What Should This Wafer-Stealer Do?

What an *amazing* coincidence.

Just days after Wafergate, someone on Yahoo asks this question:

I took a communion wafer home with me after mass this morning…
Nobody noticed and I didn’t get any phone calls all day. I figured somebody would notice that it didn’t get eaten but no one has. I’m starting to feel guilty about it. Should I return it to the church or throw it away?

So far, there are a lot of Catholics responding…

yes, Please return it to the Church as it is Jesus—The Lord. Do not take Communion again until you go to Confession as you are bringing judgment down on yourself. Are you even Roman Catholic?

if you are not catholic return it to the church, there will be no repercussions, if you know a catholic as a friend confide in he or she and tell them you did wrong, ask them to take to the priest, i am glad you are sorry and i am sure you will be forgiven . god bless

You need to return it to the church. Please dont throw it away or consume it

Not trying to open a can of worms here… but I think the page could use a few alternative points of view.

I mean, it is just a cracker, right…?

Personally, I don’t care what he does with it. (I assume the whole question is just a joke, anyway, and he doesn’t actually have a communion wafer.)

I still think it would be a mistake — and would accomplish nothing — to insult the Catholics currently responding to the question or to offer a response to the question that involves rubbing our rational beliefs in their faces (i.e. flush the wafer down the toilet, run over the wafer with a car, etc).

Would it be funny? To you, maybe.

Would it help the Catholics understand that their beliefs about the wafer are illogical? Nope. They’d just latch on to the beliefs even more strongly than before.


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

  • http://www.evolvedrational.com Evolved Rationalist

    Use the wafer as a sex toy. Obviously.

  • llewelly

    Use the wafer as a sex toy. Obviously.

    After all, it is Jesus meat.

  • llewelly

    Please don’t call this person a ‘wafer-stealer’ . Chances are he was given the wafer.

  • Gadren

    You can feel the long tradition of Catholic weaponized guilt dripping from those replies.

  • http://www.geneweb.org/ Daniel R

    Send it to PZ Myers!

  • http://thesciencepundit.blogspot.com The Science Pundit

    Please don’t call this person a ‘wafer-stealer’ . Chances are he was given the wafer.

    It’s still stealing because he wasn’t given the wafer unconditionally. For example, at a buffet, you will be given all the food you can eat there. If you try to take some home with you, it’s stealing.

  • http://blog.lib.umn.edu/fole0091/epistaxis Epistaxis

    Would it help the Catholics understand that their beliefs about the wafer are illogical? Nope. They’d just latch on to the beliefs even more strongly than before.

    Yes, if there’s one conclusion we can all draw from the comments on your Wafergate posts, it’s that ridicule and insults just make both sides entrench themselves into even more extreme positions.

  • http://www.acosmopolitan.blogspot.com Anatoly

    I believe PZ wanted one. So the guy can send it to him.

  • Tim

    I could be wrong here, but isn’t the wafer only supposed to “transubstantiate” once it’s placed upon the believer’s tongue, and only during the rite of communion? Without those circumstances isn’t it just a cracker, even from a Catholic standpoint?

  • http://liberteegalitetrivialite.blogspot.com/ greenishblue

    So, there is one thing I just don’t get in all the wafer hulabaloo… According to Catholic doctrine, this stuff is NOT the flesh of Christ, right? Because transubstantiation only takes place AFTER eating the wafer. It’s only POTENTIALLY the body of Christ: it’s Schrodinger’s Christ flesh. It seems to me that as long as nobody eats it, all is well, right. All that was “stolen” was a little disk of wheat, even according to CATHOLIC doctrine, right?

    Have I missed something in all of this?

  • Tom

    My 50 cent… Yahoo answers is a bottomless pit of ignorance.

  • John

    He should construct a tiny cross and nail the cracker to it.

    He should also get this action on video and share it on you tube

  • http://feveredintellect.blogspot.com Viggo the Carpathian

    A molecular analysis of a wafer before and after blessing should clear all this up or if Greenishblue is right and “transubstantiation only takes place AFTER eating the wafer” then a molecular scan of the the eaters s*&$.

    Right? There should something divine about a post cracker poo or does the human digestion system break down god particles?

  • JohnB

    I was confirmed a Catholic, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster forbids me from having any other starches before him, so no wafers for me.

  • Ron in Houston

    Epistaxis said:

    Yes, if there’s one conclusion we can all draw from the comments on your Wafergate posts, it’s that ridicule and insults just make both sides entrench themselves into even more extreme positions.

    That pretty much sums it all up. Enough said.

  • TheDeadEye

    It’s still stealing because he wasn’t given the wafer unconditionally. For example, at a buffet, you will be given all the food you can eat there. If you try to take some home with you, it’s stealing.

    You are confusing theft with breaking policy. Buffet owners/managers obviously don’t want patrons taking extra food home with them, so they post notices stating ‘No Doggie-Bags’ and such at the cashiers stand. Obviously the only repercussion of taking what’s left on your plate home with you is getting asked to leave and not to return. Similarly, you cannot “steal” a communion wafer if it was given to you. The priest and parishioners might get mad at you for breaking policy, but it isn’t theft and it certainly isn’t a hate crime (or any sort of crime at all).

  • http://www.shadowmanor.com/blog/ Cobwebs

    I think the whole point isn’t to try and make *Catholics* realize how ridiculous the belief is, it’s to give people who *aren’t* Catholic a look at one particular little piece of religious absurdity. It may drop their respect for the religion a couple of notches. Perhaps it’ll prevent someone from converting. Maybe it’ll discourage someone from favoring pro-religious legislation.

    Making fun of the Mormons’ magic underwear or the Scientologists’…well, their whole religion, actually…probably isn’t going to make much difference to people who have already decided to believe those things, but it might spur some tiny bit of critical thinking amongst non-believers.

    I think the silliest bits of any religion should be prominently featured on the covers of their holy books and on signs outside their churches. Sort of like a warning label.

  • http://omega-geek.blogspot.com Spook

    I kind of shrugged off the usual claims about how “the Internet is making us stupid” until I saw Yahoo Answers just now.

    Yikes.

    Seriously, there’s some weapons-grade stupid there.

  • Josha

    I am so tired of this whole wafergate. It’s just a piece of bread. If you took it, then don’t announce it to the world. Eat it or throw it away. Since it actually isn’t the body of Christ then nothing will come of it. Then move on with your life. Plus, Catholics need to learn how to take a joke. If you have a ridiculous belief then I think you should be able to withstand the ridicule.

  • http://thesciencepundit.blogspot.com/ The Science Pundit

    TheDeadEye,

    1. I never said “theft” and “steal” doesn’t necessarily imply unlawful.

    2. I challenge your claim that a buffet owner can’t prosecute you for leaving the premises with food in your pocket.

    3. Here’s another example: Suppose you had been giving money to a certain charity for a while, only to discover that the charity owner had been using the money to go to the Bahamas. Would you accept his excuse that “it wasn’t stealing because you gave me the money”?

  • http://AgnosticOracle.livejournal.com AgnosticOracle

    It is also VERY possible that the poster never even took a wafer or went to a Catholic church. If the goal is to watch Catholics spin around crazy (which I suspect it is) all that must be done is make them think someone didn’t eat one of the wafers. (I even jokingly mentioned this in one of the threads on PZ’s blog, I can’t imagine I’m the only one to think of it.)

    Is such behavior going to convince Catholics that their beliefs are absurd? Of course not, but it does provide some amusement for non-Catholics. It is kind of like the Blasphemy Challenge that way.

  • Ron in Houston

    Spook said:

    Seriously, there’s some weapons-grade stupid there.

    I’m going to have to steal that phrase. Weapons-grade stupid – LMAO

  • valhar2000

    I’d say he should return it, if they really want it so much. Unless they harrass him for having taken it, and get into the kinds of ridiculous hyperbolic rhetoric that the people down in Florida did, there is no point to be made by taking it.

    That is what a lot of critics of PZ don’t get about his situation.

  • Larry Huffman

    I totally disagree. I think tossing it in a trash can…or tossing it to the dog would be funny…and yet also show catholics something about themselves. it is not pointless to rub their nose it…rubbing their nose in a ludicrous belief is exactly the remedy for ludicrous beliefs.

    You see…it is not the guy with the cracker putting catholics agsint the wall here…it is their doctrine that…pardon me while I chuckle as i write this…has them believing a stupid carcker is actually the flesh of their long dead savior.

    I think that the more often otherwise rational people have to defend backwards doctrine from long dead ‘holy men’, the more of them will actually feel the pressures of logic causing them to re-consider.

    Look…I will take this one step further. IF…the catholic belief was that the cracker REPRESENTED their savior…I wold say “OK, no need to attack their religious symbolism”…I would respect their views more if the silly cracker merely was a reminder or representation. That is something people accept…a likeness or a reminder. That is not silly, that is using a technique that humans use for all kinds of things. Humans use symbolism all of the time. It can be a study or learning aid.

    BUT…they believe that damn thing turns into Jesus. Look at the responses. “Take it back, it is Jesus”. Excuse me…but BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Do I respect that? No. In any way shape or form? No. Not at all. It is hilariously funny…and any belief such as this still maintained should be laughed right out of existence. I would laugh in anyones face who could seriusly stand before me and tell me they actually believe that a cracker turns into jesus.

    Actually…this is one of those items that I think it totally fair TO attack. I mean…it is preposterous. If you take this example and spin it into anything secular…you will find that the vast majority of people (including catholics) would not hesitate to lock the person up for his own safety and the safety of others, or at elast get them a therapist and some good meds. But…a catholic says a cracker turns into a person…and not only are we not supposed to laugh…we are supposed to have respect! Ugh…screw that. It is such an assinine belief that it should be attacked. Period.

    Catholics…if you believe a cracker turns into your long dead (and quite possibly fictitious) savior…then you are patently a moron. And idiot. An imbecile. Without reservation I will tell you this. I question anyone’s ability to use rational thought in any capacity if they actually believe this.

    At some point a line has to be drawn. Why even pretend to respect such a primitive superstitious, unfounded and utterly impossible belief such as this?

    To correct you…What serves no point is to be critical of anyone attacking this belief. This is precisely the kind of beliefs we should attack. Loudly. Whatever makes these idiots defend crackers as true flesh of their lord publicly…whether it is someone kidnapping the jesus-wafer or PZ Meyers threatening to commit snackfoodicide…does not matter. When PZ says he will abuse a cracker…and real people begin to seriusly call for his job because of it…well, that should be all you need to know.

  • Tom

    I really hope that Southpark will make an episode out of this crackergate ordeal. I would most definitely watch it.

  • Darryl

    Enough with the wafer affair. I must say, this item has brought out the pugnacity and immaturity of a lot of you atheists. For example, this statement:

    Catholics…if you believe a cracker turns into your long dead (and quite possibly fictitious) savior…then you are patently a moron. And idiot. An imbecile. Without reservation I will tell you this. I question anyone’s ability to use rational thought in any capacity if they actually believe this.

    This is hyperbole solely meant to insult–that’s childish. There are many Catholics that would make you seem retarded (no exaggeration). There is no need to stoop to falsehoods to ridicule such errors. It makes you look like an ass. Feel free to criticize, ridicule, satirize, condemn, repudiate, etc., etc., but don’t be an ass. You’re making us all look bad.

  • TheDeadEye

    TheDeadEye,

    1. I never said “theft” and “steal” doesn’t necessarily imply unlawful.

    2. I challenge your claim that a buffet owner can’t prosecute you for leaving the premises with food in your pocket.

    3. Here’s another example: Suppose you had been giving money to a certain charity for a while, only to discover that the charity owner had been using the money to go to the Bahamas. Would you accept his excuse that “it wasn’t stealing because you gave me the money”?

    1. “Stealing” most certainly implys unlawful behavior.


    In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person’s property without that person’s freely-given consent. As a term, it is used as shorthand for all major crimes against property, encompassing offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, mugging, trespassing, shoplifting, intrusion, fraud (theft by deception) and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny.

    2. I couldn’t find any relevant cases; I only found cases of outright theft without actually paying for the meal. Therefore I challenge you to find a case of a buffet owner charging a “doggie bagger” of theft.

    3. That’s a great example of actual theft/stealing; in that case not from the person donating the money, but from the non-profit company itself. It’s also a bad example because it isn’t analogous to removing a cracker from a church or taking home a doggie bag from a buffet.

  • Larry Huffman

    OK…let’s see…

    From websters:

    mo·ron /?m?r?n, ?mo?r-/ –noun 1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

    id·i·ot /??di?t/
    –noun 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.

    im·be·cile

    –noun 1. Psychology. a person of the second order in a former classification of mental retardation, above the level of idiocy, having a mental age of seven or eight years and an intelligence quotient of 25 to 50.
    2. a dunce; blockhead; dolt.
    –adjective 3. mentally feeble.

    Anyone…catholic or not…who believes that a cracker can become human flesh is:

    A moron: I think it shows terribly poor judgement to accept that a cracker can become human. Moron sticks.

    An idiot: I think anyone who accepts that a cracker becomes human flesh is senseles, without question, since the senses would scream loud and clear that it does not happen and is contrary to anything known in the natural world.

    Imbecile: had to drop to definition 3…but yes, I think anyone (catholic or not) who believes that a cracker turns into human flesh is mentally feeble, since their mental capacities should tell them clearly that this does not or could not happen.

    Further…if catholics would care to, they can find this out once and for all. Go get the best priest in the world. The pope even if needs be. Have him bless the wafer, and then run a dna test on it. Guess what…it will still be a cracker. We all know this implicitly…even the catholics know this, otherwise they would be the firt to tell us to test it. But no…they know that it will take about 30 seconds for any doctor to be able to show pretty convincingly that the cracker is still a cracker.

    To me…that is the real kicker here. What they are claiming is not some “we will see when we are in heaven” kind of thing. They claim it actually becomes flesh. Well…then it should test out so. But it does not. In fact, no change whatsoever. It starts a cracker and ends a cracker. But the point is…what they claim is not left to faith or anything else…what they claim is that the change physically takes place. So, if they are NOT stupid or idiotic…if they are reasonable…then they should say, “Please, test it, for I believe it does change and it should prove to be jesus flesh.” But no…they do not. And we have every right to ridicule them for it. It is an assinine premise that deserves being ignored at best…and when people respond as they have to PJ, then they deserve ridicule.

    So I stand by what I said. The definitions fit ANYONE who believes a cracker can become human flesh for whatever reason…not just the religious people who believe this…anyone. Period. If catholics happen to be the only group on the list…well…sorry. But this is not about religion…it is about how stupid it is for people to believe a cracker can turn into human flesh.

    You, on the other hand, are content to cast stones at those who wish to shed light on such a totally irrational viewpoint. Feel free…but this kind of ridicule is what needs to happen…regardless of whether it offends your sensibilities or not. Maybe you fail to understand the gravity of a situation where a large number of adults collectively act irrational…in this case, attacking a kid who took a stupid simple cracker and have made him a villain. Then PZ does a bit of schtick to show how senseless they are, and they do not fail him…they respond exactly as he knew they would…they even called for his job. Those are the actions that make me feel like something needs to be said. If they are content to wreck a man’s career over this…well, they deserve the utmost contempt for holding such a preposterous view and being unable to accept that most people will rightfully think they are idiots for it.

    Seriously…why am I wrong for thinking someone who believes a cracker can become jesus is stupid…when those people who DO believe it, call for the jobs of those who are critical? At some point you have to draw a line. Religious or not…if the principles are contrary to nature and what we know…it has to be OK to say so. Things like virgins giving birth, crackers becoming jesus, jesus coming to life 3 days after his death. We all know these things did not happen. If these views were slightly different…removed from religion…these people would be considered whackos. If I thought virgins could get pregnant and that people could come back to life and that crackers turned into human flesh, and there was not a religion to attribute this to, you would rightfully consider me an idiot. Even catholics would. Add religion, and they are respected and defended. Hogwash.

    I am not advocating we prevent them from believing it…I am not advocating that anything be done to them for believing it (interestingly enough…it is those you defend who will tell me I am going to burn in hell)…I am merely stating that we have to be allowed to use our knowledge…that has grown vastly since these religious views were originally accepted.

    They can believe…just like I can think they are morons for doing so.

    Let’s be clear here…these responses (and I really did wait until late into the mess to chime in) have come about because of the reaction of catholics. The stupidity is found in their remarks about the lifted wafer. “Take it back, it is jesus” sums up the actual doctrine. The doctrine says they believe that. I am sure most do not, down deep…but the ones telling us the wafer needs to be returned because it is jesus…well, there you have it. Stupidity.

    Why did i respond so harshly? Because of all of you fence sitters who, rather than marvel at the stupidity behind the cracker/god theory…you instead come out against the people pointing out the preposterous nature this. Acting like bringing light on this is pointless. How wrong! It is full of importance. It means times are changing for the better. How else do you think these things come down? It is this very process…and the fact that atheists ahve it in their power to publically make the religious look stupid for a stupid belief…well that should be viewed as very good thing indeed.

    If I told you that I believed that when I prayed over my twinkie it became the flesh of Abraham Lincoln…you would most certainly consider me all of the adjectives I listed. I am quite sure of it. Why is it that if this exact same stupidity is phrased in religious context it is now defended. By atheists even. Hey…they have the right to believe whatever they want…and I have the right to commentary. But their right to believe does not over-rule my right to state just what I think of their belief. Especially when not believing this could count you as a heretic and get you killed in previous centuries. You all act like this is nothing. The state of the eucharist was the cause for many contetions that ended in death during the dark ages. Catholics have killed over this point in centuries past…so stating their stupidty now, seems rather small and insignificant in comparison. So, since they have killed people for not believing this (executed, in the name and authority of their god and church), thenI think it ok for me to call them stupid.

  • Kate

    Seriously, there’s some weapons-grade stupid there.

    My goal for today is to use the term “weapons-grade stupid”. AWESOME.

  • Tao Jones

    Can we just let this issue die already?

    Also, no, the alleged transformation occurs when the priest performs his magic ritual during the Eucharistic Prayer. After all, at the Last Supper, Jesus said, “THIS is my body…” not, “this is going to be my body when it touches your tongue.”

    When I was a Sacristan at the local Cathedral, wine and wafers were fair game before they were consecrated. Me and the priests would take swigs of wine, etc, without a second thought. After the magic happened, things were very different. Even the leftover crumbs were disposed of in the prescribed manner — either consumed or buried. There was even a special sink where the drain would run off into the ground rather than the sewer. We’d use this sink to clean the chalice and ciboria to ensure every drop or crumb was disposed of properly.

    Of course the belief is silly, but continuing to harp on this is counter-productive just like the Blasphemy Challenge.

    My answer:

    If you’re Catholic, consume it.

    If you’re telling the truth, it is a consecrated host, and you’re not Catholic; the most appropriate thing to do would be to bury it. Consecrated Eucharist, in the Catholic faith, must be either consumed or buried. Chances are the priest will just bury the host if you returned it to the church, so save him the time and frustration. He probably won’t consume it given that he’s not sure where it’s been or what you may have done to it.

    If you don’t care enough to do the *most* appropriate thing, do whatever you want with it. You clearly believe it is just a wafer. If you decide to do something stupid, can you at least keep it to yourself? No one needs to know about it and you’d only be giving us atheists a bad name.

    If you’re just trolling, grow up. Yes, you’re really clever — get over it. Yes, some beliefs are really silly — get over it. If you really want to change minds, you’ll have to do a lot better than this.

  • Richard Wade

    Could someone clarify a technical part of the Catholic doctrine here? A lot of Catholics are talking as if the consecrated wafer is fully the literal, actual body of Christ, but greenishblue above says,

    According to Catholic doctrine, this stuff is NOT the flesh of Christ, right? Because transubstantiation only takes place AFTER eating the wafer. It’s only POTENTIALLY the body of Christ.

    So who can clear up this little but important detail about the doctrine? Does the wafer fully become God when the priest does his magic spell over it or is the Godisity only activated by stomach acid?

    As some follow-up questions, if the wafer is already the body of Christ without being eaten, if it doesn’t get eaten how long will it remain being God? Does the Godishness get stale? Can God take that part of himself back and recycle it? If the priest buries it as someone suggested, does it rise out of the ground three days later and ascend as a wafer to heaven? Imagine a news crew on stake-out, cameras rolling, in the garden behind a Cathedral where a priest buried a returned consecrated wafer.

    While I can’t resist being a little facetious here, I am genuinely interested in the theological beliefs about leftover consecrated wafers.

    Ah I see that Tao Jones has shed some light on this from his/her experience. Thank you. Anyone else have clarifying information?

  • Tao Jones

    Richard Wade,

    Good questions. I can appreciate your humour and curiosity. It is a very strange custom indeed. I’ll do my best to shed some more light on the issue.

    As mentioned, it is the priest’s magic spell that transforms the wafers (unleavened bread) and wine (pure wine) into the literal (sic) body and blood of Christ. Though I suppose technically, the spell is only asking God to perform the transformation.. but I digress.

    After consecration, the hosts remain the body of Christ until they are eaten. The Godishness doesn’t get stale, but the hosts sure do! What happens is, unused hosts are placed in a special ciborium (a special type of chalice) and locked away in the tabernacle (meaning “residence” or “dwelling place” of God) until they can be used in another mass. Consecrated hosts are only very rarely discarded (ie, buried,) as that is the very last resort. Really, it would only be in extreme situations. One example I dealt with was when a host fell out of an elderly woman’s mouth and landed on the floor. No one could be expected to eat that. Though hosts that fall from a priest’s or Eucharistic Minister’s hands are typically promptly eaten. Otherwise, all hosts are consumed.

    And no, as amusing an image as it is, a host would not ascend into heaven three days after being buried. It is the body of Jesus and Jesus’ soul/spirit is already in heaven, or everywhere, or however else you’d care to look at it. “Been there, done that,” Jesus might say.

    And yes, Catholics have been accused of Cannibalism quite often.

    Another note about the Eucharist which you may find interesting is that it is seen as a sacrifice. Jesus’ death and resurrection was only part of the equation. At the Last Supper, Jesus offered offered up his body and blood as part of a “new covenant” between God and people. This was unique in that in the old covenant, the bond was sealed using animal sacrifices. So this time, the sacrifice was on the part of God, not humans and their livestock, and not the poor little sacrificial lamb.

    It’s probably not a coincidence that one of the terms of endearment for Jesus is, “lamb of God.” So ritualistically speaking, this whole Eucharist business began as a modern version of an animal sacrifice.

    Here is part of what a priest says during the Liturgy of the Eucharist (the name for the second half of a typical Catholic mass)…

    On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

    Take this, all of you, and eat it:
    this is my body which will be given up for you.

    When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

    Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
    this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

  • Tao Jones

    I should probably also mention that the Eucharist is what makes a mass a mass. If it is just readings and the Gospel, it isn’t a mass but a Rite or celebration.

    Being part of this covenant is what makes a Catholic a Catholic. From a purely theological standpoint, I’m not sure a more insulting thing could be done to a Catholic than mess with the covenant they have with God.

    Is it silly and archaic? Of course it is. But perhaps no more than placing value on a piece of paper because it says it’s a $100 bill. That bill only has value because people believe it has value, and the perception of its value changes over time and even from store to store.

  • Xeonicus

    I’d put it on E-Bay…

  • Spork

    While searching for an old news story about a parish in South Africa which had to use consecrated cookies when they ran out of communion wafers, I stumbled across this bit of religious nutbaggery.

    http://www.tldm.org/forms/sacrilege1.htm

    Enjoy.

  • Kyle

    I’ll post what I posted on Wafergate.

    Sometimes emotional harm is necessary. I contend that putting someone through forced drug withdrawals causes emotional and physical harm. Yet, no one is going to argue that it isn’t for the better.

    Likewise, all that is happening is detoxing someone’s belief. And no one has really, truly mentioned the flip side to all of this. If the cracker is so sacred, then they are willfully admitting they are cannibals. That’s an even bigger issue. And then the ties with drug withdrawals works even better.

  • JohnB

    Kyle,

    Yes, we all know it’s a silly belief, and by all means, ridicule it, the belief itself. But calling someone a moron, imbecile, idiot, etc. to their face for holding that belief is not “detoxifying” them, it’s announcing yourself as a jerk.

  • Maria

    Yes, we all know it’s a silly belief, and by all means, ridicule it, the belief itself. But calling someone a moron, imbecile, idiot, etc. to their face for holding that belief is not “detoxifying” them, it’s announcing yourself as a jerk.

    yep

  • http://iloveteh.biz James W.

    Am I the only one that caught this?

    if you are not catholic return it to the church, there will be no repercussions

    So unless you’re Catholic, nothing will happen to you. I guess if you’re a non-theist or even a Presbyterian, you’re off scott free! But you Catholics will suffer dire cracker-induced consequences.

  • EKM

    Darryl said,

    This is hyperbole solely meant to insult–that’s childish.

    There are many Catholics that would make you seem retarded (no exaggeration).

    Not if they believe this garbage.

    Kyle said

    Yes, we all know it’s a silly belief, and by all means, ridicule it, the belief itself. But calling someone a moron, imbecile, idiot, etc. to their face for holding that belief is not “detoxifying” them, it’s announcing yourself as a jerk.

    Theists have no problem criticizing and ridiculing us. Enough is enough. They are stupid, and they will hear it from me and they will take it and like it. Period. End of discussion.

  • Fr. Terry Donahue, CC

    …isn’t the wafer only supposed to “transubstantiate” once it’s placed upon the believer’s tongue, and only during the rite of communion? Without those circumstances isn’t it just a cracker, even from a Catholic standpoint?

    No. The Catholic teaching is that the substance of the bread is wholly transformed into the Body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit through the words of Christ in the Eucharistic prayer (spoken by a validly ordained priest with proper intention). The appearance of bread (i.e. anything that can be measured empirically) remains the same.

    The presence of Christ remains for as long as the appearance of bread remains. Therefore, after the host is consumed, diluted in water, decomposes, etc., the presence of Christ ceases.

  • Richard Wade

    EKM,

    Theists have no problem criticizing and ridiculing us. Enough is enough. They are stupid, and they will hear it from me and they will take it and like it. Period. End of discussion.

    So you will take the same method that has failed to convince you, failed to sway you, failed to get you to see things from their perspective, failed to do anything other than piss you off and entrench you more deeply into your indignation, and you’re going to imitate that method and deliver it back in their faces because that’s what people who are so pissed off they can’t come up with any response that is original, creative or most important of all, effective, do. Your opponents are not going to react to it any differently than you have, so you will exactly match them in your futile anger, your frustration and your powerlessness.

    After “Period. End of discussion.” You neglected to say “So there, nyaah!” (with tongue sticking out)

    C’mon, EKM. I’ve seen you put ideas together in interesting ways. Surely you can do better than mirroring that which does not work. I get pissed off at their negative tactics too, but that just clouds my thinking and reduces my ability to respond in more productive, persuasive ways.

  • JohnB

    EKM said

    Kyle said

    Yes, we all know it’s a silly belief, and by all means, ridicule it, the belief itself. But calling someone a moron, imbecile, idiot, etc. to their face for holding that belief is not “detoxifying” them, it’s announcing yourself as a jerk.

    Actually, that was my comment.

  • http://mattstone.blogs.com Matt Stone

    I would have thought the essential point here is the intension behind the act. He’s obviously feeling guilty about it so it suggests his intentions were less than honourable and that now bothers him. As a non-Catholic Christian I don’t care what he does with it but I would advise him to let his conscience guide him.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    @Greenishblue

    “Shroedinger’s Christflesh.”

    Coffee may or may not be on my keyboard. I’ll have to look to know for sure.

  • Kyle

    JohnB –

    I disagree. Someone who seriously thinks that 1+1=3 is an idiot. Someone who believes in seriousness that there are leprechauns is, in fact, an idiot.

    I don’t understand everyone’s issue with calling a spade a spade. It’s too PC. And it’s why things like religion have flourished in the first place. Fear of elitism. Fear of not being politically correct. Fear of bigotry. (Hell, bigotry is only truly bigotry if you are wrong. For example, if the person correcting the 1+1=3 believer was adamant about said believer’s wrongness, it would be considered bigotry, even though he’s correct. I happen to disagree with that. It’s not bigotry if you are correct in your assertion.)

    Further, I’d contend that while people could condemn the belief itself it will ALWAYS be taken personally by the believer. Therefore, you are, whether you want to or not, calling them an idiot.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X