this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
873 points (98.4% liked)

Funny

6818 readers
786 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Interesting take. There's the standard conservative anti-welfare message, but also very old-fashioned anti-catholicism. I guess this is from a conservative US version of Protestantism. But which denomination exactly? Or is that standard fare for evangelicals these days?

[–] Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I see the anti-catholicism?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

It always comes down to transubstantiation versus consubstantiation.

-Lisa Simpson

I don't think that the whole transubstantiation issue is big for Catholics, in practice. But they are supposed to believe that during mass, bread and wine literally turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Protestants have a slightly different take. Maybe it only becomes an issue in the context of the British domination of Ireland. I'm not sure, but at least in some Protestant/Anglican circles the Catholic belief was/is considered barbaric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Anglicanism

Maybe it's derived from 19th century Anglicanism, when there were poor houses and Famine Roads?

Side note: As a neutral person (ie atheist), I find the retelling of the "feeding of the multitude" rather dubious. The anti-welfare message isn't there. It's a common conservative talking point in the US, that government welfare makes people dependent. The thing about eating Jesus is from elsewhere. It doesn't belong in that story. The author adapted these pieces from the bible and made inserted their own teachings.

It's funny how little connection there is between scripture and actual teachings. For abortion, they bothered to change the text.