[rjsimmon]

By contrast, what we eat in the Eucharist is the real and substantial “Him,” the living body. Cannibalism, despite the superstition of the pagans, is a kind of polar opposite. Instead of the self, all they get is meat. But we, instead of meat, get the self.

That is severely twisted logic. There is no transubstantiation. We do not eat the literal body and blood of Christ. Cannibalism has always been, and always shall be, an abomination.

[Mad Dawg]

Where’s the twist?

I wasn’t defending the dogma. Not here. I already have a life. Im not going to spend too much of it on people who don’t know the difference between what a thing is and what it is made of.

I would add that to the person with a limited acquaintance with Euclid, Lobachevsky might seem to suffer from severely twisted logic. A person who can’t give a coherent account of what Trent means by “substance” can’t argue against the idea of transubstantiation. Not “shouldn’t”, can’t.

That’s not disrespectful. It’s just that if you’re going to play contract bridge, it’s not going to go well if you don’t know any bidding conventions.

[Elsie]

Cannibalism has always been, and always shall be, an abomination.

Fact:

A cannibal will NOT eat a clown.

They taste funny.