Student kidnaps Eucharist - commits mortal sin

[Irreligious]

Livingstrong wrote

Why can't you explain the allusion to me? Aren't you a native speaker of English?

I suppose explaining it might provide some embarrassment or discomfort for her. Basically, the allusion was sexual in nature, as in: "Sorry, I can't fuck you (or be fucked by you) tonight, dear. I have a headache."

It's kind of a dull, American cliche.

[calpurnpiso]

Choobus wrote

I wonder why they didn't have a priest.....

..yup a priest handing out communion crackers in the shape of Penis-Christ..that'd be more a pro pos..

Many do not realize the connections between Caesar & Jesus. Caesar the God, went to the Kingdom of Bhythinia ruled by the handsome young king Nicomedes on triremes. His expedition was caught in a storm. God Caesar was asleep and his companions -- the idea of apostles companions originated from God Alexander the Great homosexual "companions" who were also his advisors and were always at his side, they would become an elite fighting force in decades ahead-- awaken him worrying about the storm, Caesar said to them not to worry going back to napping. The romans were extremely superstitious & religious. Gods were everywere acting on their lives. I would imagine this scenario:
The superstitious companions were frightened of the God of the Sea so they awoke God Caesar, since Caesar was a GOD, they expected him to do something about the storm. I am CERTAIN Caesar woke up, said something like "BE QUIET" to the waves, using the costumary two finger gesture, going back to sleep!!. The storm subsided then this was viewed as a miracle. The story would be told & told with the costumary exagerations and add ons, this we see in the Gospel tales. While there is NO evidence to back them up, there are writings by historians of the time that back God Caesar's deeds.

This incident inserted in the Life of Jesus the miracle worker. Nicomedes of Bhythinia would become Nicodemus of Bethany! Caesar Gallic victories where he ENROLED the Gauls, Chatti, Helevetti to fight for him ( Fishing for soldiers ) FORGIVING their sins for fighting AGAINST Him, a GOD, Pontifex Maximus which he was. God Caesar also made many of the Gallic chieftmen SENATORS of Rome. So, these amazing actions were viewed as miracles & would mutate into the "sea of Gallilee where Jesus was "fishing for fish/men". Since Allegories, personifications, latin double entendre, & the intervention of gods where a WAY OF LIFE in the Roman empire, it is of no surprise God Caesar would mutate 450 years years after his birth ( 100 bce) into the Jesus Christos of today.

BTW today ( some believe the 13th) is God Caesar's Birthday!! Right on this MONTH who honors the God. Happy Birthday God Divus Iulius Christos.

God Caesar made sacrifices daily. He held a patera where DRUGS ( perhaps peganum harmala flowers or opium) where given to the commanders. Mulsom, wine sweetened with honey & watered down, was the customary drink. It was also involved in rituals. I do not believe for an instant a Roman would take a shit without PRAYING asking the gods for happy evacuation of uncleaned spirits. EVERYTHING in Rome involved prayers to MANY gods, which gave the empire incredible TOLERANCE.

The Catholic church would adopt EVERYTHING from the Roman empire including its religion of beliefs in many gods, but at its center stands Caesar/Jesus, the other gods & goddesses having mutated into the many SAINTS. Interestingly enough JEsus, his mother and the saints have MANY manifestations adopting the name where they reveal themselves.
Our lady of the Cheescake? Our Savior of the Fridge Frost? Our Lady of Pizza?

So, Jesus in a cracker is not unusual, but the retards ought to make the crackers in the shape of a flying penis. Wings representing the holy spirit.
The magic words that would charge the cracker with the spirit of the Lord penis Christ would be:
Pene-cristus Noster
qui es in caelis,
sanctificetur nomen tuum.
Adveniat Specu regnum tuum.
Fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in caelo et in cavernam.
Sacra Lactis nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,
et dimitte nobis castus nostra,
sicut et nos
dimittimus casta nostris.
Et ne nos inducas in tentationem:
sed libera nos a castis mala.

Then the priest should say: Kneel, clasp & Open wide while receive the Libidinal Appeasement Lord Prince of Piece of Peace, Divus Iulius Christo. In nomine Pene-Christo Atun-ra.

[Single Serving Jack]

Lily wrote

That includes your "substance theory". And mind you, it is yours. If you really want to know more, start with the Catholic Encyclopedia to which I have referred you all many times. It is really time for you to do some work of your own.

The Catholic Encyclopedia - Subtance

Wow. That is one big page full of wank right there. I don't plan on studying philosophy for a good few years yet so please feel free to crow about how thick I am at not making much sense out of most of that

However:

The Catholic Encyclopedia wrote

The most important question concerning substance is that of its reality. In ancient days Heraclitus, in modern times Hume, Locke, Mill, and Taine, and in our day Wundt, Mach, Paulsen, Ostwald, Ribot, Jodi, Höffding, Eisler, and several others deny the reality of substance and consider the existence of substance as an illusory postulate of naive minds.

...

Hume held that the idea of substance "is nothing but a collection of simple ideas that are united by the imagination and have a particular name assigned to them, by which we are able to recall, either to ourselves or others, that collection"

I agree with Hume et al, as that makes sense.

Single Serving Jack wrote

The Catholic Encyclopedia - Subtance

Wow. That is one big page full of wank right there. I don't plan on studying philosophy for a good few years yet so please feel free to crow about how thick I am at not making much sense out of most of that

However:

I agree with Hume et al, as that makes sense.

Actually, I haven't looked at that one. I assumed you'd look up Eucharist. But I doubt it is any simpler.

However, it doesn't matter (no pun). You got my larger point. Mission accomplished!!

By the way, crowing about how thick or thin anyone is (or isn't) was not and never has been the point. Ontology, epistemology, and all the other relevant -"ologies" are serious business and most of you don't have a clue. My life will not have been in vain, if I can convey to a single one of you, who currently doesn't know, how much richer, deeper and fuller life is than your materialistic p.o.v allows for. I can't hope for much from one brush with the CE but it is a start.

I can die happy now.

[Philboid Studge]

I can die happy now.

I can think of a win-win scenario here.

(I kid, Lily; you know I would never wish death on another mammal. Unless it made it her happy ...)

Irreligious wrote

I suppose explaining it might provide some embarrassment or discomfort for her. Basically, the allusion was sexual in nature, as in: "Sorry, I can't fuck you (or be fucked by you) tonight, dear. I have a headache."

It's kind of a dull, American cliche.

Thanks Irre but I do know what "being in the mood" means. What it didn't make sense was that she said tonight, she should have said "I'm not in the mood today or this morning".

[Irreligious]

Livingstrong wrote

Thanks Irre but I do know what "being in the mood" means. What it didn't make sense was that she said tonight, she should have said "I'm not in the mood today or this morning".

I figured you were familiar with that expression, HC.

But every red-blooded, American Christian knows that daytime sex is obscene, hence the "not tonight" part for emphasis on precisely what is not going to be happening. That is, without saying it directly.

You know, in all the crappy TV sitcoms I've ever watched over my lifetime, I never once heard a character say something along the lines of "Not this morning, George, I have a headache."

It seems that leaving the "tonight" part out of the expression dilutes the sexual innuendo.

[Single Serving Jack]

Lily wrote

Actually, I haven't looked at that one. I assumed you'd look up Eucharist. But I doubt it is any simpler.

Actually I started with transubstantiation, then eucharist and then that page. Then I read the page on 'accidents' and gave up. Tell me, did you know about Aristole's 'substance' etc before you became a Catholic, or did you learn about it after that point?

[dogpet]

Livingstrong wrote

Thanks Irre but I do know what "being in the mood" means. What it didn't make sense was that she said tonight, she should have said "I'm not in the mood today or this morning".

Well, since I now can't ignore Irr since you quoted him, allow me to point out the extreme crudity of his response. Of course, this is the same man who is worried about the firmness or lack thereof of my breasts-- a concern that has never crossed my mind. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

My allusion was to love-making and, vaguely, husbands and wives, since it upped the miniscule comic effect of the line being used in the context I used it in. The time of day was completely irrelevant.

Irreligious never ceases to amaze me with his utter lack of humor. His crudity, alas, is old hat.

Single Serving Jack wrote

Actually I started with transubstantiation, then eucharist and then that page. Then I read the page on 'accidents' and gave up. Tell me, did you know about Aristole's 'substance' etc before you became a Catholic, or did you learn about it after that point?

I am seriously impressed! I'd be more impressed if more time had elapsed between the reading and the telling me about it but that is a quibble.

Actually, I first had to read Aristotle seriously in grad school and, specifically, in a Medieval Philosophy course where we read him first as part of the run up to reading Aquinas seriously. I loved it all and, no, I wasn't a Catholic; it wasn't even a remote possibility on the horizon. Of course, to study history seriously is to risk of becoming Catholic. To study philosophy seriously is to run a further risk. Add on literature and you might just as well dust your Bible off. You are doomed.

[Professor Chaos]

Lily wrote

Well, since I now can't ignore Irr since you quoted him...

Right.

[Choobus]

Lily wrote

Of course, to study history seriously is to risk of becoming Catholic.

Comedy gold!

Lily wrote

Well, since I now can't ignore Irr since you quoted him,

oh oh.

Lily wrote

allow me to point out the extreme crudity of his response. Of course, this is the same man who is worried about the firmness or lack thereof of my breasts-- a concern that has never crossed my mind. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

oh man oh man, I just can't stop laughing. Believe me darling, I don't think Irre is a bit worried about the firmness of your breast. I would, if you still consider me to be cute.
Ah, sometimes you can be funny, Lily.

Lily wrote

My allusion was to love-making and, vaguely, husbands and wives, since it upped the miniscule comic effect of the line being used in the context I used it in. The time of day was completely irrelevant.

No Lily, it's not irrelevant since you were writing that particular post at 11:34 am Eastern time. Unless you have been lying to us and you really don't live in The Heart Of Dixie but in some other part of the world.

[calpurnpiso]

Lily wrote

I am seriously impressed! I'd be more impressed if more time had elapsed between the reading and the telling me about it but that is a quibble.

Actually, I first had to read Aristotle seriously in grad school and, specifically, in a Medieval Philosophy course where we read him first as part of the run up to reading Aquinas seriously. I loved it all and, no, I wasn't a Catholic; it wasn't even a remote possibility on the horizon. Of course, to study history seriously is to risk of becoming Catholic. To study philosophy seriously is to run a further risk. Add on literature and you might just as well dust your Bible off. You are doomed.

HAving a defective feeble brain unable to tell fact from fiction is what WILL doom you, NOT reading those books & getting educated on those subjects. Study neurology will dissipate the doom bien sur.