotiate its beliefs away for political correctness, though also because Catholics have done many immoral things throughout the course of Catholic history. Catholics, as individuals with the same faults that all people share, have never claimed to be perfect, but we do believe that our beliefs, when put into practice, are the only means by which a person can be in true communion with God. And, as a Catholic, I understand, as Christ said, that I will be hated and ridiculed for my beliefs; and so I accept it.
Thank you.
Hated, usually not, but ridiculed; absolutely. You believe an invisible man watches everything you do. The fact that others have shared that belief for a long time makes no difference. And your church has a power structure where (supposedly) celibate old men know how married couples should conduct themselves. Where gays are alienated and women are marginalized. Your leader lives in a fabulously wealthy palace while millions of poor Catholics send money.
As for Catholics “not compromising their beliefs for political correctness” does that extend to the AIDS deaths of people given misinformation about condoms by the church? Does it extend to the pregnant teens who were given no real guidance in “abstinence only” programs? How about the opposition to stem cell research because the church has a mythological definition problem with a few cells in a dish? (Hint: we don’t share the doctrine of ensoulment, that’s a religious not a secular concept so it can’t constitutionally be used as the basis of law.)
Are we just supposed to forget Bush and Pope patting each other on the back as if one didn’t lie a war into existence and the other helped cover up abuses in churches? You can’t just sweep that stuff aside by compartmentalizing church doctrine from humanity.
So forgive us if we don’t say; “Oh, well OK then.”
Ummm, that mean that the Pope is NOT infallable?
OK, delete the word, “fringe”.
Positive writes…
Fringe? Sadly no. Deranged? Absolutely!
And as a follower of Jesus I accept your ridicule. I point out that belief in the Eucharist has existed for 20 centuries not because it justifies the belief, it certainly does not, simply to point out that many, many people have believed in the Eucharist, and they were not all insane; as some here seem to be suggesting. As for the rest of your paragraph; I am not sure that celibacy takes away one’s ability to give marital advice, and as far as I know priests are given training in how to deal with those matters. Now, if Catholics have ever alienated gays, which they obviously have, they were wrong to do so. Do I believe homosexuality is a sin? Yes. Do I believe that gays should be alienated for that behavior? No, and neither is that the position of the Church. I dislike the saying, because it sounds cynical and almost condescending, but I am sure you have heard the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin.” As for the Church’s dealings with the poor; I think the Church has done more for charity and more for the poor than possibly any institution in human history. Does that mean it has not exploited the poor? It certainly has. I could say the same for the United States; I wish our country would do more for the poor, and it does on occasion, but things could be better.
And, yes, I am aware that the United States is simply a country while the Church claims to be the most sacred institution on earth. But the Church is also run by sinners. Still, I will say it again, Catholic history has many examples of the Church and of individual Catholics caring for the poor. Does that prove anything? No, but it should not be said that Catholicism has only exploited and never helped those in poverty.
If a prominent Catholic has ever given misinformation about condoms, and I am aware of at least one case, than that person was doing something terribly wrong. That kind of lying is never alright, regardless of who is doing it. But as for the Church’s opposition to use of condoms, this is something the Church does oppose, though many find this belief terribly repugnant and politically incorrect. The Church also opposes promiscuous sex, however, and this ties into your comment about abstinence; if people followed Catholicism’s position about avoiding promiscuity (promiscuity being something which many secularists promote with great eagerness) AIDS and other sexual diseases would be much less widespread. Again, this it is not politically correct to say this. Now, is it easy to avoid promiscuity? No, and Catholicism has never claimed that it is. Does everyone agree with the Church that promiscuity and condom use should be avoided? No, and those who do not agree with the Church are free to practice promiscuity and are free to use condoms. As for the federal government not funding embryonic stem cell research, you cannot really blame that on Catholicism. If Catholicism had it its way then yes, abortion and embryonic stem cell research would be banned. But Catholicism does not have it its way. If you want to blame someone for the federal government not funding embryonic stem cell research, your target should be the Bush administration. But do I personally think that the religious beliefs of one group should be forced on to another group by law? No, I do not. If someone who is pro-life wants to pass pro-life laws in our society, they in my opinion need to provide arguments that do not have a religious basis.
Well, put it this way. Do I think Pope Benedict should be openly condemning Bush? I really do not know. As a Christian I embrace pacifism and am opposed to all war (and, yes, I am sure that many here will get a kick out of this because most here seem to think of Christianity as a violent religion, based on some of its unfortunate history which often does not conform with the tenants of the religion). But, with that said, I am not sure that the pope should be publicly condemning Bush. I am not sure if that would accomplish anything. What I would say is that he should publicly speak out for the U.S. to push for a speedy end to the conflict in Iraq; though that’s not exactly a creative thought, and realistically neither would his doing so accomplish anything, either. I really do not know what I would do if I was in his position, I would just try to be as honest as possible. I would also keep in mind that it is not only the fault of the United States, though much of it is.
As for the pope covering up abuse cases. I have heard about this, but I cannot honestly say that I have all the facts and know if this is true or not. It is something that I need to do research into, and I will accept criticism for not having done so already. But, yes, if there is evidence of this then the pope should step down and be put on some sort of trial. And this ties into leguru’s comment, and the answer is no, the pope is not perfect in terms of his own personal actions and conduct. That is unrelated to the Catholic belief about papal infallibility. Though, with that said, as far as I understand the accusations are directed at the time that he was still a Cardinal.
Thank you for your thoughts, and I certainly think that you raise valid points, even though I am sure that you feel that I raise none.
I would just like to add that the Church has donated a lot of money to AIDS research. And yes, I am sure that you are unimpressed, but I felt that it needed to be said.
Thank you.
Wow, Positive, it’s like opening a fire hose of religious denialism. I have to go to work so will just focus on one point:
YES! Yes! A thousand time, yes! This is not an issue of pacifism vs whatever; if the church cannot condemn the telling of lies to plunge a country into war, it should shut the hell up about “Pro Life” because it has demonstrated a complete lack of moral authority.
Christians are always shocked that anyone can find their “morality” reprehensible. It’s as if they think that Christianity is the definition of morality. But it isn’t.
Never claimed to be. The ‘infallibity’ only extends to very few circumstances, and is rarely used- the pope makes a pronouncement from ‘the chair’ using a specific form of wording.
Positive writes…
I said they were delusional. You can be quite delusional without being insane. You can even be willfully delusional because whatever you want to be deluded about makes you feel better. Though, admittedly, the reaction some of these Catholics have had to Crackergate certainly makes them look insane.
I’d really love to hear you justify some of the death threats that have come about from that event.
Game, set, and match.
The Catholic Church is one of the oldest multi-national corporations (if not the oldest) and has committed or aided a mind-numbing amount of atrocities over the centuries. For recent examples, look no further than the conspiracy to shield the Church’s coffers from the child rape committed by its corporate officers and the cover-up by high-ranking executives. Or have a look at the closest the Catholic Church has come to a Christian theocracy in modern times, the repressive Ireland and particularly the Irish Madgalene Asylums.
The Catholic Church in its bigotry and hypocrisy represents and defends social and political ultra-conservative values and its most devout customers are actually proud of that. They are also proud that they’ve outsourced their thinking and values to a sodomizing class of parasites also known as clergy—for two millennia and counting—and consider the ritual cannibalism (that’s what it is, whether the devout like it or not) as a winning feature of their chosen religion.
It is always instructive how far the devout will take their cognitive bias to whitewash an institution that has no moral ground to stand on, much less any kind of moral high ground to hold. A common defense is that the Church is all good, it’s just that the people are bad. It’s a permissible defense in case of isolated incidents, but not when faced with long-standing, entrenched, and systemic design flaws.
Of course, none of the above should be construed as a statement to the effect of “all Catholics are bad”. The way I see it, there are roughly four types of Catholics who vary in the degree in which one can get along with them; those that are Catholic in name only, those that cherry-pick where they agree with the Church, those who swallow the party line hook, line and sinker, and lastly the Catholic Christianists like Donahue who use the Church to further their own bigoted agenda.
Positive, I am utterly unimpressed about Catholic Church. Call me back once they elect a Pope who’s a lesbian married to her female partner.
Les wrote:
Well, as I wrote above, I do not think that it is alright to defend the Eucharist with physical force. Much less death threats. I would never try to justify that. If an Atheist made a death threat on someone I would not presume that all Atheists would agree, so I do not think that it is fair to assume that simply because I am a Catholic that I would condone that kind of behavior, just because other Catholics are doing it.
Decrepit wrote:
You might be right. I really do not know what the answer is, but maybe he should have spoken up about it. I do not agree with the Iraq war either, though I honestly do not know what Benedict’s views are. I know that John Paul II opposed it.
I never said that it was wrong or that I was shocked that one would question Christian morality. Did I express any shock in anything that I wrote above?
Elwedriddsche… certainly everyone will have their different views about it. I obviously do not share yours, though I do share your dislike for much of Catholic history. Jesus spoke a lot about the hypocrisy of religious believers, and what was true then is true now. I would not claim to be perfect either.
Catholics believe in transubstantiation, the cracker and the wine have literally been changed into the body of Christ. This transubstantiation is the sole reason for the furor, if it weren’t literally the body of Christ it would have just been a cracker, and not a “hostage”. According to Catholic teaching, Christ was a human being; eating the flesh and blood of a human is cannibalism.
In a Church History class my Jesuit-educated professor used to drive this point home to students who avoided unpleasant-sounding descriptions of Christian doctrine. On one occasion, a student said “But Mary isn’t the mother of God!” The professor said;
“Is Jesus God?”
“Um… yes, but He’s…”
“Is Mary, Jesus’ mother?”
(long silence)
You didn’t mess with that guy. What a great class that was.
The claim is usually that the Catholic Church has strayed from the Christian way, espousing works over grace, putting intermediaries (priests, saints) between people and God, claiming all sorts of non-Biblical stuff as holy (holidays, ceremonies, etc.), and, in fact, placing all sorts of stuff (papal commands and canon law) over the word of the Bible. Oh, and idols—they worship lots of idols, and make Mary a goddess, and other stuff like that. In short, the claim is that whatever Christianity was in the Church left it long ago, thus the need for the Reformation.
Which is why lay people should practice neither law nor theology.
Wikipedia sums it up as follows:
So it’s a floor wax *and* a dessert topping, but it’s not really cannibalism to the theologians. It does, in some ways, though, serve the same emotional purpose.
That guff comes off as ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ to us heatherns. The change of the substance is ‘real’, but the ‘accidents’ don’t change – and by ‘accidents’ they pretty much mean what the rest of us mean by ‘real’.
Real. They keep using that word. But I do not think it means what they think it means.
Here’s a comment from Jesus and Mo:
I just mean that because, as someone said, the “accidents” remain, that for this reason the Church does not consider it to be a form of cannibalism. I’m not trying to avoid “unpleasant sounding descriptions”, I’m just saying that this is the theological view of it.
From what I understand the ancient Romans, actually, used to refer to the early Christians as “cannibals,” likely because of the Eucharist. Interestingly, the Romans also referred to the Christians as “Atheists” as well.
But, yes, I recognize that Atheists would find transubstantiation absurd and irrational; but it is not supposed to be rational. It is an article of faith. As far as I know even Aquinas did not claim that someone could prove the Eucharist to be what it is claimed to be.
We understand what the Catholic Church’s view of the Eucharist is. That’s pretty much what we’ve been ridiculing.
The fact that you admit that it’s irrational just supports my position that Catholics who claim that the Eucharist undergoes transubstantiation are delusional.
It’s having your Jesus and eat him, too.
“The theological view”. It sounds similar to “the geological view” or “the biological view” but those fields have something observable as their object of study. Has anyone observed god? Have you? Or have you convinced yourself that god exists and he has a bunch of attributes, and you know what they are?
Theology—the art of make-belief.
In the Catholic faith, that cracker you are talkig about is
Considered the body and blood of Jesus. It goes back to
To the Last Supper where Jesus broke the bread and prepared
The wine, at the last meal with his diciples. It is considered sac-religous
In the Christian faith not to eat the body after it
Is given to you. But that in mind it is not mandatory to
Recieve it. In fact only once year duringthe Easter season are you required
To recieve it.
That in mind, i dont agree with the way the church handled the situation.
The way the did could be grounds for assult in a court of law.
What they should have done was let him go, and he could repent his sins
At a later time.
Your narrow minded and uneducated to the point of being unvearably annoying
It would help, Anthony, if we knew whom you were speaking to. And by the way, it’s “you’re” and “unbearably” and you forgot the period at the end of your sentence. An educated person should know that.