[Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord

[Tom Hansen]

Wayne -

The question then becomes:

What specific cracker do most churches procure for the purpose of this 
religious ceremony?

Do they consider Him to be uniquely savory, much in a Cheesits fashion?

Do they consider Him to be full of fiber, much in a Tricuits fashion?

Do they consider Him to be somewhat utilitarian, much in a Ritz fashion?

I mean . . . the options are virtually infinite.

But, then, if you should find a church that offers steak and eggs for the 
sacrament, give me a shout, ok?

On second thought . . . forget the eggs . . . what with the church being 
all anti-abortion and all.

I'm still game, though for a nice medium rare rib-eye.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

> 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

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/