US: Taking a cracker hostage is a mortal sin.

Remove all ads!

NOG,

Seems like you're missing the point too. Gnarff can't pick and choose which words are sacred and therefore off limits to anyone else's definition, just as other faiths can't tell Gnarff he has no right to believe in Jesus the way he sees fit, consider whomever he wishes to be a prophet, or decide which books are holy, or anything else because his definition goes against what others may or may not hold sacred. Particularly in the case of Mormonism, which as such a young religion with so many historical and logical gaps that fly directly in the face of the majority of established Christian doctrine, and yet they still call themselves Christians. Most of the Christian world consider Mormons to be definitively non-Christian and will never accept them as Christians. So does that mean Gnarff isn't a Christian? Quite the contrary - he's one the most devout Christians I've ever encountered, a fact I admit I find highly admirable at times. His definition of Heaven and his relationship to God is also a highly different interpretation than that of most of Christianity. Does he still get to call it heaven? I think so, sure - but according to Gnarff's own logic he should cease and desist immediately - or "stop using a word (others) hold sacred, and there won't be a problem." Therefore, by his own logic and unreasonable standard, he's not a Christian, his book isn't holy, his leader isn't a prophet, etc. because it's somehow stripping the rights away from others who consider their versions of those things exclusively sacred. Which is absurd. TERMS CAN AND WILL BE SHARED...and guess what? That's ok. So if Jeff and Bob want to get married, lawfully and in honest lifelong devotion to one another, do they not get to because Gnarff - who will never in any way be effected by their union - is uncomfortable with the sharing of a common term? That's what he's now arguing.

What we're discussing here is a legal contract, recognized by the government, that allows two adults to join together legally for life. That contract is now, and will always be referred to, as marriage, even if some private citizens refuse to recognize them as such. The government encourages such unions and therefore affords people entering into this agreement with a multitude of legal and financial benefits. As Drew pointed out, this situation, in the eyes of the law, has nothing to do with religion. It is a legal contract. Gnarff's continued insistence that the institution of marriage - even the word itself - is owned by any organized religion is utter crap. It is owned by humanity, and though the definitions can and do vary, the central idea - two people devoted to one another for life - is the universal, common denominator concept at work here. You and Gnarff obviously choose to insist a gender restriction on it, and that's fine. But you have no right (or good reason) to impose that restriction on others.

 

Not Drew Specifically, but Society in general. You have activists everywhere seeking to tear down what Religion has sought to preserve for centuries. And yes, I do believe that we are in the last days. So many of the signs given between Isaiah and Revelation are there if you look for them...

The Vast majority still restrict it to heterosexual couples...

I never said I was any better than the activists. I just want Civil matters dealt with by civil authority in a way that does not interfere with religious matters.

I just want a consistent definition. If the court ruled that it won't be changed for one minority in 1878, I want the same authority to make the same decision now so that another group receives the same treatment as that minority in 1878.

By prophet, I understand the definition to mean anyone who had direct contact with God. We believe Joseph Smith had that, and thus he is a prophet. The line of Prophetic authority is maintained through such inspiration to subsequent prophets to President Monson today. To us, they are prophets. There are those that vehemently disagree, and they may use other words--likely unkind to refer to him. That's their right. If a gay couple is joined in a civil union, they can claim what they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to complain when some Evangelical calles their union an abomination. I'm just asking that the law--and society use the term Civil Union to reflect that it's a civil matter.

I've actually tried to use faith neutral terms, like Religious authority for Bishop, Pastor, Priest, Rabi, Imam, whatever, and perhaps Religious Hierarchy if I need to discuss the Pope, Cardinals, General Authorities of the LDS faith...

I would go further to suggest that the term Marriage was used in a time when homosexuality was a capital offense. Just because the practice has been decriminalized doesn't mean that the word must be changed. If this is the will of the state to accommodate gays, then reflect that in the nomenclature.

If it's just a contract, then why not use language to refer to it as such rather than tear away at the spiritual tradition of the people who live in the country in question? Your point about Jeff and Bob is taken, but it's a civil matter, and we want the language to reflect this. I suggest that to refuse is one of three things: too lazy to do a proper job of legislating the matter, Hypocritical to preach Seperation of Church and State yet refuse to do so, or outright hateful in their attempt to tear down the Religious institutions that hold sway over the heart and conscience of the people they govern.

Going back to LKD's comment, that definition has traditionally been heterosexual. Marriage has always had a spiritual component to it as well. When the providers of Spiritual nourishment don't want to change, but the law does, shouldn't the language reflect the schism?

 

what if the cracker was drugged?

I'm wondering about this cracker, though. It sounds suspicious that the priest would make such a fuss over a simple cracker. I see priests in the real world as charismatic manipulators, and his behaviour must have served some sort of purpose. Perhaps he wanted publicity, and sought to polarize his community against this non-christian. But if so, he made a real mess of it, distancing the more reasonable members of hiis faith from him. What I'm thinking is, what if he had something to hide? The church desires a community of happy, conformist people, who don't think about the dictates of the church/bible too much, so a lower consciousness is useful to them. The church is just another powerhouse of psychomanipulation, but what if they're going too far, using illegal methods to subdue their congregation?
Here's my hypothesis: WHAT IF THE CRACKER WAS LACED WITH PROZAC? There would be no legal recourse to test this distribution of foodstuffs, because the priest declares it sacrisanct: you don't perform tests on the body of christ, how DARE you, rabble-rabble-rabble! Blasphemy - to arms!!!
Prozac keeps the congregation in a haze of false happiness, gets them nodding like yes-men, and it makes them less sharp. Prozac has been known to lower intelligence significantly, try taking an IQ-test when you're on prozac... I think this is a serious issue, not just some ridiculous hypothesis.
The body of christ wouldn't appear on the hands or tongue of a non-believer anyway. The lord is all-knowing, right? There's no risk for christ's body being taken hostage, so it makes no sense that this priest would make such a fuss over nothing.

 

... Ok, that's just stupid. For one thing, the crackers have to go through regular food processing and review. For another thing, Prozac is a controlled substance, and you would have to have one HUGE supplier (or tens of millions of regular suppliers) to get that much Prozac. It'd be noticed, easy. Thirdly, I doubt you could get much of a dose in one of those things. Fourth, you have to take Prozac regularly (daily I think) to get any effect at all (it has to work into brain chemestry, there's no quick effect). Fifthly, Prozac, like all psychopharmacology, has some nasty side effects, and if anyone were getting enough of a dose to do anything, they'd get side effects. Lastly, I believe Prozac is effectively a stimulant, not a sedative. It wouldn't calm people down or subdue them.

I can't believe I got to fifthly! Is that even a word? And I had one left after that! As for why the priest objected to strongly, it's because Catholics believe this is a sacred cracker that is litterally (and miraculously) turned into the body of Christ. That's plenty of reason right there.

While this may seem true to conspiracy theorists, the Catholic Church must be doing a pretty bad job of it if they are. Yes, there is indoctrination of children, but that occurs in every child-filled household in the world, so you can hardly call foul on that one.

Wow, that was refreshing. Thanks.

 

The importance of the cracker couldn't possibly have something to do with the fact that, to a catholic, a blessed host is the body of Christ, could it? If someone stole what you considered the body of you Lord (and may possibly intend to defile it), you might be prone to overreact, as well.

@NOG: Technically prozac is neither a stimulant nor a sedative. It is an anti-depressant, which isn't quite the same thing as either one.

 

i guess it can't be prozac then, it was just a thought. you're probably right, the priest was making a big fuss for nothing.
I didn't suggest that churches would do it on a large scale. if such a thing did happen, they'd only do it in churches that were safe from public scrutiny, and had a priest with a mean streak.

 

I'm assuming that it's mass produced for the Catholic church, and as such follows legal procedures for food. In the Mormon faith, that role is taken by bread--the same bread you buy in the store, ripped into pieces enough for all to get a little piece. It's what the cracker represents that is sacred.

The Cracker is the symbol of that which is most sacred to the faith. You can call the Qu'ran just a book, but rip a page out of it and see how many Muslims at least yell at you, if not worse.

I heard of a study done that found Psylosybin (the active ingredient in Psychadelic Mushrooms) works better. If I thought for a minute that they were using that, I'd have become a devout catholic years ago. Sit through a sermon (which was reported more enjoyable by those who were high), then trip out all afternoon after that. Hell, I'd go out and sin just to confess and have to take another dose! The point is that it's not happening. Physically, it's just a cracker, but spiritually, it's much more...

Sixthly, I don't think Prozac was around two thousand years ago...

 

You're viewing Catholic doctrine from a Mormon perspective, here, and it's led you astray. To a Catholic, a consecrated communion wafer is no mere symbol. It is the body of Christ. For more information on this, take a gander at the Church doctrine on Transubstantiation.

Neither were communion wafers. Back then, they used bread.

 

The Roman Catholic church doctrine is that when the priest consecrates the wafer it actually becomes the body of Christ. Wine becomes the Blood of Christ. To defile a consecrated wafer is to defile the Body of Christ according to the Roman Catholic Church.

The wafer is made from flour and water, cooked on a machine similar to a waffle machine. Unless things have changed in the last thirty years would be very easy for someone to introduce a colorless foreign substance into it.

 

All of which goes back to the central issue -- the kid came in and by most honest perspectives on what he did, he seriously and flagrantly insulted the Catholic religion in their own building. Whether you disagree with the Catholic doctrine (as I do) should be irrelevant. The issue is should we respect the beliefs of others and leave them alone? I'm not talking about writing an essay wherein you endeavor to show or prove their doctrine is wrong -- that's total free speech -- but should you walk in and disrupt their worship services and then complain that they don't respect your rights? It's so glariingly illogical that it pains me that some people refuse to see it.

As was mentioned before, though, the illegal responses by some parishioners, whle understandable, should also not be tolerated (IIRC in most jurisdictions making death threats is illegal.) But trying to make it out to some harmless prank that the Catholics should just chill out and be more liberal about is morally repulsive IMHO. No one should disrupt or otherwise interfere with the peaceful religious practices of another faith group. To me, the cracker and how it's made and what the Catholic view of the cracker is is irrelevant. The kid should be charged with mischief, banned from ever returning to a Catholic owned builiding, and made to a take a course on religious tolerance and respect that applies to all religions, not just the Catholic faith.

The comments about the drugged communion wafers are so utterly ridiculous I won't stoop to address them.