If I were both a hardcore christian and a hardcore vegetarian, could I take part in the communion?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

It is Jesus's flesh and blood, right? Are Jesuses bred in an ethical manner, and slaughtered without causing them unnecessary pain? Do Jesuses have enough room to roam and build nests and act according to their instincts, and do they not get artificial hormones to make them fatter than they can handle?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:06 (nineteen years ago)

Define "hardcore" - that depends on your Catholicisim or Protestantism as to whether it is the actual body and blood (transubstantiation) or symbolic body and blood (errr... what's the protestant word?) or both simultaneously at the same time (consubstantiation or whatever weird bastard beliefs us Church of Englishes have.)

― Alone, Jealous and SSRI'd (kate), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:09 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah,, I meant the transsubstantation thing, couldn't remember the word.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:11 (nineteen years ago)

(Eucharist? x-post)

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:13 (nineteen years ago)

No, no, Eucharist is the ceremony. I'm talking about the actual theological word for what happens to the bread and wine, oh where is my mum when you need her?

― Alone, Jealous and SSRI'd (kate), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:15 (nineteen years ago)

Nobody really thinks it's flesh and blood, not really. Otherwise the I'm-not-cannibal thing would trump I'm-not-vegetarian, and no-one would take communion.

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:17 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.80smusiclyrics.com/images/coelo.jpg

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:19 (nineteen years ago)

Nobody really thinks it's flesh and blood, not really.

Meet one actual Catholic.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:20 (nineteen years ago)

(Toto Cuelo - the Girls Aloud of their time surely?)

Eucharist applies to the actual bits on the buffet too though right?

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:21 (nineteen years ago)

the Eucharist = the Host (buffet bits) yeah, I think. But there's another word for the process.

― Alone, Jealous and SSRI'd (kate), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:23 (nineteen years ago)

Go for this option...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation

― Ned T.Rifle (nedtrifle), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:58 (nineteen years ago)

Meet one actual Catholic.
Yeh, still waiting. The ones I meet think it in their heads, not in their bodies. Not even a shudder at communion. It's like seeing which ones are actually glad at the funerals of their friends -- I've only seen two.

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:03 (nineteen years ago)

Funny thought, Tuomas, but if you think a little further you'll see that Jesus actually sacrificed himself to save us all (and provide plenty of flesh for centuries of ceremonies) hence there is no ethical quandry even to the strictest of vegetarians!

― Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:27 (nineteen years ago)

So if pigs, cows, etc would also willingly sacrifice their meat for the human kind, it'd be okay for me to eat it?

http://www.kiasma.fi/site/img/kwpop/kuvat/N0088200.jpg

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:30 (nineteen years ago)

My mother asks this question all the time.

― tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:16 (nineteen years ago)

Was Jesus free range? Or was he caged by his fate?

― StanM (StanM), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:23 (nineteen years ago)

read one Romans 14:

"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him."

so, yep, you're welcome.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 13:38 (nineteen years ago)

you're not god, dipshit

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:17 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.generalstance.com/diary/archives/moby.jpg

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:25 (nineteen years ago)

hahaha now you've done it; you've gone and made Moby upset in the midst of his prairie vacation.

― kingfish doesn't live here anymore (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:29 (nineteen years ago)

Umm, I think if a person's harcore vegetarianism made him unwilling to participate in such a basic Catholic sacrament, he'd have a hard time calling himself Catholic at all; he'd be admitting that his ideologies about meat somehow superceded the instructions of the Church and the word of God. It would take a pretty radical reinterpretation of scripture to find anything you could really bring into conflict with, God made flesh specifically saying "take and eat, this is my body" and so on.

They've had theological scraps around extenuating circumstances, though, like with that girl who was allergic to gluten. But the question there was a lot more arcane (and stupid), revolving around whether God required there to be gluten in the wafer for transsubstantiation to happen. Most of us would guess that God wasn't too particular about the recipe, and a gluten-free wafer could become Christ just as nicely.

My mother once made bread that was used in communion. At a Protestant church, naturally. But she was raised Orthodox, so she should technically have been uncomfortable with that. Further proof of the above: Catholics ostensibly believe in transsubstantiation, but I doubt many believe it in a concrete physical sense. They believe that the wafer is Christ in the same metaphysical sense that they believe there doesn't have to be a difference between the numbers 1 and 3. (That's my snarky theological joke for the day: Christians shouldn't use the term "monotheistic," since the Trinity doesn't believe in any difference between "mono" and "poly!")

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:43 (nineteen years ago)

Wait, no, she shouldn't have been uncomfortable with that, what am I saying -- that's back to the dumb Catholic scrap over where the bread has to come from.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:45 (nineteen years ago)

haha nabisco, otm.

― AaronK (AaronK), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:47 (nineteen years ago)

technically if you're going to argue that a vegetarian can't eat the communion because it is christflesh or whatever, they couldn't take the cup either because it's BLOOD, not wine. but i wonder, how many vegetarians would opt for a little sunday morning sauce over their choice not to partake of any animals...

― tehresa (tehresa), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:03 (nineteen years ago)

Many red wines have blood powder in them anyway, plus there's gelatin or other animal products in most wines too, so the communion wine might be unfit to the non-hardcore vegan too.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:25 (nineteen years ago)

"Take and eat; this is my body. Notice that it's unleavened whole-grain organic."

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:36 (nineteen years ago)

Words that should never follow HARDCORE:

1. Christian
2. Vegan

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:48 (nineteen years ago)

3. Uproar

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:48 (nineteen years ago)

4. punk
5. Christian punk

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 16:12 (nineteen years ago)

this is real simple, and is alluded to mockingly upthread. Jesus not only consents to the eating of his flesh; he tells his followers to do so. If any animal whose claims to godhood seemed acceptable to me ordered me to eat His flesh, I would do so. Ethically motivated vegetarianism is rooted in the belief that animals, like anybody else, don't want to be killed. Jesus willingly offers himself as a living sacrifice - it's not comparable to animal flesh, which (according to the ethical vegetarian's belief, which I happen to share) can only be obtained through outright murder.

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 17:16 (nineteen years ago)

of course I should also add that the whole Christ's-claims-to-godhood business is delusional nonsense

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

I am a vegetarian and a Christian. I take communion regularily and have no problem with this.

― The Boy Who Cried YSI? (Freud Junior), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 17:38 (nineteen years ago)

Ethically motivated vegetarianism is rooted in the belief that animals, like anybody else, don't want to be killed.

Er, the ethical motivation for my vegetarianism (and for a lot of people I know) is that it's not wrong to kill animals (they kill each other, don't they), but that the torture of animals caused by mass meat/dairy/egg/fur/etc production is wrong. Otherwise it'd be okay to eat eggs and drink milk, because the animals producing them don't die in the act.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

VEGANISM IDIOT

― JW (ex machina), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

If you're a Catholic veggie who's against abortion/contraception, could you eat eggs?

― Cressida Breem (neruokruokruokne?), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 17:57 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.christianveg.com/default.htm

― The Boy Who Cried YSI? (Freud Junior), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 18:32 (nineteen years ago)

this is real simple, and is alluded to mockingly upthread

I wasn't mocking anything but the original question. I thought our explanation was obvious.

― Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

"I don't mind killing, it's the MURDER that really gets to me."

― Dan (Split That Hair!) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:16 (nineteen years ago)

So, I can still eat Kobe beef, right? Cuz those motherfuckers are HAPPY sonsabitches.

― John Justen (johnjusten), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:21 (nineteen years ago)

There's one side of a Peter Singer v. someone debate in the latest Harper's on the ethics of eating meat. Part of his argument is that if you're a vegan/vegetarian out of concern for the treatment of animals, then you should actually eat meat, but not from Big Ag-sources - support humanely raised/killed livestock.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

Dan otm

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

What we need is Kobe Christ. That would put an end to the debate once and for all.

― John Justen (johnjusten), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:29 (nineteen years ago)

"I don't mind killing, it's the MURDER that really gets to me."

Way to totally miss Tuomas' point, Dan. He said (paraphrased) "I don't mind killing, it's the TORTURE that really gets to me."

― Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:31 (nineteen years ago)

kobe already thinks he's christ, dude.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:34 (nineteen years ago)

this is totally off-topic, but my day has been utterly ruined. i viewed a bulletin on myspace posted by a friend. the bulletin consisted of a petition not addressed to anyone in particular, with a bunch of angry comments about somethhing to do with "this lady should die" or "that's sick". stupidly, i scrolled down to see what the fuss was about. at the bottom of the bulletin was a video clip taken from some crush-fetish animal pornography movie...a woman's foot stomping on a puppy to death in high heels, the poor thing squealing and whimpering in pain. it was one of the saddest, sickest things i've ever seen.

the thing is, the clip is shown with no context or anything...then is followed by a plea to visit the ASPCA website. WTF? i don't even think this was an ASPCA-approved bulletin, just someone trying to get attention for them. anyway, the whole thing left me feeling manipulated and grossed out. i did not want or need to see this. i feel mentally raped.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:39 (nineteen years ago)

Yet another argument to stay the fuck away from MySpace. I feel for you - I've been in your situation a few times before.

― Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:42 (nineteen years ago)

I understood Tuomas's post, Andrew; you misunderstood mine.

I was not paraphrasing his position, I was pointing out that the position he was taking was not really removed or distinct in a useful way from the position he was objecting to.

― Dan (And Now I'm Splitting Hairs; Someone Stop Me Before I End Up In A Sex-Free , Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:59 (nineteen years ago)

(And Now I'm Splitting Hairs; Someone Stop Me Before I End Up In A Sex-Free Coed Sauna)

Qualification noted :)

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 22:17 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.