A Florida candidate for US Senate has come under criticism after it emerged that he once killed a goat and drank its blood.
Augustus Sol Invictus admits he "sacrificed" the animal as part of a pagan ritual, but it was not "sadistic" as some of his critics have alleged.
The Libertarian Party candidate is unlikely to win the seat.
Adrian Wyllie, the state party's chairman, has resigned to draw attention to Invictus' candidacy.
In 2013, Invictus walked from central Florida to the Mojave Desert and spent a week there fasting. When he returned to Florida, he killed the goat to give thanks.
"I did sacrifice a goat. I know that's probably a quibble in the mind of most Americans," he told the Associated Press news agency.
"I sacrificed an animal to the god of the wilderness ... Yes, I drank the goat's blood."
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 8:56 pm
by Lord Jim
I don't believe him. I think he's shrewdly trying to lock up that all important pagan voting bloc...
The Libertarian Party candidate is unlikely to win the seat.
Another nominee for the fiercely competitive, "Understatement Of The Year" award...
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:02 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:07 pm
by wesw
his "happiness journey" made him thirsty....
' Augustus Sol was a merry ol' pol'
and a merry ol' pol' was he
he called for his knife and he called for his goat
and drank what it did bleed....
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:40 pm
by Lord Jim
I hope he remembered to wear his goat leggings...
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:49 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
"I sacrificed an animal to the god of the wilderness ... Yes, I drank the goat's blood."
My kinda guy
I'll vote for him.
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:57 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Was David Cameron there?
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:01 pm
by wesw
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:55 pm
by Scooter
So when Roman Catholics drink blood in their rituals, it's a non-event, but when pagans do it, it's news?
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:59 pm
by Guinevere
There is a difference between drinking wine that one believes is transmogrified (or transubstantiated) into blood and actually drinking blood.
Isn't there?
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:02 pm
by Big RR
Scooter--If he could change wine into goat blood, it would be new as well.
then again, last night I changed a couple of cookies into fat..
Guin--I don't know, I would think it's one of the age old mysteries. Then again, when I have been at RC masses it is rare that wine was served to the congregation--the priest usually drank the entire chalice.
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:06 pm
by Lord Jim
This guy should be absolutely thrilled by this...
He's just gotten more publicity than all the Libertarian candidates for the Senate in the '16 election cycle (and all the Libertarian candidates for the Governorships, the House and state legislative seats, for that matter) are likely to get, combined...
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:12 pm
by Guinevere
Big RR wrote:Scooter--If he could change wine into goat blood, it would be new as well.
then again, last night I changed a couple of cookies into fat..
Guin--I don't know, I would think it's one of the age old mysteries. Then again, when I have been at RC masses it is rare that wine was served to the congregation--the priest usually drank the entire chalice.
Yeah, I forgot about that. We Episcopalians take the wafer and the wine and believe it's a spiritual practice but don't buy into that transmog/sub bit.
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:18 pm
by Scooter
Guinevere wrote:There is a difference between drinking wine that one believes is transmogrified (or transubstantiated) into blood and actually drinking blood.
Isn't there?
1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: 'He took bread...' 'He took the cup filled with wine...' The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ...
Catechism of the Catholic Church. London: Geoffrey Chapman, Revised Edition, 1999, pp. 299-300.
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:29 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Scooter of course demonstrates the true meaning and effect of
in a way surpassing understanding
.
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:30 pm
by Scooter
And if one wanted to push the point, because Jesus was both human and divine, every Catholic Eucharist is an act of cannibalism. What's a goat sacrifice or two by comparison?
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:36 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Ah, an oblique reference to the later development of protestant thought - that the Roman invention is in fact blasphemy in that it posits the continuing need to sacrifice Christ when God's word declares that his sacrifice was once, for all. It's reflected in that protestant churches have any empty cross (if they have one at all) while Roman creeds love to show his body bleeding on the cross - they never want him to come down.
So some say
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:55 pm
by Big RR
Meade--I think some more traditional protestant churches use crucifixes--I've seen them in Lutheran and Anglican/episcopal churches, e.g. When I was a kid our Lutheran church replaced the crucifix with an empty cross and we were told it was to emphasize the resurrection (hence the cross was empty) rather than the crucifixion, but crucifixes were still worn by clergy and lay people if they preferred them to the empty cross (and FWIW, the removal of the crucifix over the altar wasn't all that well received by some. the only time I recall as big a fight was when we switched the language in the Lord's prayer to be "Our father who art in heaven" vs "which art in heaven". Sometimes people can get too bogged down in the trivial.
As for transubstantiation, Lutherans made the change not physical but spiritual, and called it consubstantiation, so that we left the "supper" full of Christ (I believe Luther called all partakers "little christs" filled to go out and do his work. And if I'm not mistaken, modern RC doctrine had backed off from transubstantiation to a a belief of a "real presence" of god/jesus in the elements (without having to explain what that presence is); I think this may also be the Anglican/episcopal view. Maybe some here who are catholic can confirm (or deny) that.
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:21 pm
by Gob
Oh god.
Religion is such a fucking joke.
Re: But did it win him any votes?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:26 pm
by Big RR
Gob--I was thinking of the same scene when I wrote my post; it's very easy to get bogged down in trivia. And such trivia is the basis of most religious fights and wars.
