Oh, you can close it for all of me. Points made.
No diss on the moderating or to you. I get rubbed raw by 300-post threads wherein a belief - sometimes a fact - has to be defended against accepted cluelessness and bigotry.
You’re kind of tarded huh? It’s ok I had a tarded girlfriend once and she’s a pilot now.
I grew up in a Catholic church until I was 14. No one believed it literally turned into flesh and blood.
Taking your OP too literally, and giving it too much credit:
Even if one grants that one/some/the majority of Christians believe communion fare literally becomes the body and blood of Christ when (ignorance here - when it’s blessed? when the person takes it in his or her mouth? later?), the parts of cannibalism that make it so much a taboo are missing.
- Nobody dies, or even is maimed.
- It doesn’t taste like raw bloody person.
If you could have cannibalism without the pain and maiming or death of the consumed, and where it tasted like flavorless bread and really sweet wine, would it have as much stigma? It’s more analogous to drinking human milk or something - is that cannibalism? A little weird, sure, but not something I’d shit all over people for if it was important in their religion.
There are worse things to believe in. Like believing you have to be a dick to people who believe something you don’t.
And they tend to believe that too. Christians including Catholics are in no position take the moral high ground on “not being a dick to unbelievers”. They built their religion on a mountain of the corpses of those who didn’t believe as they did; that’s the high ground they have.
Der Trihs…do two wrongs make a right?
Two wrongs may not make a right, but shouldn’t the greater wrong be addressed first and foremost?
No, but three lefts do.
Many “wrongs” are only “wrong” if they are unprovoked. It’s wrong to punch someone in the face out of the blue, but not wrong to do so if they’ve attacked you. If a group is hostile and historically extremely violent to outsiders, it’s both morally justifiable and wise to be hostile right back at them. Atheists often show great hostility towards religion because they’ve experienced a lifetime of hostility towards themselves from religion. Many other equally irrational beliefs don’t get anything like the same level of hostility because their followers don’t spend nearly as much time, effort and money making life miserable for everyone else.
Each person should identify his own wrongs and make an effort to correct them, not just go “you’re worse than me” and ignore their own faults. Jesus himself addressed this in his surmon on the mount. For my part, I don’t care if random believer on one side or random non-believer on the other side are dicks. Why should either influence my behavior?
OK. I acknowledge it was wrong for Christians to kill hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people for being heretics or being Muslims living where they wanted to crusade or whatever.
Now can I say it’s still dickish to post intentionally inflammatory OPs because some people believe in transubstantiation?
Share with us some tales of times you were persecuted.
A point I bid you remember the next time you’re tempted to bitch and moan about feminism running amok.
Or did you suppose these privileges only applied to groups that have no quarrel with the ones you belong to?
Are you sure about this? This is quite contrary to my Roman Catholic upbringing.
Or look here:
But maybe we’re arguing semantics. At any rate, for Roman Catholics, the bread and wine are not a symbol of Christ’s flesh and blood. They believe that the bread and wine are literally Christ’s flesh and blood.
That’s a matter of opinion. There are plenty of people who believe that it is wrong and not morally justifiable to hit back.
As with many other things that you believe, I have no problem with your believing that it’s morally right to hit somebody who hits you first. Where you tend to go off the rails is in asserting your beliefs as though every moral and reasonable person must necessarily agree with you.
With allowances for hyperbole, I believe you, but I doubt it’s because they made an Aristotelian distinction between accidents and substance. It’s because most Catholics, like most other Christians, never learned much about their denomination’s teaching, beyond what they were taught as children. When I was in college and brought up the subject during BS sessions with Catholic friends, several of them had never heard of transubstantiation.
From Wikipedia: During the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation was heavily criticised as an Aristotelian “pseudo-philosophy”[8] imported into Christian teaching and jettisoned in favor of Martin Luther’s doctrine of sacramental union, or in favor, per Huldrych Zwingli, of the Eucharist as memorial.[9]
So perhaps “most” in absolute number but not in terms of denominations.
Seriously? I also grew up in the Cathlic church and that is exactly what they believe. That is why you can’t throw the Host in the trash or wash the wine cup in the sink where any left over “blood” may end up in the sewer.
None direct and in person, because I’ve made a point of virtually never mentioning my atheism anywhere but the internet.
When people believe things without evidence that are impossible, claiming that they are unreasonable is perfectly reasonable itself. And when their behavior is blatantly cruel and bigoted, calling their behavior obviously immoral is also reasonable. I’m under no obligation to pretend that the person who ostracizes and abuses his child for being an atheist or rapes women because they are lesbian is moral and reasonable.
Yes, that’s what the Catholic church believes. Its parishioners, on the other hand, is a different story. The survey I linked to above only has 30% believing the standard RCC interpretation.