Reply #28

In the discussion thread: The Gluten-Free Host Controversy [View all]

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 09:16 PM

pnwmom (43,092 posts)

28. And why should the definition of bread require gluten? Who made up that definition?

It's not anywhere in the bible.

Celiacs eat bread all the time, with guar gum or xanthum gum instead of gluten. Just not rye or wheat bread.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

105 replies	Author	Time	Post
The Gluten-Free Host Controversy [View all]	MineralMan	Jul 2012	OP
Many folks just pass on the wine,so the gluten intolerant folks should just skip the bread.	virgogal	Jul 2012	#1
But what would they dip into the cup if they have no wafer or bread? nt	Ilsa	Jul 2012	#2
And what's more, how can they take the wine if hosts	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#10
And why should the definition of bread require gluten? Who made up that definition?	pnwmom	Jul 2012	#28
Your church did. n/t	trotsky	Jul 2012	#30
Some men in my Church did. Strange things happen	pnwmom	Jul 2012	#31
Those men ARE your church.	trotsky	Jul 2012	#34
They comprise less than half the Church.	pnwmom	Jul 2012	#40
But they dictate the rules.	trotsky	Jul 2012	#48
The rules that no one follows	pnwmom	Jul 2012	#54
Amazing gymnastics!	trotsky	Jul 2012	#56
Then are they really Catholics?	Scootaloo	Jul 2012	#79
Nothing,just pass their empty hand over it.	virgogal	Jul 2012	#36
They can't.	Goblinmonger	Jul 2012	#6
No, taking in one form only is sufficient. But even that would be a problem	pnwmom	Jul 2012	#29
What should gluten-intolerant alcoholics do? And what happens when	pnwmom	Jul 2012	#25
Wine with the alcohol removed	meow2u3	Jul 2012	#35
I just wouldn't take communion in that case.	virgogal	Jul 2012	#37
I remember hearing about a girl who was severely allergic to gluten.	backscatter712	Jul 2012	#3
There are so many levels of information in your post	EvolveOrConvolve	Jul 2012	#4
The wheat protein is in the gluten. Rumor is that is what interacts with your DNA.	freshwest	Jul 2012	#5
Yes, but that is the problem, really.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#7
It's not a loving thing to do in any case to reject someone because they are different. Evangelical	freshwest	Jul 2012	#16
Well, if transsubstantiation DID occur	skepticscott	Jul 2012	#17
Well, now, there's another knotty issue.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#21
Can I alert on you for being logical	Ilsa	Jul 2012	#32
Alas, no...as much as the thought is appreciated..	skepticscott	Jul 2012	#39
Lutheran (ELCA) here	Freddie	Jul 2012	#38
That's typical. The Lutheran church is more flexible	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#58
I like to tell people	Freddie	Jul 2012	#80
That's a pretty good description, I think.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#89
I remember reading about this some time ago.	trotsky	Jul 2012	#8
You know what amuses me?	EvolveOrConvolve	Jul 2012	#9
Oh dear.	trotsky	Jul 2012	#11
I believe the doctrine says that it is	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#12
Well golly, that doesn't sound like it fits the laws of physics	EvolveOrConvolve	Jul 2012	#13
Clearly, miracles are beyond the bounds of those "laws."	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#15
The problem may have been resolved, but I'm uncertain:	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#14
Myers did it better	rug	Jul 2012	#18
Odd that you should mention that.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#20
I will as soon as you clarify the differences between	rug	Jul 2012	#23
Sorry. This thread is about something else.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#44
Yes, it is about something else.	rug	Jul 2012	#47
Did what?	trotsky	Jul 2012	#24
Considering he marked his own four year anniversary, I'd say PZ does.	rug	Jul 2012	#26
And considering you marked it by posting about it, clearly you do too.	trotsky	Jul 2012	#27
Of course I do. Monumental acts of stupidity should not be forgotten.	rug	Jul 2012	#33
that act was done out of sincerely held religious beliefs	Warren Stupidity	Jul 2012	#41
You do not exhibit a nuanced mind.	rug	Jul 2012	#49
where "nuance" here means "I speak nonsense and never admit errors"	Warren Stupidity	Jul 2012	#53
I gave you too much credit. You do not know even nuance.	rug	Jul 2012	#65
I was, indeed, asking a doctrinal question.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#45
As I stated below, if this is the case, I invite you to the Catholic and Orthodox Group.	rug	Jul 2012	#52
No, I think I'll keep it right here in the Religion Group.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#55
Suit yourself.	rug	Jul 2012	#64
I will do just that, as always.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#67
As will I.	rug	Jul 2012	#71
Then we are agreed!	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#74
Actually, no.	rug	Jul 2012	#76
Gods, people will argue about the dumbest things.	Evoman	Jul 2012	#19
it is no longer bread it is god flesh with the accidental properties of bread.	Warren Stupidity	Jul 2012	#42
Apparently, they are triggered, though.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#59
Too hard for me. Still wondering why witches float and nonwitches sink.	dimbear	Jul 2012	#22
Because.... They're made of wood?	jeepnstein	Jul 2012	#46
What a great movie. Classic.	dimbear	Jul 2012	#82
Does anyone have sufficient Greek, and know the original words in the gospels,	muriel_volestrangler	Jul 2012	#43
It's a bit complicated. The assumption is that	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#50
If you want a discussion on this topic, I invite you to the Catholc and Orthodox Group.	rug	Jul 2012	#51
There is a discussion ongoing right here,	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#57
I can see that.	rug	Jul 2012	#62
And so? What of the other posts that are actually discussing	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#66
This exchange grapplles wth "the issue" you raised.	rug	Jul 2012	#70
Those are not my posts. I do not control what others write.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#73
You responded to it, which is itself a response to your post.	rug	Jul 2012	#77
You quoted me! How fun.	Evoman	Jul 2012	#95
"God wants you to have the shits."	rug	Jul 2012	#96
God has little to do with the RCC's doctrine regarding the recipe	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#97
I see. This is what you consider "asking a doctrinal question."	rug	Jul 2012	#99
Indeed it is. The question is whether it is a valid doctrine or a false one.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#101
Bullshit.	rug	Jul 2012	#104
Well, that's concise I suppose.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#105
Nice try	Goblinmonger	Jul 2012	#60
And to think I almost fell for it, too...	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#61
Ah, but he said he was asking a doctrinal question.	rug	Jul 2012	#63
But, rug, what is your opinion regarding	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#68
If you wish to discuss the form of transubstantiation as defined by the RCC, you know where to go.	rug	Jul 2012	#75
Hey, here's an idea...	Goblinmonger	Jul 2012	#78
Hey, here's another idea...	rug	Jul 2012	#81
Are you saying transubstantiation is stupidity?	Goblinmonger	Jul 2012	#69
It appears that is exactly what he is saying.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#72
Hey, I'm over here.	rug	Jul 2012	#84
Not at all. I am saying that a discussion about transubstantiation and shit is stupid.	rug	Jul 2012	#83
Huh, I just reread the OP and there wasn't any mention of shit in there.	Goblinmonger	Jul 2012	#85
You didn't read #9.	rug	Jul 2012	#86
That's not the OP	Goblinmonger	Jul 2012	#87
No, it's part of the "discussion" engendered by the OP.	rug	Jul 2012	#88
What's to deconstruct?	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#90
Quite a bit, actually.	rug	Jul 2012	#91
So tell me, how did you deconstruct it.	Goblinmonger	Jul 2012	#92
I'll tell you after I get someone to translate the Aramaic.	rug	Jul 2012	#93
How are you doing with that Aramaic translation of	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#98
Slow going.	rug	Jul 2012	#100
To what echo chamber are you referring?	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#102
I don't think so, really.	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#103
It's going to be difficult to find a different meaning for that verse, I'm	MineralMan	Jul 2012	#94

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.