My attention was recently drawn to the great Roman Catholic Cracker scandel.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
As PZ Myers wrote: | Quote: |
| So far today, I have received 39 pieces of personal hate mail of varying degrees of literacy, all because I was rude to a cracker. Four of them have included death threats, a personal one day record. Thirty-four of them have demanded that I be fired. Twenty-five of them have told me to desecrate a copy of the Koran, instead, or in some similar way offend Muslims, because — in a multiplicity of ironic cluelessness — apparently only some religious icons must be protected, and I would only offend Catholics because they are all so nice that none of them would wish me harm. I even have one email that says I should be fired, that the author would like to kill me, and that I only criticize because Catholics are so gentle and kind. |
Words fail me.... I don't understand why the Catholics are so put out by this. If the cracker was Jesus, and everything had gone according to their plan, he would have been eaten. What could Cook do that's worse than that?
And let's face it, if the cracker was Jesus... was he ever in any real danger?
I want to know what happens to the cracker now its returned, does it have to be eaten ?, is it stored in a holy fridge ?
LOL.
As an ex-catholic I understand the dogma (if not the stupidity). It is a fundamental Catholic belief that the 'host' (that's the cracker, to normal people) actually becomes the body of Christ once it has been blessed by the priest. This is known as Transubstantiation. Note that the host is not a symbol - it actually IS the body of Christ (it begs the question of cannabilism, of course, but that's another story)...
Now, as wacky ideas go, this is right up there with the best of them - in fact I'm hard pressed to think of a more loony-tunes idea (especially one with its own posh sounding name). My personal vote would be to have the cracker DNA tested - perhaps we could establish a DNA profile for Jesus 
Wait when people all over the world were so shocked about muslims being so angry with those mohammed toons or the incident involving a Koran and a few guantanamo bay guards.
And now christians act in the same way (not all I hope) but doesn't that give some kind of deja vu feeling?
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Wait when people all over the world were so shocked about muslims being so angry with those mohammed toons or the incident involving a Koran and a few guantanamo bay guards.
And now christians act in the same way (not all I hope) but doesn't that give some kind of deja vu feeling? |
This situation isn't on FoxNews 
| Bikerman wrote: |
LOL.
As an ex-catholic I understand the dogma (if not the stupidity). It is a fundamental Catholic belief that the 'host' (that's the cracker, to normal people) actually becomes the body of Christ once it has been blessed by the priest. This is known as Transubstantiation. Note that the host is not a symbol - it actually IS the body of Christ (it begs the question of cannabilism, of course, but that's another story)...
Now, as wacky ideas go, this is right up there with the best of them - in fact I'm hard pressed to think of a more loony-tunes idea (especially one with its own posh sounding name). My personal vote would be to have the cracker DNA tested - perhaps we could establish a DNA profile for Jesus |
Yeah, that's how i've always understood transubstantiation. (i read up on it cause i was engaged to a Pole, and the family put big pressure on me to Catholicize so they could sleep easy. For my part, i had no qualms about lying through my teeth to an imaginary god about believing all the felgercarp i was supposed to agree to, and i was actually kinda looking forward to confessing. ^_- It was a rather silly experience, but it had its perks. i got "props" from the Pope!)
But when i read the news reports on the affair, i started to think i'd got it wrong. i thought the cracker was just a lump of god-skin... but these guys are talking about "kidnapping" and "hostages" and even "abuse" (oh, the dirty, dirty things one could do with a wafer!). Now, admittedly, i have a bad habit of taking what people say seriously, even when they don't want/deserve to be, and maybe it's wrong to take these guys seriously... but these guys aren't just random internet schmucks - they are representatives of the Diocese in Florida and similarly well-stationed Catholics like that! If you can't take those guys seriously, what Catholics can you take seriously?
So, i take them seriously, which leads me to a conundrum. "Kidnapping" only applies to people. You don't talk about kidnapping cars or lumps of divine flesh. Same goes for "hostage", most of the time. So, that leads me to the logical conclusion that Cook didn't just take a lump of god-flesh... he kidnapped Jesus Christ himself! That would certainly explain why those Catholics were so put out - if someone stole a chunk of skin that i didn't need i wouldn't be upset (just a little weirded out), but if someone kidnapped someone i cared about and was holding them hostage (and possibly even abusing them!), then i'd be as upset as those Catholic spokespeople are.
So, the only thing that makes sense to me if i take the official Catholic word on this seriously is that a UCF dork (pardon me, "Student Senator") managed to kidnap the son of God right from under the noses of a Catholic congregation - in a church - in broad daylight, and then held him hostage for a week. Of course, this opens up a whole new host of existential questions. Such as:
- If Jesus really were to be kidnapped and held hostage... who'd give a shit? The guy was killed - brutally - by Romans... and he came out of that just fine. In fact, he was thrilled that it happened! And arguably, it was what made his career.
- What the hell could a hostage taker possibly demand from God in exchange for the safe return of Jesus that would take a week for God to arrange?
| Indi wrote: |
| Yeah, that's how i've always understood transubstantiation. (i read up on it cause i was engaged to a Pole, and the family put big pressure on me to Catholicize so they could sleep easy. For my part, i had no qualms about lying through my teeth to an imaginary god about believing all the felgercarp i was supposed to agree to, and i was actually kinda looking forward to confessing. ^_- It was a rather silly experience, but it had its perks. i got "props" from the Pope!) |
The similarities continue My wife's parents are Catholic and my own father was *very* Catholic - his first name was Dermot which might give a clue. We therefore got married in a Catholic church to make the relatives happy. We had the pre-nuptual interviews with the priest but since we were both officially 'members' no promises were extracted.
| Quote: |
| If you can't take those guys seriously, what Catholics can you take seriously? |
Well, I'm tempted to treat that one rhetorically. Catholicism always struck me (even as a member) as the religion which Doug Adams would have invented, had it not been extant.
"If you've believed 7 impossible things before breakfast, why not round it off with mass at St. Millicent's - the religion at the end of the universe"
| Quote: |
| So, i take them seriously, which leads me to a conundrum. "Kidnapping" only applies to people. You don't talk about kidnapping cars or lumps of divine flesh. Same goes for "hostage", most of the time. So, that leads me to the logical conclusion that Cook didn't just take a lump of god-flesh... he kidnapped Jesus Christ himself! That would certainly explain why those Catholics were so put out - if someone stole a chunk of skin that i didn't need i wouldn't be upset (just a little weirded out), but if someone kidnapped someone i cared about and was holding them hostage (and possibly even abusing them!), then i'd be as upset as those Catholic spokespeople are. |
Well, again, my Jesuit training can help here;
It's to do with the resurrection {reason the Jesuits}. The dogma goes that since Christ is risen, when the host is 'changed', not only is the body (and blood - if wine is used) present but Christ himself is present - both divine and mortal, body and soul.
It's a masterpiece of Jesuitical theological doublespeak (invented largely to get around the notion of cannibalism). The notion is that Jesus is really present, in substance, but not physically present as he was in Palestine.
According to the Council of Trent, the punishment of Anathema should be visited on anyone who | Quote: |
| "denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue" |
They might have a hard time with Habeas Corpus though....Woof Woof | Bikerman wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Yeah, that's how i've always understood transubstantiation. (i read up on it cause i was engaged to a Pole, and the family put big pressure on me to Catholicize so they could sleep easy. For my part, i had no qualms about lying through my teeth to an imaginary god about believing all the felgercarp i was supposed to agree to, and i was actually kinda looking forward to confessing. ^_- It was a rather silly experience, but it had its perks. i got "props" from the Pope!) |
The similarities continue My wife's parents are Catholic and my own father was *very* Catholic - his first name was Dermot which might give a clue. We therefore got married in a Catholic church to make the relatives happy. We had the pre-nuptual interviews with the priest but since we were both officially 'members' no promises were extracted. |
i never actually went through with any of it. It was discussed, but... well, life throws you curves. i actually don't remember most of what i would have had to do - i remember i'd have to be baptised, and then there was communion. i don't remember if i would have had to eat the Eucharist and do confession, or if they were just options once i passed the initiation shit.
Actually, Anna's parents were very Catholic, like Mel Gibson Catholic, scary Catholic. i think her father was a Deacon, which may or may not be Priest-lite, all the Priestly goodness with half the celibacy? She's my go-to girl on all matters Catholic, when she's around - even though she's violently anti-Catholic (with just cause, actually), she does know her stuff.
i think it's pretty clear that i never really took any of it seriously. ^_^; Back when i was engaged, my parents were nothing, really - alternately Anglican or Unitarian on paper, depending on where they were - and my parents-to-be were theoretically Catholic, but only by virtue of being Polish... in reality they didn't really give a shit and never went to church except for special occasions (and even then, more for the food), but their parents and some of the extended family took it seriously, which is why i was going to have to be confirmed for a marriage in the church to be allowed. Whenever it came up it was more a chance for humour than serious discussion. i would ask what would happen if i would belch after drinking the wine, or if i were to pull a Mr. Bean and pull a kippered herring out of my pocket and put it on the wafer before eating it, or if i were to confess to being sexually attracted to my confessor priest in confession, of if i were to throw up the devil horns at my confirmation.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | If you can't take those guys seriously, what Catholics can you take seriously? |
Well, I'm tempted to treat that one rhetorically. Catholicism always struck me (even as a member) as the religion which Doug Adams would have invented, had it not been extant.
"If you've believed 7 impossible things before breakfast, why not round it off with mass at St. Millicent's - the religion at the end of the universe" |
i'd have to agree. ^_^; It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to claim to be a serious religion when the name of the decrees the leader makes is "bull".
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | So, i take them seriously, which leads me to a conundrum. "Kidnapping" only applies to people. You don't talk about kidnapping cars or lumps of divine flesh. Same goes for "hostage", most of the time. So, that leads me to the logical conclusion that Cook didn't just take a lump of god-flesh... he kidnapped Jesus Christ himself! That would certainly explain why those Catholics were so put out - if someone stole a chunk of skin that i didn't need i wouldn't be upset (just a little weirded out), but if someone kidnapped someone i cared about and was holding them hostage (and possibly even abusing them!), then i'd be as upset as those Catholic spokespeople are. |
Well, again, my Jesuit training can help here;
It's to do with the resurrection {reason the Jesuits}. The dogma goes that since Christ is risen, when the host is 'changed', not only is the body (and blood - if wine is used) present but Christ himself is present - both divine and mortal, body and soul.
It's a masterpiece of Jesuitical theological doublespeak (invented largely to get around the notion of cannibalism). The notion is that Jesus is really present, in substance, but not physically present as he was in Palestine.
According to the Council of Trent, the punishment of Anathema should be visited on anyone who | Quote: | | "denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue" |
They might have a hard time with Habeas Corpus though....Woof Woof |
Wait, you mean i was right? O.o That the Eucharist wafer that kid stole was not just a piece of Jesus... but actually Jesus?
On the one hand, that kind of validates the rhetoric of those folks that called the theft "kidnapping" and "hostage taking".
On the other... that means that the son of God really was kidnapped by a UCF dork.
i'm... speechless. | Indi wrote: |
| i would ask what would happen if i would belch after drinking the wine, or if i were to pull a Mr. Bean and pull a kippered herring out of my pocket and put it on the wafer before eating it, or if i were to confess to being sexually attracted to my confessor priest in confession, of if i were to throw up the devil horns at my confirmation. |
Well, on this I have some personal experience as well. As a youngster I was actually an Altar Boy (the kid in the cassock who rings bells and holds the plate under your chin when you receive communion). One of my earliest memories is cracking-up during communion. I was doing the normal 'plate under the chin' business, when the priest fumbled and missed the tongue of one of the 'communicants'. That set me off - I got the worst case of the giggles ever - just couldn't stop. I had to be sent from the altar in disgrace and my dad was livid...happy days.. | Quote: |
| Wait, you mean i was right? O.o That the Eucharist wafer that kid stole was not just a piece of Jesus... but actually Jesus? |
Yep - but Jesus in the 'complete' supernatural sense, not Jesus in the purely physical sense (otherwise it would be cannibilism). The catechism draws a distinction between the physical man Jesus and the divine presence of Jesus - the host being the latter. It's one of the daftest cases of weasel words in the Catholic doctrine - right up there with the Trinity (and both, of course, stem from the same root problem - how do you fit the notion of a divine 'Jesus' into Hebrew tradition?). | Quote: |
On the one hand, that kind of validates the rhetoric of those folks that called the theft "kidnapping" and "hostage taking".
On the other... that means that the son of God really was kidnapped by a UCF dork.
i'm... speechless. |
LOL...yep, it's pretty hard to say anything sensible about this, isn't it We could go on, of course, to consider that God must have foreseen the kidnapping (omniscience and all that), so one wonders whether a crime could possibly have taken place under those conditions (on the grounds of “qui tacet consentire vidétur”).
It would be very interesting to see it in court - Exhibit A, Corpus Delicti - a cracker... | Bikerman wrote: |
| Well, on this I have some personal experience as well. As a youngster I was actually an Altar Boy (the kid in the cassock who rings bells and holds the plate under your chin when you receive communion). |
The plate under the chin is to catch god-crumbs?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Wait, you mean i was right? O.o That the Eucharist wafer that kid stole was not just a piece of Jesus... but actually Jesus? |
Yep - but Jesus in the 'complete' supernatural sense, not Jesus in the purely physical sense (otherwise it would be cannibilism). The catechism draws a distinction between the physical man Jesus and the divine presence of Jesus - the host being the latter. It's one of the daftest cases of weasel words in the Catholic doctrine - right up there with the Trinity (and both, of course, stem from the same root problem - how do you fit the notion of a divine 'Jesus' into Hebrew tradition?). | Quote: | On the one hand, that kind of validates the rhetoric of those folks that called the theft "kidnapping" and "hostage taking".
On the other... that means that the son of God really was kidnapped by a UCF dork.
i'm... speechless. |
LOL...yep, it's pretty hard to say anything sensible about this, isn't it We could go on, of course, to consider that God must have foreseen the kidnapping (omniscience and all that), so one wonders whether a crime could possibly have taken place under those conditions (on the grounds of “qui tacet consentire vidétur”).
It would be very interesting to see it in court - Exhibit A, Corpus Delicti - a cracker... |
i'm sorry if i'm hammering on this point, but i am actually thinking of writing an article about it. (By the way, may i quote you? i wouldn't claim you as an official or a trained expert, and i am more interested in the understanding of the topic by an intelligent member of the congregation rather than the official double-speak. It would be anonymous if you like, from "a recovered Catholic". ^_^; Normally i would use Anna as my source on this, but she's off on one of her missions.) i've already commented on the validity of calling it a crime when the victim knew about the offence and apparently consented (if he hadn't, we would have known). But i'm really interested in the metaphysical implications of transubstantiation, as i now understand it. ^_^;
Now, i'm not big on weasel words or invented church-speak, so i will interpret "divine presence" as "mind" in the Cartesian sense, or "consciousness" in a more modern dualist sense, or "spirit/soul" in religious parlance.
With that interpretation, i imagine a science-fiction world where we can separate the spirit from the body. And i ask: suppose someone separated willingly, putting their consciousness in a box and leaving their lifeless body in stasis (to protect it), and then someone else came along and stole either the box or the body... what might be the legal and moral implications of the two possibilities?
And i think: well, stealing the body is a nuisance, to be sure, but the victim had willingly stepped out of it (at least for a while). They are not in that body or part of that body - they (that thing which is them, their spirit of consciousness) are in the box, and suffer no direct effect from the crime (they suffer indirectly, through the loss of property they intended to use and didn't want to lose). In other words, stealing the body would be theft, wouldn't it?
On the other hand: stealing the box is directly effecting the victim. When the body is stolen, it is at least hypothetically possible that the victim can replace it in some form or another, but when the mind is stolen... that's the ball game. And, while in the custody of the thief, the victim's freedoms and rights are restrained (the victim can't leave unless the thief allows it). In other words, stealing the box (with the mind/spirit/consciousness in it) would be kidnapping, wouldn't it?
And of course, other than the moral and legal implications, there are the religious implications. Because if the "soul" of Jesus really was in that cracker, then for the period that Cook held it, his UCF dorm was holy ground, no? Like a church, blessed with the literal presence of Jesus (who is God), correct? And while Cook had that cracker in his hand or pocket (or mouth), he was - in effect - as divinely blessed as any priest... which makes the fact that the acolytes in the church assaulted him a little confusing - what are the penalties for assaulting a priest in Catholicism anyway?Never really understood the plate myself since the crackers don't really produce crumbs. I guess it was to catch any that the priest dropped, lest the holy eucharist be tainted by falling on the altar steps and getting 'knelt-on'. I can say that the plate in question was an expensive piece of kit - either silver-gilt or pure gold.
| Indi wrote: |
| i'm sorry if i'm hammering on this point, but i am actually thinking of writing an article about it. (By the way, may i quote you? |
Certainly you may quote me
| Quote: |
| Now, i'm not big on weasel words or invented church-speak, so i will interpret "divine presence" as "mind" in the Cartesian sense, or "consciousness" in a more modern dualist sense, or "spirit/soul" in religious parlance. |
This is where it will get tricky. Without weasel words it's not really possible to put a coherent explanation together. Trying to put a rational interpretation on the 'miracle' of transubstantiation just won't work. Even the adherents admit this and avoid the problem by saying it is a 'divine mystery' that we cannot fully understand. Like most theology it involves looking at the words in the bible, coming up with some interpretation, and then calling it a 'mystery' if it doesn't correspond with observable reality.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/element.htm
The problem with 'splitting' into consciousness and physicality is that the Catholics would deny there is such a split. They would say (I think) that the host IS the physicality but it is MORE since it is also the 'spirit' or divinity of Jesus (man plus). Therefore the eucharist is not just the disembodied 'spirit' or 'consciousness' of Jesus - it is the real presence PLUS the spirit/consciousness PLUS the divine 'element'. The word normally used is 'substance' of Jesus - though that is a profound misnomer in this context.
Apparently Alexander of Hales came up with an explanation using 'Aristotle's hylemorphic theory of reality', but I haven't read it - might be worth googling.
Now let's really complicate the issue:
Various sources claim that there is REAL PHYSICAL evidence that the host changes into human tissue - specifically heart muscle. For example:
http://www.tldm.org/misc/HolyHour.htm
http://www.acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html
Now this would obviously seem at odds with official doctrine that Jesus is wholy present in the eucharist - body, soul, divinity. If the host is actually a small slice of heart muscle then it is difficult to reconcile this with previous doctrine.
It is, of course, not clear whether this one event is in someway different to what normally happens during the 'miracle of the eucharist', which God engineered just to assuage the doubts of the Priest in question...
| Quote: |
| And of course, other than the moral and legal implications, there are the religious implications. Because if the "soul" of Jesus really was in that cracker, then for the period that Cook held it, his UCF dorm was holy ground, no? Like a church, blessed with the literal presence of Jesus (who is God), correct? And while Cook had that cracker in his hand or pocket (or mouth), he was - in effect - as divinely blessed as any priest... which makes the fact that the acolytes in the church assaulted him a little confusing - what are the penalties for assaulting a priest in Catholicism anyway? |
Tricky. I'm not actually sure about this one - I don't know if assaulting clergy is a specific sin in Catholicism, I'll have to check up on that and get back to you..
I suspect that theologians would mutter about 'Jesus and Pilate' being evidence that the holy presence may be constrained by mortals without such mortals being blessed by his presence since they do not 'accept him into their hearts'....or some-such 'theology'. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Never really understood the plate myself since the crackers don't really produce crumbs. I guess it was to catch any that the priest dropped, lest the holy eucharist be tainted by falling on the altar steps and getting 'knelt-on'. I can say that the plate in question was an expensive piece of kit - either silver-gilt or pure gold. |
If for nothing else, you have to admire the Catholic clergy for the way they roll - that's some serious bling.
| Bikerman wrote: |
This is where it will get tricky. Without weasel words it's not really possible to put a coherent explanation together. Trying to put a rational interpretation on the 'miracle' of transubstantiation just won't work. Even the adherents admit this and avoid the problem by saying it is a 'divine mystery' that we cannot fully understand. Like most theology it involves looking at the words in the bible, coming up with some interpretation, and then calling it a 'mystery' if it doesn't correspond with observable reality.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/element.htm
The problem with 'splitting' into consciousness and physicality is that the Catholics would deny there is such a split. They would say (I think) that the host IS the physicality but it is MORE since it is also the 'spirit' or divinity of Jesus (man plus). Therefore the eucharist is not just the disembodied 'spirit' or 'consciousness' of Jesus - it is the real presence PLUS the spirit/consciousness PLUS the divine 'element'. The word normally used is 'substance' of Jesus - though that is a profound misnomer in this context.
Apparently Alexander of Hales came up with an explanation using 'Aristotle's hylemorphic theory of reality', but I haven't read it - might be worth googling. |
Wow, you're not kidding. That's the kind of bizarre double-talk that only fifteen hundred years of obfuscation can buy you.
But that's ok, it doesn't effect my analysis - i was only concerned with whether or not the "soul" (person, spirit, consciousness, whatever) is supposed to be there. Apparently it is, and then some! Once the "soul" is there, then a theft of the Eucharist is indeed kidnapping, complete with all of the amusing metaphysical implications that entails. Anything else that happens to be present - the actual physical body, "divinity", whatever - is just icing on the cake.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Now let's really complicate the issue:
Various sources claim that there is REAL PHYSICAL evidence that the host changes into human tissue - specifically heart muscle. For example:
http://www.tldm.org/misc/HolyHour.htm
http://www.acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html
Now this would obviously seem at odds with official doctrine that Jesus is wholy present in the eucharist - body, soul, divinity. If the host is actually a small slice of heart muscle then it is difficult to reconcile this with previous doctrine.
It is, of course, not clear whether this one event is in someway different to what normally happens during the 'miracle of the eucharist', which God engineered just to assuage the doubts of the Priest in question... |
Yes, well, you'll have to pardon my scepticism. According to the evidence here:
- The Flesh of the miracle is real Flesh and the Blood is real Blood.
- The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
- The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart, which would be highly unlikely to "fake", given that only an expert hand could have done it, and not without serious difficulties.
- In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium. The Flesh is a heart complete in its essential structure.
- The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood type, AB, which is also the same blood type found on the Shroud of Turin and all other Eucharistic Miracles.
- In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
- In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
- There is no trace whatsoever of any materials or agents used to preserve the Flesh or Blood.
If this is what passes for "strong evidence", i'm underwhelmed. For example, take the claim that heart tissue would be difficult to "fake" (why the quotes? ^_^; ), except by an "expert" (those are my quotes - an expert of what? faking out Catholics? if that's a field that is established enough to have "experts"...). Who seriously wrote that? ^_^; Come on! That's so stupid. What would it take to "fake" real heart tissue? Duh, find a fresh grave, dig it up, and if the dude wasn't embalmed, take the heart. Wait a minute! Wouldn't that be really hard to do? Would it? ^_^ Who is in charge of the cemeteries, and who oversees the funerals and would thus know what bodies had been embalmed? Why, the Catholic priests wo- ... ooooooh. (And if you don't want to wait for a non-embalmed body, just find yourself a confederate who has access to bodies before cremation (or kill a hobo, if you're really desperate).)
Thing is, using any of those methods - none of which are particularly far out - would give you all of the evidence outlined above, including the lack of preservation chemicals. What's so mysterious and supernatural? ^_^; If you want a wafer that contains all parts of the heart, just put the whole damn heart in a blender and make a cracker from the goo, which is what you'd have to do anyway to make a convincing cracker from a heart. This isn't even a clever hoax. ^_^;
(It also tickles me that that the blood chemistry included chlorides and phosphorus, presumably in large enough quantities for it to be mentionable. Now, it makes me wonder what might have been in the diet of a first century Middle Eastern man who presumably ate kosher to produce such residuals that suspiciously match what you'd find in ordinary, chlorinated tap water. ^_^; )
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | And of course, other than the moral and legal implications, there are the religious implications. Because if the "soul" of Jesus really was in that cracker, then for the period that Cook held it, his UCF dorm was holy ground, no? Like a church, blessed with the literal presence of Jesus (who is God), correct? And while Cook had that cracker in his hand or pocket (or mouth), he was - in effect - as divinely blessed as any priest... which makes the fact that the acolytes in the church assaulted him a little confusing - what are the penalties for assaulting a priest in Catholicism anyway? |
Tricky. I'm not actually sure about this one - I don't know if assaulting clergy is a specific sin in Catholicism, I'll have to check up on that and get back to you..
I suspect that theologians would mutter about 'Jesus and Pilate' being evidence that the holy presence may be constrained by mortals without such mortals being blessed by his presence since they do not 'accept him into their hearts'....or some-such 'theology'. |
Yeah, i figured on that. But Cook is supposedly a legitimate Catholic - he was being given the Eucharist after all. And if his side of the story is true, he only took it to show someone what it looked like - perhaps not the most technically correct thing to do, but something that a true believer might. And he only kept it because he was assaulted - which, again, doesn't seem to indicate any malice on his part, merely stubbornness. And then he kept the wafer safe before everything blew into a national brouhaha (after it became a sensation, destroying or eating the wafer would have been stupid, but he could have eaten right after he walked out of the church).
Putting all that together tells me that Cook might well have been a faithful believer who did indeed "accept Jesus into his heart". His beef (if his side of the story is true), was not with Catholicism or Christianity or anything like that - it was with the un-Christian-like behaviour of the acolytes that assaulted him while he was just trying to educate an outsider about his beliefs. | Indi wrote: |
| Wow, you're not kidding. That's the kind of bizarre double-talk that only fifteen hundred years of obfuscation can buy you. |
Sure is. Watching various theologians trying to reconcile obviously contradictory positions and statements is quite enjoyable (once you put aside any pretence that what they are saying has any relevance to reality).
| Quote: |
| (It also tickles me that that the blood chemistry included chlorides and phosphorus, presumably in large enough quantities for it to be mentionable. Now, it makes me wonder what might have been in the diet of a first century Middle Eastern man who presumably ate kosher to produce such residuals that suspiciously match what you'd find in ordinary, chlorinated tap water. ^_^; ) |
LOL - yes, I think you have listed my own objections to this (and one I hadn't thought of). Unfortunately the real science to be done in cases like this is often neglected because of the mumbo-jumbo. The shroud of Turin is another classic example. Once you ditch the nonsense, there are really interesting scientific questions to be asked (when was it really made? what process could be used to produce the image? etc). If, however, you start from the position that such relics are really divine in nature, then the science gets subverted into a stupid childish game of 'yes it is, no it isn't' with the various vested (pun intended) interests screaming foul every five minutes..
| Quote: |
| Putting all that together tells me that Cook might well have been a faithful believer who did indeed "accept Jesus into his heart". His beef (if his side of the story is true), was not with Catholicism or Christianity or anything like that - it was with the un-Christian-like behaviour of the acolytes that assaulted him while he was just trying to educate an outsider about his beliefs. |
That's certainly a valid interpretation of the events as I have seen them reported. Catholicism is basically an autocratic religion, however, so I guess the 'true' interpretation of events could only be 'decreed' by the Pontiff. Perhaps we need a Bull on the Bullies, or perhaps there is room for a schism - a new sect of 'cracker-packer-snackers' Well, that's why i got interested enough in this case to write about it. As idiotic as the whole thing is, it does have relevance to reality. There are powerful people actively campaigning to destroy that guy's life. They want him charged with committing a hate crime, they want him expelled from school, etc.
Now you're probably right that Benny can just issue a bull and dictate whatever interpretation of the events that his whims suggest. But i don't really care about what a Catholic is told to believe, i care about what happens to Webster Cook, and a lot of that hinges on what a reasonable person is to believe about Catholic doctrine. Transubstantiation and the trinity are elements of dogma that - while nonsensical - have been around for hundreds of years. They are fundamental to Catholicism and have the weight of tradition behind them, if nothing else. A papal bull issued today would not. Catholics may be required to bend to the whims of the Pope, but the courts (and hopefully the school) are not.
Whatever punishment should be levied against Cook, it should be based on a reasonable person's interpretation of Catholic dogma. i'd like to think that i am fairly reasonable, so i took a shot at it. A tongue-in-cheek shot, but a shot nonetheless. ^_^;
If i wasn't already scheduled for the deepest layer of Hell, i think my effort on this topic will earn me a place for sure. ^_^; To sum it up, here are the conclusions:
- Cook is not guilty of kidnapping, or of holding Jesus Christ hostage. Specifically:
- The act of taking the cracker could have been kidnapping according to Catholic doctrine, if it had been done without Jesus's consent.
- However, Jesus is omniscient and omnipotent according to Catholic doctrine, so there is no way he can be reasonably considered to have been taken by surprise, or by force.
- Any Catholic that claims that Cook did something wrong is committing heresy. Specifically:
- The only way the act can be considered wrong in Catholicism is if it is defiance of the word of God or the Pope (by proxy), and God trumps Pope every time.
- Since Jesus must have consented to the "abduction", it is obviously not against the wishes of God - regardless of what the Pope might say.
- Since God obviously did not object, the only way one can still claim it was a kidnapping is by implying that God is not omnipotent and omniscient... which would be heresy.
- Cook is not guilty of a hate crime either by a Catholic interpretation, or a reasonable secular one. Specifically:
- The Catholic view: Since God, the literal head of the Catholic religion, permitted his own abduction, it cannot be a crime against the religion.
- The secular view: There is no reasonable claim of malice against Catholicism or any particular Catholic.
So, Cook's off the hook, according to my interpretation. And just for bonus points, i even managed to throw in an additional homoerotic insinuation regarding Cook and Christ. It was cathartic.
Yup, i'm a-goin' to Hell. Oh I like it. Remind me to engage you as defence lawyer the next time I'm accused of heresy - we can burn together
[expect links to this in other places] It takes a peculiar person to hire a defence lawyer who just cheerfuly boasted that they got a kick out of accusing their former case's defendant and victim of homosexual shenanigans just for the hell of it. ^_-
| Indi wrote: |
| It takes a peculiar person to hire a defence lawyer who just cheerfuly boasted that they got a kick out of accusing their former case's defendant and victim of homosexual shenanigans just for the hell of it. ^_- |
But I'm a peculiar sort of guy
When confronting the cracker-pack it would be nice to have an argumentative representative regardless of sexuality, with a mentality based in reality, with criticality applied to legality, with a modality based on liberality and morality in actuality, regardless of nationality, partiality and spirituality.. {oh no...overload...does not rhyme...does not rhyme...out of cheese error....redo from start}
sorry - contemplating the litigious religious causes a prodigious flare-up of my Monty Python syndrome.Can catholics be vegetarian? Would they have to refuse the flesh / biscuit and blood / wine?
| barmstonian wrote: |
| Can catholics be vegetarian? Would they have to refuse the flesh / biscuit and blood / wine? |
Does a catholic eat any meat? No he eats nun.
[groan - sorry, couldn't resist].
It's a good question which shows what happens when you mix metaphysical mysticism with reality. I'm sure that the Catholic church would say that there is no conflict since the Eucharist is the 'totality' of Christ which is above such mundane considerations as being 'meat' in a purely physical sense, since the Eucharist represents the body AND the divinity of Christ.
(In fact, that line of argument is almost spookily Jesuitical - which is to say that it answers nothing in a lot of words)I'm a vegetarian and I eat it, but that's because its a cracker.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Does a catholic eat any meat? No he eats nun.
|
As Frank Carson would say - That's a cracker.... sorry!
B.
