Coworker A (holding up a small round corn chip): Hey look, this chip is just like a communion wafer.
Me: Communion wafers cannot be made of corn; they have to be wheat-based.
Coworker B (surprised): Really?
Me: Yeah, I think so. There weren't Tostidos or corn tortillas at the Last Supper, after all.
Coworker B: Of course, some people think that the wafer doesn't stay wheat-based. You know, transubstantiation - it becomes the body of Christ.
Coworker C: And if you believe that, you're a f*cking moron.
Me: You just called almost a billion people f*cking morons.
Coworker C: Well, so be it. There are a billion people who love Baywatch too. That doesn't mean it's good.
So which is more preposterous (or miraculous, depending on your perspective): transubstantiation or the world-wide popularity of Baywatch?
3 comments:
Well, transubstantiation is certainly more preposterous. The idea that the God of the universe should submit to being laid on a common metal plate is sheerly beyond logic, while men sitting around drooling over surgically enhanced women is quite natural, and on the order of men calling other people morons as a way to gratify their own egos.
More miraculous, I suppose, depends on your view of what constitutes a miracle. If you see it as a violation of the laws of nature, then transubstatiation wins again as certainly the popularity of Baywatch is a demonstration of the basest elements of nature. But if you see miracles as the transcendent shining through and being made tangible by means of the natural...then maybe it's a wash, as the dogma of transubstantiation tends to deny a miracle of this sort, and the popularity of Baywatch has no such miracle to offer.
Transubstantiation, but not because of anything to do with the Eucharist itself. Substance theories in general are preposterous. Baywatch is merely silly.
That was really funny! Thanks for the laugh!
Post a Comment