[Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord

Mon Dec 29 08:49:38 PST 2008

Keely, Ted,

The issue of eating crackers as the alleged or symbolic flesh of Christ and mental health can be described as such:

There are two cases:

1.    The crackers are really the flesh of Christ.

2.    The crackers are the flesh of Christ only in the imagination.  Eating the crackers is at most a symbolic performance of eating the flesh of Christ.

1.    The crackers are really the flesh of Christ.

This would be absurd.  They are crackers.  They are not flesh of any kind.  Only the most divorced from reality person would claim they are actual flesh, let alone the flesh of Christ.  

Further, as has been demonstrated many times, the crackers are not changed physically, chemically, or in any other testable way by the mumbo-jumbo mutterings of anybody including the Pope or the Curate of Crackpotland, Douglas Wilson, no matter what absurd claims they may make.

Hence, anyone who believes that the crackers (or their crumbs) are really flesh fragments of the alleged Lord is in need the services of a competent mental health professional.

2.    The crackers are the flesh of Christ only in the imagination.  Eating the crackers is at most a symbolic performance of eating the flesh of Christ.

If the crackers are not really the flesh of Christ, they can only be that in the imagination.  The so-called flesh of Christ in this case is not real, but only imaginary.

But see what this leads to:  In two words:  symbolic cannibalism.

Consider the following outside of a religious/superstitious context:  If anyone chose to enthusiastically eat the flesh of another person in this society or directed others to do the same, they would certainly be regarded as in need the services of a competent mental health professional.

What if a person only really got off on just imagining eating the flesh of an other person or directing others to do the same (outside of some dire survival scenario)?  Again, most would likely think this person in need the services of a competent mental health professional.

Inside a religious/superstitious context:  Does the situation get any better with the symbolic rather than the actual cannibalism of the flesh of Christ?

What kind of alleged God would make absolution/salvation dependent upon the supplicant getting off on symbolically cannibalizing part of the God's son?  (Or in case of the believers of the incomprehensible Doctrine of the Trinity, cannibalizing part the flesh of the alleged God itself?)  This sounds very sick to me, and I think those who really believe it are in need the services of a competent mental health professional.  

Also: this version of an alleged God makes this alleged God seem extremely pathological, and the alleged God itself in need of a competent mental health professional, if not in need of secure institutionalization.  

Did this allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good God allegedly create the universe and humanity so this alleged God could enjoy/demand being thought of as being eaten or having his Son being eaten?  And if anyone refuses to perform this perverted act, then they can kiss eternal bliss goodbye?  Does this make sense?

(In addition, some crackpot is likely sometime to use this eating the flesh ritual as the basis for a biblical justification of cannibalism.)

Hence, whether the supplicants, like the good Reverend Bob Dietel or others, think the crackers are the actual flesh of Christ or only imagine that it is as they snack on them, the results are the same.  Such acts are either actual or symbolic cannibalism; they can hardly be characterized as mentally healthy (or pious).

Wayne A. Fox
1009 Karen Lane
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID  83843

waf at moscow.com
208 882-7975

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ted Moffett 
  To: keely emerinemix 
  Cc: deco at moscow.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord

  keely wrote in the post below:

  This minister is pious, not mentally ill.
  -----------------
  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Contact_(film)#Cast

  Ellie Arroway: Why did you do it? 
  Palmer Joss: Our job was to select someone to speak for everybody. And I just couldn't in good conscience vote for a person who doesn't believe in God. Someone who honestly thinks the other ninety five percent of us suffer from some form of mass delusion. 
  ----------------
  Dialog between religious writer and spokesperson Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey) and astronomer Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster), from the film "Contact," regarding why Palmer voted to not nominate Arroway to be the human representative sent in the transport machine the alien intelligence gave instructions on how to be built in the communication from space Arroway discovered, suggests that if the minister is mentally ill, then ninety five percent are also mentally ill, given the percentage of people who believe in what some atheists consider to be "delusions."  Believing a communion wafer is in some sense "the body of Christ" is no more incredible than believing in people rising from the dead three days after death, that the Bible is the literal perfect word of a super being that created the universe, or that humans have an eternal soul separate from the body that is sent to mysterious realms after death (heaven, hell) depending on how virtuous someone is.

  It is a common human need to believe in questionable propositions about the world and ourselves, in part because there is much about the world humans do not understand that demands explanation, our awareness of the finality of death being too much to bear, and the need for belief systems to control and provide structure to society, regardless of the objective truth or falsehood of the beliefs involved.  As to when these beliefs become "mental illness" is a very complex and difficult question, that is often defined by convention and the demands of social functionality for the individual, despite the efforts of modern psychiatry to present an objective scientific model of mental illness.  If someone hears the voice of God too often in a socially inappropriate context, that interferes with "normal" social relations or work, they may be declared a schizophrenic and medicated.  If a minister or a politician declares they are guided directly by the voice of God, they sometimes lead millions to follow their guidance.  

  A case could be made that the millions who followed President G. W. Bush with trust in his religious faith, given W. Bush's fervent religious voting base that were impressed with his "born again" image, as he led the US into the invasion of Iraq with WMD propaganda, involved a degree of mass religious based delusional thinking:

  George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

  One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
  ------------------------------------------
  Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

  On 12/26/08, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote: 
    Perhaps the good reverend simply believes that the communion host is a symbol of the death and resurrection of Christ, as Christians do, and therefore worries about propriety to a degree greater than those who don't believe.

    Roman Catholics believe that the wafer, sanctified at Mass by the priest, somehow "transubstantiates" to become the body of Christ; Lutherans believe that the body of Christ is incorporated into the host; others, including evangelicals, believe that the wafer is a physical, non-sacred but important symbol that represents the work of Christ on the cross and from the tomb.  Those of the Federal Vision tend to ascribe salvific or near-salvific power (meaning "it saves") to communion, and virtually all Christians would deny that.

    This minister is pious, not mentally ill.  

    Keely
    http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: deco at moscow.com
    To: vision2020 at moscow.com
    Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:32:39 -0800
    Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord 

    It's hard to say what the good reverend was thinking when he made the statement:

    "It doesn't crumb, and I don't like fragments of our Lord scattering all over the floor."

    Because he is a privileged man, is it the housecleaning part that he doesn't like?  

    Are fragments of our alleged Lord in the form of crackers especially difficult to sweep or to vacuum?  

    Or are these fragments really flesh and blood, and therefore clog and make a general mess out of the insides of vacuum cleaners?

    Is the good reverend worried that because the alleged Lord has become fragmentized that like the king's men dealing with humpty Dumpty, the alleged Lord will not be put back together again?  But doesn't the same problem arise when people eat these fragments that are allegedly part of the body of the alleged Lord?  Don't some parts of these fragments become parts of bodies, or alternatively end up in sewer lagoons?  Wouldn't it be a much more formidable task to reassemble these ingested fragments to reconstitute the alleged Lord than working with fragments that are just sweepings?

    Or does the good reverend have a much deeper problem distinguishing fantasy from reality, and therefore in need the services of a competent mental health professional?

    Puzzled,

    W.

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Ralph Nielsen 
      To: errancy at iierrancy.com 
      Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 6:33 AM
      Subject: Fragments of our Lord

      NIELSEN 
      QUOTATION OF THE DAY: The New York Times 

      "It doesn't crumb, and I don't like fragments of our Lord scattering all over the floor."

      THE REV. BOB DIETEL, about communion wafers manufactured by the Cavenaugh Company in Greenville, R.I.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081229/94784457/attachment-0001.html 