Student Kidnaps the Eucharist... PZ Myers to the Rescue!

The BBQ Pit
181

[QUOTE=Miller]
Dude, you thought that Muslims worship pigs. You are in no position to say anything about what religious people think, say, or do, because you are arguing from a position of utter, impenetrable, and absolute ignorance. Five minutes on wikipedia isn’t going to remedy that. I’d suggest you take the time to actually talk to some theists, and try to understand their beliefs and opinions, instead of just sneering at them out of a badly misplaced sense of intellectual superiority, but a) you’re too dumb for that to work, and b) it would be an unnecessary cruelty to the theists.
[/QUOTE]

I went to a fundamentalist christian church three times a week for 18 years. Trust me, I’ve talked to theists. I understand their beliefs.

I’m not as well versed in Muslim beliefs. My ignorance is not impenetrable, as I’ve demonstrating by learning new information. “Impenetrable ignorance” is a defining trait of a religious person, because, despite all evidence, they refuse to accept any new information that does not agree with what they already think.

Now that you have made an error by misusing the word “impenetrable,” you are no longer qualified to comment on anything. Because you are obviously a moron who couldn’t possibly know the definition of *any *English word, based on your ignorance of one of those words. Just like my making a mistake in one religion means I’m ignorant of all the others. Wow, living in your world is fun, although monochromatic.

182

Great. Now it’s a full-blown battle between the frothing atheists and the belligerent theists. Ad hominems, over-generalizations, arrogant preening, and other assortments of dickery all around. Put a fork in this thread. It’s done.

183

[QUOTE=Autolycus]
Great. Now it’s a full-blown battle between the frothing atheists and the belligerent theists. Ad hominems, over-generalizations, arrogant preening, and other assortments of dickery all around. Put a fork in this thread. It’s done.
[/QUOTE]

It’s a religious discussion in the Pit. What did you think was going to happen?

I enjoy it. It’s a place where you can act in a way that would be generally frowned upon in a social setting, or a work environment.

184

[QUOTE= Revtim]
A cracker that becomes a piece of God that you eat,
[/QUOTE]

I was just saying that this is a bit of an oversimplification- not that I don’t recognize that it sounds just as odd as DC8’s in space to a nonbeliever.

[QUOTE= Q.E.D.]
No. That would be assault. besides, as far as I know, none of those volunteers is claiming that Santa Claus is, in fact, a real entity nor are any of them claiming to actually be Santa Claus. Because that would be as crazy as claiming a priest can turn a cracker into the actual flesh of a 2000-year-past dead dude.
[/QUOTE]

No, it’d be battery.

Besides, the point is that insisting that someone’s belief is silly (the Salvation Army being a Christian organization) and insisting that your own belief in that silliness entitles you to disrespect them physically and socially, causing the goodness inherent in the whole affair to be ruined by your dickish badwill, is, well, dickish.

[QUOTE= Q.E.D.]
No, that’s not what I should have said, because it’s not accurate. The disruption was people trying to stop him from “stealing” it. No matter how many times you say otherwise won’t change that fact.
[/QUOTE]

No matter how many times you repeat “No, it’s not!” the fact is that stealing the Host is a disruption of the Mass.

[QUOTE= Shirley]
I went to a fundamentalist christian church three times a week for 18 years. Trust me, I’ve talked to theists.
[/QUOTE]

While this explains a lot, that doesn’t mean you’ve “talked to theists.” Of course, there’s really no telling you anything.

185

So help me understand this. At mass, the priest hands you a wafer, you put it in your mouth and return to your seat. You are saying that if the priest hands you a wafer, and you return to your seat without putting it in your mouth, you are “disrupting” the service.

What definition of “disrupt” are you using? I can’t imagine how returning to your seat without putting the wafer in your mouth could fit in to any standard definition of the word.

186

[QUOTE= Shirley]
So help me understand this. At mass, the priest hands you a wafer, you put it in your mouth and return to your seat. You are saying that if the priest hands you a wafer, and you return to your seat without putting it in your mouth, you are “disrupting” the service.

What definition of “disrupt” are you using? I can’t imagine how returning to your seat without putting the wafer in your mouth could fit in to any standard definition of the word.
[/QUOTE]

You really, REALLY should have actually LOOKED UP the word “disrupt” before you posted this.

Definition #2, if you’re thinking of being deliberately obtuse.

187

[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
I went to a fundamentalist christian church three times a week for 18 years. Trust me, I’ve talked to theists. I understand their beliefs.
[/quote]

Oh, I’m sure you’ve been around theists, much as you’ve been around lawyers. But in both cases, it’s pretty clear you’ve never actually talked to any of them. Talked at them, sure, you’re awfully good at that. But engaged in a real dialogue with them? Tried to understand their viewpoint, and why it’s different from yours? It’s pretty clear that you’re simply unequipped for that sort of exchange.

You thought that Muslims worship pigs. There are no words to express how profoundly insular and narrowminded you have to be to not have ever picked up on one of fundamental practices of the second largest religion in the world. You’re not just ignorant of religion, you’re ignorant of just how ignorant you are. You are ignorant squared.

This is not a trait you yourself have demonstrated in this thread. Learning one basic tenet of a major world religion does not show that you’re actually capable of understanding and digesting new ideas.

It’s actually, physically painful, watching you try to be clever.

188

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Cite?
[/QUOTE]

Bring us a cracker and we’ll analyze it.

189

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I am therefore proposing the following edit in the Gospel of Luke: But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. But if he also strikes that cheek, he’s an asshole and you should kick the shit out of him. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. But he persists and also wants your sandals, he’s probably a crackhead, and you can put a cap in his ass, because, really, who’s going to miss a crackhead?
[/QUOTE]

Aw, man, Bricker beat me to the joke. [scuffs toe in dirt]

Seriously, though…armed guards? Physically trying to restrain someone from walking off with a communion wafer? Death threats? There are a number of Catholics involved in this story that seriously need to re-read their Gospels.

Bill Donahue, in particular, really needs to STFU. “It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ.” Really, Bill? Nothing more vile? Really? Catholics of America, the Catholic League is claiming to speak for you. You might want to look into that.

This incident has probably cemented for me the fact that I never want anything to do with organized religion ever again. I’ve drifted back and forth between agnosticism and atheism for quite a while. But a comment I saw some time ago struck home with me: I’m not agnostic about Zeus. And I’m sure as hell not agnostic on the question of transubstantiation. It’s a wafer. It was a wafer before the priest said the blessing, it’s a wafer after the priest says the blessing, it’s a wafer in your digestive tract, and it’s a wafer in the sewer system afterwards. If it was a religion that was 20 years old instead of 2000, we’d be laughing at the cult leaders screaming over the offense to their magic biscuit. But it’s an old religion with, let’s be blunt, a lot of worshippers who aren’t dark-skinned foreigners, so we pretty up the language. Which would be fine with me–no skin off my nose what you do in the privacy of your own homes–except we’ve crossed to the point where a significant number of people are treating the fucking wafer with more respect than they care to grant to Professor Myers and Webster Cook. And that’s where I choose to get off the crazy train.

“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”

“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

These are the words of a faith I can respect, although I do not follow it myself. When more professed Christians show me some evidence that they’ve actually listened to these words of their professed saviour–when hateful Pharisees like Bill Donahue are no longer positioning themselves as the face of religion in America–then maybe I can respect the faith as it’s currently practiced.

190

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
This is no argument you would make in person.
[/QUOTE]
Given the thuggish, bullying nature of the religious, no, as a rule. In general I don’t admit to being an atheist at all it public. That doesn’t mean that I respect the believers in the slightest; it just means that I regard them as uncivilized, dangerously deluded and by nature lacking in ethics.

191

[QUOTE=Orbifold]
Seriously, though…armed guards?
[/quote]
I question the significance of this in post #158.

Great. I only ask you not swing to the opposite extreme and be a showboating jerk about it.

192

I won’t address the rest of the thread other than "Myers/Cook were being assholes/death threats are crazy/everyone needs to calm down (I understand that it’s not a cracker to the devout, but Christ rose again after being crucified and spending three days in Hell, this is nothing).

I have a general question though: if the church had recovered the wafer from Cook, how would they have disposed of it? I understand that consecrated wine if not drunk is poured down a special drain in the church, but what’s the procedure for consecrated uneaten wafers? I’m just curious.
I think a rational priest has passed an opportunity to make Myers look like the asshole of assholes. I think he should consecrate a wafer and send it to Myers (by whatever delivery system exists for such- I’m sure there is one). He should give him the body of Christ graciously and freely to do with as he pleases. If Myers treats it with anything other than the utmost respect, he’s exposed for all time as an intolerable ass who deserves all the censure (but obviously not harassment or death threats) he gets. If he’s wise he’ll return it to the priest, untouched, and realize that “this is a very important thing to some people, and not all of them are wacko.” That would be turning the other cheek.

Has Bill Donohue weighed in on this? I keep hoping that I’ll finally see the episode of whatever news show his head explodes on and hope I haven’t missed it.

193

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
I read the article fully expecting to learn that the “thief” had broken into the church sacristy and absconded with a case of communion wafers.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, me too. Color me disappointed.

I can understand why people might be upset, and it was a jerkish thing to do, but seriously, death threats? They should really be ashamed of themselves.

194

I’m glad someone has already made the point about just how worthy of mockery the belief in transubstantiation actually is. If any one Christian belief needs some serious deflating it’s this one. I may be in a minority here, but I think that if you are self-centred enough to genuinely believe that the All-Powerful Creator Of The Universe is taking time out of his busy schedule of doing nothing in particular to change your dinky little cracker into the essence of himself while, a few thousand miles away, little four year old kids in Sub-Saharan Africa are dying of AIDS with flies all over their faces, then both you and your God need a (figurative) kick up the arse.

Transubstantiation is an obscene belief, on par with believing God helped you make that winning touchdown or inspired you to pick those extra-lucky lottery numbers. It is simply incompatible with the needless suffering visited upon so many people each and every day. Believe in it if you want, but don’t dare insist anyone else respect it.

195

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
I have a general question though: if the church had recovered the wafer from Cook, how would they have disposed of it? I understand that consecrated wine if not drunk is poured down a special drain in the church, but what’s the procedure for consecrated uneaten wafers? I’m just curious.
[/QUOTE]
If a stray consecrated host showed up that had not been eaten, it would be eaten. If a host was spit out of someone’s mouth, it would be crumbled up and placed in the sacrarium and washed into the ground with the consecrated wine.

(As noted, earlier, however, Cook’s entire story appears to have been invented for effect. I doubt that the events he claimed ever occurred.)

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
I think a rational priest has passed an opportunity to make Myers look like the asshole of assholes. I think he should consecrate a wafer and send it to Myers (by whatever delivery system exists for such- I’m sure there is one). He should give him the body of Christ graciously and freely to do with as he pleases. If Myers treats it with anything other than the utmost respect, he’s exposed for all time as an intolerable ass who deserves all the censure (but obviously not harassment or death threats) he gets. If he’s wise he’ll return it to the priest, untouched, and realize that “this is a very important thing to some people, and not all of them are wacko.” That would be turning the other cheek.
[/QUOTE]
Given the belief regarding the Eucharist, you do realize that no one in the church is going to offer it up for probable desecration merely to tempt someone into being disrespectful.

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Has Bill Donohue weighed in on this? I keep hoping that I’ll finally see the episode of whatever news show his head explodes on and hope I haven’t missed it.
[/quote]
I thought I saw a reference to Donohue and his Catholic League up thread. I certainly enjoy the image of his head exploding as he manufactures one more thing about which to act scandalized.

196

[QUOTE= Orbifold]
Catholics of America, the Catholic League is claiming to speak for you. You might want to look into that.
[/QUOTE]

The Catholic League has been claiming to speak for us for years.

If I called myself the “Orbifold League,” would that force you to answer for any proclamations I made in your name?

[QUOTE= Der Trihs]
Given the thuggish, bullying nature of the religious, no, as a rule. In general I don’t admit to being an atheist at all it public. That doesn’t mean that I respect the believers in the slightest; it just means that I regard them as uncivilized, dangerously deluded and by nature lacking in ethics.
[/QUOTE]

Says the man advocating disturbing an important ritual, occurring behind closed doors, bothering no one.

[QUOTE= George KLaplin]
I may be in a minority here, but I think that if you are self-centred enough to genuinely believe that the All-Powerful Creator Of The Universe is taking time out of his busy schedule of doing nothing in particular to change your dinky little cracker into the essence of himself while, a few thousand miles away, little four year old kids in Sub-Saharan Africa are dying of AIDS with flies all over their faces, then both you and your God need a (figurative) kick up the arse.
[/QUOTE]

You’re not in the minority here. A lot of people think the way you do, also because they don’t really know anything.

[QUOTE= George Kaplin]
Transubstantiation is an obscene belief, on par with believing God helped you make that winning touchdown or inspired you to pick those extra-lucky lottery numbers. It is simply incompatible with the needless suffering visited upon so many people each and every day. Believe in it if you want, but don’t dare insist anyone else respect it.
[/QUOTE]

I would LOVE to hear you explain how one is on par with the other.

197

Well, that’s always a possibility. Frankly, I hope it’s the case. After all, I don’t like thinking people’s beliefs are obscene. Being the recipient of 13 years Catholic education at the behest of devoutly Catholic parents, I’m confident I know more than the average bear about Catholicism. But if you feel I’m mistaken, please tell me what mistakes you think I’m making. Really. I’d appreciate it.

A little part of me always cringes whenever I hear some sportsman or musician saying “Jesus was behind me when I made that play/wrote that album/whatever”. It always makes me think, “Well, doesn’t Jesus have more important things to worry about? After all, we’ve got famines and earthquakes happening all over the place. What makes you so important?”

I feel the same way when people talk about transubstantiation. There are really terrible things happening all over the world that aren’t anybody’s fault. And there’s God, sitting on his celestial throne overseeing all of this, not deigning to intervene in the slightest, except when a Catholic priest says the right Latin words over a bag of crackers and his favourite Burgundy. Again, I think “Couldn’t God be using his time more wisely?”

198

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Says the man advocating disturbing an important ritual, occurring behind closed doors, bothering no one.
[/quote]
I didn’t advocate it. I’m fairly indifferent to it. It’s stupid, but at least it keeps them from hurting anyone else with their insanity for a short time.

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
You’re not in the minority here. A lot of people think the way you do, also because they don’t really know anything.
[/quote]
What’s to know ? We are talking about an extremely silly belief with absolutely no evidence behind it. You can pretend that there’s some profound meaning or miraculous transformation going on; but in reality, it’s a meaningless ritual indulged in by collections of self indulgent delusional people. Pointless at best.

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
I would LOVE to hear you explain how one is on par with the other.
[/QUOTE]
He was obviously making the point that it’s a rather disgusting God that’s work miracles on crackers but not to save people’s lives or prevent suffering.

199

Aaaand we’re right back to the fancy lawyer bullshit. You’re always on, aren’t you? Well, counselor, it is standard business practice for theists to talk to the people that attend their church for 18 years, so I have proven that I talked to theists.

This is why talking to you is like talking to the fucking air. You are convinced that I just don’t like lawyers, and that is why I don’t like you. Not so, as I said, I like and admire Bricker, and a number of other lawyers. I dislike you because you are a dishonest, ambulance chasing con man. Now, if you are at all interested in how I make the distinction between you and Bricker, go back and read some of your posts and some of Bricker’s posts with the following two words in mind: good and faith.

He didn’t interrupt anything. He tried to go quietly back to his seat, just like everyone else. If noone had noticed him there would have been no interruption at all.

Ah yes, and now we finally come to the real crux of it. If they disagree with you, they don’t know anything. If they call out a lawyer on a breach of ethics, they are stupid. Yes, it’s completely impossible that someone could study about Catholicism and still think that it is silly. Nope, if they don’t agree with it 100% they obviously don’t know what they are talking about. If a lawyer that I have never spoken to in my life files a motion saying that they spoke to me and I did not object to a continuance, the problem must be with me, I’m in the wrong because the lawyer has these ethics that he has to follow, see, and you’re sure he followed them, even though you’ve never met him.

You are a piece of work.

200

OK. My viewpoint is that if some guy says a few words over a cracker, it’s still a cracker. Your viewpoint is that if some guy says a few words over a cracker, it magically turns into the flesh of a guy who died 2000 years ago. I would be happy to engage in a dialogue with you about our respective viewpoints, and why they are different. I’m all ears.