# Fucking appalling Church acting totally against God **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2004, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111 "2004-08-16T18:35:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/81 "2004-08-20T05:58:45Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > Whats to stop Him? > Church rules, which is really just legalism. > There is only one “church”, but many different religions some with lots of “rules” which are IMHO just legalism. > God must be shaking His head. > > Our non-denom uses bread pieces and Juicy Juice. Protestant Communion and Catholic Communion cannot be compared. Catholic communion is much, much, much more meaningful to that religion. Many Protestant churches have communion rarely, it’s a side thing. The Eucharist IS Catholicism. The entire religion is about that sacrament, more or less, and the beliefs about it are far more involved. When you are participating in the Sacramental presentation and action of the Sacrifice of Christ and consuming his ACTUAL body and blood, it’s taken a lot more seriously than when you’re saying a prayer over croutons and passing them out as mere “symbols.” ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/82 "2004-08-20T13:43:25Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > God was unavailable for comment. > Beeg-those who call themselves christians, who believe Jesus was the messaih, realize the New testamnet said all things are clean, as to “laws.” > This doesn’t include observant Jews, obviously. > since I’ve never used this before- ;j I have no idea what you’re saying here…I’ll try again. You’re mocking the RCC for having “laws”…I’m just curious why you don’t mock Judaism (and of course, Jesus as a practicing Jew) for having their own set of “laws”. I guess they get a pass? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/83 "2004-08-20T13:57:02Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > If not eating the wafer makes the girl’s first communion invalid, how does that square with the idea that her medical condition was caused by God in the first place? What is God supposed to be saying? I imagine that God is saying, “This particular little girl should receive Communion under the species of wine, not bread.” ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/84 "2004-08-20T15:15:25Z")
Just to confuse things a little further…from [this CNN article](http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/19/communion.denied.ap/index.html): > [@](#): > > Some Catholic churches allow no-gluten hosts, while others do not, said Elaine Monarch, executive director of the Celiac Disease Foundation, a California-based support group for sufferers. It doesn’t seem like the “no no-gluten” canon is RCC-wide after all, if this article is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/85 "2004-08-20T15:22:09Z")
Some non-Catholic churches which use wafers buy non-wheat wafers. For reasons given by others above, this option is not available for Catholics. But there is such a thing as deglutinated flour, from which deglutinated wafers can be produced – and they’re both in accord with canon law and available with effort. Given that the girl’s family refused “communion under the species of wine only,” and the parish/diocese is not looking into deglutinated wafers, I smell a bit more of a set of issues here than meets the eye. In short, it’s quite possible to both hold to strict rules and accommodate medical necessity/strong recommendation – and nobody seems to be willing to budge in the instant case. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/86 "2004-08-20T16:33:21Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Just curious…would you regard Jewish dietary laws as equally silly…that God would “shake his head” at? > > Kinda makes Jesus quite the idiot then, for following said laws, don’t it? Actually, while I don’t have the usual on-line cite handy, Jesus threw out Jewish dietary laws saying, “What goes into the body doesn’t matter because it goes in through the mouth and goes out the other end.” I don’t remember the entire quote well enough to continue, but He then goes onto talk about how it’s what comes out of men’s hearts which matters. It’s somewhere in Matthew, I think. The weekend’s looking rather busy, thanks to someone **Polycarp** knows of, but if no one beats me to it, I’ll give you a full cite on Monday. At any rate, it’s that section which I see as abolishing Kosher for Christians. As for the OP, I never have understood American attitudes toward drinking, and I agree that there is more going on here than meets the eye, and I suspect both sides are acting in a less than Christian fashion. Surely there must be a better way? But then again, a better way might involve both sides admitting they were wrong about some things, and that’s a very difficult thing to do. In the meantime, these folks wouldn’t be the first ones to find us loose-living Episcopalians a better fit than the Catholics. 😉 CJ ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/87 "2004-08-20T17:10:23Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > Didn’t he get in trouble for working on the Sabbath and such? . I by “working”, you mean “performing miracles”, then, yes, he did (well…according to the gospels, of course). ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/88 "2004-08-20T19:43:28Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > Actually, while I don’t have the usual on-line cite handy, Jesus threw out Jewish dietary laws saying, “What goes into the body doesn’t matter because it goes in through the mouth and goes out the other end.” I don’t remember the entire quote well enough to continue, but He then goes onto talk about how it’s what comes out of men’s hearts which matters. It’s somewhere in Matthew, I think. The weekend’s looking rather busy, thanks to someone **Polycarp** knows of, but if no one beats me to it, I’ll give you a full cite on Monday. At any rate, it’s that section which I see as abolishing Kosher for Christians. Interestingly enough, that’s not the way I read that chapter. The chapter at hand is Matthew 15: > [@](#): > > 1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, **2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"** > 3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[1] and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’[2] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to 'honor his father[3] ’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: > 8” ‘These people honor me with their lips, > but their hearts are far from me. > 9They worship me in vain; > their teachings are but rules taught by men.’[4] " > 10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ " > 12Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” > 13He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.[5] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” > 15Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.” > 16"Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17"Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man ‘unclean’; **but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ "** It was common custom in the times of the Temple to wash one’s hands before eating so as to attain a state of ritual purity. However, as a rule, only sacrificial foods _had_ to be eaten in such a state. Unconsecrated foods could be eaten in any state. Yet, nonetheless, it was common practice to wash one’s hands before eating even unconsecrated foods. But in no way did this rise to the level of a commandment (as eating Kosher is). I highly doubt that Jesus was saying in this chapter that one may eat non-kosher food. He was discussing concpets of _tumah_ (ritual uncleanliness) and _taharah_ (ritual cleanliness), not kosher and non-kosher. In any event, I still fail to see what the big deal is about this matter. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we seem to have the following scenario here: [ul] [li]A young girl is unable to consume gluten products[/li][li]The wafers used for communion must contain gluten, since Jesus’ last super (which the Eucharist represents) was of bread (gluten) and wine.[/li][li]The sacrement could also be taken with wine.[/li][li]One who cannot take either is exempt from the ritual - with no ecclesiastic penalties attached[/li][/ul] I presented a situation that can occur in Judaism before as an analogy – where there is no _matzah_ available on Passover. If so, then one is simply exempt from the commandment. One cannot substitute rye bread for _matzah_ and then claim that they are fulfilling the commandment. Is this situation really any different? Why are they asking the Church to change the rules that they’ve had in place for hundreds of years when there is simply no real need to? What am I missing here? Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Bren\_Cameron\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@Bren\_Cameron\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bren_Cameron_1)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/89 "2004-08-20T21:27:03Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > Is this situation really any different? Why are they asking the Church to change the rules that they’ve had in place for hundreds of years when there is simply no real need to? What am I missing here? Nothing, IMHO. Of course, I’ve been pretty seriously lapsed, as Catholics go, for quite some time, but your description of the situation seems pretty accurate. There’s certainly some attitude problem on the parents’ part, possibly touched off by a difficult or less than entirely diplomatic priest, but not neccesarily so. That would be my guess. I’m leaning in favor of “not neccesarily,” possibly unfairly, just because of the weird attitude towards the girl taking wine. I have to admit, I find that completely incomprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/90 "2004-08-20T21:33:51Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > At any rate, it’s that section which I see as abolishing Kosher for Christians. Umm my point was NOT about dietary laws for Christians. I’ll try this one **more** time. **vanilla** was mocking the RCC for having “laws”… > [@](#): > > Church rules, which is really just legalism. I was pointing out to her (using dietary laws…but good gravy there are plenty of others) that Jesus, as a Jew growing up…certainly followed “church rules”…but apparently THOSE rules are okey dokey for **vanilla** … FWIW…I’m not addressing the particular canon law(s) at issue in this thread…just **vanilla** ’s general broadswipe. I’m betting that even **vanilla** ’s “non denom” church might have some “church rules” concerning how it does things…but again, apparently those are OK. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/91 "2004-08-20T21:37:26Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > I have no idea what you’re saying here…I’ll try again. > > You’re mocking the RCC for having “laws”…I’m just curious why you don’t mock Judaism (and of course, Jesus as a practicing Jew) for having their own set of “laws”. I guess they get a pass? Because- it’s OK to mock Christians (or men, or whites), but if you mock the Jews you’re a racist. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/92 "2004-08-20T21:54:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Because- it’s OK to mock Christians (or men, or whites), but if you mock the Jews you’re a racist. I’m not playing that card. (Perhaps you didn’t notice that **vanilla** self identifies as a “non-denom” Christian?) ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/93 "2004-08-21T01:15:12Z")
What **zev\_** and **Bren\_** said. This smells of deeper issues between that priest and mother. And a serious case of _“Let’s do the reasonable thing: YOU back off.”_ By now it has become not so much about the girl’s condition or the Church’s rules, but about who gets to bust whose face. Interesting that the mother is quotes as saying something to the effect that going thru with the rituals is very important… but then wants the rules bent to accommodate, even when there IS an alternate ritual for this case. (AND they could always do her FHC using a specially set-aside cup of must, that is kept clean from bread. In any case, _for the rest of her life_ she will be unable to partake either the bread or the communal cup during regular Sunday Mass at virtually any church she visits _and the Church is OK with that_, she will still “receive Christ”. (BTW **Poly** - I think the problem is that the _authorized_ “de-glutenated” hosts are not quite _completely_ gluten-free) ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/94 "2004-08-21T18:52:37Z")
Is the mother’s concern about the wine itself, or about her daughter being put on the spot by being given communion differently than the other kids? Because I know in some cultures, where eating fruits and whatnot was liturgically important to pre-Christian religious services, the form of the mass has a degree of flexibility (in some cultures, you get a wafer, and can also take a traditional fruit like a grape, which is symbolically meaningless but culturally important). Similarly, could a rice wafer have a drop of the consecrated wine placed on it (provided it is pourous enough to not let it run off), and the girl then be given wine as communion, but in a wafer form that won’t make her stand out? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/95 "2004-08-21T19:01:31Z")
> [@istara](#): > > [http://www.wsoctv.com/family/3651369/detail.html](http://www.wsoctv.com/family/3651369/detail.html) > What the FUCK is wrong with people when they obey “doctrine” over obvious, fucking obvious OBVIOUS will of God and Jesus. Do the SERIOUSLY imagine that for one nano-second the Almighty expects someone to make themselves ill to worship? Or that the Almighty would reject someone from communion for medical reasons? > > God must be utterly, utterly sickened by this. What the FUCK is wrong with you? How the FUCK do YOU know what God wants any better than these people? Do you have some kind of proof that they’re wrong? Did God speak to you and tell you the Pope is on crack and Christ wants this little girl to eat rice patties and soy milk for the Eucharist? I’m offended by the Catholic Church. I’m just as offended by those who argue against it on spiritual grounds. Neither point of view has a fucking leg to stand on, because the argument is devoid of factual information. You don’t like it? You think the Church is run by a bunch of fucking assholes? Good! Leave! Get the fuck out and do the world a favor. Better still, renounce your irrational conviction that you do or do not know what is or is not contraty to God’s will. The fact is, you have no fucking idea better than they do. You argue on purely emotional grounds. You can comb the scriptures all you like for doctrinaire justifications for your value-based convictions, but you’ll find your adversaries have got as many or more lines of Biblical text that can be used to argue against your personal point of view. Scripture is so diverse in its sources there’s enough there to make everyone happy, or unhappy, depending on how you use it. You wanna help? Shut the fuck up about what God wants. You have no fucking idea. Nor does anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2004, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/96 "2004-08-23T05:19:37Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > When you are participating in the Sacramental presentation and action of the Sacrifice of Christ and consuming his ACTUAL body and blood, it’s taken a lot more seriously than when you’re saying a prayer over croutons and passing them out as mere “symbols.” Bullshit! Prodistant superstition is much more important and deep than Catholic superstition! God himself said so! How can you even claim otherwise? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2004, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/97 "2004-08-23T15:31:52Z")
What a lot of people aren’t getting is that by the teachings of Church doctrine that have been formally coded for at least a thousand years (and are part of universal church tradition from the beginning), the girl _didn’t_ receive communion. It’s not like she received communion and now the mean old Church is coming along and saying it wasn’t good enough, it’s that invalid matter was used for the host. Invalid matter _cannot_ be consecrated to be the Body, and so all the girl did was eat a rice cracker. Either the host was the Body or it wasn’t, and every single apostolic branch of Christianity (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, etc.) would say she didn’t, the same way she wouldn’t be considered baptized if she had been dunked in olive oil instead of water. The mother’s refusal to allow her daughter to consume the Blood is just bizarre; by Catholic theology, the stuff is no longer wine but the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of wine. The mother is free, of course, to reject Catholic beliefs and consider the Blood to be wine, of course, but then one must question why she would choose to remain a Catholic. > [@](#): > > Similarly, could a rice wafer have a drop of the consecrated wine placed on it (provided it is pourous enough to not let it run off), and the girl then be given wine as communion, but in a wafer form that won’t make her stand out? This could be done, but I could understand church officials being leery of doing something like this, lest it lead to an incorrect understanding of the Eucharist by misleading people into believing the wafer itself was consecrated. Historically, when situations like this have come up, the Church has responded by making clear the orthodox position, even when it goes against popular piety. As an example, in the Middle Ages the belief developed that one must receive both the Body and Blood to be properly communicated; the Church responded by taking away the chalice from the faithful, to drive home the point that the Body and Blood are both fully present under both species. Something similar may need to be done here. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/98 "2004-08-23T15:46:17Z")
Well, lets take things in perspective. The Church here has bent over backwards, but I also admit it won’t take that last step. A step that is either “reasonable” or “heresy” depending on how you look at it. But in any case- the Church has tried to be reasonable (I admit that some think they could have gone a step further). In any case- a whole bunch of posters here, including our OP is getting very het up about this. Of course- if you don’t beleive in God or Communion at all- it make no never mind either way does it? But still dudes here are getting all excited- calling the RC Church “Fucking appalling Church acting totally against God” “asshats” “an empty, totalitarian farce” and “offended by the Catholic Church”- which last isn’t so bad. Now let us turn, brothers and Sisters, to today’s newspaper. A couple (The Hoskins Family) out in Hillsboro OR were recently convicted of assualt. Their crime- to punish their children, (a 8yo girl and a 7yo boy) they sic’ed their Pitbull on them- causing multiple tears and puncture wounds that required stitches. Let us compare this to our situation in this thread, where this poor girl- horrors of horrors- was offered “The church offered to use low-gluten hosts, but since there is still a very small amount of gluten present she refused. Fair enough. They also offered to give her daughter her first communion with a sip of low-alcohol instead of wine”. Note that if she just said “no” she could get a special blessing instead. So basicly- she either eats the low gluten MOSTLY safe wafers, or doesn’t- which is OK too, just that she doesn’t get “communion”- which most posters on this board think is a meaningless ritual anyway. :dubious: Now- don’t you feel a tiny bit ashamed for getting all het up about this teeny tiny problem, when somebody else is fucking _feeding their kids to the damn dog?_ I mean- get a grip on reality- everyone- OP, The Mom, etc. Who gives a fuck about some kid in an otherwise safe and happy life, when two other kids are getting brutalized? Maybe we could save our swear words, anger, rightous indignation, and all that for some assholes who really truely deserve it- instead of a problem that is not even up to “molehill” status? Get a life, and get a grip. :wally ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/99 "2004-08-23T17:29:52Z")
Well, the reason they’re so upset is because _they_ know what God wants better than somebody else. Given that they posess this incredible power, you know, to tap into the omnicient intellect of the Almighty, and use this God-given wisdom to sort right from wrong and condemn the Church on theological grounds, I guess they must also know with great certainty what is or is not worth getting all hrumphy about. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111/100 "2004-08-24T22:47:13Z")
[“raised fundamentalist” hat] > [@beagledave](#): > > You’re mocking the RCC for having “laws”…I’m just curious why you don’t mock Judaism (and of course, Jesus as a practicing Jew) for having their own set of “laws”. I guess they get a pass? Umm, Dave, as someone raised non-denominational Protestant (Campbellite, not that anyone knows what that means), I gotta tell ya: The point of Xtianity as my people understand it is that at least some of the Jewish laws were a false “religion” over the true godly ethic. If being Christian doesn’t mean getting to mock the other monotheists’ legalism–if it doesn’t at least mean getting to eat pork (_on Friday, even_) & not be circumcised, you’re probably doing it wrong. Not that you should mock the devout Catholic, Jew, or Muslim, as a person. They’re trying to do the right thing. But devotion to “the finger that points to the moon” (actually a Discordian phrase, but it fits here) is superstition, not enlightenment.[/“raised fundamentalist” hat] [“and then I blasphemed the Holy Spirit in the name of my sanity” hat]By the way, I hate Jack Chick lots & lots, but that was (Lord help me) a good tract. To conflate imagery of God with the transcendent God himself is the very definition of idolatry. Now if only poor Jack would stop deifying a 2000-year-old prophet.[/“and then I blasphemed the Holy Spirit in the name of my sanity” hat] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-appalling-church-acting-totally-against-god/260111.md?page=6)