I was just thinking about the host supposedly be the body and blood and all that. Wondered other than the cannibalistic nature of the concept what a vegetarian catholic would feel about this idea.
Do other religions have a similar concept? Amuses me to point out the absurdity of the idea.
So is there any other religion that has a similar concept and ever pointed out the concept to a catholic and what was the response?
Cheers and thanks to everyone for the great stuff every day.
Presumably a believing Catholic could be an ethical (mostly-)vegetarian, as the transformed communion elements supposedly come from a willing victim who outright commanded his followers to eat his body and drink his blood.
It makes me think of Douglas Adams' The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, where the diners meet the Dish of the Day:
A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type....
"Good evening," it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, "I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?" It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.
"Something off the shoulder perhaps?" suggested the animal. "Braised in a white wine sauce?"
"Er, your shoulder?" sair Arthur in a horrified whisper.
"But naturally my shoulder, sir," mooed the animal contentedly, "nobody else's is mine to offer."
"Are you going to tell me," said Arthur, "that I shouldn't have green salad?"
"Well," said the animal, "I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am."
I find Jewish, ritualistic genital mutilation funny and disturbing. I'm sure there are arguments both for and against circumcision but when some "invisible wizard" tells you to start cutting yourself down there you'd best get professional help.
These genital mutilations have a purpose. The theist is always ready to point out that water was not in great supply, so circumcision was practiced to avoid disease. It makes sense to a nutball theist, and I've heard that said in my lifetime. The believers of it even had a straight face. It was as if people of long ago were so stupid that they didn't know how to wash a penis.
Female genital mutilation was different. The clitoris is cut out at an early age so this woman will never have sexual urges. She is then sewn up tighter so she can be the personal sex slave of the husband/master. It's a man's world, you know.
Here's what I think. Circumcision was ordered by god as a good thing, and god ended up getting the foreskins. They were offered as a burnt offering because god loves the smell.
In the life to come everyones human body will be restored and a great many people are going to go to hell. God knew this, but it was in his plan because those people will become burnt offerings because god loves the smell. It's very hard to break old habits!
In modern times the US Navy gets the foreskins.
Breakfast was sometimes creamed foreskins on toast.
Tom, you may have gotten away with that in the Navy. I was an E-4 and saw an Army cook come over the chow line and bust a guy in the jaw for calling it SOS. Had foreskin been mentioned, there would have been a homicide.
Pat, I made E-4 and knew that if I hit an E-3 or lower I would be in trouble.
To Destroyer Hubbard crew, shit on a shingle was ground beef on toast and creamed foreskins was thin-sliced beef on toast. Every one in the military knew the former term; only Navy men knew the latter term.
The wafer & wine really do become flesh & blood. It happens in our gut & marrow, with no priestly magic needed.
I like that observation Ted.