…and this is a 
This story is nice and sad at the same time. At an Anglican church in Canada, a parishioner attended with his dog, went up to take communion and his pet followed him, and after giving the man the magic cookie, the priest placed a communion wafer on the dog's tongue, too. Hey, he was just waiting there with his tongue hanging out, it was the most natural thing to do. Unfortunately, and entirely predictably, some prissy-pants whiner in the congregation didn't like it.
Days later, the church and diocese received a complaint from one parishioner, who felt the church offended the sacred ritual. The bread and wine are meant to represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ and are only to be given to those who have been baptized.
It's a cracker. Come on. I'd rather make one dog happy than please all the dogmatists in the world.
And these speculations as rationalizations annoy me.
"In his email, the man's argument was that Christ wouldn't have liked it," said Needham. "But in my opinion, Christ would have thought it was neat. It was just being human. And it made everyone smile."
Face it, your god is simply a projection of your own personality and beliefs. He isn't there. If you like dogs, you'll imagine that your god likes dogs; if you think noisy smelly animals are a nuisance, your god bars the gates of heaven to them.
Comments
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 23, 2010 7:14 AM
It also shows a lack of imagination. If their deity was real, how do they know he didn't show up at the church AS the dog/god? If they don't give dog/god a treat, why do they expect him to fetch their slippers/let them win the lotto?
Posted by: DaveL
|
July 23, 2010 7:15 AM
Consider this stolen.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti
|
July 23, 2010 7:23 AM
Looks like the complaining parishioner got angry at this dog-eat-god world.
Posted by: robertdw
|
July 23, 2010 7:25 AM
How do they know the dog wasn't baptised as well?
More to the point, if the dog had been baptised, would the cracker incident be okay?
Posted by: Gib
|
July 23, 2010 7:34 AM
Oh no. Now the dog has developed a taste for human flesh he's going to have to be put down.
Stupid priest.
Posted by: Bill
|
July 23, 2010 7:37 AM
Not many priests that I genuinely like, but I like this one. Animals are cool; and our kin.
Please be nice to the dogs and cats.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 23, 2010 7:46 AM
"All Dogs Go to Heaven? Sorry, kids. It’s only the dogs who’ve accepted Christ." - Colbert
Posted by: ConcernedJoe
|
July 23, 2010 7:47 AM
News Flash Exclusive: William Donohue president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in the United States, said of the incident: ".. things like this continue to drive home how Catholic-like religions are under vicious attack by people more aligned with evil than with the goodness of Christ our Lord and his Mother Church. However and for the record I just as soon offer Communion to a good dog than the likes of a so-called biologist PZ Myers."
Posted by: abb3w
|
July 23, 2010 7:47 AM
Saint Francis of Assisi would probably approve, at least.
Posted by: great.american.satan
|
July 23, 2010 7:49 AM
@gib- Good joke. Bully!
Yup. No dogs in heaven on my watch. For every bark in life, a thousand years in the fire!
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti
|
July 23, 2010 7:49 AM
Good thing it wasn't a Catholic priest who did this. He'd be sacked before he could say "transubstantiation" and the Pope would chew his face off about hitting a new low in priestly misconduct.
Now, if I were the dog, I'd be the one most offended here. Come on, if you're going to give me a treat, make it something with a modicum of flavor and that won't stick to my teeth and the roof of my mouth.
Posted by: Armand K.
|
July 23, 2010 7:51 AM
I'm sure God actually wanted the dog to have the Holy Eucharist. Remember God is omnipotent and omnipresent; therefore, if it wasn't His will to allow the priest to give His Body to the dog, he certainly wouldn't have allowed it. Indeed, the most plausible explanation is that God Himself inspired His humble servant to bring the dog into Holy Communion with his sheep. This was a miracle, and that wicked heretic schismatic who found it appropriate to complain should better prepare to burn for all eternity torn by the worm who never sleeps in God Almighty's hell of pure fire and wrath!
Posted by: SEF
|
July 23, 2010 7:54 AM
It may be like the "god hates fags" issue (and the whole misogynistic thing) - they're seen as being just too tempting to be allowed any equality.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
July 23, 2010 7:58 AM
Anglicans aren't supposed to believe that the "consecrated" bread is actually Jesus' body, only that it represents it in some spooky way. In fact, the 39 articles specifically repudiates transubstantiation.
But I've known a lot of Anglicans who nevertheless assume the Catholic magic-wafer view.
Anyway, as a former Anglican lay eucharistic minister we always went through the motions of treated the consecrated bread and wine with great solemnity, even though none of us (AFAIK) actually believed it was anything except crackers and diluted wine.
An old Anglican cracker joke: When a new convert is told about the mysteries of the Eucharist, he just shakes his head. "OK, I don't have any problem believing that stuff is Jesus -- but I just can't believe that it's actually BREAD."
Posted by: Gerald Snit
|
July 23, 2010 8:01 AM
... and certainly not those who've just been licking their own balls.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 8:05 AM
his
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 23, 2010 8:09 AM
Perhaps the sheep are worried that the dog will begin herding them into some uncomfortable places. Like a mirror, where they can gaze upon their own silliness.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 8:10 AM
Well that counts Billy Donohue out.
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
July 23, 2010 8:24 AM
Full of win there, Gib. Excellent.
Posted by: Doug
|
July 23, 2010 8:49 AM
The dog was the only one in the room not practicing cannabalism.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 23, 2010 8:50 AM
I want someone to take the cracker-eating marmot from the previous endless thread to a Holy Roman church service. We know he/she would enjoy it - and look entertaining while doing so.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
July 23, 2010 8:53 AM
The Dog Delusion
Posted by: Grahame
|
July 23, 2010 9:00 AM
This reminds me of one about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic.
He laid awake all night wondering if there really was a dog.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 23, 2010 9:02 AM
Too much god and dog in one post. I read the above as: "Face it, your dog is simply a projection. . . "Also:
Best laugh of the day. But it's still early and I haven't read XKCD yet.Posted by: Ed S
|
July 23, 2010 9:03 AM
If they didn't try to save money by using dog treats instead of real crackers, they wouldn't have had this problem...
Posted by: dustinfineout.com
|
July 23, 2010 9:07 AM
It's a bit silly that this article takes such a sarcastic tone, stating bluntly that "[God] isn't there" and "it's just a cracker". I'm not Catholic or religious for that matter, but it is obvious that those who receive communion are and they do believe that the "cracker" is literally (not metaphorically) the body of Christ. I don't believe it either, but I can still show some respect, and would lend more toward certain bloggers if they would as well.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 9:10 AM
I think the intersection was the blog you were looking for.
I even think they hand out pearls to clutch when you get there.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 23, 2010 9:10 AM
I reckon Webster Cook might weep a little in his sleep tonight......
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/IS2wv647nYgRBBguFabM4GEcsvA-#99dc6
|
July 23, 2010 9:11 AM
Just because you don't believe something exist, you have the right to justify by saying [God isn't there]. For us, who believe in God, that one is simply offended.
I'm not tyring to start a religion debate, but your article is very sarcastic to religion people. People who believe in Heaven and who believe in Christ.
I am agree with #26, you can actually show some respect to what other people believed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 9:14 AM
Why should I respect your irrational silly belief? I'll tolerate it and fully support your right to believe in silly things, but I sure as fuck don't have to respect it.
Tolerance is not equal to respect.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
July 23, 2010 9:14 AM
Insanity: thinking that "It's just a cracker" is silly, while "This is the body of Christ" is perfectly fine.
Posted by: echidna
|
July 23, 2010 9:16 AM
dustin, your pearls are being clutched in vain. Anglicans don't believe the cracker is literally the body of Christ - it's metaphorical only. How can you complain about respecting beliefs if you don't know what they are?
Posted by: george.wiman
|
July 23, 2010 9:18 AM
OK, you win the Internets today...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 23, 2010 9:21 AM
Your pearls for clutching are in the second room on the left. Those of us with enough respect for ourselves to call a delusion a delusion, will stay here. Go get your pearls and let the adults talk.Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 23, 2010 9:22 AM
@dustinfineout.com - You're obviously new here. If you want to come up to speed on crackers, and read some real insults to people who claim they are eating human flesh on Sunday, start here.
Oh please, no one believes it's literally the body of Christ. They say they do, but they don't really believe it. When does transubstantiation occur? When the wafer is blessed? In the stomach of the believer? If it's the latter, then it wouldn't happen in the stomach of an unbeliever or a dog, so no Christs were harmed in the making of this Norman Rockwell scene. If it's the former, then it ought to taste like human flesh, and the wine like blood for that matter. They can say they believe it all day, but they know it still tastes like wine and bad cracker, they know this, they cannot truly believe it is literally the body and blood of Christ. They can't.Posted by: PrometheusUnchained
|
July 23, 2010 9:25 AM
Oh no PZ! You'd better stop saying "it's just a cracker", or the commenter at #26 might burst into tears. Hang on, let me just dial whine-1-1.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 23, 2010 9:28 AM
dustinfineout wrote:
If you can demonstrate he's wrong to do so - i.e. by providing evidence and/or compelling argument that a god is there, or that the cracker isn't just a cracker then I guarantee you that PZ will retract his claim - and most of us would abandon our atheism.
Until someone does there's only one silly thing involved here - choosing to accept a nonsensical delusion.
Racists believe they are better than those not of their 'race' - do you believe that? If you don't believe that, do you think you should respect their right to act as if this were true? If not, why not? It's their belief, after all.
Posted by: hillaryrettig
|
July 23, 2010 9:30 AM
this somewhat atones for your recent comment that Republicans are like "small yappy dogs."
but only somewhat.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 9:35 AM
Were you offended because you are a small yappy dog owner?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 9:37 AM
Humm.
let me rephrase that
Were you offended because you are the owner of a small yappy dog?
Posted by: jaynek
|
July 23, 2010 9:42 AM
The Anglican cathedral in my hometown held special services for people to bring their dogs along :) Not sure if they had dog treats for the Eucharist though...
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
July 23, 2010 9:43 AM
Mewonders if that dude's favorite TZ episode is The Hunt.
But as reasonable people already know, if there's a Heaven, it's cats only. (urine-free cats, that is)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 9:50 AM
I know the local Minor League baseball team has a bring your dogs to the park day.
Dogs and their owners get hotdogs.
Seems like the baseball game is a much better choice for pet and owner than going to some stuffed shirt church service.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/guChRaIepO0M4r7TsKmTFzXMlftE#2dab4
|
July 23, 2010 9:56 AM
That "parishoner" better be careful about offending the dog. Dog and God an anagrams. coincidence? I think not!
#5 wins
Posted by: jaynek
|
July 23, 2010 9:58 AM
I read this, and all I can picture is several thousand dogs all trying to chase one ball.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 10:05 AM
Luckily the dogs stay in the stands.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkQoU_fA_m79OUvgCqf9JpTz3eWOXfJdJk
|
July 23, 2010 10:05 AM
To all those of you arguing over if it's "literally" or "really" or "actually" or "metaphorically" Christ's flesh/blood being consumed:
You're all wrong.
By dogma, it's substantially Christ's flesh/blood. That means it's neither a metaphor nor a physically detectable thing.
Yeah, I know, there's no way to detect "substance" in any way that would distinguish it from, say, anything else undetectable like a scientologist's Thetan or a Voodooist's loa presence. Theological dogma constructs are cunning this way: they allow to make claims that are very specific without saying anything verifiable.
You can't argue with it unless you first immerse you poor mind into theo-jargon. Of course, as any rationally thinking person would do, you can also just toss it and occupy your mind with things much more rewarding that are actually useful, like stuff in the real world.
That said, I don't know how Anglicans handle this transubstantiation business. They can't both be right, but they almost certainly are both wrong.
Posted by: hillaryrettig
|
July 23, 2010 10:07 AM
I share my domicile with two magnificent micropooches - who do, in fact, have a lot to say.
And every word is fascinating.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 23, 2010 10:12 AM
googlemess, #47
If you think we haven't heard that particular pissant dodge before, you're wrong. Try reading a couple of the crackergate threads before making that assumption. This one'll get you started: It's a frackin' cracker!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 10:17 AM
Sorry, but as the whole Great Cracker Desecration© episode demonstrated, a great many Catholics believe the cracker actually transforms into Christ's flesh, including priests. Whether they follow the dogmatic interpretation you outline above isn't really a shock.
Anglican's are their own brand of silly.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 10:24 AM
SOMEONE SHOOT THAT RENEGADE APOSTROPHE
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8nuEGr2AboPw3B5JlVHLruh87cSf2gi4
|
July 23, 2010 10:25 AM
I think the dog heard the old bromide "In ancient Egypt, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this," and figured he'd better start doing something to even things up.
I commend his initiative, but his methodology needs work.
--Lauren Ipsum
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmHWq8OAnBwrPDrX0SGxJvll7SUT4PfIiM
|
July 23, 2010 10:27 AM
Me, I'd bar all parasites from heaven:
>Domesticated Dogs--Mutualists or Parasites?
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 23, 2010 10:37 AM
Sorry, but y’all’re missing a much more disturbing point to this incident.
I think we can unequivocally agree that a reanimated corpse with gaping wounds in its side is a zombie, no? And the Doubting Thomas incident clearly shows that Jesus, recently risen from the grave, had gaping wounds in his side. (In case there’s any remaining confusion, let’s not forget the mass zombie invasion of Jerusalem at the moment Jesus died on the cross or his earlier success in turning Lazarus into a zombie.)
Now, we have it from the highest ecclesiastical authority that priests use a special magic spell to turn stale bread and cheap wine into the living, freshly-reanimated flesh and blood of Zombie Jesus.
More to the point, anybody who cannibalizes zombie flesh and drinks vampire blood will turn into an immortal zombie vampire. That’s quite clear from not just common wisdom and the same ecclesiastical authority, but from the original authoritative documentation, as well.
So we have a situation on our hands, people. That dog is now an immortal zombie vampire, and, as a result, the rest of us are all fucked unless we do something about it, stat.
Now, please excuse me while I go looking for my silver-and-garlic shotgun shells….
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: GvlGeologist, FCD
|
July 23, 2010 10:41 AM
"If you like dogs, you'll imagine that your god likes dogs; if you think noisy smelly animals are a nuisance, your god bars the gates of heaven to them."
This reminds me of one of my favorite Twilight Zones of all time, "The Hunt" - a hillbilly and his faithful dog die, and as they wander the land (ghosts, I guess), they encounter a gate and a helpful gatekeeper who tells the hillbilly that here he can enter the gates of heaven, but he has to leave the dog behind. The hillbilly says something to the effect of "Ain't for me" and continues walking until he finds a gate that does allow dogs - the "real" heaven, of course.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 23, 2010 10:42 AM
dustinfineout #26,
Nah. It's only the most dogmatic Catholics who think like that. For the rest, it is merely a fun little ritual. That is why it is so doggone funny, because some people carry it to the extreme and end up completely bonkers thinking they are swallowing fleshy bits of a real dead man.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist
|
July 23, 2010 10:42 AM
*cough*
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
July 23, 2010 10:42 AM
I foresee the RCC using this as a "see what happens when you let women run the show" defense.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
July 23, 2010 10:43 AM
The Catholic position is that it's OK for Protestants to do this, because a Protestant communion host is just a cracker somebody mumbled some words over.
Unlike a Catholic communion host which is the body of Christ.
:)
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 23, 2010 10:44 AM
What is it about crackercide (I invented a word!) that brings out the best jokes? The comments are hilarious.
Also: did anyone link to this yet?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 10:45 AM
Funny, I share mine with two macropooches. They too have a lot to say.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
July 23, 2010 10:46 AM
@GvlGeologist,
Great minds, and all that jazz...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 23, 2010 10:49 AM
I don't want either of you next door.
Posted by: toth
|
July 23, 2010 10:50 AM
@BDC #61: "Funny, I share mine with two macropooches. They too have a lot to say."
Macropooches are a Darwinist lie.
Posted by: The Vicar
|
July 23, 2010 10:51 AM
Actually, I seem to recall reading that in terms of tradition (which is as close to authoritative as you can get in a religion) the anti-dog crowd has it right, but are perhaps being a bit too gentle. Back in the middle ages, they used to kill any animal (non-human, that is) which happened to eat a crumb of the eucharist, and if a priest had deliberately fed The Cracker to a dog, he would have been excommunicated and possibly killed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 10:53 AM
bigot
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 23, 2010 10:55 AM
Old Yeller died for your sins
Posted by: toth
|
July 23, 2010 10:56 AM
It's simple fear of competition. God doesn't want to compete with the canine for the worship of dyslexics.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 23, 2010 10:59 AM
To answer the post title, "God hates dogs?", the last kitty I rescued and brought into my family had a habit originally of mewing and coming toward me when I said the word "God". So yes, God does hate dogs at first, but once she gets to know them she likes to chase them.
I had a lot of fun with that quirk of hers. The only reason for it that I could think of was that she came from a Spanish-speaking household before they threw her out where "cat" in Spanish sounds like "god" in English.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 23, 2010 11:02 AM
Nonsense. I let canophiles use my bathroom sometimes.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 23, 2010 11:02 AM
@Ben Goren - You're wrong about one thing: Lazarus appears to have been a mummy, not a zombie: "The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face." - John 11:44.
Also, apparently it was obvious to all around, since this statement is never contradicted: "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." - John 11:39.
Posted by: Mouse
|
July 23, 2010 11:06 AM
This comment in the article makes me want to roll on the floor laughing. "I can see why people would be offended. It is a strange and shocking thing, and I have never heard of it happening before." It illustrates how religious belief leads people to make total credulous jackasses of themselves. *Gasp!* Our magic symbol has been defiled!
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 23, 2010 11:08 AM
@Sven DiMilo - Oh sure, next you'll be telling us some of your best friends have dogs.
I have a medium sized pooch who has absolutely nothing to say, which is weird, but good. I would never permit him to eat Jesus, he might choke on the bones.
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 23, 2010 11:19 AM
Anglicans don't believe in transubstantiation. It's just a piece of bread to them. It represents the body of Jesus the same way that the cross at the front of the church represents it. At the end of the mass you could take the leftovers and throw them outside for the pigeons and it shouldn't offend anyone.
Catholics, who believe in transubstantiation, also believe that they are crackers because they don't believe that Anglicans can turn bread into the body of Jesus. I think the exception to this is if the priest was an ordained Catholic priest but then left to become an Anglican. Priests don't get their powers revoked.
So the truth is that no one should be offended.
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 23, 2010 11:39 AM
"The Hunt" is one of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes despite the theism. It is a sweet little story about the bond between man and dog more than it is about heaven and the afterlife.
The fact that this story is Anglican reminds me of an episode of where she decides to have a special Mass for the animals of the village. David Horton the conservative head of the church council strongly objects and predicts ridicule, low attendance and disaster. Of course it all works out wonderfully. (though I don't think the animals were given communion).
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 23, 2010 11:43 AM
re 75:
[html failure vanished some of my text. It should be:]
The fact that this story is Anglican reminds me of an episode of The Vicar of Dibley where she decides to have a special Mass for the animals of the village.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
July 23, 2010 11:52 AM
Horseshit, in other words.
Posted by: nekura-ca
|
July 23, 2010 11:55 AM
god is the word, and the word is god, thus dog is the true (mirror) image of god, not man
Posted by: Kassul
|
July 23, 2010 11:57 AM
Here's an olde repost of a repost regarding the issue of dogs, heaven, souls and soteriology.
I'm sure that many of you have seen it before(it is rather old in internet terms), but it made me giggle.
Even though it is faked, I like to imagine there being a catholic priest with the sense of humour & courage required to do this. :P
Posted by: Rob
|
July 23, 2010 12:04 PM
By all accounts, Jesus was a flaming liberal and certainly wouldn't approve of the bigoted, hate mongering monster the church has become. It seems far too many christians don't honestly ask themselves "what would Jesus do?", because if they did maybe christianity, or religion in generalm wouldn't be such a poisonous institution.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
July 23, 2010 12:14 PM
Would all this have been okay if the dog was a Blue Heeler?
Oh, wait, wrong spelling. Never mind.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 23, 2010 12:15 PM
Hmm, with a little work, this could be a koan:
Does a dog have
theaBuddhacommunionnaturewafer?Which leads us to the next:
What is the sound of one parishioner fapping?
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 23, 2010 12:19 PM
Rob, I’d like to know what accounts you’re referring to, because the ones in the Gospels depict him as a most evil and disgusting son of a bitch asshole.
This is, remember, not only the monster who will personally condemn to eternal torture all those who fail to kiss his ass in the proper way, but the one who insisted he came not to being peace but a sword, that the only ones who love him will hate themselves and their family, that he would set families at enmity with each other, that everybody who wasn't with him was against him and should be slaughtered at his feet…I could go on for pages, but you get the point.
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: cairne.morane
|
July 23, 2010 12:24 PM
PrometheusUnchained (#36) "Hang on, let me just dial whine-1-1."
Consider that stolen.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
July 23, 2010 12:27 PM
... true Dog from true Dog.
Neutered, not spayed ...
From the Canine Creed
Anyway, Anglicans believe all sorts of things about the Eucharist, usually in a rather fuzzy sort of way. The usual compromise is to treat the "sacraments" as if they really were Jesus, but without really believing that they are.
The fuzzy approach allows some members to adopt the RCC view even though it's not officially endorsed.
Ex-Anglican Ray
Posted by: carrotplease
|
July 23, 2010 12:28 PM
This reminds me a bit of the Blessing of the Hounds. Not a Catholic thing but one of the few religious events I genuinely like:
http://www.stjohnsglyndon.org/19.html
Sometimes I can't believe what people will get themselves all worked up over... but then, when grown adults believe in this transubstantiation thing (did I spell that right?) in the first place I guess I shouldn't be surprised at anything.
Posted by: nekura-ca
|
July 23, 2010 12:33 PM
Mr. Deity and the Host
Posted by: Athena
|
July 23, 2010 12:45 PM
Transubstantiation is just another form of homeopathy.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 23, 2010 12:55 PM
@nekura-ca - "We're going to need a lot more Jesus." Brilliant.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 23, 2010 12:57 PM
So?Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 23, 2010 1:10 PM
@Rob: By all accounts, Jesus was a flaming liberal and certainly wouldn't approve of the bigoted, hate mongering monster the church has become.
By what accounts? There are parables that can be interpreted as "liberal" -- others that are almost impossible to sanely interpret as showing any human compassion whatsoever (pearls before swine, remember!).
The few documents from that period we have which were not produced for external consumption by groups from the same cultural milieu (Revelation, the Dead Sea Scroll) reflect ascetism, massive xenophobia and a complete lack of compassion for the "dogs" -- any human being outside their tiny group of tribesmen.
It's insane to think of Jesus as a "flaming liberal" -- even if there are a few parables that can be interpreted as being somewhat sane.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 23, 2010 1:12 PM
dustinfineout.com #26 wrote:
We know what they believe, just like we know what the homeopathists believe. Both groups are wrong, and neither believer deserves some sort of special "respect" just because the poor things believe something that is patently wrong. It's nothing to be proud of; they ought to know better.
Transubstantiation is made-up nonsense. It would be just as easy to come up with invented reasons to give communion to a dog, as it would be, to stick with old invented reasons, not to.
That said, this story reminded me of an old joke:
A man went to his local priest, and said "Father, my beloved dog is dying. I so want to honor him by having a church say a mass for him, when he is gone. Can you do this?"
The priest sighed and shook his head. "I'm sorry, truly I am. I'm sure your dog was a wonderful dog. But it is against Catholic doctrine, to say a mass for a dog."
Then he added "But here's an idea, which might help you out. There is one of those newfangled "liberal" churches down the road, where they endorse paganism and all sorts of undisciplined nonsense from this and from that. I would not be surprised at all if they wouldn't be happy to say a mass for your dog, if you asked them."
The man was overjoyed, and thanked the priest profusely. That was just what he would do. "But I wonder if you could help me with another problem now. I have never done this before, and yet I know I should offer the church some sort of gift or donation, for holding a funeral mass for my dog. What should I give? Would $50,000 be enough?"
The priest suddenly raised his eyebrows, pursed his lips, and threw his hands apart. "Wait a minute! Why didn't you tell me ... that your dog was a Catholic!"
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 23, 2010 1:16 PM
@47: By dogma, it's substantially Christ's flesh/blood. That means it's neither a metaphor nor a physically detectable thing.
Emmet: Horseshit, in other words.
That's kind of redundant... It's pretty clear from #47s comments that he was saying in precise language exactly what kind of horseshit it is.
Some days, the regulars here are just amazing -- amazingly dense, that is, unable to distinguish between the "Courtier's Reply" and someone actually being precise.
No, kids, explaining isn't the same thing as justifying. Don't make the same mistakes as the asshats who dismiss explanation with justification -- you know, the kind of anti-intellectuals that exist among the religious.
Posted by: Travis
|
July 23, 2010 1:25 PM
frog, I know what you mean. I know I have said some stupid things in the past so I guess I am being a hypocrite but there are times where I just cringe at some replies and wish people read a with a little more care or took a few seconds longer to think about the post before replying.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 23, 2010 1:27 PM
Rev.BDC: Sorry, but as the whole Great Cracker Desecration© episode demonstrated, a great many Catholics believe the cracker actually transforms into Christ's flesh, including priests.
For certain values of "actually transforms" -- I've never met a catholic who claims that it detectably transforms, which means that in actual fact they believe the dogma that it "substantially transforms" but doesn't "empirically transforms".
Every Catholic I've ever met believes fails to believe that any scientist could actually see the transformation -- they believe it's a real but "spiritual" transformation. Not metaphorical, yes, but not empirical.
As #47 points out -- it's a different kind of crazy from straight out hallucination. They actually do have a neo-Platonic world view distinguishing "accident" from "substance" -- even if they're too ignorant to have the proper words to describe their world view.
I'm sure that somewhere you can find some village where they believe in a scientific transformation -- but not only is that heretical, its not the common Catholic view.
The mistake here is failing to believe the full craziness -- many Catholics are mentally living in the world of 2nd century Rome, where a spiritual plane exists behind the physical plane, and that spiritual plane is "real" even if completely undetectable by any means than magical powers. So if they say "it really becomes Jesus" -- they mean that precisely the cracker becomes Jesus in the spiritual world, while "appearing" to be a cracker in the physical world -- i.e., the empirical facts are just irrelevant "accidents" but not the "substance" of the matter.
Don't confuse your crazies.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 23, 2010 1:28 PM
What's kind of funny about this to me, and bear with me it maybe a bit of a stretch, is that religion, particularly organized religion, is entirely based on an appeal to authority. All the beliefs of Christians ultimately rely on either the authority of a religious leader or of the bible. How do you know it's true? Because the bible says so. How do you know the Bible is right? Because my priest/mother/father/teacher says so. How do you know they're right? Because they follow the Bible. How do you know the Bible.....and so on in a stunning example of appeal to authority and circular reasoning. But here we have a church member who has essentially decided that the authority figure who tells them what to believe is wrong about what they should believe. Now if only they would use that realization to examine the rest of their beliefs....
Posted by: Travis
|
July 23, 2010 1:35 PM
I wish the pearl clutchers stuck around today. They are just as bad as drive by trolls. Lately the trolls have been boring me, no good creationists or other religious folk, mostly one off comments. elzoog got pretty boring pretty fast. *sigh* I want to sink my teeth into something.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 23, 2010 1:37 PM
@frog inc - I think that gives the average Catholic too much credit. Or perhaps too little. I don't think the average Catholic believes for a second that that wafer transforms into anything. They don't get that whole "substantial" versus "empirical" thing, and they're right because it doesn't make a damn bit of sense. They know they're eating a cracker and they know it's just symbolic. They just say they believe it's transformed because that's what they're supposed to say. I think a lot of religious belief is like that. They say they believe this stuff, but if anyone claimed angels spoke to them most would say they are full of it.
There may be some priests who buy the whole "substantial" thing, but I think most priests and especially bishops and on up know that the magic is all lies. Heck, Mother Theresa knew it.
So basically, I think you have a very small subset of deluded Catholics who truly believe official doctrine on transubstantiation, the rest are just eating crackers and hoping they get enough wine to catch a buzz on Sunday.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 23, 2010 1:37 PM
frog, Inc. wrote:
Erm…hate to break it to you, but the crazies are already confused. And they sure as fuck ain’t my crazies, either.
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 23, 2010 1:56 PM
re transubstantiation:
The best explanation of transubstantiation I've seen compared the "cracker" to a house. The "accidents" of the house are the wood and concrete and steel, etc. that go into the actual existence of the house. The "substance" of the house is what makes it a home (specifically your home), as opposed to just another house on the block. What happens at the moment you start to think of a house as a home? Surely no actual physical change occurs. But in your mind (soul, if you will) it is no longer a just a house. The same with the moment of transubstantiation, nothing physically changes, but it is no longer just a "cracker".
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 23, 2010 2:04 PM
"Days later, the church and diocese received a complaint from -> one
So...why is this news, exactly?
*checks the story* So in the end, after an unfortunate silly apology, the church gained a new member, a nice guy with a dog, and lost an old member who was probably the crusty old bitty who complained about everything anyway. Sounds like win-win for the church.
Posted by: KG
|
July 23, 2010 2:13 PM
SteveM@100,
But that is not the official Catholic dogma, which is that the cracker changes its essential nature - nothing at all to do with how anyone thinks of it. What's more, it's crap as an analogy: your house has all the "accidents" of a home (it has walls, roof, doors and windows, keeps the rain out, etc., even before it's your home. The cracker does not look, feel or taste like a piece of human flesh.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 23, 2010 2:14 PM
@gussnarp: I think that gives the average Catholic too much credit. Or perhaps too little. I don't think the average Catholic believes for a second that that wafer transforms into anything.
Well, here's the problem that the Catholic church is having -- the modern world view is unalterably opposed to neo-Platonic views. Your choice if you have a modern world view is to be either an empiricist or a religious fundamentalist. You either believe the world is really real, or you believe that its completely fake.
It's been that way for three hundred years, and now it's seeping into the world-view of even the lowest peasants -- the world is systematic and self-consistent. It isn't divided into different "domains" that can be contradictory (must be contradictory) to each other.
Science fucking works. Technology fucking works. There's no way around it -- it's either the way the world is, or the world is a giant hoax. But it's impossible to think that the world is some kind of "degraded mirror" of the real spiritual world.
So to many Catholics, the idea of "substance" and "accident" no longer makes intuitive sense. They think of it as symbolic; they're protestants, in other words. Outside of some traditionalist Catholics and a few priests, the neo-Platonic world view doesn't hold up very well. The magic cracker is one of it's last bastions.
Protestantism can only lead to one of two-paths, in the long-term --- either atheism or fundamentalism.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 23, 2010 2:21 PM
frog, Inc #95 wrote:
And I think it's worth pointing out that this bifurcated view of reality, with its different 'planes of existence,' is not unique to the world of 2nd century Rome or even Catholicism. It's foundational to supernatural belief in general, and may be a common consequence of the natural tendency of the human mind to think in terms of mind/body dualism. So I don't think frog here is giving the average Catholic too much (or too little) credit. They both believe the cracker is a symbol AND they believe the cracker is flesh in substance (or essence) because they confusedly consider symbols to be a kind of thing, existing in a special kind of world.
It takes an educated, sophisticated mind freed of primitive intuitions to understand abstractions, or to think of thought as something other than a 'higher plane of existence.'
SteverM #100 wrote:
What I said. They consider Mind to be a force which exists in another state of reality. This analogy ought to be a clear explanation of transubstantiation from the atheist perspective. The cracker is only turned to flesh "in your mind." You're imagining it. It's still just a cracker.
You'd have to instinctively consider Mind or Thought to be a magical place -- or maybe a special kind of thing -- in order to think this analogy a good one for the defense of transubstantiation. Which they do. The 'spiritual plane' is where thoughts live. Caring about something, of believing it, makes it real in this plane of Pure Consciousness.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 2:29 PM
Which doesn't really change anything about what I said. Many Catholics do think it is the flesh of Christ
The Catholic Church uses the word substantial but explains it as real presence.
At least that is how I read this.
Though from the definition at Wiki I get this
To me that's not what I'm reading from the Catechism, but I think it's just a matter what we are defining as "actually transforms". Catholics believe (of if I'm understanding the passage from the catechism, they're supposed to believe) that the bread and wine are actually the flesh and blood of Christ though they conveniently retain the appearance of bread and wine.
So I think I see your point.
The important passage from John just for kicks.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 23, 2010 2:31 PM
@frog, Inc
I only hope more choose the former than the latter.Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 23, 2010 2:38 PM
@Rev. BigDumbChimp - Huh, that verse makes Jesus sound a lot like a vampire. How many vampire stories require the victim to also drink the vampire's blood in order to become a vampire (i.e. live forever). Hmm, wonder how many of those are intentionally based on the Bible. That Dracula 2000 movie had it all wrong, Dracula isn't Judas, he's Jesus!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 2:39 PM
No, there are plenty of lazy protestants out there that don't do either.
In fact most of the protestants I know are lazy religious. They just do it because it's what they've always done and what they think they're supposed to do.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 23, 2010 2:42 PM
frog, Inc #95 wrote:
Back during Crackergate, a bunch of Catholics were coming in here dragging anecdotal stories about stolen transformed wafers that suddenly spurted blood when struck with a knife by a person bent on desecration, thereby converting the infidel on the spot. Sometimes, the transformation is indeed empirical, meaning objective and convincing to a skeptic. Apparently, this visible miracle only makes it into this lower realm of physical reality, when it makes a useful point to a potential convert.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 23, 2010 2:52 PM
@Rev. BigDumbChimp I think that's true of most of the religious people in America. Admittedly fundamentalism seems to be on the rise, but I still think that the majority of American Christians are basically just doing what they've always done out of a vague fear of hell and desire to conform to cultural norms.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 23, 2010 3:04 PM
gussnarp #110 wrote:
I've sometimes felt as if the real reason atheists make Christians so angry, is that our very presence reminds them that they ought to have not just reasons to believe their religion is true, but a clear idea of what it is, they actually believe. Our arguments just make this requirement more explicit.
Religious freedom is presumably supposed to include the freedom from having to explain yourself to others. This is naturally entailed by the prior freedom from having to make any sense, even to yourself.
Especially to yourself, perhaps. Hurry over the petty niggling details of what God is supposed to be, exactly, so you can get to the important part about how strongly believing in Whatever-It-Is, inspires you to be the best you can be -- as part of the group.
Posted by: tombrez.bubu
|
July 23, 2010 3:05 PM
I'd rather make one dog happy than please all the dogmatists in the world.
Dude! Smells like number one with a bullet
Send this line to Roy, that other songwriting Zimmerman from Minnesota, and make him make a HIT!
Posted by: phantomreader42
|
July 23, 2010 3:44 PM
Yahoomess @ #29:
Since your post is nonsensical as written, and you apparently can't be bothered to make sure what you're saying is clear, I'm going to assume you dropped a "don't" up there in the first sentence.
So, are you saying we DON'T have the right to say god doesn't exist, because you think doing so is offensive? Well, I hereby declare every single word you will ever say for the rest of your life offensive. As such, you are required to cut out your own tongue to avoid offending me.
If you have a problem with this, you're welcome to shut the fuck up about how I'm forbidden to speak my mind because it might offend some god-besotted nutcase. But of course, you won't practice what you preach. You don't really care about offensiveness, you just want to suppress inconvenient speech.
When your cult has totally and forever abandoned the monstrous dogma that people who don't kiss your imaginary friend's ass deserve to be tortured forever, and apologized personally to every person on the planet for spreading that lie, then, and ONLY then, can you whine about respect. Respect has to be earned. You haven't earned it. Fuck off.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
July 23, 2010 3:56 PM
A poll that desperately needs to be pharyngulated:
CNN: Lunchtime poll – saying grace
Italian expose on gay priests 'troubles' the church
Posted by: phantomreader42
|
July 23, 2010 3:57 PM
dustinfineout @ #26:
Why is it silly to tell the truth? Why do ridiculous lies deserve respect? Why does a belief system that includes never-ending torture for people not in the right cult deserve respect?
If, like the poster in #29, you think we should not be allowed to tell the truth if people who believe irrational nonsense might be offended, then I make the same demands of you as I did of him, and I expect you to hide from them as well.
Posted by: fprimus
|
July 23, 2010 4:04 PM
@Nerd of Redhead
Oh yeah!
ciao,
furlan
Posted by: AndrewTheEternal
|
July 23, 2010 4:08 PM
Funny thing is, that was what I thought the movie was building up to. I had a sad when it didn't.Posted by: SteveM
|
July 23, 2010 4:12 PM
re 102:
You are wrong, it is official RCC dogma. The "accidents" of the wafer, that is being unlevened bread, do not change during transunstantiation. Only the "substance", which despite the usual meaning, is not the material properties of the object. The accidents of the wafer is that it is wheat, its "substance" is that it is "bread" before transubstantiation. After it is no longer "bread" but the body of Christ even though the accidents of it are still wheat flour and gluten and whatever else goes into unlevened bread. Like Sastra discussed above, the "substance" exists on the magic plane of the Mind, while the "accidents" exist on the mundane plane of actual reality. The point is that the "essential nature" of the wafer is not the molecules of which it is composed (those are just its "accidents"). That is how its "essential nature" can change without altering its chemical composition.
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 23, 2010 4:24 PM
One of the few church services I attended as an adult was a UU meeting where they invited everybody to bring their pets to church. Man, that was a trip...
I've been to a couple of UU services, and they both still incorporated some sloppy uncritical thinking and embraced the foolish idea that faith is a valid epistemology... but, the overall message was still good both times, everything was mostly kept in perspective.. I mean, they try to have fun and make people feel good. What a novel concept!
If all religions were like UU, there would be very little to complain about. (Like I say, there's still the sloppy thinking, but in comparison...)
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 23, 2010 4:33 PM
I can’t believe y’all’re seriously discussing the finer points of theology like this.
What difference does it make if Christians really believe that the cracker really becomes the reanimated zombie flesh of Jesus or if they’re just pretending that it does?
Is it really sane to “merely” pretend that the cracker is the flesh of a zombie and that you’ll become an immortal zombie if you eat it? Especially when they most certainly buy into the immortality part of it, regardless of what they think of the cracker?
Here, let me answer that for you:
“No. Anybody who pretends otherwise is fucking nuts.”
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 23, 2010 4:40 PM
Ben:
^This here.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 5:24 PM
Because unless you're going into the strawman building business it's a good idea to know what it is they actually believe.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 23, 2010 5:30 PM
I'm sure we've all noticed how when someone says "god talks to me" that god always has the same prejudices and opinions as the one it speaks to.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 5:34 PM
You know your God is made up when he hates all the same people you do.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 23, 2010 5:38 PM
The Primitive Radio Gods noticed that:
We sit outside and argue all night long
About a god we've never seen
But never fails to side with me
*Note for younger readers: a phone booth was a structure on street corners with a landline in it that could be used by anyone for a small amount of money. It's what we used to make phone calls while away from home before cell phones.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 23, 2010 5:51 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp wrote:
I honestly don’t think I’m making hay here.
Sure, sure. There are all sorts of subtleties to the various theologies.
Big fucking deal.
Group A says that Jesus really did rise from the grave, and he really did have gaping wounds in his side, and that he invited at least one of his followers to fondle his intestines through said wounds.
Group B says that Jesus really did rise from the grave, and he really did have gaping wounds in his side, and that he invited at least one of his followers to fondle his intestines through said wounds.
Group A says that the ultimate goal in life is to become an undying immortal dedicated to eternal submission to the same reanimated Jesus.
Group B says that the ultimate goal in life is to become an undying immortal dedicated to eternal submission to the same reanimated Jesus.
Group A says that an essential element of attaining that goal is to eat a piece of bread that has magically been turned into the reanimated flesh of Jesus.
Group B says that an essential element of attaining that goal is to eat a piece of bread that you pretend has magically been turned into the reanimated flesh of Jesus.
Is it really that hard to understand how utterly unimportant the distinction is?
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: DLC
|
July 23, 2010 6:39 PM
it's not good to feed your dog Jesus.
it's too salty and a lot of carbohydrates.
Posted by: arborharbor
|
July 23, 2010 7:27 PM
jeesus barking christ.
Posted by: Crewvy
|
July 23, 2010 9:49 PM
How does the whiny fucktard know that the dog ain`t baptised?
Has it not got the tattoo?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 9:56 PM
no no I wasn't saying you were building one now, just that in order to not build one you need to know the actual beliefs of the people you are arguing with
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 23, 2010 10:21 PM
Don't we all?Posted by: Hekuni Cat, Champion of Oriana
|
July 23, 2010 10:33 PM
QFT. This point can't be stressed enough.
Posted by: Kirk
|
July 23, 2010 11:35 PM
So I guess we won't be seeing the "RC Doggy Cracker" bag in bulk any time soon?
Posted by: Robbie
|
July 23, 2010 11:55 PM
Well, I'm not going to go untill they start serving a nice avacado dip with the crackers. the church I used to go to also had a nice red wine on the manu. The person in the dress thingy up the front said it was the blood of the lawd. Hang on, did they have fridges back then? I don't think so. Maybe it was a thermos. They could fill the pews with a menu enhancement program. As they say, "Cook it and they will come" or something...
Posted by: briclondon
|
July 24, 2010 12:35 AM
I highly recommend Ronald Firbank's 'Concerning the Eccentricities of Cardinal Pirelli'(1926) which begins with the Cardinal christening a dog in his cathedral ('And thus being cleansed and purified, I do call thee "Crack"!') and ends with His Eminence dying of a heart attack while chasing, naked, a choirboy around the aisles. Those where the days!
Posted by: Jennifer
|
July 24, 2010 2:43 AM
So a little OT, but I feel like sharing...
when I was a teenager I went through a Jesus stage, never really believing, but not disbelieving. Never gave it any critical thought whatsoever, but I knew I really liked how it felt to be in church. Kinda clean, or perhaps cleansed is a better word for it. I never considered anything but a church wedding for myself.
Then I had kids.
I had to think about baptism.
I could not bring myself to baptise my kids in the name of a lord I wasn't sure existed. Funny that I was willing to swear before that same fuzzy lord to cleave only unto my husband.
Then, I started not enjoying my 3 or 4 times yearly Sunday morning trip to the local United Church because I felt like a hypocrite. I love church music, and I love the feeling of community, and I couldn't enjoy it anymore...not even snacktime:) (United Churches use stale bread cubes...croutons...and grape juice in shooter glasses for communion, hence snacktime!)
So,the kids are damned to hell and no choral hymns for poor old me. Then the oldest kid joined a youth group at an Anglican church down the block. I went to meet the folks running it, and liked them enough to let her keep going. I liked them enough to go to a few wine and cheeses my own self. Then I went to church one Sunday and...I felt just fine. I got to enjoy the music, take communion (wowsers! real wine from a communal chalice!) and I didn't turn into a pillar of salt or burst into flames. I didn't have to believe anything, and I still felt cleansed. I went quite regularly for a couple of years.
Of course, it all got spoiled the Rememberance Day after 9/11 when they sang "Onward christian soldiers". Haven't been back since.
Crap.
And the nice priest at that church invited my little german dog to the blessing of the animals, and didn't care that he was a lutheran.
Posted by: albatros183
|
July 24, 2010 4:17 AM
In Dog we trust
your dog has smited more evil doers than any god ever has
Get over it all dog want treat -> Priest like dog -> Priest give dog treat -> dog probably disappointed but still waggy
My town is becoming a joke showing up far to often on the al tubes these day's
Posted by: jeffery.g.davis
|
July 24, 2010 7:01 AM
One of VERY few things I have learned in my life is that you can tell more about a person from how they treat a dog than you can ever tell by what faith they claim to belong to. This priest passes the "beer test," and he's welcome to hang out with me and my newf any day, in fact, he better stock up on those crackers =)
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 24, 2010 11:44 AM
When walking my border-collie/retriever Muslim children are often afraid and/or are moved away by a parent because they think dogs are "unclean" (and/or are afraid themselves)
This always makes me sad. Most children love dogs. My dog is a kid magnet and is beautifully behaved with them.
Religion fucking up another of the great pleasures in life: the companionship of a dog.
Posted by: attorney
|
July 24, 2010 1:58 PM
I love it when religious people can't even get their own dogmas right.
Back when I was being oppressed into this stupidity by my parents, I attended seminary and was ordained. I was on the protestant side, but we still studied those evil catholics and anglicans (and yes, we mocked the stupidity of their beliefs!). The communion wafer represents the body of Christ ONLY when it is consumed as a communion wafer by a person. I recall, as a very young boy, seeing a volunteer drop an open box of communion wafers in the kitchen of a church, scattering wafers everywhere. The person simply swept them into a dustpan and dropped them in the garbage can.
I was aghast, until the pastor working nearby explained the actual "rule" regarding the wafers.
If you give it to a dog, it's a cracker, even under this stupid ideology.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 24, 2010 2:21 PM
attorney #140 wrote:
Ah, I see you have carefully studied the rules of Calvinball...
Posted by: irenedelse
|
July 24, 2010 2:37 PM
Words of wisdom, Rev.
*bows*
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 24, 2010 2:49 PM
From the link re: gay Italian priests in #114:
A reporter's error or a new level of honesty among the clergy? You be the judge.
Posted by: KG
|
July 25, 2010 9:00 AM
- Q.E.D.If they knew my dog, they'd know that they're right! Fine, affectionate beast that she is, there is practically no limit to what she will scavenge.
Posted by: attorney
|
July 25, 2010 1:13 PM
>>>Sastra @ 141:
Ah, I see you have carefully studied the rules of Calvinball...
LOL . . . Exactly!