No one reading this thread believes that, with the possible exception of you.
And yet, when I suggested before that this might be your sticking point:
You responded:
So I think I’m done talking to you. Bye now.
This is a really good point. I wonder if there is a class-action suit there? (On behalf of Muslims, or gays, or Jews, or just about anyone who doesn’t believe in the magic crackers.)
I’m mostly serious.* Why shouldn’t all the world’s “heretics” be protected from the harm of a far greater harassment (i.e. ‘you will writhe in fiery agony for eternity unless you join our ridiculous cult!’) than cracker bashing?
*The only non-serious part is my belief that such a class-action suit could never even be seriously considered because of the special treatment enjoyed by big, organized groups of fairy-tale believers.
Bricker already explained to you that you are flat-out wrong on this, and he provided a cite that spoke to it. Do you have anything to actually counter that cite, something other than, “No, I was right, by my decree.”
BTW, it is laughable that you compare your knowledge of Catholicism to Bricker’s. You’ve never noticed a missal, you spent 2 pages of the thread arguing that Eucharist could only apply to the ceremony, etc. Bricker is a wealth of info on the faith. Stop it.
It is true the kid took the host, but if he said, “Amen” when handed it to him, it was understood he agreed that it was the Body of Christ, and the purpose was to consume it, not display or desacrate it in any way, so it was taken under false pretenses. Perhaps he was ignorant of the fact. But I wonder why he went to a Catholic service in the first place.
Does ANYBODY here believe that Diogenes knows what he’s talking about? With respect to either the law or Catholicism?
BTW, in times past, some people have expressed admiration for Dio’s knowledge of religion. I disagreed with that assessment, and this thread is an example of what I mean. Diogenes does know a lot of stuff, but he exaggerates the facts, overstates his knowledge, and ignores important nuances regarding religious scholarship. He also frequently bluffs his way through things that he doesn’t know. He also likes to excitedly seize on theories and viewpoints that paint religion in the most embarrassing light possible, with little regard for parsimony or fair assessments. And of course, when caught in an error, he will steadfastly hold his ground regardless of the facts.
Diogenes, that hole you’re digging is getting deeper. Deeper and deeper. I’d stop if I were you.
If you notice he didn’t say 'A" Eucharist, but “the” Eucharist, I have a relative that is a Catholic priest and he calls it the Eucharist!
Fine. My wife’s experience was different than you assert. But whatever. I was never Catholic, so all I can tell you is that it sounds wrong to me. It really doesn’t matter - the rites and beliefs you describe require such a bizarre and reality-disconnected way of thinking that you could call it a Eucharist wafer, a Eucharist, or a flippity-flappity-floop and it would all be the same to me. Your particular brand of circumscribed craziness and someone else’s sound about the same to me. Seems like that’s part of the original point of the thread.
JThunder, I think you are spot on here.
The only other thing that I would add is that Diogenes debating style in this thread is basically just to vigorously assert his own position, claim that the other position is not proven, and that must mean he is right by default.
What has been suprising to me is really how Diogenes appears to have no evidence at all for his belief in atheism. Despite repeated questioning of his reasons for atheism, all he seems to be able to come up with is the simply wrong view of the “logical default”. Or more on topic you could see the same mechanism at work in his discussion with Bricker and others about the legal ownership of the host. He didn’t provide any cites or evidence himself, or given any reason why he should be considered correct. All he did was just demand more and more exacting cites that detailed the minutua of his opponents claims, presumably with the hope that they wouldn’t be able to easily present in the information over the internet or would simply not bother and give up.
It is a really tedious and sleazy debate tactic to assert that if your opponent can’t prove their case then you must be correct. Either you have reasons and evidence for your beliefs, or you don’t, and in Diogenes case he has shown precious little in this thread.
Calculon.
I haven’t been wrong about a single thing and Bricker has done nothing but posit a stretched and implausible theory. We have yet to see a cite that a communion wafer carries any legally binding “conditions” on it. It carries religious conditions for Catholics, and Bricker is trying to pretend those conditions are legal obligations.
Let the record show that you could not show a cite that the communion wafer is a “conditional gift.”
Cite?
Hmm, you know what, I’m finding you funny these days. I am no longer annoyed by you, FWIW–your contributions are just becoming more and more pathetic. Wonder if that’s the progression of your contributions to this board, to the point where you can only poke the newbies? I’m curious, in a medium where your contribution is recorded for all to see, do you really believe no one can discern you were objectively wrong? It’s weird. Do you just figure most people are too lazy to check? Or in your head, is history something that can change to something different by the force of your will?
Anyway, just for laughs, you followed a standard Dio progression in this thread, something like this:[ul][li]You inaccurately corrected someone, asserting the the term “Eucharist” referred solely to the ceremony.[]Several people pointed out that was wrong.[]You obstinately dug in, in the face of actual cites contrary to your assertion, to state that it was the ceremony alone. As standard Dio evidence, you pointed out that you had never heard it referred to otherwise. And we all know that if you haven’t experienced something, it is an impossibility.[]At this point you seemed to sense you couldn’t bluff through what was flatly wrong, so you started to change the debate. Suddenly, it referred to something other than the ritual, it must only correctly refer to the bread and wine collectively (without explicitly acknowledging that this post, by itself, must mean you were originally wrong). An individual host could not, according to the Oracle of Minnesota, properly be considered individually as Eucharist.[]Even you perceived this was becoming a dead end for your refreshingly nuanced position. You then moved this critical debate along so that we could understand that your real objection was, apparently, the use of the incorrect article in referring to an individual consecrated wafer as “a Eucharist.” English pedants the world over erupted in celebration.[]The next wrinkle: what you clearly meant was that if a single wafer were treated irreverently, that did not mean that the “entire Eucharist” had been desecrated. It was an aspect lost on practicing Catholics in this thread, those without the requisite BAs in religion, anyway. Your point was, I can see now, that the Eucharist had only been reduced; so long as such a healthy stockpile existed, it was whiny to refer to the Eucharist as having been desecrated.[]Finally, and only with Sarahfeena’s typically firm but gentle guidance, you ultimately allowed that this one gap may exist in your encyclopedic knowledge of all things Catholic, and you conceded you were incorrect to say a host could not individually be referred to as “Eucharist.”[]This progression contributed to your later conclusion that in a thread where you conceded you were incorrect about something, you simultaneously maintained your unbeaten streak, having been correct on every single thing.[]This entire exchange was also interspersed with offhand comments that this was a trivial, semantic point, proving the corollary that issues become silly and beneath debate at the same rate it becomes clear that you were wrong. At any point prior to that, it’s good and noble and virtuous when you dig in intractably to enlighten people on the subject.[/ul]Seriously, does any of this ring a bell? I’m responding, of course, to your saying you have not been wrong on a single thing in this thread, that’s all. It’s also to perhaps help you see why people are dismissive of your contributions and don’t take you seriously except as a foil for pointless debate. I’m not saying it was a critical issue in this thread. In fact, the exchange continued only because you refuse to concede a simple point; it would have been over in a post with one “My bad” concession from you. Bricker provided you with a cite that says there is a legal concept that covers conditional gifts, and his explanation made clear that the conditions were not exclusive of religious ones. You were wrong on this, too. The legal concept doesn’t appear to have restrictions on any legal condition the giver might come up with. He also provided the conditions that are universally applied by the Church, and he explained multiple times that the recipient need not be aware of the conditions for the legal concept to be in play. Your unassailable counter to that continues to be, “No, I’m right.”[/li]
And finally, in a thread where you couldn’t remember ever seeing a missal in a Catholic church, where they are almost without fail present, where you did your “Eucharist dance,” as outlined above, you conclude your knowledge and experience make you the preferred expert on Catholicism over Bricker, whose credentials and contribution on such matters make that a silly comment indeed.
Anyway, I’m bored on a Saturday, so I thought I’d try to the impossible, to get you to see something objectively so. Not expecting it, of course.
-
I didn’t say I was an expert on Catholocism, I just said Bricker wasn’t an’t more knowledgable than I am. He’s not an expert either. It’s not an extraordinary claim to say that I know as much as any lay Catholic, which is all Bricker is.
-
I wasn’t wrong about “the eucharist,” vs. “a euchariust.” Each individual wafer is not an individyual eucharist.
-
That really is a trivial point not worth arguing about.
-
Bricker’s “conditional gift” theory regarding communion wafers is not a cite, it’s his attempt to stretch a legal theory to fit a circumstance. He has not produced a cite that any court has ever actually held this theory to be valid with regard to communion wafers, though, or that any prosecutor has ever even tried it. No one has even produced an example of anyone so much as being arrested for not eating their cracker. No one has come closing to showing that it’s a crime to take a wafer received during communion out of a church or out of a student union, much less back to one’s seat, and the very suggestion is, fankly, laughable.
How often do you suppose it comes up? The fact that no case has ever been prosecuted doesn’t mean the argument is without merit. It could mean it happens exceedingly infrequently, or that no one can be bothered to prosecute such a circumstance, or something else. Bricker’s argument was in response to the notion that the jerk described in the OP was blameless, and no legal concept could suggest otherwise. Bricker offered a reasonable argument to the contrary, with the cites that show this argument could be made. The fact that there’s not a case that ever tried it is meaningless. That doesn’t mean a case couldn’t be made. If you think it’s a non-starter, explain why his argument is incorrect.
Regarding the Eucharist, yes, you have in fact zeroed in on the one point out of many you made in that exchange that wasn’t flatly incorrect. So?
If Bricker’s theory has never so much as been tested, then it can’t be held up as some kind of dispositive cite.
Yes, by definition. It cannot be cited as a precedent, since it hasn’t been tested in court. Duh. That would also apply to your assertion that the courts would presumably dismiss such a notion as being without any legal merit.
That doesn’t mean either of your hypotheticals are invalid. I just tend to assign more weight to the guy who provides cites and makes an actual argument, rather than to the guy who endlessly repeats, “No, I’m right.”
It’s really not a trivial point, because the reason you argued it in the first place is to try to dismiss the whole incident as not being worth getting upset about, when in fact it’s quite, quite serious.
It’s really, really not. Not in the least.
