You said I was wrong and you haven’t shown that I was. How did I misrepresent what Dio said? I never reinterpreted his words; I used the exact quotes that you and others provided.
Does “gone on to say” mean that Dio began to contradict himself? Because then I agree with you. He started with stating that “Eucharist” referred only to the ceremony, period, full stop. He then started the standard Diogenes flailing and deflection–read my chronology earlier on this page for illustration.
He was wrong. As he typically does, he went on to argue something completely different to “prove” he was right, always right and had never, ever said anything wrong. Despite the fact that he did.
He may have somewhere in this thread, but I’m going by what Ibn Warraq said in post #175. Ibn was wrong, and he’s the one that seemed perturbed that Dio couldn’t admit to being wrong. He’s now being a hypocrite. He and two others have gone on to claim I was wrong about something and are failing to point it out.
I didn’t say any of this. You are inferring what I did not imply.
I provided this quote:
Your quote contradicts this.
I provided this quote:
…which is Diogenes waffling from the quote above.
I provided this quote:
…which is partially true, it is sometimes used to refer to the wafers and wine as a collective whole, but it’s not always used that way.
I provided this quote:
This is incorrect, “The Eucharist” can and does refer to one host in common Catholic understanding and vernacular.
Most importantly, I provided this quote:
This is the crux of his argument, that desecration of ONE host cannot be properly described as “desecration of the Eucharist,” when in fact, this is the exact definition of it.
x-ray vision, I think you’re talking past each other. You are reacting to something selected (unfortunately) out of context, and your read of that particular quote (as a starting point) seems reasonable. But I think others in the thread already lived through the whole exchange, so they have a different starting point. It’s not unusual to find crumbs of verifiable facts in a Dio exchange like this, but that would ignore the greater point, which is that it’s part of a larger non sequitur that Dio constructed to obscure the fact that he was wrong and can’t possibly admit that.
Actually, what I said was "I don’t think that the entire eucharist is considered to be “desecrated” if someone takes a host, and I certainly never said “because it’s just a fucking cracker.” I am not disputing anything about how Catholics perceive the eucharist.
Notice how, although Diogenes has continued arguing his case since my last post he has presented no evidence that his view of reality is actually the correct one. All he has done is say that Bricker and others have not proved their case. Even if you grant that (even though I think he has made his case very well), it does not follow that Diogenes is right. Given a false argument for a premise all one can say with certainty is the truth of the proposition is unknown. Bad arguments for a premise do not show that the premise is incorrect. You can still have true premises defended by bad arguments.
It seems that Diogenes does not get this simple point of logic in the way he debates.
Calculon.
It is up to those asserting that not eating a wafer received during communion is a crime to prove it. Bricker has not done anything but try to present a tortured theory of how it could be prosecuted. I find the real possibility of such a theory succeeding in court to be highly implausible. Furthermore, no one can cite a single example of anyone ever being arrested or prosecuted for it, not even that kid who got jumped in a student union.
Strat is correct. You can’t expect to be taken seriously in this debate over exactly how wrong Dio was, and when, if you haven’t been following from the beginning. :smack:
I take it there’s no other content remaining here?
I haven’t been wrong about a goddamn thing.
These are your words, Diogenes, I’m not paraphrasing here. You are trying to argue that 1) the host isn’t “The Eucharist,” and 2) that it takes more than desecrating the host to desecrate “The Eucharist.” That’s your argument, and it’s completely incorrect, despite whatever it is that x-ray vision read on Wikipedia.
Well, that’s good enough for me. I didn’t realize you had the weight of your opinion supporting your opinion. That’s completely different than saying, “No, I’m right.”
Like I said earlier, you have become really funny.
Which one of my quotes contradicts that?
Nothing is “always” used one way. Some people may call the wafer alone a eucharist, but that’s an unreasonable nitpick. From what I’ve found from reliable cites, he’s correct- individual wafers are not “eucharists.”
Sorry, I do expect to be taken seriously. I have followed the whole thread but I don’t recall everything that was said, and that’s irrelevant. I never claimed Dio wasn’t wrong about anything; I claimed a specific claim Ibn Warraq made was wrong and so were the claims about me being wrong.
I know, I actually laughed out loud at that last one.
Your reading comprehension skills leave a dramatic amount to be desired.
If you went to private school then your parents should demand a refund. If you went to public school, you should offer the taxpayers one.
It’s the train wreck aspect of his logic that keeps me coming back to these things, I’ll admit. I want to see just how far he’ll take his denial. It’s like the Jerry Springer show. I know it’s not worthy, and that I should ignore it. But sometimes I can’t help but watch.
It really has become amusing (and sad, in a way), and I no longer permit any annoyance at the horribly bad form he shows. His contributions speak for themselves, but I’ll play along if I’m bored.
Diogenes said in one post that the “primary” meaning was the ceremony, and in another post that the ONLY meaning was the ceremony. These statements contradict each other.
This is wrong. Typically, the host is not called “a eucharist,” that’s true. However, it is very typically referred to as “The Eucharist.” I will give you an example of this. The Catholic Church has a tradition called “Eucharistic Adoration.” The priest will place ONE host inside a frame on a stand, called a monstrance, and people will pray and mediate before it. If you read that wikipedia page I linked to, you will find several references to this ONE host as “The Eucharist.” Here is just one example of this usage from the article:
Those are not my words and that is not my argument. Nothing in what you quoted supports your inferences about them. I said a wafer is not "a eucharist, and I didn’t saying anything about what it takes to desecrate a eucharist except that I didn’t “think,” that the rest of a eucharist would be considered desecrated if someone didn’t eat their cracker. I’m still not convinced that would be the case. Yes, I know you’re going to say that it makes no sense to talk about the “entire eucharist,” or the “rest of the eucharist,” but you know what I mean. I’m saying I don’t believe that an action like Cook’s, “desecrates” the consecrated nature of the rest of the collective bread and wine consecrated during that mass or invalidates anyone else’s communion.
Moreover, none of this stuff about Catholic perceptions has anything to do with my opinion on whether it’s a crime, or a “hate crime,” or if it is injurious to anyone. As far as I’m concerned, Catholic perceptions of the eucharist are not relevant to that conversation. I do not dispute that they think taking a wafer home is a “desecration.” I just don’t CARE that they think it’s a desecration. I don’t think anyone else is bound to humor that belief or that they’re causing any injury if they take a wafer back to their seat or put a nail in a wafer they got in the mail. I believe that both consecration and descration are completely imaginary phenomena and so cannot be called injurious.
Actually causing disruption during a mass would be one thing, but covertly absconding with a wafer harrasses nobody, no matter what kind of religious beliefs they have about it.