I said you can do anything you want to the guy as long as you
a) are kind
b)if he needs anything, share what you have with him
You said it was simple and mostly incorrect.
I agree it is simple. I asked you how it was incorrect (based on the teachings of Jesus).
So - you said it is incorrect. I am asking…howso?
Let’s be straight- “the guy” we’re talking about is the Host-stealer guy?
And your question is, that if I encounter a guy stealing the Host at Mass, what am I, as a Christian, entitled to do to him?
Do I have that right?
You said…
To which I replied…
So yes, I think you understand the question.
I am interested to see what following Jesus “entitles” you to “do to” someone.
One dude is being an asshole. A buncha Catholics are threatening to kill him. Asshole is the one getting flamed. I just don’t get why anyone would focus on something so minor as desecrating a cracker when the whole point of the thread was the reaction of the crazy religious nuts.
You know what I’d do to him?
I’d probably grab him and cast him out of the church.
And then I would say unto him, “It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
Or maybe I would say that unto him AS I was casting him out.
I don’t think I’d use a whip, though. That’s a little excessive for me. But I’d definitely make with the casting out.
Well, DUH.
You don’t think Hindu nuts would threaten his life, do you?
Or Saskatchewan Roughriders fans?
Or luchadores?
Or lima-bean eaters?
Or vintage pinball machine repair nuts?
And I hereby again call him a liar with regard to the death threats. Although, as was pointed out, any nut will threaten your life over anything on the internet these days.
The Catholic Church isn’t whacko-free and no one ever claimed it was.
le sigh*
Back in residency I had a patient who had a bad case of pancreatitis, and was supposed to be strictly NPO (that is, he was to have absolutely nothing by mouth). The med student came to me with his chart one morning.
STUDENT: A note from the chaplain says he’s supposed to have communion today. Is that a good idea?
ME: Is he Catholic?
STUDENT: I don’t know. Why?
ME: Because I think he can tolerate a cracker and a sip of wine at this point, but I don’t think he’s ready for the blood and body of Christ.
Depends. Is he wearing a Bombers jersey?
And if the person you’re calling a liar concerning the death threats is PZ, he’s posted all his hatemail on his blog, so you can go and read it yourself. It’s really quite charming stuff. It’s rather more than is reasonable to expect him to have fabricated.
You’re not making arguments, though. You’re just spreading irrational prejudice. You’ve actually come out and said that you are intrinsically better than all people who believe in God, for the simple reason that you don’t believe in him. Why should I treat your argument (or yourself) with any more respect than I’d treat a similar argument from a white supremacist? You’re a bigot, pure and simple, and there’s no point arguing with bigots. The best you can hope for is to shout them down until they give up and go away.
Plus, watching you flail away blindly while you pretend like you’re engaging in a real debate is just too much fun for me to sit idly by without joining in.
The problem is that the OP, the blogger the OP linked to, and a significant portion of the subsequent posters to the thread are unable to distinguish between the crazy religious nuts, and the everyday Catholics. And that’s the only part of the OP that invites any sort of discussion, because everyone is already on the same page about the whole, “people who make death threats suck” issue.
Because what race someone is, doesn’t have a “right” and “wrong” side ? Whereas God either God does or doesn’t exist; either the atheists or the theists are right. And since all the evidence is on the side of atheism, and against theism, it’s pretty clear what side is in the right.
It’s pretty sleazy to devalue a word like “bigot” in order to shame someone into not pointing out that the other side is making claims that have no evidence, and make no sense.
To me, there’s two things going on here.
One is the disruption of a worship service. That’s not a nice thing to do, and shoudn’t be condoned. If any sort of misdemeanor charges fit the actions of the disruptor, I’m all in favor of their being filed.
The other is the death threats and whatnot aimed at a guy who didn’t participate in the disruption, but condoned it after the fact.
Since I’m late to the party, would you forgive me if, rather than wading through five pages of thread to find the answer, I simply asked you if we are in agreement that this is an exceedingly disproportionate response, and that the disproportionality is directly connected with the issues surrounding the sacred status of the wafers?
I don’t think ANYONE has defended the death threats. I am amazed at the vehemence of the defenders of the disruptor and his professorial defender.
Hindu nuts don’t hold with crackers but aren’t all quite so placid as you might think…
The thing is, this isn’t about disruption of a worship service. Not at all. (Not to mention, it looks as if the only disruption the guy did was in keeping the wafer rather than swallowing it.) How much controversy would there have been if someone walked out of an Episcopal church with one of their copies of the Book of Common Prayer in their hands?
It’s all about the belief that taking this wafer out into the world somehow has spiritual repercussions of a nontrivial nature.
Aside from that, the “disruptor”'s actions were less noteworthy than cutting someone off in traffic would be.
I don’t agree. Quite aside from any “spiritual” matters, it is a symbolic act of disrespect.
Symbols have power, not only over religious people. One may think that the power of symbols to move people is foolish, but I think it is part of basic empathy to realize that others think differently - and to respect that.
I’m not a Catholic and I can see why this would be highly annoying. I am not an American, and I would not but an American flag and post all over the net pics of me wiping my ass with it, either. Nor would I take a picture of holocaust victim Anne Frank, jack off on it while giving a Nazi salute, and post a video of it on Youtube.
Unlike the case of waifer-stealing, I’d be within my rights to do any of these things (waifer-stealing involves the extra step of misrepresentation). If I did any of these things, I would not be surprised if some people found them insulting and contemptuous, and that I was a asshole shit disturber for doing them.
None of the above examples involve any “spiritual reprecussions”, necessarily.
[It should hardly be necessary to add that being an asshole shit disturber does not justify death threats. ]
I always love stories like this:
I don’t believe “Catholics are known as unassuming and nice”, at least no moreso than anyone else. Also, Catholic doctrine is anything but “unassuming and nice”.
And death threats are hardly analogous to a punch in the nose.
Cite, you fucking liar?
That doesn’t mean the offender, so-to-speak, isn’t being a complete dick, which I think, is kind of the main point.
Sure, A lot of religion is nutty, despite that, tolerance is a requirement, even if the religious don’t practice it, failure to be tolerant of them makes you no better than their worst practitioner.
Plus, just because you’re being a dick, doesn’t mean you’re free from getting called on it.