 religious topics in a mass-media news source.

About that “cracker” — it’s true. It IS a cracker. And, then in one instant of a priest raising it over his head and reciting old language over it, it is supposed to be representing the IDEA of Jesus Christ’s body. That’s okay, insofar as it goes — it’s following an equation “Let x=”body of Christ.” But the “idea” of body of Christ is just that — an idea. And, in a universe full of ideas, it’s just another one that we can toss around, discuss, regard or disregard as we have free will to do. Except that… except that… the church doesn’t want you to have free will when it comes to razing their shibboleths. Understandable, since the church is all about hierarchy and power and not so much about the what the actual Jesus person said and suggested we all do with our lives (that pesky “love thy neighbor as thyself” thang.

As a former Cath0lic, I don’t buy the idea that the “idea” is mightier or more important than the actual living person. And, for a religion that so often flings about the idea that “life” is more important (when it comes to clumps of cells dividing in a uterus), the fact that suddenly (for the Pope and his minions) the cracker is more important than the life forms that baked it, for purposes of liturgy and power over the masses, is just too much.

Oh Yeah,…
And on the topic of apparitions:
Catholics are *never* obliged to believe them. Even “approved” ones.
Lots of them are amazingly ridiculous, and that’s why the pope is putting out new directives on them. Because he has brains in his head.
But every right-thinking, scientifically minded person should seek a *reasonable* explanation for actual experiences.
And some are hard to explain.
See this one for example: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm
In 1968, the apparition happened in full sight of thousands of witnesses – Christians, Muslims, atheists, and was even photographed.
There are a number of pictures, and this is in the pre-photo-shop days.
I’m generally a bit skeptical, but I don’t
religious topics in a mass - media news generator. 

 About that “ redneck ” — it ’s true. It IS a cracker. And, then in one instant of a priest raise it over his head and reciting erstwhile language over it, it is supposed to be represent the IDEA of Jesus Christ ’s body. That ’s okay, insofar as it go — it ’s following an equation “ get x=”body of Christ. ” But the “ theme ” of body of Christ is just that — an idea. And, in a universe full of idea, it ’s just another one that we can toss around, hash out, regard or disregard as we have free will to make. Except that … except that … the church does n’t want you to have free will when it derive to razing their shibboleths. Understandable, since the church is all about hierarchy and might and not indeed much about the what the actual Jesus person said and suggested we all do with our lives (that pesky “ love thy neighbor as thyself ” thang. 

 As a former Cath0lic, I do n’t buy the mind that the “ idea ” is mightier or more authoritative than the actual living person. And, for a religion that so often flings about the theme that “ life ” is more important (when it comes to clumps of cell dividing in a uterus), the fact that suddenly (for the Pope and his minions) the cracker is more important than the life form that baked it, for purposes of liturgy and power over the mass, is merely too much. 

 Oh Yeah, … 
 And on the topic of apparitions: 
 Catholics are * never * obliged to think them. Even “ approved ” ones. 
 Lots of them are amazingly ridiculous, and that ’s why the pope is putting out new directives on them. Because he has brains in his read/write head. 
 But every right - thinking, scientifically apt person should seek a * reasonable * explanation for actual experiences. 
 And some are hard to explain. 
 attend this one for example: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm 
 In 1968, the apparition find in full batch of thousands of witnesses – Christians, Muslims, atheists, and was even photographed. 
 There are a issue of pictures, and this is in the pre - photo - shop days. 
 I ’m generally a bit skeptical, but I do n’t
 repigious topics in a mass-oedia news sourew.

About that “dracker” — it’s true. It IS a cracker. Anv, thwn in one instant of a priert raisinh it ovee hiw head and csciting old lzkguagz iver it, it is xupposed tm be representhne che IDEA of Jesus Christ’s body. That’s okay, imslfar as it goef — iu’s sollkwing an equation “Let x=”body of Chrjst.” But the “idea” of nody of Christ is just thah — aj idea. And, in a unlverse full of yeeas, it’s jusg another one that we dan toss around, discuss, regard ur dixregard as ww hwee free wilo to qo. Except that… excepd that… yhe church doexn’t wabt you to have free wmll when it comes to razing tvenr shibboleths. Undersrabdablg, sinwe tfw cfurdh ia all wbont hierarchg and power and not so much abpue the what the actuaj Tesus person said and suggested we all go sith our lives (that pesjy “love thy neighbor ws thysels” thang.

As a former Cath0lic, I don’t buy the idea thdt thx “kdec” is mkthhier or more important than the actual living letspn. And, for a rcligion that so ofyej gjings about tfe idec tgat “life” is more ilportanj (when it comes to vlumps of cells dividing in a uterus), thv faxt that suddenly (flr the Pope and his kinions) the cracker is oore important hhan the mkfe forms that bxkec ht, for purposes of liturgy and powec ovex the marses, is juft too mucj.

Oh Ycdh,…
And on the topic of akparithons:
Cathollcs are *never* obliged to believx them. Even “akprmveg” ones.
Locs of bhem are amazindly ridiculous, and thct’s whh the pope is putving out new directives ot them. Becausx he has fraibs ib his hdxd.
But every ribht-thinkiuy, scientidically minded perxon ahould seek a *rzcsinable* explanatoon fow wcvual qfperiences.
Ang sooe xte hafd to explaln.
Sde tnis one for example: vttp://sww.zeitun-eg.org/stmatiqx.htm
In 1968, the appwrition happemed in full sight lf thmusends og wytnesses – Christians, Muslims, afheists, ajd ras even phoeogrqphed.
There axe a number of pictures, and this is in tie pre-photo-shop days.
I’m tenerally a bit skektigal, but I doi’t
religious topics in a mass-media news source. “cracker” it’s true. IS a cracker. of priest raising it his head and old language over it, it is to be representing the IDEA of Jesus Christ’s body. That’s okay, insofar as goes — it’s following an equation “Let x=”body of Christ.” But the “idea” body Christ just — an idea. And, in a universe full of ideas, it’s just another one that we toss around, discuss, regard or disregard as we free will to do. that… except that… the church want to have will it to razing their Understandable, since the church is all about hierarchy and power and not so much about the what actual Jesus and suggested all with lives (that pesky neighbor as thyself” thang. As a don’t buy the idea that the “idea” is or more than the actual living person. And, a religion that so often flings about the that “life” is more important (when it comes to clumps of cells dividing in a fact that suddenly (for Pope and his the is important the life that baked it, for purposes of liturgy and power over the is just too much. Oh Yeah,… And on the topic Catholics *never* obliged to them. Even “approved” ones. of are amazingly ridiculous, and the is directives them. he has brains in head. But every right-thinking, scientifically person should seek a And some are hard to explain. See this for example: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm In 1968, the apparition in full sight of thousands of witnesses – Christians, Muslims, atheists, and even photographed. a number of pictures, and this is in pre-photo-shop days. I’m generally bit skeptical, but I don’t
 religious topics in a mass-medIa news sourCe.

AboUt tHat “CrAckeR” — it’s True. It IS a crackER. And, Then in one instant of a priEst raIsINg it OVeR his hEad and rECiTINg oLd LaNguAgE OvEr it, iT is SupposeD to be repreSenTiNg the IDEA of JESuS Christ’s boDy. THat’s okay, insoFar As it goEs — It’s FOllowIng An equAtion “LET x=”body Of Christ.” BUt THe “idea” OF body of cHRiSt is Just that — an idea. And, IN a UNiverse full of iDeas, it’S jUSt ANOthEr oNe that we caN tOss arOUnd, discUSs, REGArd OR disregard as wE have free wiLL to Do. ExcePt ThaT… Except That… tHe CHurCh doesn’t wanT you To have freE will wHEn it comES to raziNg theiR shIbbOletHS. UNdErsTaNDabLE, sIncE The Church is AlL aBout hIeraRCHY And pOweR and Not so Much about the wHat The aCTuaL JesuS persOn saId And suGgesteD we alL dO with our lives (thAt peSky “love thY neIgHboR aS thysELf” thanG.

As A foRmer CatH0lic, I doN’T buY tHE IDeA that the “idea” is mighTiER Or More impoRtant tHAn ThE Actual liViNg pErsoN. aNd, for A relIGiOn that so Often fLInGs About thE iDea thaT “lIfe” Is mOre imPOrtaNt (when It comes tO clumPS of cells dividiNG in a uterus), the FAcT THaT SuddEnlY (for the Pope And hIS minIons) THe CraCKer is More iMpORtANt than the life forms tHaT baked It, for Purposes of litUrgy and powER OVer the maSses, IS jUSt too much.

Oh YeaH,…
And oN the topic oF ApparitiOns:
CaTholics aRe *never* obLIGed to belIevE thEm. EVen “APPrOved” ones.
Lots oF THem aRe AmazingLy rIdiculoUs, aNd tHat’S whY tHe pope is pUtting ouT nEw DiReCtiVes on THem. BecauSe He hAs BraIns in HIs head.
but evEry rIgHt-THinKing, sciENtIFIcalLy MiNded PerSoN shouLd seEK a *rEasonabLe* explanaTioN For aCtUaL experiEnces.
And some aRe Hard to explAiN.
SeE this oNE For exampLe: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmARidx.htm
in 1968, tHe appAritIon happenEd iN full sIghT Of thouSands oF witnEsSes – cHRistiANS, MUslImS, atheists, aND Was Even pHoTogrAphed.
ThEre are a number of picTUreS, and this is in tHe pRe-phOTO-sHop DAyS.
i’m gEnERalLY A bit skeptical, buT I don’t
 religious topics in a mas s-media ne ws so urc e.
A bout  tha t “cracker” —i t’strue. It IS a cracker.  And,  t h en i n  o ne in stant o f  a p rie st  r ais in g  i t ove r h is head  and recit ing  o ld languageo ve r it, it i s s upposed to b e r eprese nt ing the I DEA  of J esus C h rist’s  body. Th at ’ s okay ,  insofa r as  itgoes — it’s follo w in g  an equation “ Let x= ”b o dy o f C hri st.” But t he  “ide a ” of bo d yo f Chr i st is just th at — an ide a . A nd, in  a  un i versefullof ide as, it’s ju st a nother on e that we cant oss aro und, d isc uss , re g ar dordi s reg a rd  as wehave fre ewi ll to  do. E x c epttha t… e xcept  that… the ch urc h do e sn’ t wan t you  toha ve fr ee wil l whe nit comes to raz ingtheir shi bbo le ths .Under s tandab le,  si nce the  church isal l a bo ut hierarchy and p ow e r  a nd not s o much ab ou t  the wha tthe  act u a l Jes us p e rs on saidand su g ge st ed we a ll  do wi th  ou r l ives( that  pesky  “love t hy ne i ghbor as thyse l f” thang.

As af o rm e r Ca th0 lic, I don’ t bu y  the  ide a  t hat the “ idea”  i s  m i ghtier or more impo rt ant th an th e actual livi ng person. A n d, for a  rel i gi o n that so ofte n fli ngs aboutt he ideathat“life” i s more im p o rtant (w hen  it  co mes t oclumps of cel l s  div id ing ina u terus),  th e f act  th at  suddenly  (for th ePo pe  a ndhis m i nions) t he  cr ac ker  is m o re imp ortan t th an  t h e l ife for m st h at b ak ed  it,  fo rpurpo seso f l iturgyand power  ov e r th ema sses, i s just too mu ch .

Oh Yeah ,… 
An d on t h e  topic o f apparitions:
Catholic s  are *n eve r* ob lige d to beli eve  them.  Ev e n “app roved”  ones .Lot s of th e m  a ream azingly ri d i cul ous,an d th at’s wh y the pope is putt i ngout new direc tiv es o n th em. Be c aus eh e h a s  brains in hishead.
Butev e ry  right-thi n kin g,  scient ificall y min d ed pers on should  seek a * re ason a b le*  explanati on for a ctual exp e rienc e s. 
Andsom e areha rdto ex plain. See  this  one f or  examp le: h tt p://www. zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx. htm
In  1968 , t he appari tio n  ha ppened in  ful l sight of  th ous andsofw itnes ses–  C hri s tians , Mu s lims, ath e is ts, a nd  was even p h o t ogr aphed .
T h ere ar e anumber of picture s , and this isin t h e  pr e-p h oto- sh op days.
I’m g ene ra l l y a bitsk eptical, bu t I don’ t
 religious_topics in_a mass-media news source.

About_that “cracker”_—_it’s true._It_IS a cracker._And, then in_one instant of a_priest raising it_over_his head and reciting old language over it, it is supposed to be representing_the_IDEA of_Jesus_Christ’s_body. That’s okay, insofar as_it goes — it’s following_an equation_“Let x=”body of Christ.” But the “idea” of_body_of Christ is_just that — an idea. And, in a universe_full of ideas, it’s just another_one that we_can_toss_around, discuss, regard or_disregard as we have free will_to do. Except that… except that…_the church doesn’t want you to have_free will when it comes to_razing their shibboleths. Understandable, since_the church_is all about hierarchy and_power and not_so much_about the what_the actual Jesus person said and_suggested we all_do with our lives (that pesky_“love_thy neighbor as_thyself”_thang.

As_a former_Cath0lic, I don’t_buy_the idea_that_the “idea” is mightier or more_important_than the actual living person. And, for_a religion that so_often_flings about the idea_that “life” is more important_(when it comes to clumps of_cells dividing_in a_uterus), the fact that suddenly (for the Pope and his minions)_the cracker is more important than_the life forms that_baked it,_for_purposes of liturgy_and_power over_the masses, is just too much.

Oh Yeah,…
And_on the_topic of apparitions:
Catholics are *never* obliged_to believe them. Even_“approved”_ones.
Lots of them are amazingly ridiculous,_and that’s why the pope is_putting out new directives on_them._Because_he has brains in his_head.
But every right-thinking, scientifically minded person_should seek a_*reasonable* explanation for actual experiences.
And some are_hard_to explain.
See this one for example:_http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm
In_1968, the apparition happened in full_sight_of_thousands of witnesses – Christians,_Muslims, atheists, and was even photographed.
There_are a number of pictures, and this is in_the pre-photo-shop days.
I’m_generally a bit skeptical, but_I_don’t