The only people dummer than Him are his followers. Go read his blog if you can stand it.
Thanks, BY(JS4). I lost my appetite for dinner.
Such infantile behavior from a supposed "bright", and yet another example of an atheist with the class and mannerisms of Beavis and Butt-Head.
Why is this not being treated as a hate crime? As this (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table2.html) FBI list of stats suggests, destruction of property counts as a hate crime--and, when an attack is based on religious bigotry, the value of the property destroyed need not be determined by secular measures. This sort of anti-Catholic attack is becoming common, and we must use whatever resources are available to put a stop to it.
Oh but if only we issued Fatwas!
Oh, I was so afraid of this...
Apparently Webster Cook's stunt has already provoked more than one copycat. And now a professor encouraging it!
God forgive them, they know not what they do! Lord Jesus Christ, Bread of Life, have mercy on us!
A hate crime? Really - we all know hate crimes are only perpetrated by Christians and targeted at other groups. Christians - and especially Catholics - can never be victims of hate crimes. We've cornered the market on hate and are getting our just due whenever anyone desecrates, harasses, attacks, or murders us.
FYI: upon closer reading I realized that the character in the second link I posted above seems to have taken a host from an Anglo-Catholic church that believes in transubstantiation (so far as I can decipher). I don't think the host has actually been consecrated as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, but the stunning degree of intolerance and hatred demonstrated by such theft is not lessened in the slightest.
Hate begets hate. This guy is a jackass, to be sure, but yet again: Bill Donohue is making the situation worse.
FYI 2: And apparently the first link occurred before the Webster Cook debacle. Ugh. The world has gone insane.
"Bill Donohue is making the situation worse."
Well, the silence of Catholics sure hasn't done good either.
Mark S.
I disagree. This is place where loud protest and, if necessary, prosecution is legitimate. Myers is welcome to his opinion. He has no more right to desecrate the Eucharist than he has to spray paint swastikas on a synagogue. We must forgive him, of course. But we must also fight him and see that he is punished for this with the law of man.
I'm usually not a fan of Bill Donahue -- a Catholic variant of the tiresome Ethnic Grivance Industry -- but in this case, I can find no fault with anything he's doing. If Myers were desecrating a Koran, this would be the top item on cable news.
Mark,
I was waiting for you to weigh in on this one. This particularly deserved your "touch."
That said, I don't think he should be punished. After all, he hasn't done anything yet.
Thank God for Bill Donohue. This is a hate crime and must be punished,
The indult for communion in the hand should be revoked. Of course some people will get around any restrictions but we should not make it easy for them.
"I'm usually not a fan of Bill Donahue -- a Catholic variant of the tiresome Ethnic Grivance Industry -- but in this case, I can find no fault with anything he's doing."
I have to agree. There are times I cringe when I see that Bill Donahue will be on the news, but his reaction here seems to be entirely justified.
The "attack dog" posture isn't always appropriate or helpful, but this guy's nothing but a thug with tenure.
Atheists won't be winning this battle. As they hold the likes of Fred Phelps up as representatives of religion, loons like Myers and his robotic cronies will be the new faces of atheism seen by decent folk everywhere. And it will be soundly rejected by the masses. These morons are shooting themselves in the foot with their childish antics, and they're not even bright enough to realize it.
IB Bill:
I will comment on this tomorrow. I quite agree that he should not be punished legally if he does not desecrate a Eucharist. Of course, if he's using University gear and tackle to post his attempts to foment hatred against Catholics. I think it's quite on the cards to complain that he his committing theft of taxpayer monies for his his personal obsessions. But if he were to blaspheme on his own time: hey! It's free country and we are not Islamic buffoons who can't cope with free speech.
This is a hate crime and must be punished,
No. Thus far, this is a hate crime that is acceptable in our society and educational establishment.
I stopped reading The New York Times years ago, because of an op-ed peace belittling Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin.
I now add The Washington Post to my own personal **** list. I have my reasons.
Item 1: I have to admit, until now I didn't realize Meyers was a professor. Knowing of him only by reputation and scattered quotes, I thought he was just another freelance big-mouth with a blog. Honest.
Item 2: How could any Christian receive fair treatment and a just grade in one of his classes, if said Christian were known to be one? There have to be some stories out there of injustice suffered in silence.
Item 3: I don't think it would be untoward for Christian alum to tell the university they won't be making any further donations.
Item 4: It's remarkable how many academics end up turning their tenured post into a soapbox for their tirades. A diagnostician of souls should find it an intriguing exercise...
It's one thing to publish Images of Muhammad even disrespectful ones. It's another to tell people to put them on T-Shirts & encourage others to wear them in a Mosque.
If Myers got some flouter & made his own "Eucharists" & "desecrated" them that would be disrespectful. But to encourage others to steal them for the purpose of committing sacrilege that is quite another thing. The later is a civil crime.
Some of the knuckle dragger's on Myer's blog have said things like "Well they do give them away!"
Unbelievable. Morons! The lot of them.
Okay, I just went back to PZ's original post. Supposedly what got him exercised is the fact that Cook got death threats for pulling his (obviously planned--if you ask me) stunt. But when you follow the links to the stories PZ highlights, there is no evidence that Cook had death threats, only a quote from him that he 'felt' threatened.
I posted a query in PZ's comment box asking for clarification. Exactly when was Cook theatened by whom, etc. i'll probably get a lot of abuse; but I may get an answer.
By PZ's own admission, none of this is worth commenting on except for the 'fact' that Cook was supposedly threatened over this action. But I don't see any evidence of that.
PZ now says he's received hate mail threatening his life, but again, offers no direct quotes. Hmm.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but you can count me in the 'skeptic' column on this one.
This is place where loud protest and, if necessary, prosecution is legitimate.
I disagree.
Myers is doing something absolutely despicable, but I don't want an alliance with Caesar to prove him wrong. Myers is a lost soul behaving like a lost soul. We'd do a lot more to change that by making him aware of how hurtful his actions are, but appealing to his sense of decency.
Would it work? Maybe not. But I do think it would plant a kernel of doubt that maybe those Catholics aren't so bad after all. Donohue is merely confirming every wrongheaded opinion of Catholics that Myers has.
But we must also fight him and see that he is punished for this with the law of man.
How do you reconcile that with, "We must forgive him, of course." ???
This seems more like an opportunity for, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." Myers obviously knows not what he's doing. Desecrating the Eucharist is something that makes me shudder to the very core of my soul. But if he's determined in his apostasy, it's up to God to judge him, not Caesar.
>I disagree.
I reply: Fine but you are 100% wrong.
>Myers is doing something absolutely despicable, but I don't want an alliance with Caesar to prove him wrong.
I reply: St Paul doesn't agree with you (Romans 13:3). St Paul wanted the early Christians to pray for the Emperor (who ironically was the anti-christ Nero) & said he didn't weld the sword in vain when he was punishing legitimate evil doers.
>Myers is a lost soul behaving like a lost soul. We'd do a lot more to change that by making him aware of how hurtful his actions are, but appealing to his sense of decency.
I reply: He is advocating theft & interfering with people religious worship. Thieves & rogues are lost souls as well but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call the police. In fact I believe it is immoral not to do so.
NOT punishing Myers sends a message to others it's OK to personally interfere with their private worship or other such ceremonies.
>Would it work? Maybe not. But I do think it would plant a kernel of doubt that maybe those Catholics aren't so bad after all. Donohue is merely confirming every wrongheaded opinion of Catholics that Myers has.
I reply: Mark S take your own advice & go to Myer's blog & grovel before him. Say "Oh golly gosh gee Professor Myers
can't you be nice to us & not violate our holy cracker? We are not so bad once you get to know us."
Yeh right & I'm sure the Rev. Phelps just needs some guys from the Village to decorate his house & he might see the light & take down "godhatesfags dot com".
>>But we must also fight him and see that he is punished for this with the law of man.
>How do you reconcile that with, "We must forgive him, of course." ???
I reply: Ask St Paul (Romans 13:3).
>This seems more like an opportunity for, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."
I reply: Why is it either/or? Can't I send the crook who stole my car to jail & forgive him? I think I can.
>Myers obviously knows not what he's doing.
I reply: He knows exactly what he is doing. Which makes it all the more sick.
>Desecrating the Eucharist is something that makes me shudder to the very core of my soul. But if he's determined in his apostasy, it's up to God to judge him, not Caesar.
I reply: Nobody is asking Caesar to send him to Hell. We cannot even ask God to do that. But he can be punished for breaking the Law & for the public good he must be.
So say he got a Eucharist, stabbed it and it bled?
Mark, this is the U of M were talking about. Remember when...
Professor Eli Coleman, Director of the Program in Human Sexuality said he would "give a failing grade" to a student who would submit a paper stating that the rectum is the back end of the digestive system and...what...not the front end of the sexuality system? This in reference to the Surgeon General nomination of Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr.
...or when...
When local Catholics (including Abp. Flynn) objected to the staging of the "Pope and the Witch", did the U administration confront it's bigotry with a frenzy of sensitivity training, awareness raising, and other assorted multi-culti religious rituals? No. It shamed the complainants for attempting to crush academic freedom, hosted dialogs on artistic freedom in association with the play, and posted guards in the auditorium, because as I'm sure you know Catholics (unlike other peaceful religionists) are likely to mete violence upon everyone they disagree with.
...I'd expect the U to up Myers salary and give him a bigger forum.
St Paul doesn't agree with you (Romans 13:3). St Paul wanted the early Christians to pray for the Emperor (who ironically was the anti-christ Nero) & said he didn't weld the sword in vain when he was punishing legitimate evil doers.
Did St. Paul advocate Nero enforcing the sanctity of Christian worship with the arm of the Empire? Your Bible must have a different Romans 13:3 than mine does. 
NOT punishing Myers sends a message to others it's OK to personally interfere with their private worship or other such ceremonies.
“Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Nothing in there about using the arm of Caesar to punish the persecutors. Quite the reverse, in fact.
He knows exactly what he is doing. Which makes it all the more sick.
No. He pretty obviously does not. What was it he wrote about the Eucharist? “It’s just a cracker!” The guy could not possibly be more wrong. In the history of all things wrong, that statement is the crowned king of wrongness.
But he can be punished for breaking the Law & for the public good he must be.
Disbelieving in the Real Presence is not illegal. The guy is being an ass, no doubt. But is screaming at the guy, sending him hate mail, and getting him fired going to make him any less of an ass? Is it going to open his heart and mind to the Gospel? Or is it only going to deepen his bitterness and misunderstanding of what it means to be a disciple of Christ?
Too many people in the world see Christians as judgmental, narrow-minded quacks who can’t wait to slap the naughty with a ruler. Myers is apparently one of them. And it makes me very sad that so many are so eager to prove them right.
Myers is educated enough to know that not all Catholics are like Bill Donahue, and that, in this case (Myers' case, after his referring to Catholics as 'fuckwits' and offering to disrespect the Blessed Sacrament), Donahue has a point. He is educated enough to know that only a very small percentage of priests are child molesters, and that Catholics, clergy and lay, are horrified by that behavior and by the bishops idiotic complicity. He is educated enough to know that the Church has been part of European civilization for 2000 years, and that clergy and laity who make up the Church have always reflected the times they were born into, including the errors of that time. He's more than educated enough to know that even he truly received 4 death threats, and even if all 4 were from Catholics, that the vast majority of Catholics don't think this way, and that such threats run contrary to Catholic ethics.
He has no damn excuse for the comments he makes and encourages his dittoheads to make in his endless comments threads. He has no excuse for trying to make it look as if Catholics don't care about pederasty. He's educated enough to know that Catholics see sins like this as wounds to the Body of Christ.
He seems to see himself as a zealot for the truth - truth in his estimation being that there is no God and that all religious belief is pernicious superstition which leads people into bad behavior. He figures this zeal justifies crude language and childish insults. In fact, he's constantly urging his readers to crash various internet polls - rudeness to whoever he disagrees with is apparently his only ethic.
...on the other hand all together...re: "this is a hate crime and must be punished"...
On the matter of "hate crimes" I'm of two minds. Essentially as a legal category they're absurd...and shouldn't be legally/culturally perpetuated...but as long as they statutorily exist...they should be applied without prejudice or double standard. And as far as punishment...I'm thoroughly exhausted to my core with our increasingly draconian and punitive culture...most especially when invoked in the name of progressivism...which I guess in any case is not the case here.
I also echo Mark (not Shea) in that Christians (especially Catholics and/or "conservatives") are accorded bogeyman status within the common cultural narrative. What good does it do to perpetuate that? But how do we proactively and successfully turn that narrative around? Is it possible? Does it need to be possible?
FYI, here's the kind of thinking that's going on among the Myers fanboys:
link
----------------
So this is my idea, similar to others in the original thread, but adapted to the current situation.
We all go to Mass and get the consecrated cracker, if we haven't done so already.
We go twice between now and whenever, which should be easy enough (just look up the daily Mass schedule and see if you can't make it before work/class/whatever). We get TWO consecrated crackers.
We post videos to YouTube, in which we desecrate ONE of the crackers (I plan to dip mine in gin and set it on fire for for visual effect). We tell Donahue to shut the fuck up by next week, or we'll do the same to cracker #2. We email links pointing to our videos to Donahue.
Cool?
Mark S. (not for Shea),
The Man is calling for individuals to STEAL a Eucharist & send it to him to violate it. Stealing!!! Hello! Crime! I don't care what he says about the Eucharist. Stay the F*** out of the Church & leave us alone is what I'm saying to Myers.
Any Professor who calls on others to break the law for the sole purpose of hurting & disrespecting innocent people MUST be fired.
>Did St. Paul advocate Nero enforcing the sanctity of Christian worship with the arm of the Empire?
I reply: Two points. Why would he be against it & what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
>Your Bible must have a different Romans 13:3 than mine does.
I reply: Paul CLEARLY advocates the Roman government punishing evil doers.
That Empire DIDN'T always do it & persecuted the Church is irrelevant.
Sadly what Matteo says is correct. That IS what Myer's fanboyz are saying.
I'm a University of Minnesota alumni (although I attended at the Twin Cities campus), and I'm very tempted to call up the university and let them know that my financial support of the university will be withdrawn until such time as they stop their professors from promoting acts of degradation and violence against Christians.
"I'm a University of Minnesota alumni (although I attended at the Twin Cities campus), and I'm very tempted to call up the university and let them know that my financial support of the university will be withdrawn until such time as they stop their professors from promoting acts of degradation and violence against Christians."
JoAnna
JoAnna,
Please feel very, very free to give into this temptation. In fact I wish every Catholic who gives to the university would basically tell the administration that as of today there will be no more money forthcoming until PZ Meyers is dealt with.
U of M-Morris is a scary, most shitty place. And for the U of M system, that's saying something.
Know what I would like to see? If there is a priest in the area who possesses gentle courage, let him go to Professor Myers' office during his office hours. Let him bring along a print-out of Myers' post and the Host. Then let him say, "You requested this sacrament. Do you now wish to receive it?" Then let him say nothing no matter how Myers responds, and at the appropriate time, let him leave.
If necessary, let him go again the next week. And let him go every week, until Myers either fills up the measure of his intransigent rage, or apologizes for his foolish hostility.
This is some pretty stupid and hateful nonsense but:
1) I hate to see Catholics buy into the "hate crime" mentality that is so unhelpful.
2) It is upsetting. But God will yet surprise these folks. Have faith.
I think it is worth highlighting what BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) said above:
"The Man is calling for individuals to STEAL a Eucharist & send it to him to violate it. Stealing!!! Hello! Crime! I don't care what he says about the Eucharist. Stay the F*** out of the Church & leave us alone is what I'm saying to Myers."
What Myers is doing is tantamount to an incitement to theft and violence. This does not count as free speech. He can deride the Eucharist all he likes, but when he asked others to obtain it for him to defile, he crossed the line.
There is no legitimate defense of this action, and all his cronies crying First Amendment are flat out wrong.
@$#*^)%^_(*%_@%$_(*!!!!!!!!!
There...I got it out of my system.
I applaud Catholic League's efforts in this and all defense of our faith.
Are hate crimes actually defined to include childish, insulting TALK about others' beliefs? I've really only heard the term applied when it was redundant -ie, murder is already a crime, but if the motive can be demonstrated to have been racial, it's a hate crime in some states. That concept may be squicky, or not; but do we want it to include 'speech crimes' and 'thought crimes'?
OTOH, like BenYachov says, theft is theft.
What obligation do decent people have in regards to religious beliefs they don't share?
It's been suggested that the sacredness of the Koran in Islam is more analogous to the sacredness of the Eucharist to Catholics than even to that of the Bible. Assuming for the sake of argument this is true: devout Muslims keep the Koran on the highest shelf in the house. I have a copy, and while I don't fling it around, drop it on the floor, step on it, etc, I don't keep it in a place of honor (in an American household this would probably be on top of the TV set or on the shelf above the computer desk). Am I doing something hurtful if I put another book on top of it?
Granted the big difference here is that the Koran is available in commercial bookstores, implying willingness on the part of Muslims for non-Muslims to purchase and read, whereas Catholics and Episcopalians hand out Communion in Church, with the expectation that those receiving are believers, and will consume the host immediately. But IF some well-intentioned idiot sent Myers a consecrated host in the hope that the Real Presence would convert him or something - or not Myers, but an atheist who basically had good manners and thought the belief in the Real Presence was thoroughly irrational, but didn't feel an adolescent need to express that belief by defiling it and dancing around shouting "see? see? I haven't been struck by lightning!" What would we reasonably expect of them?
Vita's right, too - God will surprise these folks. With His grace, if they will receive it. Christ surrendered Himself to be crucified. He'll make something good out of this abuse, too.
I get the willies when I hear people talk about not invoking "Caesar's Law" on behalf of the Church. It smacks of angelism. Whether we do so in a particular case depends upon that case. But we are part of this society, and obligated to be a leaven within it.
Hello! Crime!
Sure it's a crime. Persecution often is. But when persecuted, we are commanded to rejoice, not revenge.
Stay the F*** out of the Church & leave us alone is what I'm saying to Myers.
What a lovely Christian attitude. 
+J.M.J+
Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
O Sacred Heart of Jesus, animated with a desire to repair the outrages unceasingly offered to Thee, we prostrate before Thy throne of mercy, and in the name of all mankind, pledge our love and fidelity to Thee.
The more Thy mysteries are blasphemed, the more firmly we shall believe them, O Sacred Heart of Jesus!
The more impiety endeavors to extinguish our hope of immortality, the more we shall trust in Thy Heart, sole Hope of mankind!
The more hearts resist Thy Divine attractions, the more we shall love Thee, O infinitely amiable Heart of Jesus!
The more unbelief attacks Thy Divinity, the more humbly and profoundly we shall adore It, O Divine Heart of Jesus!
The more Thy holy laws are transgressed and ignored, the more we shall delight to observe them, O most holy Heart of Jesus!
The more Thy Sacraments are despised and abandoned, the more frequently we shall receive them with love and reverence, O most generous Heart of Jesus!
The more the imitation of Thy virtues is neglected and forgotten, the more we shall endeavor to practice them, O Heart, model of every virtue!
The more the devil labors to destroy souls, the more we shall be inflamed with desire to save them, O Heart of Jesus, zealous Lover of souls!
The more sin and impurity destroy the image of God in man, the more we shall try by purity of life to be a living temple of the Holy Spirit, O Heart of Jesus!
The more Thy Holy Church is despised, the more we shall endeavor to be her faithful children, O Sweet Heart of Jesus!
The more Thy Vicar on earth is persecuted, the more will we honor him as the infallible head of Thy Holy Church, show our fidelity and pray for him, O kingly Heart of Jesus!
O Sacred Heart, through Thy powerful grace, may we become Thy apostles in the midst of a corrupted world, and be Thy crown in the kingdom of Heaven. Amen.
Nihil Obstat - John J. Clifford, S.J. Censor Liborum
Imprimatur - + Samuel A. Stritch, December 17, 1943 Archbishop of Chicago.
From the Holy Hour of Reparation booklet, pages 12-13; copyright © 1945 Soul Assurance Plan(TM), Chicago, IL.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie - you're a wonderful lady!
>What a lovely Christian attitude.
I'd say flawlessly Catholic Christian.
Your incorrect attitude OTOH is a lovely Amish attitude BUT hyper-passivism is against Christian moral teaching.
If I know a crook is going to steal from you it is NOT Christian Charity to let him do it & "show mercy" to him by not calling the police or bringing the force of civil law against him.
Myer MUST be fired for his actions. Or it is a signal to others that Catholics may be persecuted at will.
Right BenYachov. Look what appeasing Muslims has done to Europe and the UK...
Rosemarie - that's great! Bless you...
Though what the student did was against the Catholic faith, I think the priest and the ushers just took it too far. I am a Catholic and I am an ardent fan of Shea's writings. THe student did not have to be put through the student judicial system to be dealt with. I believe Jesus would not be as angry at the student as we catholics are. I remember one of the examples I heard about the Eucharist. Suppose the Eucharist fell off your hand and fell on some harmful chemical (assuming you have a mass outside the church) and you are compelled to eat it since it is the body of Christ and then you die, we can't just say "Oh, the body of Christ killed him!" can we? I believe it is the faith that counts when we receive the Host. If the person doesn't believe that it is Jesus' own flesh it has no effect on the person. For us, who believe that it is Jesus' body, it brings us peace at heart about participating in His sacrifice.
Reading more about this incident, it only seems to me that the student has been going to church and only wanted to show his friend what the Eucharist is. Though the usher did not know the student's intent, it was not necessary to confront him in public like that and make a big deal out of it. Perhaps, God himself wouldn't be as mad at the student. The student could have just been adviced in private that it was not right to do what he did. Unfortunately, this only creates a bad impression about us Catholics.
But, what Myers did was an obvious disrespect to the Catholic faith.
If I know a crook is going to steal from you...
I'd be interested in hearing from a lawyer exactly how the law might sanction the action Myers proposes.
I'm doubtful that a communicant who receives the Eucharist and doesn't consume it is legally stealing. After all, the Eucharist is given to the communicant. Further: Can the law assign the Eucharist a value sufficient to qualify taking it under false pretenses "stealing"?
I suppose the law could sanction desecrators as trespassers. But I imagine trespassing penalties are light -- and that the law could not require trespassers to return stolen Hosts.
It would be based upon the specific wording of the criminal statute involved. As mentioned above, some statutes may assign a particluar punishment level for religious objects regardless of intrinsic value because of the nature of the act itself - that is, to intentionally interefere or harm the sensibilities of those who hold the item in reverence, even if its material value may be negligible.
A priest, deacon or EM is a protector of the consecrated host. In my mind, though, we are all responsible for the protection of the Body of Christ, as consecrated by the priest, even if we die protecting it from desecration....
I wonder what St Joan Of Arc would have done ? Probably say a prayer for Christ to have mercy on his soul then dispatched him forthwith.
If the person doesn't believe that it is Jesus' own flesh it has no effect on the person.
Well, there is some indication that it will have an effect on him, for the worse (see St. Paul's admonition about receiving unworthily, not discerning the Body and Blood).
Public desecration of the Eucharist was often part of (mainly Calvinist)Reformation violence against the Church. "Here is your God of paste," they'd say, and do something vile to the Host.
Heaven forbid this becomes a trendy stunt across the country.
I'll second others who remarked that it would ill-advised if Catholics started playing the victim/hate speech card.
PZ's intentions are unjust, desspicable, and completely out of bounds of civilized behavior. But it also amounts to a negative witness to the Truth in a manner of speaking. If there really is nothing to the Eucharist, people would not act this way. They would just go, "pish-posh" and move on. Nothing reveals like obsession.
I'd be interested in hearing from a lawyer exactly how the law might sanction the action Myers proposes.
I'm just a law student, but I did a (admittedly brief) search on Lexis and couldn't find any cases involving theft or robbery of the Eucharist.
I would shy away from the "hate crime" tactics, as we are promised persecution. Christ came into the world to die for our sins, so we shouldn't be surprised that this sort of thing goes on.
That said, I see no reason why we shouldn't a) denounce this loudly for the violence against a community that it is, b) make the bishops of Minnesota aware of this and urge them to act with particular diligence to protect the Eucharist in their dioceses, and c) pressure the University of Minnesota to take action in the form of investigation and disciplinary measures, up to and including dismissal if so warranted.
With respect to the University, it would be interesting to see what sort of conduct codes are in place for University employees, as well as to investigate Prof. Myers' grading practices and classroom behavior with respect to religious students.
Friends,
There are saints who died in horribly painful ways while trying to keep the Eucharist out of the hands of those who would desecrate it. Tarcisius comes to mind. If the Eucharist is what we believe it to be, don't we have a responsibility to do all we can to protect it?
I strongly urge everyone to write the university.
An email address is provided at the Catholic League website.
"There are saints who died in horribly painful ways while trying to keep the Eucharist out of the hands of those who would desecrate it. Tarcisius comes to mind. If the Eucharist is what we believe it to be, don't we have a responsibility to do all we can to protect it?"
Stephen M. Tefft
Yes, St. Tarcisius did die trying to protect the Eucharist. I'm not entirley sure what you, Stephen, mean by "all we can," but there are those who want to take preemptive action. St. Tarcisius didn't grab rocks and return fire. I agree that the Eucharist should be defended, but I also believe that we shouldn't take unjusty agressive action.
"There, but for the grace of God, go I...."
I'm going to second Rosemarie on this. This is a call to prayer for all of us. NOW. Let's take up our cross and bear it.
<begin soapbox rant>
What PZ Myers said is outrageous and hateful, and yes we have a duty to protect the Eucharist. But it's a question of balance and we have to be oh-so-careful: these kinds of media storms are hard to contain. One commenter here questioned whether there really were death threats. Well, PZ Myers and/or Webster Cook may have fabricated them, but frankly I have no reason to doubt them. Without even trying, I can think of at least 3 people I know who would do such a thing. These are faithful Catholics with a genuine zeal for the faith, but due to mental illness or emotional issues cause a lot of damage along the way by overreactions of this nature. You can't put that toothpaste back into the tube...
This issue seriously pains me. All you have to do is read many of the comments associated with this Mpls Star Tribune story to get a sense of how it's being perceived by the public:
http://www.startribune.com/
lifes...rackSectionName
For most, Catholics are either 1)lunatics, or 2) hate-filled people who wish harm and even death upon all who do not believe as they do.
In our efforts to (rightly) defend the Eucharist, we're failing the grade at public relations. We need to do better, somehow.
</end soapbox rant>
Daniel - Catholics will never get an objective story printed about them by the secular media. One of many reasons these guys are losing circulation by the thousands....
>>>"Catholics will never get an objective story printed about them by the secular media."
I don't dispute that. Nevertheless, most people still learn their pseudo-knowledge of current events from MSM sources. That objective fact obliges us to be as shrewd as possible in our public dealings.
From the Star Tribune story linked above:
Myers, in an interview today, explained that the blog entry is more "satire and protest" than an actual threat to defile the Eucharist.
Ah, the old bait-and-switch. "I was just kidding! You're a bunch of humorless a**holes who can't appreciate a guy busting your chops!"
Stand by your words, Prof. Myers, like a man.
from the Minnesota Criminal Code:
609.28 INTERFERING WITH RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE.
Subdivision 1. Interference. Whoever, by threats or violence, intentionally prevents another person from performing any lawful act enjoined upon or recommended to the person by the religion which the person professes is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Romulus, I'm not sure that steathly obtaining hosts for purposes of desecration legally constitutes "threats" or "violence." Myers, nonetheless, is a big jerk.
That said, I wouldn't pooh-pooh the possibility of Myers or thes equally jerky Florida student being murdered by crazies. Go see the Angelqueen forum and you'll see. I suspect that most of Angelqueens, fortunately, are cowards that like to talk big, but one of them just might be deranged enough to pull the trigger.
Suppose the Eucharist fell off your hand and fell on some harmful chemical (assuming you have a mass outside the church) and you are compelled to eat it since it is the body of Christ and then you die, we can't just say "Oh, the body of Christ killed him!" can we?
This won't work on several counts. First of all, there is a way to dispose of a soiled Host that does not involve eating It, and, second of all, the poisonous material would remain poisonous material; it would not become part of the Body of Christ. So it would be the poison on the outside of the Host causing the problem, not the Host itself.
And It is the Body of Christ. Our faith allows us to recognize it as such, but the objective reality is what it is, even if no one believed. I'm afraid the post to which I'm replying is a sign of a rather Protestant view of Christ's Presence.
I second Geoff's dismissal of JoBen's logic. The example given is a matter of semantics. To quote:
we can't just say "Oh, the body of Christ killed him!" can we?
We can't just say that because we're dealing with metaphysical content and we have terms more precise. We could legitimately say that "consuming the host killed him," because the action of ingestion of the object (substance and all accidents, which include spatial attachments such as poison in this case) led to the death.
Now, to carry this further, we can see how the statement "That host was poisoned" would again not be a false statement here: it would be a correct way of stating the facts. Here's where JoBen's argument also breaks apart. While the poison does not corrupt of change the substance of the host, it never the less effects the whole of the host, which includes the categories of accidents. And if you change poison to any other predicate, you see why JoBen's illustration serves to illustrate the opposite fact of the point he was trying to illustrate: to wit, change "That host was poisoned" to "that host was stolen" to "that host was desecrated." We don't have the luxury of being able to tear metaphysical subsistences into compartments where we can affect one without the other.
If I approach the Eucharist and receive the host, I receive the whole host, regardless of whether I intend to receive only the grace without the accidental properties of bread, or only the taste and feel of bread without the substance to which they adhere. It's a package made beyond my will's capability to distinguish in material action.
@JoeyG and Geoff: I apologize for not being clear but, I was only trying to say that the student didn't have to be confronted right in front of everyone. And, I am a Catholic. The reason for using the poisoned host example was just to show that even if the student was going to desicrate it, it wouldn't hurt God just as in disposing a soiled host. We could have just forgiven the student (as if the host were soiled) instead of taking the issue to the media. That would have shown the public the true forgiving passion of Christ which is established through the Catholic Church instead of all the negative attention.
This is what I wrote on his blog, "If the Eucharist was just a cracker no one would care - no one would receive it, no one would protect it, no one would steal it, and no one would threaten to abuse it. Even for the atheist, its way more than a cracker."
Of course, someone responded by saying that was a stupid thing to say. 
To show libel we have to prove that his statements are false and they caused harm. We'll have to pray that they eat up their right to freedom of speech and leave it at that. If there's even one sacrilege as a result I wonder how difficult it would be to claim that PZ incited a crime.
I just keep trying to rely on God's Holy Mercy, remembering that he knows all things, and he is sending his Holy Spirit to help us to build his kingdom on earth.
For all the bad in the world, there are some powerful signs of hope as well. Somehow this gives me comfort after spending the morning reading the unbelievable disbelief on PZ's blog.
"Dear God, take our pitiful loaves and fish and make a banquet for your people."
Love and peace in Christ,
MaryH
+J.M.J+
>>>Of course, someone responded by saying that was a stupid thing to say.
Well then, if the Eucharist really is "just a cracker" to him, then P.Z. Myers must enjoy abusing breadstuffs. Maybe we should each send him a saltine or Ritz cracker so he can get his jollies maltreating them.
Or would that not be so much fun because no one would be offended? Hmmmm....
I do hope he was just joking and doesn't really intend to desecrate the Eucharist.
In Jesu et Maria,
Atheists engage in sophomoric junk like this and then wonder why many believers think they're just angry misanthropes shaking their fists at a God they don't believe in? Richly ironic.
I just read the comments on the professor's blogspot, and those comments struck me in two ways - one being the overall vileness of most of the responses - how dark and ugly and foul they are without Christ's light to guide the words spoken. Two, the similarity it all holds to the scoffing and abuse Jesus endured at the hands of the soldiers. The Body of Christ bearing and experiencing now the insults that Christ endured for all and for all time during His passion.
+J.M.J+
>>>Two, the similarity it all holds to the scoffing and abuse Jesus endured at the hands of the soldiers. The Body of Christ bearing and experiencing now the insults that Christ endured for all and for all time during His passion.
True. Fortunately, He can no longer suffer physically from that maltreatment.
In Jesu et Maria,
"Two, the similarity it all holds to the scoffing and abuse Jesus endured at the hands of the soldiers"
Kinda fitting this thread is taking place on a Friday,the day for praying the Sorrowful Mysteries.
The professor offers a proof
When he declared ’twas naught but wheat
He meant it, bai gad,
And set about to prove his deep disdain:
He cut it up in pieces
(snapping pictures, taking notes);
An eighth tossed in the furnace
An eighth spun down the drain.
“It’s nothing, do you hear me? Nothing!”
They heard him.
An eighth eaten with caviar
An eighth slug down with wine (also purloined
In an act of infamy by one
Not wholly sympathetic to his views
But also not in whole against them
Who took that fell sip from the sacred cup
And held it in his cheeks to spit back out
Into a ziplocked bag under his coat;
No reason the professor had to know this,
He reasoned)
“They’re fools for getting worked up!”
An eighth stomped in the dust, four times
(The last one with a little hop)
An eighth tossed to his dog
Snapping it from the air with a lazy familiarity;
Spitting it onto the floor as unfamiliar
While the professor roared at its irrelevance
“It’s meaningless! It’s nothing, nothing, nothing!”
An eighth crushed between greasy fingers
Eyes screwed, cheeks growing red, won’t be long now until
An eighth—
An eighth.
An eighth contemplated with falling passion
A contextless piece of cracker
As he had insisted
As he had boasted.
And so, tall man, for pouring out in hatred
All your hating will,
That which you called nothing
Can remain but nothing still.
He thought he’d be happy about it,
When the thing was done,
But he was not, especially,
And so at once began to draft some charts
That would unanswerably demonstrate,
To all who dared protest, that
Nothing could have made him happier.
-Written July 10th, 2008
oops, Just noticed this thread started on Thursday.
Back to lurking for me.
Two, the similarity it all holds to the scoffing and abuse Jesus endured at the hands of the soldiers. The Body of Christ bearing and experiencing now the insults that Christ endured for all and for all time during His passion.
Indeed. It is a reminder that it is not for nothing that we say that the Eucharist is a re-presentation (rather than merely a representation) of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross.
I'm interested in hearing how the Cook incident was in any sense a hate crime, or even a crime at all, let alone the utterly hysterical declaration of Donahue that anyone's first amendment rights were violated.
As far as I can tell, the original incident was a spat that escalated into silliness on both sides. But there's no crime there. Cook was voluntarily given a wafer with the belief that he would DESTROY IT (by eating it). Him NOT destroying it is no more theft or indeed any crime at all. He didn't even legally interfere or disrupt the service: legally, they interfered with HIM going back to his seat and then trying to leave.
It's perfectly reasonable to argue that you believe that the host is sacred and what ended up happening was desecration (though, I think Jo End is correct: this incident could have been resolved and dealt with far better and never become a public issue at all) and Cook deserves condemnation. What he did may have been blasphemous and insulting and worthy of condemnation, but blasphemy is protected under the 1st amendment just as much as religious practice.
To those who do not believe that the communion wafer is sacred, this incident simply looks quite analogous to all the examples Mark has bemoaned and scoffed at about Muslims being outraged by things they consider blasphemous (i.e. depictions of their God and prophet).
As for Myers, he clearly was trolling for reactions, and got it. But unfortunately, he has every right to make fun of the belief that wafers are sacred or literally Jesus, and watch people get all upset about him getting hold of some consecrated wafers. I don't think that's a very productive way to discuss or debate the issue, but then, he thinks I'm a milquetoast apologist.
Since we all live in the U.S., we'll all just have to be happy with expressing ourselves the way we all like, and having other people judge us by those expressions on a personal level... but not have any right or reason to bring the law into it.
Bad:
Myers has every right to speak as he pleases. He can blaspheme the Eucharist or say "I'd love to see a swastika on every synagogue." It's a free country and he has every right to be the asshole he is and say the asshole things he thinks."
However, the Eucharist is, in the profoundest sense, the property of the Church. It is also the most precious thing the Church has. One Host is worth more than the universe to the Church. To take it and defile it is just like painting a swastika on a synagogue. At that point, it is perfectly appropriate to call in Caesar and have him point out the difference between freely airing your views (as with the Danish Cartoons) and vandalism, harrassment, and theft.
Nobody was suggesting that Myer right to express himself be infringed. We are simply saying that he does not have the right to steal what is ours and vandalize it.
By the way:
"Him NOT destroying it is no more theft or indeed any crime at all."
is false. The Eucharist is of the Church, for the Church and to be received in the manner the Church intends. If you take the Eucharist, not for the purpose the Church intends, but to play tiddly winks with it, you are not receiving it, but stealing it. The student was aiming to harrass and vandalize. So is Myers.
Try doing something unauthorized to an item of Amerind "medicine" and see how the media and the law react. The government supported National Museum of the American Indian meticulously observes taboos in how it stores and displays its collection. (For example, female staff may never touch certain objects.)
Mention of poisoning the Eucharist reminds me of the Dark Ages Queen who murdered her daughter by spiking the Communion chalice with poison. People communicated in both Kinds back then.
Myers claims he received death threats. Where is the evidence for this allegation?
Remember the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons? I checked to see how the same Professor Myers reacted. Here it is:
"There are some things a cartoonist would be rightly excoriated for publishing: imagine that one had drawn an African-American figure as thick-lipped, low-browed, smirking clown with a watermelon in one hand and a fried chicken drumstick in the other. Feeding bigotry and flaunting racist stereotypes would be something that would drive me to protest any newspaper that endorsed it—of course, my protests would involve writing letters and canceling subscriptions, not rioting and burning down buildings. There is a genuine social concern here, I think. Muslims represent a poor and oppressed underclass, and those cartoons represent a ruling establishment intentionally taunting them and basically flipping them off. They have cause to be furious!"
http://scienceblogs.com/
pharyngu...dden_houses.php
Some evil men and some evil times. Pray... I have said many prayers for Mr. Myers.
Let me just say that before reading this thread I was leaning toward skipping daily mass today. Afterwards, I decided to go!
The Eucharist is such a blessing, and I wish more people could understand that.
Bad,
As I said on Voxday's blog if Fracken Cracker Boy wants to get some flour & bake his own "Eucharists" & hold a mock consecration & then use the "Eucharist" to wipe his butt I could care less.
There are offensive slime buckets on the Internet that do worse. However the issue here is he is telling his psycho fanboys to go out & STEAL our sacred thing.
You want to publish cartoons of Muhammad go ahead. But the day some freak tell losers to invade a mosque & nail those cartoons to the wall you have violated their civil rights.
Just as that Fascist Myers is trying to do to us.
Think about it!
Go Catholic League.
Opps last post was me. My bad Rosemarie would NEVER talk that way.
Not sure if this is related:
www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;
jsessionid=912931E6387D06E86603288C86CA66A1?
contentId=6932236&version=2&locale=EN-US&
layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
If the report of death threats is accurate, then what's the difference between Catholics and Muslims?
If the report of death threats is accurate, then what's the difference between Catholics and Muslims?
Gee, I dunno, maybe just that about 99% of the world's terrorists are Muslims?
I doubt the report is accurate (ie "true"), but if so, I would condemn those who are making the death threats.
And that's another diffeence right there.
Concerning Hate Crimes...
The statute in Florida is clear, "(2) Any person who willfully and maliciously defaces, injures, or damages by any means any church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, or any religious article contained therein, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083..."
It doesn't require monetary damage at all. A religious article contained therein was willfully and maliciously damaged by kidnapping Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is beyond all value (infact, it's the most valuable object in the world).
The maximum penalty is 5 years and $5,000 for a felony of the third degree.
Cook willfully and maliciously defaced/injured/damaged by the means of taking a religious article. It doesn't say he has to UNDERSTAND the depth of what he did. Indeed, would a bigot understand the depth of letting a pig run free in a mosque? No, but they would still be prosecuted.
Refusal to prosecute this case is nothing less than institutionalized anti-Catholicism.
Unfortunately, I can't find a link to the relevant Prosecutor's office.
Mark:
"One Host is worth more than the universe to the Church. To take it and defile it is just like painting a swastika on a synagogue."
So why isn't it defiling to digest the wafer and then excrete it later on? If it remains Jesus the entire trip, you are literally turning the lord into a piece of shit every time you eat one of those wafers.
Kaltrosomos,
You don't know anything about Catholic Theology or metaphysics, do you?
Okay, I'll bite and assume (probably falsely) that the question is sincere--
Kaltrosomos writes, "If it remains Jesus the entire trip, you are literally turning the lord[sic] into a piece of shit every time you eat one of those wafers."
Kalt, despite what you may suspect... the idea has indeed been dealt with. I assure you that luminaries like St. Augustine and St. Aquinas were capable of basic logic.
Now, since it is probably obvious that Catholics do not believe that their poop is Jesus, your "IF" clause is probably in error "If it remains Jesus the entire trip..."
If the host is Jesus when it goes in the mouth, but does not remain Jesus the entire trip, what do you suppose happens to Jesus, and when do you suppose it happens?
And don't forget: the host contains the entire soul and divinity of Jesus. We are not claiming this to be a physical piece of Jesus, but something much deeper.
Kaltrosomos,
"So why isn't it defiling to digest the wafer..."
The Eucharist is meant to be taken and eaten... Jesus said, "take and eat, this is my body..." The Eucharist, when eaten, becomes "communion"... Jesus enters the person and, like the love on a wedding day, "the two become one flesh." By receiving the Eucharist the person has an intimate meeting with Christ. That's why it is not allowed to be taken it out of the Church. Desecration prevents communion.
LCB,
What about the other stuff about it being His "Body and Blood", which imply physical, corporeal aspects, and not just spiritual ones?
You should read up a bit more on your own doctrine.
From the catechism, section 1333:
"At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood."
Is Jesus distributed evenly and totally throughout the whole wafer and all the wine after it's consecrated? are the wafer and wine 100% jesus? If so, then in order for them NOT to get excreted all of the wafer and all of the wine have to be absorbed into the body without any leftover. Even then, the Jesus particles will eventually get discarded through sweat, or old skin cells, if not eventually through excretion.
No matter where these particles go, eventually they'll get discarded as waste. The body is constantly replacing parts of itself at the cellular level, so that the body doesn't remain composed of the same particles as you started out with. The particles that make up the wafer and the wine are no different. They will cycle through the body and eventually be cast off. And if the wafer and wine ARE Jesus, then some of his body and blood end up discarded too, either in sweat, or urine, or feces, or old skin cells that fall off, or whatever.
"Kalt, despite what you may suspect... the idea has indeed been dealt with. I assure you that luminaries like St. Augustine and St. Aquinas were capable of basic logic."
Okay. Point me to the relevant passages by St. Augustine and St. Aquinas which deal with the topic of Jesus in the Eucharist as it is passing through the digestive tract and after it has left the body.
Mary Herboth,
I suppose that's one form of communion. But it's also considered cannibalism when you digest someone. As well, doesn't it seem kind of, I don't know, kinky to say that eating and drinking bits of someone is the best way to commune with them and feel intimate? At least, that's extremely kinky by orthodox and traditional conservative standards. Not something I expect to hear from religious groups. Some on the far, far left, maybe, but you guys? Are you kidding me?
+J.M.J+
advocatus diaboli asks:
>>>If the report of death threats is accurate, then what's the difference between Catholics and Muslims?
If an individual Catholic makes a death threat, he is violating the precepts of Catholic morality against vigilantism and murder. St. Augustine wrote in his work The City of God that no private citizen has a right to take it on himself to kill even a murderer.
Islam, OTOH, is apparently more accepting of the idea that an individual can kill someone who blasphemes or commits some other sin, hence practices like the fatwa or "honor killing."
If the report of death threats is accurate, I truly hope those Catholics are mentally ill or something, because that's just wrong, Wrong, WRONG!
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Kaltrosomos asks:
>>>So why isn't it defiling to digest the wafer and then excrete it later on? If it remains Jesus the entire trip(snip)
It doesn't remain Jesus the "entire trip." Catholics believe that, once the appearances of bread and wine disappear (about fifteen minutes after consumption) the Presence of Christ is no longer there.
Same as when the priest "dissolves" a Host in water after it falls on the floor.
The Real Presence is no long present after it dissolves, so the water can then be discarded without 'throwing away" Jesus.
You once said you studied Catholicism thoroughly, Kaltrosomos. Shouldn't you know this?
>>>Is Jesus distributed evenly and totally throughout the whole wafer and all the wine after it's consecrated?
After consecration, the "wafer and wine" cease to exist substantially though they still retain the appearance of bread and wine. It's not that Jesus is "evenly distributed" in something, rather, Jesus is the substance of the Eucharist. The appearances of bread and wine continue miraculously even after the substances of bread and wine are gone.
Two miracles take place at the consecration. The first is that the substance of the bread and wine change into Jesus Christ. Not His dead Body and Blood but His risen and living Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - His whole resurrected Self. The second miracle is that the qualities of bread and wine still remain as though no change has occurred. This is necessary so that the Eucharist can be in a foodlike form that we can easily consume.
These qualities will continue to behave the same way ordinary bread and wine would. Hence, if you immerse a consecrated Host in water, the appearance of bread will dissolve as bread typically does in water. If you eat it, it will break down as bread typically does during the digestion process. Once it has done so, the Sacred Humanity of Christ is no longer there, though His Divinity and sacramental graces remain with us. So no Catholic ever "excretes" the Body and Blood of Jesus, as they are long gone.
>>>But it's also considered cannibalism when you digest someone.
Again, we're not digesting Jesus, His risen Body and Blood are immune to digestion. The appearances/qualities of bread and wine dissolve away, after which His Body and Blood are no longer present. A glorified, resurrected Body does not behave like a mortal human body; it cannot get broken down and the nutrients distributed to each cell in the body and ultimately excreted. So there's no cannibalism involved. That's one of the oldest slanders against Christians and it's still bunk.
>>>As well, doesn't it seem kind of, I don't know, kinky to say that eating and drinking bits of someone is the best way to commune with them and feel intimate?
First, we're not eating/drinking "bits of someone." The whole Christ comes to us under the appearance of bread and wine. It is a mystery.
Second, to say, as Mary Herboth did, that it is "LIKE the love on a wedding day" (note the simile) is not the same as saying it's a literal act of conjugal union. It's not. Receiving Communion is not sexual. She's comparing the spiritual intimacy of the two acts, not saying that Communion is a physical sex act. Hence there's no way it could be kinky. (Besides, the marital act is blessed by God and so not "kinky.")
In Jesu et Maria,
>>>If the report of death threats is accurate, then what's the difference between Catholics and Muslims?
I reply: Well what is the difference between Catholic, Muslims & Atheists? Since according to the Catholic League ", we’ve been inundated with hate mail from all over the world, and it all stems from those whose alleged god is reason." END QUOTE
WE Catholics did not start this. It was anti-Catholic bigots & Atheists who started it. I'll repeat myself to Myers & his ilk keep your F****** hands off & stay out of Our House! If you REALLY & truely want to believe & will behave yourself you are welcome in any Catholic Church. But if you are just there to make trouble & steal stuff you WILL be ejected especially if I catch any of you!
Wow. 101 comments? I just came back and saw this. How did something like this make 101 comments? I haven't read the posts, and quite frankly, won't. But if I was a betting man (and I'm not), I would wager that a few folks who aren't Catholic got on here and decided to poke and prod the herd a little. My advice: let them. As a former non-believer myself, it does little good to argue something like this, whatever the objection is. If someone for any reason is going to even suggest there is legitimacy to this prof's statements, then a combox debate won't help. Change like this has to come from a higher power. Let them say what they will say, then move on. Sometimes silence is the best response. Believe me. As a non-believer I said some pretty stupid things about the Faith and the people who partook in it. Not because I really wanted an answer that might convince me otherwise. Most likely, I was talking to myself, trying to convince me that I was correct in rejecting the Faith in the first place. And if a someone is talking to himself, that's a difficult conversation to break into.
Myers is a hate-filled fanatic, just like his fellow "new atheists:" http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower#1914
Oops. That anon. was me. Wonder why that happened? Anyhoo, since I had to explain me, I would add this. The whole thing shows how vacant we as a society have become. The prof. has done this based on a very, very poorly reported story (check out the wonderful Getreligion site for a look at the stellar examples of journalism in covering this whole episode). A kid says he just spontaneously decided to walk away with a communion wafer, a little bothered by some Church funding issues, and suddenly the Catholics are saying he's going to hell and threatening to kill him. No proof. No request for actual facts or backing up his accusations with sources. His word is simply taken as is. And suddenly, folks like this esteemed prof. jump in and run with it as well. For my part, Bigfoot stories are covered with more attention to verifiable facts than this story was, and it shows a lust for attacking Catholicism on the part of those who so quickly jumped into the fray. A lust for attack that has been seen before.
WE Catholics did not start this. It was anti-Catholic bigots & Atheists who started it. I'll repeat myself to Myers & his ilk keep your F****** hands off & stay out of Our House! If you REALLY & truely want to believe & will behave yourself you are welcome in any Catholic Church. But if you are just there to make trouble & steal stuff you WILL be ejected especially if I catch any of you!
Dear Ben, do you hear yourself?
I understand your indignation. But your indulgence in anger, vengeance, and hate is not something we can do. Shame on you, sir.
Come on. You're better than this.
Mark s writes:
>But your indulgence in anger, vengeance, and hate is not something we can do. Shame on you, sir.
I reply: Your judgemental slander is noted. I don't apologize for my anger it is 100% just & in this case not a sin. I have not hated anyone. I hate the criminal activity Catholics are being threatened with. I want Myers to repent & go to Heaven just as much as the next guy.
Vengence? What a lie! I have NEVER called on ANYONE to take the Law into their own hands & hurt either Myers or another human being.
However in self defense & the defense of others if you come into my church & start trouble I will physically throw you out. That is 100% moral. If I see someone put a Eucharist in their pocket who is not a Eucharistic minister I will openly challenge that person.
This is all consistant with Catholic Moral teaching. Your Neo-Amish let criminals walk all over us false pasivism is not.
I posted a few things over at Fracken Cracker Boy's blog. All I can say is WOW! Imagin a Blog run by an Internet Troll whose commboxes are filled to the brim with Trolls & sensible people are banned.
Amazing.
Someone pose as a fanboy and sent Myers some unconsecrated hosts and let him get his jollies torturing bread.
If Myers suspects they might not be consecrated, he'd have to get a black witch to come in and discern whether it's consecrated or not.
In which case, he has just expressed faith in a faith system, witchcraft.
(Free Betty Brennan conversion testimony at St Joe's Media MP3 webstite--she tells about this discernment ability from her own personal experience.)
How will Myers get around to pissing off the Protestants? By shitting on the Holy Bible (KJV)?
A good reason to avoid getting drawn into arguments with folks who really aren't concerned about getting answers. We can get ticked off, and pretty soon we are the ones acting out, saying things that to the outside world seems as bad as anything being said, or even start taking swipes against folks who aren't even part of the discussion!
Jimmy Akin on When The Real Presence Ceases
For the genuinely curious.
Ben,
Your post that used the F word, and you reply to mark, made you sound like an idiot. You do all Catholics a disservice when you make such posts.
If something is a "judgmental slander", let others point it out. If others don't point it out, odds are it isn't.
Ben is right. His anger is justified and not a sin. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that encourages, much less requires, Catholics to regard sacrilege with equanimity.
Everyone reading Mark's post ought to write the President of the University of Minnesota to express outrage at Myers' actions, which are thoroughly reprehensible.
Rosemarie said,
"Catholics believe that, once the appearances of bread and wine disappear (about fifteen minutes after consumption) the Presence of Christ is no longer there.
"Same as when the priest "dissolves" a Host in water after it falls on the floor.
The Real Presence is no long present after it dissolves, so the water can then be discarded without 'throwing away" Jesus.
You once said you studied Catholicism thoroughly, Kaltrosomos. Shouldn't you know this?"
I guess I didn't study it thorougly enough. Forgive me though if I find it far too convenient that your doctrine is set up this way. Not only is it set up so that there is practically no way to verify that the eucharist is what you say, but you even make that inability to verify it another miracle?
This is ridiculous. We all know that bread is different than flesh. And yet you insist that a wafer can remain bread in appearance, texture, and so on, but somehow, in a way we have no method of testing, the bread is REALLY flesh. But this bread, which is really flesh, is not normal flesh since eating normal flesh would be cannibalism. So you tell me this bread which is really flesh is really magical flesh, which somehow exempts it from the usual taboos about eating flesh.
Finally, it's only magical flesh for say fifteen minutes, and flees gladly when dunked in water.
How can you possibly know, then, whether or not Christ's resurrected flesh and blood is actually present? How can you verify it? Or can you only say, "yep, it's there, trust me on this one!"
As I said before, this all seems far too convenient in the way it removes any need for actual, verifiable proof. For that matter, if you have no way to tell whether or not Christ is actually present, how can you be sure he is in any given wafer?
If the bread looks, feels, smells, and tastes the same whether or not it contains any divine presence, how can you possibly tell whether or not there is any divine presence?
Dave G. is correct. I e-mailed the reporter, Cheryl Getuiza, to ask what proof Webster Cook and his friend had via the "death threats". She said there was no evidence provided, just the word of Webster Cook and his unknown friend. The news story never made this clear.
It sounds like someone has not heard of the concept of academic freedom and the right of an individual to hold an opinion different from yours.
As a proud U of M alum. I support the prof! I supported them before and I will support them to the end! U-Rah Rah! Ski-U-Mah!
This is ridiculous. We all know that bread is different than flesh.
Why don't you go take on quantum mechanics next?
You can start with "This is ridiculous. We all know that particles are different than waves."
It sounds like someone has not heard of the concept of academic freedom and the right of an individual to hold an opinion different from yours.
As opposed to our holding an opinion different from theirs, which is of course no right of ours?
anyone has the right to hold a subjective opinion, they however do not have the right to impose their subjective opinoion upon others.
Faith being a belief in that which cannot be proven is by definition subjective. Furthermore, "stealing communion" is a very loose term.
Once a communion host is "desecrated" you would have to prove where it came from to prove desicration.
How many a catholic has held the host on their tounge and walked out of church? Are you going to prosecute them.
How many a little boy may have examined the wafer? Are you going to prosecute them.
No one is threatening violence against the church. If Jesus is bigger than the world and bigger than our conception of reality, then surely He can trancend even his transubstantated body in the Host. You're so anxious for the vengence of God in this situation that you cannot find the presence of God within it. Even in the greatest of tragedies, surely God remains. Shouldn't that be an occasion for rejoycing - no matter what a fool says or does, God remains. Or is your faith so small.
Catholics I know are just praying for all who hate our religion and want to mock our faith. Catholics are subject to violence worldwide.
Mary
"Why don't you go take on quantum mechanics next?
You can start with "This is ridiculous. We all know that particles are different than waves.""
people have observed things at the quantum level behaving as both a particle and a wave. Catholics tell us before hand what it is that's supposed to be going on when we look at the bread and wine during mass. But they also say it is something that we *cannot* possibly observe. We have no way to prove or disprove the presence of Christ in the bread or wine.
For that matter, it's very possible that new evidence will change the theory of quantum mechanics, or even dismantle it.
I doubt the same can be said for the doctrine of the Eucharist. it seems designed to be above proof or disproof and immune to change.
people have observed things at the quantum level behaving as both a particle and a wave.
And you credulously accept their claims to have observed these things?
Faith being a belief in that which cannot be proven is by definition subjective.
That isn't what 'faith' means to Catholics. Faith means trust in a Person who is known to exist by the natural light of reason. The 'knowing God exists' part isn't faith; the trust in Him - and therefore trust in things He has revealed - is faith.
It is actually a form of heresy for a Catholic to assert that the existence of God cannot be known through reason.
I cannot prove the presence or absence of the property 'consciousness' in Kaltrosimos.
Zippy,
Why not? How do you define consciousness?
I don't define consciousness, I experience it first hand.
If you experience it Zippy, you should have some idea of what outward signs indicate consciousness. Why then is it impossible for you to prove or disprove it's presence in others?
Why then is it impossible for you to prove or disprove it's presence in others?
Have you tried it?
Kaltrosomos writes:
>Forgive me though if I find it far too convenient that your doctrine is set up this way.
I reply: This is changing the subject. You made a specific charge based on your misunderstanding of Catholic teaching & my wife corrected it. Now you complain that the teaching is "too convenient." Its not so much "too convenient" as more consistent than your Straw-man version of the teaching portrayed it.
>Not only is it set up so that there is practically no way to verify that the eucharist is what you say, but you even make that inability to verify it another miracle?
I reply: We didn't make up that argument, that is the teaching of the Church. A knowledgable priest we know talked once about the two miracles involved in Transubstantiation.
What kind of verification would you like? If you are a strict atheistic materialist, then there is no proof that you will accept anyway. Atheistic materialism is hopelessly bound to the self-refuting notion of logical positivism, that only propositions that one can scientifically or mathematically prove are true. Since Science & Math are bound to the material realm, they cannot prove anything in the spiritual realm.
Hence spiritual truths cannot be proven to the satisfaction of a positivist, yet that does not mean that they are not true. After all, logical positivism is false by its own standards. Its basic tenet - that only propositions that can be proven scientifically or mathematically are true - cannot itself be proven scientifically or mathematically. Thus, by its own standards, it should not be accepted to be true. It fails its own test of veracity.
>This is ridiculous. We all know that bread is different than flesh. And yet you insist that a wafer can remain bread in appearance, texture, & so on,
I reply: It doesn't remain bread, that would be a contradiction. Rather God miraculously causes the accidents of bread to remain though the substance is gone.
>but somehow, in a way we have no method of testing, the bread is REALLY flesh.
I reply: Not just flesh, but the glorified Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Christ.
St. Thomas Aquinas discussed this in terms of substance vs. accidents. Substance is the essence of something, while accidents are certain qualities it has. You can change the accidents of your hair (color & texture) by dying it a different color or perming/straightening it, yet it retains the substance of hair.
The Church has long taught that God miraculously changes the substance of the bread & wine while causing the accidents (color, taste, texture) to remain. This can only happen through a divine miracle. For God, that is not impossible.
>But this bread, which is really flesh, is not normal flesh since eating normal flesh would be cannibalism.
I reply: No one said it isn't "normal" flesh. Its risen, glorified flesh rather than earthly, mortal flesh. Its immortal state is "normal" for a glorified body.
>So you tell me this bread which is really flesh is really magical flesh,
I reply: Not "magical," but glorified, incapable of dying. We Christians don't believe in magic, but we do believe in miracles such as resurrection. The resurrection results in a body which can no longer die, a glorified body.
>which somehow exempts it from the usual taboos about eating flesh.
I reply: This is not cannibalism because that involves killing a victim & eating his dead flesh. In the Eucharist, we do not eat Jesus' Body in a physical, fleshly manner, as in chomping on a piece of his nose or finger. Rather, we receive His risen Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in their entirety. Rather than us assimilating His Body into ours, Christ assimilates us into His Mystical Body, the Church.
>Finally, it's only magical flesh for say fifteen minutes, & flees gladly when dunked in water.
I reply: The Real Presence only remains as long as the appearances of bread & wine remain. When they dissolve the Real Presence is no longer present. That takes approximately fifteen minutes, so Catholics are often told that Jesus remains with us up to fifteen minutes after we receive Holy Communion.
>How can you possibly know, then, whether or not Christ's resurrected flesh & blood is actually present? How can you verify it? Or can you only say, "yep, it's there, trust me on this one!"
I reply: Given our belief that Jesus is the Son of God, the Way, the TRUTH & the Life, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. & given the fact that He promised to give His true Body & Blood for the life of the world in John chapter 6, & given His own words, "This is My Body... This is the cup of My Blood," we believe that Jesus is actually present in the Eucharist.
Maybe it can't be verified through the scientific method or a mathematical equation, but neither can your assumption that it has to be in order to be true.
I can't prove my love for my wife scientifically. Even if you say, "I can observe you doing nice things for her & acting in a loving manner towards her," that's no real proof. For all you know that could all be an act just to get something from her. How does my wife know I love her? She has faith, that is, she trusts me. I also trust her & we both trust God.
>As I said before, this all seems far too convenient in the way it removes any need for actual, verifiable proof.
I reply: If you believe that only things that you can prove scientifically or mathematically are true, then prove that belief to me scientifically or mathematically. Is there any actual, verifiable proof for that?
>For that matter, if you have no way to tell whether or not Christ is actually present, how can you be sure he is in any given wafer?
I reply: We believe that, if the priest who consecrates it is validly ordained, then Jesus is there.
If you have no way to prove logical positivism scientifically or mathematically , how can you be sure it is true?
>If the bread looks, feels, smells, & tastes the same whether or not it contains any divine presence, how can you possibly tell whether or not there is any divine presence?
I reply: We trust Jesus and so take Him at His word.
You're an atheist who doesn't believe in God in the first place, so how can you believe that Jesus is the Son of God in the second place? Then how can you trust Jesus when He says He is giving us His Body in the third place? You're demanding proofs for the tangents at the end of the grand equation without looking first at the proofs at the beginning of the grand equation.
LCB writes:
>Your post that used the F word, and you reply to mark, made you sound like an idiot.
I reply: Why is it wrong for me to express outrage toward a grievous injustice in strong terms but it's OK for you to call me an idiot? Excuse me but that is hardly consistent.
>You do all Catholics a disservice when you make such posts.
I reply: That is one opinion. It does not happen to be mine.
>If something is a "judgmental slander", let others point it out.
I reply: If you are falsely accuse me of indulgence in anger, vengeance, and hate be assured I will respond if I believe your charges to be wrong. I don't require this be done by others. I can & will defend myself.
>If others don't point it out, odds are it isn't.
I reply: Then are you not lucky you got to witness one of those times that defy the odds? Lucky boy.
Zippy:
Yes. Right now. You talk, you think, you question. Judging from my own experience of consciousness, you seem conscious as well. Though perhaps you'd like to debate with me on that point? :D
BenYachov:
"Since Science & Math are bound to the material realm, they cannot prove anything in the spiritual realm."
I reply: You mention a "spiritual realm". what I'd like is just one bit of evidence that such a realm actually exists. To date the only realm I've known is the material. Where is the spiritual one hiding? Why, if this spiritual realm is so important, was I only born with a physical body and physical senses?
As well, I am not a logical positivist, so the restraints of that particular position don't apply to me.
But back to the issue. I have plenty of evidence for the physical realm. I can touch, taste, hear, smell and see the world and all the things in it. Until I get some extraordinary counter-evidence, I'm confident that the physical exists.
What evidence can you show me for the spiritual? How is it found? Where is it?
"You're an atheist who doesn't believe in God in the first place, so how can you believe that Jesus is the Son of God in the second place?"
I'm assuming it for the sake of the argument. Assuming it true for an argument doesn't mean I believe it's true the rest of the time.
"Maybe it[the real presence] can't be verified through the scientific method or a mathematical equation, but neither can your assumption that it has to be in order to be true."
I haven't claimed that things can only be proved mathematically or scientifically. You're projecting someone else's position on to me.
What I do say is that since the claim you make involves material substances, the bread and wine, changes in those substances should be subject to scientific and empirical proof. The miracle is supposed to take place in material substances, so why isn't it open to empirical proof or disproof?
Notice the difference. I do not claim that the scientific and mathematical are the only valid forms of proof. I do claim that since the miracle takes place in material substances, it should be subject to material proof.
@Anonymous 7.12.08 - 6.45PM
The Church is not threatening anyone either. Except for maybe Ben Yachov, who says that if anyone came into his Church and attempted to take the Eucharist to go desecrate it, he would physically restrain them from doing so, everyone here has expressed outrage or frustration, or prayer; but no one has threatened violence or done anything other than condemn the alleged death threats. I haven't seen (now it's uyp to over 130 posts, maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen any calls for the vengeance of God on PZ Myers. For Myers to get some kind of wake-up call, sure - but not for his damnation, nor for his being physically injured in some way. Sooo - you seem to have found a Catholic blog with a thread on this subject and just posted some random thoughts which may have matched some conversation you thought was taking place somewhere. In fact, a couple people here have precisely pointed out the presence of God in this little tempest.
You sort of have a point, in that many Catholics throughout history may have, through childish curiosity (little boys and maybe little girls) or ignorance, desecrated the host - but it wasn't intentional.
Probably Cook's desecration wasn't original intentional - it was kind of goofy, and he could have had the priest show his friend an unconsecrated host after Mass, to see what they look like. Apparently others observing Cook's behavior, overreacted -- and then he overreacted in his turn, deciding to do something essentially childish ('if it's so important to you that I consume this right now, then I'll poke you in the eye by taking it home with me instead! Or hold my breath 'til I turn blue...'). He was later talked into returning the host.
Meantime, Bill Donohue shot off his mouth. Completely unnecessary, completely innapriopriate. Cook's action was goofy and immature, perhaps in response to goofiness by somebody else. Not Donohue's business, not an attack on the Church, the faith, not even an attack on Christ himself - just a goofy, sophomoric, college-kid stunt. Nothing that requires Donohue to come to the Church's defense.
Then, Myers completely flies off the handle, calls all Catholics, let's see, 'fuckwits' and invites his followers to go obtain a consecrated host so that he can defile it. Even without believing in the Eucharist, a more civil debater (much more), like Bad, can see Myers' ranting as at least 'unproductive.'
Perhaps it is not necessary to be a Catholic to see the taking of a consecrated host out of a church for the purpose of treaing it, not only in a way other than the Church says it should be treated, but purposefully in a manner that the Church regards as desecration, to be at least very much akin to theft or vandalism. we find it frustrating, perhaps, to be the on=bjects of scorn and contempt by people whom we bear no ill will. We find it distressing that there are seemingly so many who think it funny, or smart, to talk about engaging in this behavior. we find it distressing to think that some of them may actually commit the behavior. We are debating, in this thread, exactly how bad Myers manners are, and whether they cross the line into possibly illegal behavior; and how we should (or shouldn't) react to such jackasserie -- especially if it does show come braying into our parish church. And we're also talking about praying for the guy.
so, thanks for the sermon, but, er, tell us something we don't know.
Peace,
>You mention a "spiritual realm". what I'd like is just one bit of evidence that such a realm actually exists. To date the only realm I've known is the material. Where is the spiritual one hiding? Why, if this spiritual realm is so important, was I only born with a physical body and physical senses?
I reply: Hello? You have NEVER in your life read ANY arguments for the existence of God? Study ANY philosophy? Dude, do your own homework I'm not my wife I'm not gonna re-invent the wheel for ya. I'm not Rosemarie I'm the Jerk She took pity on & married. I can point you to the McDonalds your gonna have to order your own happy meal.
>As well, I am not a logical positivist, so the restraints of that particular position don't apply to me.
I reply: Then you shouldn't argue like one demanding materialist explanations for spiritual realities. That is a Category Mistake & it's begging the question. Dawkins make this mistake BIG time when he assumes A priori there is a materialistic reality only & all things must be explained in materialistic terms. This is why His polemics are worthless to any serious Atheist who want to take on a Theist who went past the 7th grade..
>But back to the issue. I have plenty of evidence for the physical realm. I can touch, taste, hear, smell and see the world and all the things in it. Until I get some extraordinary counter-evidence, I'm confident that the physical exists.
I reply: You need to get philosophical. I recommend the evolutionary argument against naturalism by philosopher Alvin Planting.
http://www.hisdefense.org/Online...36/
Default.aspx
>What evidence can you show me for the spiritual? How is it found? Where is it?
I reply: Again you would have to start with philosophy & reason. Science plays a big role but one step at a time.
>>"You're an atheist who doesn't believe in God in the first place, so how can you believe that Jesus is the Son of God in the second place?"
>I'm assuming it for the sake of the argument. Assuming it true for an argument doesn't mean I believe it's true the rest of the time.
I reply: Then your objections are meaningless. Since if you assume for the sake of argument the Existence of God & the Deity of Christ logically if the one who was God the Word incarnate told you threw his church he was giving you His Body in the Eucharist it would be foolish to doubt Him.
>>"Maybe it[the real presence] can't be verified through the scientific method or a mathematical equation, but neither can your assumption that it has to be in order to be true."
>I haven't claimed that things can only be proved mathematically or scientifically. You're projecting someone else's position on to me.
I reply: It's clearly the defaut position you are arguing from thus it's fair game & useful to point our your inconsistancy in using it.
>What I do say is that since the claim you make involves material substances, the bread and wine, changes in those substances should be subject to scientific and empirical proof. The miracle is supposed to take place in material substances, so why isn't it open to empirical proof or disproof?
I reply: Like I said for someone who denies he is a logical positivist you sure argue like one. You really need to start learning some philosophy & start learning Aquinas. In Nature, that is the natural world, Accidents & Substances never exist one without the other. Thus to change a substance while leaving the Accidents by definition requires a SUPER-natural act. Since in Nature you never have a Substance without it's accidents or Accidents without a Substance. There is no NATURAL way transubstantiation can occur. Thus it requires the super-natural act which as we know can't be detected by the natural sciences. At least not directly.
>Notice the difference. I do not claim that the scientific and mathematical are the only valid forms of proof. I do claim that since the miracle takes place in material substances, it should be subject to material proof.
I reply: Except in the material world there is no natural occurences of a Substance without it's accidents. Also strictly speaking no substance can be directly examined by scientific and empirical methods since the natural sciences can ONLY interact with the accidents of a thing. Physical Sciences can ONLY examine the properties of something. A thing's properties are by definition it's accidents. Thus not only can you not scientifically know if a consecrated Eucharist has had it's substance changed to the substance of the Body of Christ you can't even know the Wonder Bread in your kitchen has the substance of bread by this method. A Substance is the Essence of a Thing. The Accidents are the properties by which we interact.
Now off you go study philosophy.
On the Webster Cook incident. I found a Catholic Blog that addresses it & Dr. Brian Cook posts on it to defend his son.
The Blogger VOICE IN A CROWD does a good job of handling it.
You all have to read this.
http://vivechristusrex2000.blogs...s-in-
again.html
>Meantime, Bill Donohue shot off his mouth. Completely unnecessary, completely innapriopriate. Cook's action was goofy and immature, perhaps in response to goofiness by somebody else. Not Donohue's business, not an attack on the Church, the faith, not even an attack on Christ himself - just a goofy, sophomoric, college-kid stunt. Nothing that requires Donohue to come to the Church's defense.
I reply: You are wrong but kuddos for pointing out I only threatened to throw people out of my church if I saw them taking a Eucharist.
again read this post:
http://vivechristusrex2000.blogs...s-in- again.html
"I reply: Hello? You have NEVER in your life read ANY arguments for the existence of God? Study ANY philosophy? Dude, do your own homework I'm not my wife I'm not gonna re-invent the wheel for ya."
The problem is that there IS NO WHEEL. You guys are like the knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who hop around imagining they have horses when all they have is a coconut. All the arguments I've heard for God's existence are unconvincing. The arguments are hollow coconuts banging together.
The cosmological argument, the argument from design, the ontological argument, the moral argument... just a bunch of coconuts.
"A Substance is the Essence of a Thing. The Accidents are the properties by which we interact."
But we run into the same problem. If you can only interact with the Accidents of any given thing, how can you even say the Substance of a thing exists? What if there is no Substance, but only Accidents? How do we know about the Substance of a thing if we can only interact with the Accidents?
"I reply: You need to get philosophical."
And I reply: I'm skeptical about whether that's really a good idea. Look at what getting philosophical did to you. You're a self-proclaimed jerk.
The cosmological argument, the argument from design, the ontological argument, the moral argument... just a bunch of coconuts...I'm skeptical about whether that's really a good idea. Look at what getting philosophical did to you. You're a self-proclaimed jerk.
And with the unraveling of Kaltrosomos' responses to that level, match point and game to: Ben Yachov.
Judging from my own experience of consciousness, you seem conscious as well.
Judging from my own experience of the claims of the Church, including her Eucharistic claims, they are true. This isn't a proof in any but a very loose and equivocal sense of the term, of course; just as your proposed "proof" of the consciousness of other beings isn't a "proof" in any but a loose and equivocal sense of the term. That doesn't trouble me much, since I'm not a positivist or verificationist or any other sort of adherent to nineteenth-century metaphysics; nor am I a postmodern, the natural counterpoint of the positivist.
"Since Science & Math are bound to the material realm, they cannot prove anything in the spiritual realm."
Math certainly isn't bound to the material world. Physics is a subset of Math -- which subset? The subset that applies to the material world.
There are mathematical subjects that no one's even figured out a way to apply to the material world, such as transfinite numbers.
LCB, your quoting of Florida Statute is incomplete and, as you go on to state that there is no monetary requirement, patently false. This is how the full statute reads:
806.13 (2) Any person who willfully and maliciously defaces, injures, or damages by any means any church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, or any religious article contained therein, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the damage to the property is greater than $200.
Emphasis mine. You can view the statute at this link. The cause of Christ is not advanced by encouraging the Church to pursue false claims against others.
As far as the Eucharist and the hypothetical theft, there is indeed a possible theft by either false pretenses or trick and device. Extending the offense to Professor Myers, claiming he incited this behavior is likely a stretch every bit as much as Rush Limbaugh's 'encitement' to interference in various Democratic primaries was this spring.
"As I said before, this all seems far too convenient in the way it removes any need for actual, verifiable proof."
It's your demand for verifiable proof that seems very convenient, to me. It keeps you from having to really consider certain things.
Forgive me though if I find it far too convenient that your doctrine is set up this way.
Forgive us for considering that you might actually mean "I find it far too INconvenient [for me] that your doctrine is set up this way."
“Science & Math are bound to the material realm”
Beg pardon? I’d second Mary’s opinion in saying that there’s plenty in both Science and Math that’s not bound to the plainly observable and testable “Material Realm”… Perhaps you’ve never sat through a Math lecture where they go through some of the more bizarre topological spaces and manifolds, or through a Physics lecture in which hand waving eliminates pieces of math that logically follow, but don’t really fit our understanding. (For example, (if I remember correctly) there’s a cute little portion in relativistic E+M where effects can precede their causes in time in terms of mathematics… yeah that one gets swept under the rug of logic…) But no, since all truth worthy of belief should be materially available, I ask you, oh mighty arbiter of truth Kaltrosomos, to give me material proof of imaginary numbers. How might I reach out and touch the square root of a negative…? (In truth from a merely physical point of view, you’d be hard pressed to convince me of the existence of negative numbers at all!)
Anyway, since you seem to have mastered philosophical truth enough to sneer at it and render it useless, would you mind telling us exactly what you find lacking in Aquinas, or any of the other myriad of proofs you just loftily brushed off above?
Also, it amuses me somewhat that you question what the world would be like if there is/was no substance, only accidents… I think the answer is almost something of a tautology: Quite frankly in taking your position, life lacks any substance whatsoever and is nothing but a series of accidents.
Kaltro writes:
"I have plenty of evidence for the physical realm. I can touch, taste, hear, smell and see the world and all the things in it. Until I get some extraordinary counter-evidence, I'm confident that the physical exists."
Paging Rene Descartes...
Ben
Your series of "I reply" posts have certainly redeemed you Bravo for the patience to systematically address the ignorance.
I wish I had the same patience. There just comes a point where I won't even bother explaining the fundamentals of metaphysics, logic, reason, etc to those that aren't taking my Intro class.
It seems the fundamental questions here are as follows:
Does metaphysics exist? Can logic and reason be used to reach metaphysical conclusions?
I tire of people who know nothing of either philosophy or theology providing their opinions on the topics as if they were educated. They would never attempt such a thing in regards to structural engineering, oncology, or other subjects... yet they insist on doing so with philosophy and theology. Absolutely mind-numbing.
Unfortunately, comboxes are not suited to intellectual midwifery and the Socratic method. Were they, we would have some very embarrassed atheists.
How can you reason with a person who denies the very existence of reason?
Eric,
I left the last portion of the statute out (or s. 775.084, if the damage to the property is greater than $200.) because it refers specifically to financial recourse to property damage.
The Florida hate crime law applies regardless of the value of something in question, and can be applied even if no monetary damage has taken place.
Zippy, what do you mean by 'proof' then?
Tim J, what things are you referring to? And your objection goes both ways. Perhaps you choose to believe christian doctrines because it keeps you from considering or at least contemplating certain things for very long.
RM, you are quoting BenYachov concerning science and math, not me.
As for Aquinas, the issues I have with his arguments are the following.
He starts out considering a few objections to the existence of God, such as the problem of evil.
For the problem of evil, he answers that God allows evil because it serves a greater good.
This falls flat on its face when considering the massive amount of suffering in the world which took place before humans ever evolved. For tens of thousands of years there has been suffering and pain in the natural world. Predators devouring prey, parasites leeching off of hosts, bacteria destroying animals with immune systems too weak to fight them off.
Apparently God intended the world to be one where the primary virtue is "Devour to survive." And if, as a number of theologians claim, only humans have souls, then all this animal suffering serves no purpose such as strengthening their character or paving their way to heaven. If these animals have no souls, their suffering has been pointless from a theological perspective. It doesn't serve any greater good.
So that means one of several things. One: God doesn't exist. or two, God is not all good. Or three, God is not omnipotent. Take your pick. I find number one the likeliest possibility, though I still consider the others possible. Just not very encouraging. Who wants to worship either an impotent or a malevolent god, after all?
As for Aquinas' five proofs:
First, his prime mover argument. Something moving had to be set in motion by something else, he says. And the universe is in motion. But there must be something which set things in motion which isn't moving itself, because otherwise there would be an infinite regress of intermediate movers, each one moving the next, this chain of movers continuing forever. So a prime mover is needed to start the chain of motion.
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
But it is not clear that God is that first mover. Matter can serve that role.
Aquinas' second proof is just enough version of the first, which says a first cause is needed to avoid an infinite regress. My answer to the first applies here too.
His third deals with entropy. He argues that things which have the possibility of not existing must at some point cease to be. But, he says, if everything in the universe is perishable, then things would eventually cease to exist altogether. There woudl be nothing. So the existence of something necessary, that which *must* exist, is implied. He says this necessary is God.
Again, that doesn't make the assumption that the entire universe can cease to exist valid. Matter might be the eternal, necessary thing.
the fourth argument seems to be one from perfection. The gradations in characteristics, such as hot and hotter, cool and cooler, and so on, must be traced back to their most perfect forms, such as Hottest and Coolest. There msut be, so the argument goes, an ultimate perfection for the whole of the universe, which is God.
But a 'hottest' or 'coolest' is not always in evidence. For instance, there is an infinite amount of possible numbers. There is no highest number, because you can always come up with a higher one. Similarly, there is no greatest volume of space, since space is continually expanding.
Time is another thing which might be infinite. When will it end, for instance? Will there ever be an "oldest" time period, or merely a series of "older" ones? Even theoreticaly, you can think of an age and then come up with an older age, because of the infinity of numbers already mentioned. So aquinas' argument from perfection doesn't hold much water, since in many things there is no 'perfect' or 'best'.
His fifth way is a version of the argument from design. He supposes that everything works toward an end, and those things which are not intelligent are directed to their ends by things that are. This has the same trouble as number four. Some things do not appear to have ends, such as matter, as opposed to the configurations it takes, like plants, animals, and so on.
>But it is not clear that God is that first mover. Matter can serve that role.
I reply: According to Big Bang theory when the Universe came into being it was pure energy. How can matter be involved? Plus basic physics will tell you matter can't cause anything without energy.
>Aquinas' second proof is just enough version of the first, which says a first cause is needed to avoid an infinite regress. My answer to the first applies here too.
I reply: If I told Kaltrosomos I would give him a Cookie after he flipped a light-switch an infinite # of times would he ever get the cookie? Clearly no. If there was an infinite regress of finite causes we could never transverse them to get to the cause that created the universe.
This what you get when you reject philosophy and logic and hold to a dogmatic materialism & sub-conscience
logical positivism.
>His third deals with entropy...etc
I reply: It's called the second law of thermodynamics.
>Again, that doesn't make the assumption that the entire universe can cease to exist valid. Matter might be the eternal, necessary thing.
I reply: In about Googlaplex # of years all protons in the universe will break down. Can you have Atoms without proton? Yeh, good luck with that.
>the fourth argument seems to be one from perfection....etc
>But a 'hottest' or 'coolest' is not always in evidence. For instance, there is an infinite amount of possible numbers.
I reply: True, but there is no such thing in the natural world as negative infinity degrees bellow zero. There is absolute zero. But you can't go lower.
>You deny the existence of either the spiritual or supernatural but you invent these odd categories? Weird.
>There is no highest number, because you can always come up with a higher one.
I reply: YES you a can't transverse infinity(unless you are an Infinite God) & yet you postulate an infinite series of finite material causes. Double Weird.
>Similarly, there is no greatest volume of space, since space is continually expanding.
I reply: ?????? Point being?
>Time is another thing which might be infinite. When will it end, for instance?
I reply: When Time comes to an end during the End of Days that will begin Eternity. A timeless now. Do remember before Big Bang there literally was no Time. Time, Space, Matter & Energy are all the children of the Bang (& of course God lite that puppy off. Best firecracker ever!).
>Will there ever be an "oldest" time period, or merely a series of "older" ones?
I reply: No there won't be since time will end & we will have Eternity. A big timeless NOW with no past or future. There is no time in heaven because there literally will be no Time.
>Even theoreticaly, you can think of an age and then come up with an older age, because of the infinity of numbers already mentioned.
I reply: You really need to read Aquinas more closely since he did talk about Eternity. Which is not the same as Infinity.
>So aquinas' argument from perfection doesn't hold much water, since in many things there is no 'perfect' or 'best'.
I reply: You really haven't proven it at all. You have just proven you need to study philosophy & Aquinas more closely & ditch the materialist presuppositions.
Not much point in answering 5 since you make the same mistakes as in 4.
I'm handing it over to you Zippy. I'm gonna go watch some online TV. I just saw the 1st GET SMART episode.
Kalthrosmos
Ok, a couple of thoughts before I go to bed, as I’m sure others will pick up the slack and fill in the gaps when I finally run outta steam in a few minutes. I appreciate you actually answering my question though, as it’s definitely refreshing to see someone actually attempt to do their philosophical/theological homework. That said… Your comments contra Aquinas are filled with unnecessary assumptions and holes. I’ll try to touch on as many as I can before I fall asleep on my keyboard, so please don’t hold it against me if I don’t get to everything you brought up tonight…
So to begin… your argument against God’s existence based on the fact of his allowing pterodactyls to suffer etc is a non- sequitur. Think about it: if there existed an omnipotent God, he could by definition bring an infinitely supreme Good out of an infinitely supreme Evil. In fact, he could trump every evil with a greater good. That’s actually the story of Christianity: God took the most unthinkable evil, Deicide, and brought the resurrection out of it. He transformed eternal death of an infinite God into eternal life… sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Aaaand, the fact that animals lack souls doesn’t make their suffering purposeless… What if all that toil was all part of God’s plan to evolve Humanity to where it was today? Then it would be part of a divine plan, and it would be ordered to a greater good… Sure seems like God knows what He’s doing to me…
And so, on to my blitzkrieg analysis of your post on the five proofs… First, kudos to you on actually realizing that entropy exists. A lot of people forget about little old entropy and its implications for the universe. That said, you didn’t really take the time to think about how entropy (and all of Thermodynamics, really) actually effects our universe. If matter is the end-all-be-all of the universe, then we’re all in for a nasty shock when everything eventually progresses to maximum disorder and flattens out like entropy says if should. So, basically what we can draw from entropy thus far is that things will tend to equalize until there’s no potential anywhere, and the universe will die (so to speak). It’ll take a long time, but it’ll happen. Add to that your theory that time can also be infinite (which it must be if matter is to be infinite), and the theory of matter being the prime mover self-implodes… If a hundred-billion-hillion-jillion-trillion years have already gone by, then there’s no excuse as to why entropy hasn’t devoured the universe yet. If space and time are/were infinite, there’s no good reason why the universe hasn’t stopped spinning. So yeah, entropy is the destroyer of Atheistic theories.
Also, we have this fun notion nowadays that matter and energy are somewhat “interchangeable”, which just about puts the nail in the coffin for the matter as first mover theory of yours.
Oh, and I apologize for incorrectly attributing a quote to you, however, can you see how I’d be confused? Weren’t you the one who wanted physical tangible proof of either the Eucharist or God? Well, that seems like asking for something that can be verified by the scientific method to me… So, when you give me a nice imaginary number for me to touch, then we can talk about physical proofs…
Heh, looks like Ben Yachov already beat me to a lot of it. Cheers!
This has probably been said, but to those saying it is not theft since it is freely given...
That is not true, actually. The Eucharist is offered to all those Catholics in a state of grace. The Church happens to operate on an "honor" system of sorts, not checking ID at the door, but that does not mean that it is freely given to anyone.
If a store does not put security devices or security guards on the door, you are still not free to take the merchandise, even if it were easy to walk out with it without anyone noticing.
I don't apologize for my anger it is 100% just & in this case not a sin.
Your anger is completely understandable, maybe even admirable considering what this guy is up to.
But your behavior is not. No matter what the guy is doing, railing at him (or about him) with profanity and telling him to stay the F*** “out of our house” is about as anti-Christian as you can get.
Vengence? What a lie!
Point taken. I apologize. “Vengeance” was definitely a poor choice of word on my part.
Your Neo-Amish let criminals walk all over us false pasivism is not.
Then I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood me. I’m not talking about doing nothing. There are active ways to oppose this, but ways that promote love and the Gospel. Your fuming anger promotes nothing but more strife and confirms every wrong-headed opinion about Catholics that people like Myers and his ilk believe.
Myers is being a jackass, no doubt. But behaving like jackasses ourselves hardly helps the situation, does it? As Christians, we are called to a higher standard.
>But your behavior is not. No matter what the guy is doing, railing at him (or about him) with profanity and telling him to stay the F*** “out of our house” is about as anti-Christian as you can get.
I reply: Nope, your wrong. I live in New York. A thug breaks into my house I will not be polite to him & there will be "profanity".
What you never read THE LITTLE FLOWERS OF ST FRANCIS in the original Italian?
There is a line (censored in the English version) where St. Francis tells the Devil Himself "Open your Mouth & I will S*** in it".) I'm still Christian even when I say f*** to an unjust attacker.
>Then I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood me. I’m not talking about doing nothing.
I reply: So far all you have done is advocate a "soft" & "fuzzy" approach to him. A Christian may morally use sufficient force against an immediate unjust attacker. So Myers & his ilk SHOULD either stay the F*** out of my local Church or behave themselves. Or people will be forcibly ejected to the pavement.
>There are active ways to oppose this, but ways that promote love and the Gospel.
I reply: Yeh, a thug breaks into my house I have a Gospel appointed duty to protect my family. Some twit tries to attack the Eucharist I will respond with sufficient force. That is allowed to me by the Moral Law.
>Your fuming anger promotes nothing but more strife and confirms every wrong-headed opinion about Catholics that people like Myers and his ilk believe.
I reply: This is like a Jew scolding a fellow Jew about oh...pick a stereotype....... not being too free with his money or guys like Michael Hoffman or the Grand Dragon of the Klan might be confirmed in their wrong-headed opinions about Jews being cheap.
Are you nuts? This slime bag & his psycho fanboyz N' Girlz are NOT rational misinformed people of goodwill! They are rabid dogs! Don't believe me? Go read the comments box on his blog. It's the sane & rational posts that are subject to the most vitriol. They are thugs. So if they come into my church & start trouble they will be treated as such.
>Myers is being a jackass, no doubt.
I reply: Howard Stern is a Jackass. Myers is a criminal thug wannabe. Big difference.
>But behaving like jackasses ourselves hardly helps the situation, does it?
I reply: I am a Jerk in many ways & I admit to that freely. However in this area my conscious is clean.
Thank you for your concern but that is the end of it.
>As Christians, we are called to a higher standard.
Amen! I only hope if God forbid it happens at my church I have the Grace to put my money where my mouth is & start throwing people out.
I'm still Christian even when I say f*** to an unjust attacker.
Sure you're still a Christian.
But you sure aren't behaving like Christ.
This slime bag & his psycho fanboyz N' Girlz are NOT rational misinformed people of goodwill! They are rabid dogs! Don't believe me?
They are lost souls behaving like lost souls. I don't know about you, but I was there once. Treat a fellow human being --- even a reprobate --- like a dog, and chances are, they'll snarl and bite. Treat them with dignity and love, and you just might reach them.
They are thugs.
Of course. They're lost.
But that does not justify our behaving like thugs.
It is possible to defend the Faith without embarrassing the Faith.
Fewer accusations of dogmatic logical positivism please. That strategy might have passed muster in the 1950s.
I'm doubtful that a communicant who receives the Eucharist and doesn't consume it is legally stealing. After all, the Eucharist is given to the communicant.
They are still stealing. Because they are taking something of immeasurable value that is given for a specific purpose and only to a certain group of people.
Let's say for example I have a used car and I decide to donate it to a charity. I donate it and it turns out the so-called charity was falsely misrepresenting themselves as a charity but they were not. That so-called charity stole my property even though I gave it to them because they did so under false pretenses. Had I known they were not a charity I would not have given them my car.
Same with the Eucharist. If the Priest or EM knew the person they were giving the Precious Body of Christ to were there under false pretenses, then they would not give them the Eucharist.
theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
RM
"Think about it: if there existed an omnipotent God, he could by definition bring an infinitely supreme Good out of an infinitely supreme Evil."
So what greater good does he bring out of the suffering of those countless animals of every kind in the years before humanity? Why not just create humans immediately in the form he wants, as it's described in the biblical narrative?
In that narrative, he creates the world in six days, humans and all.
But that's not how he did it, apparently. No. He waited millions of years for humans to evolve, all that time watching as the life that came before us preyed on itself, entailing vast amounts of suffering. Why, if the goal was to create humans, did God let it drag on *so long*? Does he enjoy watching pain and suffering? Why didn't he do it faster, if the goal was humanity? Patience in this case was not a virtue, since all the extra time spent was unecessary if he really is omnipotent. He should've just been able to make things appear instantly, not stretch it out over millions of years with lots of unnecessary animal suffering in between.
"If space and time are/were infinite, there’s no good reason why the universe hasn’t stopped spinning. So yeah, entropy is the destroyer of Atheistic theories. "
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Perhaps there is more at work than you imagine, something that would get around entropy. and that something doesn't have to be supernatural, only some natural process we as yet have no knowledge of. The universe is vast, it's workings, god or no, still mysterious in lots of ways. No matter how sophisticated our guesses about the far future get, they are still just guesses. Speculation. It's very possible we're both wrong. Heck, after death we might end up standing next to each other in the underworld and finding that Hades and his brother Zeus are very unhappy with us for our mistaken beliefs or lack thereof. Or perhaps we'll be reincarnated. Who knows for sure?
"Also, we have this fun notion nowadays that matter and energy are somewhat “interchangeable”, which just about puts the nail in the coffin for the matter as first mover theory of yours."
I meant matter and energy, since they're pretty much two sides of the same coin. Sorry for not making that clear.
Kaltrosomos
Cool beans, now we're getting somewhere...
“So what greater good does he bring out of the suffering of those countless animals of every kind in the years before humanity? Why not just create humans immediately in the form he wants, as it's described in the biblical narrative?”
To this I'd have to reply: “I dunno... *shrugs shoulders*” There's certainly room for philosophical musing and rambling on that point, like perhaps he took so much longer to create the universe because he wanted to give us an idea of the magnitude of our importance? Whatever the case may be, this whole concept isn't really working to the purpose you want, it doesn't really disprove either God or His Goodness. But you continue...
”Why, if the goal was to create humans, did God let it drag on *so long*?”
Ah-ha! Here's part of the problem! His goal wasn't just to create humans as an end in itself and then take the night off, in reality, God's vision is so much grander. His end goal is the eventual redemption and salvation of humanity and with it all of creation as a whole. So that's a slightly bigger good at work... Therefore, regardless of the suffering that comes before death, it pales in comparison to God's glory after death. Again, greater good from lesser evil.
”Does he enjoy watching pain and suffering? Why didn't he do it faster, if the goal was humanity? Patience in this case was not a virtue, since all the extra time spent was unecessary if he really is omnipotent. He should've just been able to make things appear instantly, not stretch it out over millions of years with lots of unnecessary animal suffering in between.”
This still doesn't disprove God or the fact that He's good, as I said above. I mean, just because things seem bad and we can't fathom a greater good that would trump suffering doesn't mean it can't exist. A child doesn't know why his or her parents are torturing him with the evils of broccoli for dinner and nasty tasting medicine, to him it seems like there's no point to it. But from the perspective of the parent, it's really for a greater good, the child's heath. God's a good Father, and thus He takes care of His children.
So, I think you're going to have to come up with a better case against God than “You allowed a seagull to have indigestion the other day, you fiend! Therefore you can't possibly exist or be good...” Something tells me this argument won't work at the pearly gates.
”There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Psh... aiight. I hope you're not offended, but when faced with the prospect of choosing between the laws of Thermodynamics and your private theory that “You know man, there could be something else out there, like bigger and more different, you know...”, I'm gonna have to side with Thermodynamics. You're free to pretend the laws of physics don't exist, but you do so at your own peril. (As an addendum, I don't recommend pretending you can defy gravity. That would go badly.)
But, for the sake of argument, let's review: Entropy will annihilate all possibility of doing any sort of work in the Universe. This is a known fact. The Universe is made up of stuff, namely matter and energy and vacuum. This is another known fact. Thus, in order to defy entropy, there'd have to be something greater than the universe to stave it off, since everything in the universe is bound by this law. Seems to me like the whole Universe is pointing towards something outside itself... seems to me like a good bet it's God. Yes, you could hold the position that the universe is just a tiny speck of dust inside the mouth of a giant cosmic sea-turtle or some such nonsense, but you'd be ignoring a whole honkin' load of philosophical, theological and now even scientific evidence that points to an intelligent and just creator.
While I don't know you personally, it seems like (from the postings thusfar) you're rather determined to see anything but that!
I'd suggest ignoring this Kalt person. Don't feed the energy monster, and all that. Plus, people who style themselves as know-it-all intellectuals while pulverizing the English language seldom impress me as warranting serious response.
The Church happens to operate on an "honor" system of sorts, not checking ID at the door, but that does not mean that it is freely given to anyone.
Oh, but they do "check" ID; it's not at all the honor system!
i haven't read this yet; sorry if I'm redundant but: Catholics in a state of grace approach the priest, who holds up the Eucharist and says "Body of Christ", to which the Catholic responds, "Amen". Translation: This that I'm holding up in front of your eyes really is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and we respond, Yes, I believe.
So it isn't given out freely; that's the "announcement" that is made, to each and every communicant. You won't get the host until you admit you believe, so if you do it under false pretenses, you have no right to it. At all.
Kaltrosomos,
Moral evil is different than 'natural evil', which is not actually evil at all. That should be covered in philosophy 101. If it wasn't covered in 101, I suggest demanding a refund.
And the 4th proof refers to transcendentals like beauty, not comparisons like height or temperature.
If you wish to discuss these basic issues via e-mail, I'll be glad to take up a correspondence with you, but this thread is becoming a vast wasteland. My address should appear with my name.
Cirdan wrote,
"Fewer accusations of dogmatic logical positivism please. That strategy might have passed muster in the 1950s."
After 164 posts, this thread has a winner! Congrats Cirdan. Logical positivism has been pretty much abandoned by serious philosophers for a reason... it doesn't work. It still lives in the English and Sociology departments because, in those fields, a person can get tenure without ever making sense or thinking critically.
>But you sure aren't behaving like Christ.
I reply: I reject your analysis of my allegied "un-Christ like behavior".
>Treat a fellow human being --- even a reprobate --- like a dog, and chances are, they'll snarl and bite.
I reply: If they try to bite me or others like a bunch of rabid dogs it is 100% moral to use suficient force to stop them. What part of this do you not get?
>Treat them with dignity and love, and you just might reach them.
I reply: I have not treated them in any other way except in your immagination.
You are wrong Mark S. You have not given me a SINGLE rational theological argument. Just a bunch of touchie feelie hippie crap you mistake for Christian teaching.
Like I said in this matter my concience is clean. Your further "rebukes" are neither required nor desired.
diane - Kaltro showed up in these comboxes on another thread a while back - similar sort of argument going on. Since a couple folks here seem to be having a good time debating him - well, I don't read him as trolling at all. arguing a very different point of view, yes. Not a bad thing. My $.02.
BenYachov - I'm surpised you haven't mentioned the moneychangers in the Temple yet...
Good Call.
Hislittlelamb,
Thanks. I've rethought this and agree with this argument, made by you and others. Just because the Church distributes the Eucharist freely does not mean the communicant is licensed to treat the Eucharist in any manner he or she wishes. The Church holds the Eucharist in trust, and may properly set conditions upon those receiving the Host.
Also, the law does not have to recognize the Real Presence to insist that the Eucharist has a value far greater than the cost of the communion wafer. As the law might recognize the subject value a family photo or war medal or athletic ribbon might have to the owner, above the cost of the material in the items, so too should the law at minimum recognize the value of the Eucharist to the Church.
If they try to bite me or others like a bunch of rabid dogs it is 100% moral to use suficient force to stop them. What part of this do you not get?
This part:
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42
And this too:
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. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31
Just a bunch of touchie feelie hippie crap you mistake for Christian teaching.
Like the Sermon on the Mount, for instance?
Your further "rebukes" are neither required nor desired.
I understand. It's pretty obvious you are set in your ways. But others might be reading, and I'm hoping to counterract a bit of the anger and bile.
the moneychangers in the Temple yet...
Completely different situation. We aren't talking about a bunch of corrupt, reprobate, supposed believers. We're talking about a bunch of lost sinners. The example that applies here is: "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."
THAT is the Real Presence we're talking about. Let us not desecrate it ourselves in trying to defend it.
LCB,
Natural evil *is* evil. Pain and suffering matter no matter who it is they fall upon. If God created it all, he is responsible for it all in one way or another. This is even more true in the case of animals, if he did not give these animals free will or a soul. If he did not give these animals either of those things, their pain and suffering can't be blamed on their sins. God designed them so they would suffer.
If you really think natural evil isn't really evil, I have to ask, have you ever had any pets? Have you ever had a dog or other animal that got sick? Watching one of my own dogs die over a period of weeks was horrible. I could tell he was in pain. He never wanted to do anything anymore, because it hurt to move. I had to carry him, and when I set him down again he'd just lay on his side. He was family. And I got to watch him suffer and die.
Animal suffering is real. It is evil, if ordained by an all-good god. Now perhaps you can reason away this evil when I had to watch it. You could say God was showing me what death, and pain, and suffering looked like, and encouraging me to be more loving and kind.
But what excuse does he have for animal suffering when there were no humans? When there was no moral improvement that could come out of the pain and suffering?
LCB, I don't see your address anywhere, by the way.
"perhaps he took so much longer to create the universe because he wanted to give us an idea of the magnitude of our importance? Whatever the case may be, this whole concept isn't really working to the purpose you want, it doesn't really disprove either God or His Goodness."
Then you aren't really considering the issue, if you see no conflict between the suffering in ages past and the existence of a good god.
As to god giving us an idea of the magnitutude of our importance... it seems to me rather that he shows how unimportant we are in the scheme of things by waiting billions of years to bring us to the scene. We are only a tiny speck in the universe. And, some would say, an insignificant speck to anyone but ourselves.
RM:
"His end goal is the eventual redemption and salvation of humanity and with it all of creation as a whole."
Why does the creation need redemption before the existence of humanity? Why did it go wrong before men came on the scene?
RM:
"Thus, in order to defy entropy, there'd have to be something greater than the universe to stave it off, since everything in the universe is bound by this law."
If time can be slowed, sped up, or even done away with altogether under the right conditions, then it seems very possible that other natural 'laws' are subject to modification or change as well, given the right circumstances. I don't know of any such circumstances currently. But that doesn't mean they can't exist. We are an inquisitive species. Perhaps one day we shall figure out a way to reverse entropy. Not in the near future, but someday.
Kaltrosomos,
Oh dear… what a mess we have….
“Then you aren't really considering the issue, if you see no conflict between the suffering in ages past and the existence of a good god”
How wonderfully condescending of you! Let me see if I can wrap my tiny pea-brain around your concepts, and then you can point out where my intellect just gives out…
1) Trillions of animals suffer or have suffered without souls
2) If God exists, he allowed thousands of animals to suffer before man came on the scene
3) Therefore, God’s either bad or non-existent, regardless of the proofs to the contrary you have yet to soundly refute…
Did I miss something? I never really can trust my ability to read… I think I did… See, there should be another step in between #’s 2 and 3. I think it should be 2.5) ??? as in:
1) Buy a bunch of used sweatsocks and oatmeal
2) ???
3) Profit!!!
You see, to me you don’t seem to grasp this concept of omnipotence. It means you can do ANYTHING. So if God exists, and God is good, then he can take all that suffering and order it to some awesome good that’s far greater. As long as it serves an end, it’s ordered to a greater good. God orders all the universe to a greater good, thus your argument fails. It doesn’t matter if thousands of ants have been burned under magnifying glasses, or if kids on the beach feed seagulls alka-seltzer, or if a T-Rex stubbed his toe and took it out on a brontosaur by eating his entire family. It’s all ordered towards a greater good by virtue of its creation. (p.s. I’ve been throwing you a huge bone here and not getting into the whole evil vs. non evil debate, LCB is actually right on…)
“Why does the creation need redemption before the existence of humanity? Why did it go wrong before men came on the scene?”
Creation sans humanity doesn’t need redemption so much as it needs completion. It was designed with a purpose, and therefore is incomplete/lacking until it fully fulfills that purpose.
“If time can be slowed, sped up, or even done away with altogether under the right conditions, then it seems very possible that other natural 'laws' are subject to modification or change as well, given the right circumstances”
Does it strike anyone else here as ironic that the guy who needs physical proof of God or the Real Presence is willing to throw the entire scientific method and its resultant laws under the bus just so he doesn’t have to believe in God? How come the theory of evolution MUST be taken as solid fact, but the laws of physics get the axe? Anyway Kaltrosomos, I’m curious… Under what conditions can time be “done away with”? I know, I know, you have to set the flux capacitor juuuuust right… Or even better, pass through the event horizon of a black hole by diverting a tachyon stream to the forward deflector plate…
Yeah, we’re definitely our of the ballpark of reason here…
At the rate we're going, we'll break the 200 comment mark by the time Mark gets back. Can't wait to hear what he makes of all this.
My instincts in debates like these usually run toward wanting to jump into the fray and bust out my (actually the Church's) philosophical and logical Big Guns, but the rest of you are doing a fine job, so I'll leave it to you. I'll just add this:
Kaltrosomos, in your posts I hear deep concerns about the existence of suffering, and a strong sense of ultimate justice. You may not get what I'm about to share below, but all I can think of to say on those subjects is this - it is from a Doctor of the Church:
"The root cause of injustice is a deficit of love; only an extraordinary surplus of love can truly correct and heal both the root cause and its sad effects. The only true Justice is the eternal, infinite, unending generosity of the cross." -- St. Therese of Lisieux
May God give you light to see the pathway here.
I for one have been enjoying the debate on this one.
"Completely different situation. We aren't talking about a bunch of corrupt, reprobate, supposed believers. We're talking about a bunch of lost sinners. The example that applies here is: "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."
So what you're saying is that the merchants who were selling goods inside the temple new exactly what they were doing, so therefore, they deserved to be treated in such a manner as Christ treated them, but these who, right now, are seeking to defile the Eucharist are completely ignorant as to how bad their actions are, and so, they deserve mercy. Am I correct? If so, that seems logical. However, I do have to ask, where does it say in scripture that those merchants new exactly what they were doing when they decided to set up shop in the temple? or if you can't find any verses, from what source can you dig up that fact?
RM - all due respect, but you're coming across a bit condescending yourself, in that last post - moreso, to my ear, than Kaltrosomos has. granted, it's hard to tell on a screen, vice in person. I've been enjoying the debate, too - I just don't want to see it deteriorate.
Kaltro doesn't accept the arguments you and BenYachov have supplied for the existence of God - and it seems to me that if God's existence is at issue, then he's got a fair complaint when he says he sees the suffering of animals as evidence against an Almighty who is also good.
Your statement that an omnipotent God can direct the suffering of, Kaltro's dog, or any other unsouled critter to some good end works for me -- because I already believe in God. I'm not sure about the other proofs. They seem logical, but I'm afraid that, although I could read up on philosophy, with my lack of talent for math, I'll never catch up on the science. Are these seemingly logical 'relations of ideas' kinds of proofs (I know it's not Aquinas' phrase, but it seems to be the claim here that the logic works the way it works in mathematics) -- anyway are they true? Or can there be something science will reveal about the physical universe that will undercut them as surely as the seemingly logical geocentric cosmology was undermined by - well, the truth? I don't want to be leaning on a 'God of the gaps' explanation when some guy's Nobel Prize-winning dissertation pulverizes it. (I mean, I won't - I'll be clinging to the Communion rail that we're obviously gonna have to bring back - but I am sort of afraid we're going to have to wait for the Last Judgment before we see how all creation points toward the creator, and smack ourselves in the forehead and say 'how'd we miss that? Sin must really make you stupid!')
Mark S. - fair point - I'm not worried about where it says the $-changers knew what they were doing - our Lord's reaction shows that as far as he was concerned they knew or should have. But the episode also perhaps suggests a proportional response.
So Myers' ignorant ranting is an occasion to pray 'Father forgive him - he really appreciates the gift of the intellect, but doesn't know that it IS a gift, and that it's from You -- and he believes we're blaspheming it by believing in Your sacred presence in the Blessed Sacrament...' But it's also an occasion for pointing out that he could engage in debate in a civilized manner - like Kaltrosomos and Bad - instead of name-calling. And, his inviting his fanboys to theft and vandalism (from their point of view) and sacrilege from ours is ignorant, bigoted, and rude. And the attempt by any such fanboys to actually steal the Eucharist would be a valid occasion for physically blocking that person's exit and politely demanding that they return what they were trying to make off with. The fact that they're enjoying the idea that we would be hurt or angered by such action is worthy our justified anger. Civility towards the other guy's beliefs is a common American value. Myers' sleight of hand in pretending Donohue's (to my mind, still) disproportionate response to Cook (and he was over the top about that ditzy 'religion reporter' at Tim Russert's funeral, too - she should have known better, given her beat, but she didn't mean any harm to anyone) represents ALL Catholics, and that Donohue just gave Myers a valid excuse to attack Catholicism - and his invoking of the sexual abuse crisis - as if Catholics were not reacting to it with shock and horror, as if we didn't regard abusing PEOPLE as well abusing the body of Christ, too -- is all intellectually dishonest crap. I don't know if we need to call for him to lose his livelihood; but I'm okay with Jim Scott IV pointing out that this shit is just wrong. Your compassion does you credit. Still, we're not forbidden to stand up for ourselves; and we're obligated to stand up for Christ.
>> If they try to bite me or others like a bunch of rabid dogs it is 100% moral to use suficient force to stop them. What part of this do you not get?
>This part:
>You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42
I reply: The above verse forbids revenge it does not forbid the use of sufficient force against an immediate unjust aggressor. I have never advocated harming Myer or his gang preemptively or going to his house after he steals a Eucharist & burning it down or something like that. That would be immoral & hateful. I advocated something specific & clearly have no rational response to it from you & you are reduced to repeating arguments I already refuted.
>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. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31
I reply: Again the above doesn't negate the Church's teaching on self-defense. Like I said I don't hate anyone. But if you intend to invade my Church to defile the Holy Eucharist "Stay the F*** out!".
>Just a bunch of touchie feelie hippie crap you mistake for Christian teaching.
>Like the Sermon on the Mount, for instance?
I reply: Off topic.
>>Your further "rebukes" are neither required nor desired.
>I understand. It's pretty obvious you are set in your ways. But others might be reading, and I'm hoping to counterract a bit of the anger and bile.
I reply: What you are doing is being self-righteous & childish. Your rebukes are false for the reasons I have stated. You emotional non-rational non-Christian arguments mean about as much to me as one of Fracken Cracker Boy's sycophants ranting that "Pulling Galileo in an Iron Maiden" justifies Myers defiling the Eucharist or some such nonsense.
>>the moneychangers in the Temple yet...
>Completely different situation. We aren't talking about a bunch of corrupt, reprobate, supposed believers. We're talking about a bunch of lost sinners. The example that applies here is: "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."
I reply: The state of their souls is beyond our ability to judge. Nor is it our right to do so. However I can judge their actions & based on reasonable & overwhelmingly observable evidence, Myer's Fanboyz are clearly a bunch of unreasoning, sociopathic boneheads who have little or no desire to act in good faith. They are wannabe criminals. Do I know they are going to go to Hell? No, I'm not God. Do I want them to go to Hell? No, that would be the REAL sin of hatred. Do I want to find out where they live & attack them first? No, that is vigilantism which is wrong. If a court lets them go & they get away with their crimes do I want to retaliate against them? No, that would violate the real meaning of the scripture ( Matt 5:38-42, Luke 6:27-31 etc) you falsely used to justify your pinko hippie passivity nonsense.
>THAT is the Real Presence we're talking about. Let us not desecrate it ourselves in trying to defend it.
I reply: I am a sinner but on this matter my conscience is clean. You Mark S OTOH I am more worried about...
S. Murphy.
Webster Cook is a lowlife sociopath who has pulled the wool over your eyes dude.
You've been conned. If anything given the circumstances Bill Donohue was to easy on the boy.
But don't take my word for it. You have eyes see for yourself.
http://vivechristusrex2000.blogspot.com/
Quote"WFTV Florida reports:
"A Catholic student group is facing hazing charges after a worshiper allegedly used force while trying to rescue a communion wafer from a student leader smuggling it out of Mass.
Cook said his hazing complaint cited a UCF anti-hazing policy banning the “forced consumption of any food,” in which the “initiation or admission into or affiliation with a University of Central Florida organization may be directly or indirectly conditioned.”
The rule presumably was intended to prevent fraternities from force-feeding pledges disgusting food. But Cook said the rule is clear, and applies to all UCF clubs, including the Catholic Campus Ministries religious group. He insists the group is guilty, because members ordered him to consume the Eucharist to remain at Mass.
Cook also filed charges accusing the Catholic club of violating the school’s underage alcohol policy by serving communal wine to underage students.
Cook also denied he apologized for his actions, as UCF officials claimed he did in a statement."END QUOTE
Clearly based on the evidence Wild Bill was too easy on him. Cook should be expelled. No deals.
He insists the group is guilty, because members ordered him to consume the Eucharist to remain at Mass.
He didn't have to remain at the Mass, so he wasn't forced.
S. Murphy
You raise a good point, and I can see how I can be interpreted as being a snob. I don't mean it to come off that way, but I think sometimes what I write in jest can definitely be construed as being condescending or an egotistical jerk. So, to Kaltrosomos specifically, and to everyone else, I apologize for any offense I might have caused. I assure you it wasn't my intent. I'll tone it down a notch!
I think before I attempt to answer your question, I should also make it clear that I don't know everything about science or math, and I'm far from either a Nobel-Potential Scientist or a Philosopher King, so I just want to make it clear that, well, I'm just a sinner who needs grace just like everyone else. No perfection to be found here. That said...
As far as I've learned, Science is useful for a number of things, but like Math, at heart it still relies on the same basis of logic that's required for Philosophy. A good Mathematical statement is almost exactly like a good Philosophical one, only it's in a different language/syntax. Same goes for the flawed statements. I personally think several of Aquinas' proofs hold, granted that one doesn't go all Descartes and start doubting one's own existence. I mean heck, if a person doubts they exist, then there's really no was I can have a conversation with them edgewise. So I think the logical proofs for God's existence are valid, and from my perspective, I have no idea where science would have to go to refute them. Hmmm... I'm having trouble even imagining up a scenario where it COULD refute them. Even if trans-dimensional aliens showed up at my door with a device that could reverse time, God's still safe. Causality still says someone's gotta make the aliens and their dimensions and their time. Aquinas still wins.
Anyway, I think the portions in the above posts in which I come off the most snarky are probably due to the fact that it bugs me to no end when people say or write things like “Science will save us, Religion is stupid!” I don't think it was ever said verbatim here, but perhaps I hear it so much in the world that I just assume it's being thought in every atheistic corner of the world. Trust me, the majority of physics nerds I work with (myself included as a huge nerd) are Christians, and a good portion among them are devote Catholics. While that's not really worth a ton, it does fly in the face of Hitchens and Dawkins when they seek to bash us believers.
The reason why I think Kaltrosomos has a decent meaning but flawed point still stands. Yes, suffering is horrible, and putting aside the debate about whether it's evil or not, it seems to point an accusing finger at God. But the argument is made that either God exists and is evil because of all the suffering, or he doesn't exist at all. My whole point is to show that that argument is invalid, because there can be a good, omnipotent God who allows large-scale suffering. It doesn't “prove” God's existence, but it does show that suffering, no matter how large or diverse, doesn't necessarily require an impotent, evil or non-existent God.
Thanks for reeling me in though, and apologies to Kaltrosomos for any grief and such. I do need to learn to be less snarky and obnoxious!
oof... *was and *devout...
yikes...
...to justify your pinko hippie passivity nonsense.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. What exactly are you objecting to? Care to elaborate?
I'm not worried about where it says the $-changers knew what they were doing - our Lord's reaction shows that as far as he was concerned they knew or should have. But the episode also perhaps suggests a proportional response.
Reading the Gospels, I was always struck by the fact that Jesus and John the Baptist seldom minced words with those who professed to be among the faithful, but whose actions proved otherwise.
But in the case of sinners, they always showed the utmost compassion. They certainly never condoned the sin and in fact warned against it, but they always treated sinners with compassion.
Myers & Co. definitely fall in the category of sinners. We should in no way condone what they are doing. But we shold use the opportunity to reach out to them and show them our best face. But all this talk of protests, hate mail, death threats, demanding the yahoo be fired, keep the F out of our church, rabid dogs, etc. strikes me as very hateful and counterproductive toward spreading the Gospel. I just can't see Christ or the Apostles, our beloved John Paul II, St. Francis, Dorothy Day, or Mother Teresa acting this way. It's mean and shameful.
>I'm not sure what you mean by that. What exactly are you objecting to? Care to elaborate?
Your the sort of clueless fellow who if a Thug broke into your house would say "Golly Gosh Gee Mr. Crook. Why not sit down with me before you rape my wife & kill my child & tell why you hurt so?"
I however would remember my duty to protect my family.
I would clock the twit in the head with the VCR & beat him unconscious & call the police. Then when he recovers I would have Mass said for him & send a Priest to his cell after I prosecuted him to the full extent of the Law.
Tough love.
Here is a post I made at http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/...7/10/wafergate/
which was discussing whether or not PZ Myers should try to desecrate hosts to make his point (i.e. where PZ said "Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?...").
-----
At a Catholic Mass, the Eucharist is offered to Catholics (and in certain circumstances non-Catholic Christians) as part of an act of worship. As a Catholic priest, one of my responsibilities is to guard against the desecration of the Eucharist. Those who comes forward to receive the Eucharist are expected to consume it before returning to their seat. If someone attempts to take the Eucharist back to their pew or out of the Church, they should be approached and asked to consume the Eucharist or give it back to the minister of Communion.
Knowing this, to encourage others to remove the Eucharist from a Church is to take advantage of the implicit trust in the good intentions of those coming up to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass. This type of trust is foundational to a civil society.
The fact that Mr. Myers is encouraging people to breach this trust is precisely why the whole project is wrong. It shows a lack of respect to the persons involved in distributing the Eucharist.
P.S. I do agree that the Catholics calling desecration of the Eucharist as the worst possible hate crime are going overboard. Jesus is risen and his glorified body cannot be harmed by desecration of his bodily presence in the Eucharist. [i.e. there are worse hate crimes]
-----
I copyied the post here to give an example of a proportionate Catholic response to the whole affair that might promote more civil relations between Catholics and atheists, rather than stirring up further anger and rhetoric. Some atheists on that forum agreed with it and find at least some fault in Myers statements.
Kaltrosomos,
You ask agood question about natural evil (such as the suffering of animals). I once heard a similar question posed in the following manner:
If God is perfect, then why is his overall creation not perfect?
Surely, perfection begets perfection?
Here's my answer from a Catholic perspective: I don't agree that perfection necessarily begets perfection for several reasons.
1) Limitations of Creation
All created things necessarily lack some of God's perfections (for instance, the perfection of being uncreated, or being omnipotent as there can be at most one such being, and God is it). There are necessary limitations to our world due to its material nature. For instance, material things can break and decompose into parts, whereas purely spiritual beings cannot.
2) Degrees of Perfection
Due to the limitations inherent in the nature of created things, God might choose create various orders of being, each with its own degree of perfection proper to its nature (from atoms to angels), along with laws governing such beings, to display His perfections through the whole. Thus creation is symphonic - containing creatures with varying degrees of perfection - revealing God through the whole. God therefore describes creation with words showing these varying degrees (good and very good) but not complete/perfect:
“…Because creation comes forth from God's goodness, it shares in that goodness - ‘And God saw that it was good. . . very good’ (Gen 1:4-31) - for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical world.” (CCC 299)
[continued in next post]
3) Perfection & Purpose
Furthermore, even the meaning of perfection for creation can only be understood in light of the purpose of creation. For example, imagine a perfect craftsman creating the perfect tool. What would that tool look like? Not an easy question to answer, because you need to understand the mind of the craftsman. There might be several possibilities, each depend on the craftsman's purpose/intended use for the tool. So we must ask: What is God’s purpose in creating? The central answer in Christian revelation is this: That His creation might share in the essence of His Divine life and highest perfection: love.
To fulfill that purpose, God creates Man as a free creature with an intellect and will so that he may respond in love and cooperate with his Creator to achieve the end for which he was created: union with God. The rest of visible creation is created to assist Man to this end. Thus God's purpose for creation dictates that creation must be capable of change, which means that it must be in statu viae - in a state of journeying toward ultimate perfection with our cooperation, and not begin that way.
“Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created ‘in a state of journeying’ (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call ‘divine providence’ the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection...” (CCC 302)
RM
"You see, to me you don’t seem to grasp this concept of omnipotence. It means you can do ANYTHING."
Alright, you asked for it. Since you bring up the concept of omnipotence, I will bring up its incoherence.
Consider this: you say God can do anything. Can He create something which He is unable to destroy? If He can, then He isn't omnipotent due to His inability to destroy said thing. If He cannot, then He is not omnipotent because He cannot create said thing. See the problem with omnipotence?
As for the problem of evil, I'll try explaining it again so it's clear. I'll list the usual claims of theism concerning God's attributes, and then how they conflict with other facts.
1: God is all-good.
2: God is all-powerful.
3: Suffering exists.
If God is all-good, then he will do everything in his power to destroy evil, and if he is all-powerful, he can do that in an absolute manner. Things should be 100% good. But there is pain and suffering, both of which are bad. Why is this so?
The usual explanation is free-will. Humans are given free will, so that they may choose. But for it to be genuine, evil must be possible. And, over time, it is very probable, if not inevitable, that some humans with genuine choice will choose evil, if they really are free. God allows this freedom because he values loyalty that is freely chosen, rather than pre-programmed.
This accounts for moral evil, the evil humans choose and create by their actions.
But then we have natural evil, all the pain and suffering in the animal world. What good was all this evil back when there were no humans to be influenced by it? Animals are not generally considered to have souls, so what is the greater benefit in letting them suffer?
there are several possibilities, one of which being that ALL animals do have souls, and a Last Day, and a Judgement, and an animal Heaven or Hell depending on how they behaved.
Another is that only, say, mammals have souls and afterlives.
A third is that no animals have souls, and thus they get no ultimate benefit from their earthly suffering. If animals simply cease to exist after death, then their suffering is pointless evil. And if this sort of evil has been going on in the animal kingdoms for thousands of years before the arrival of humanity, what possible reason does an all-good God have to allow it? It cannot influence humans to greater moral good, because for most of those years there were no humans.
Perhaps a sadistic God would gladly allow such widespread suffering without a greater good in mind, but such a God is not one I would worship.
"God orders all the universe to a greater good, thus your argument fails."
Great example of assuming what you're trying to prove. But you have not proven to me that the entire universe actually is ordered to a greater good. see what I wrote above on the problem of evil.
"How come the theory of evolution MUST be taken as solid fact, but the laws of physics get the axe?"
I'm not giving the laws of physics the axe. I'm suggesting maybe the laws are subject to change under the right circumstances, like the flow of time is. Time changes depending on how fast you're going, how much gravity you are under, and etc. Two clocks, one at sea level synchronized with a one in orbit, will show discrepancies in recorded times. I'm also suggesting that maybe other laws are subject to changes in different conditions. It's also possible there are other laws which we haven't discovered yet, which change the equation. I'm keeping an open mind on the issue. That's all I'm saying.
As for when time was done away with, some say that before the big bang the universe was so condensed that time as we know it didn't exist, and neither did things like cause and effect or the other laws. It was a strange 'time' to say the least, if the description is accurate.
Kaltrosomos,
You wrote (to RM):
But you have not proven to me that the entire universe actually is ordered to a greater good.
The problem of evil is an attempt to disprove the existence of an all-good, all-loving, all-powerful God by claiming that is incompatible with the existence of evil.
What we are therefore doing is showing the possibility of such a God creating the world that we live in (with natural and moral evil, etc.) that doesn't contradict God's nature.
I've tried to do this above by proposing a purpose of the universe that is ordered to the greater good of human beings by allowing them to be active agents in the perfecting of creation.
I didn't definitively prove that purpose, but I don't have to in order to refute the problem of evil. I just have to give a reasonable example of a purpose where the existence of an all-good, all-loving, all-powerful God is compatible with the evil we observe in the world.
If so, then such a God may exist, and the problem of evil does not disprove God's existence.
Fr. Donahue:
"What we are therefore doing is showing the possibility of such a God creating the world that we live in (with natural and moral evil, etc.) that doesn't contradict God's nature."
You have not given a reasonable example of purpose for natural evil prior to humans arriving. You only address why evil would be compatible in the natural world when men are around to work at reducing it and improving the creation, in their quest for 'perfection' and union with God, as you put it.
"I didn't definitively prove that purpose, but I don't have to in order to refute the problem of evil."
You are the one making the positive claim, like a lawyer trying to prove a case. You need to do better than just *maybe*. You need to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt. But there's still reasonable doubt as to whether or not the natural evil in past ages before man served any divine purpose. And if, as it seems, past natural evil served no divine purpose, then that conflicts with the existence of your God.
Kaltrosomos,
Thanks for the clarifications!
“Consider this: you say God can do anything. Can He create something which He is unable to destroy? If He can, then He isn't omnipotent due to His inability to destroy said thing. If He cannot, then He is not omnipotent because He cannot create said thing. See the problem with omnipotence?”
Ah yes, the Homer Simpson paradox: Could God heat a burrito so hot that even HE couldn't eat it? My response (keep in mind I'm not a pro at philosophy so I stand open to being refuted) is yes, He can. At this point the Atheist usually pounces and says “Ah-haaaa! So your God's not omnipotent after all!”
But I submit that IF the Christian doctrine is true, then God could technically heat a burrito to volcanic temperatures so hot that He as Jesus Christ on Earth couldn't have eaten it. I don't think there's a loss of omnipotence there. I think a greater paradox would be to ask the obvious: “Could God allow a bunch of thugs to beat him mercilessly until he died?” (The Atheist would say if he did, then he's not immortal, thus a conflict) Yet Christianity poses just such a God, one who is capable of creating a safe that he can't crack without violating his omnipotence. But that's just what I think, I'm open to other opinions, too.
“As for the problem of evil, I'll try explaining it again so it's clear.”
I appreciate your effort in trying to make your perspective clear. Still I can't help but feel we're still talking past each other in a few places. First, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not attempting to prove God's existence. I posit that some of Aquinas' proofs do just that. What I am trying to do is show that there are additional possibilities which you're not considering outside the following: the fact that a God who allows animal suffering pre-human existence must be 1) Evil, 2) Non-Existent 3) Seemingly Impotent. I've been trying to say that there's another way, that there should be a 4), namely that the Christian Faith is true and God created an ordered universe in which he will bring an ultimate Good out of all suffering. As Fr. Terry said, we don't have to prove that this is necessarily the case, but we merely have to show that it's a possibility in order for your argument not to work. I still see no reason why there couldn't be a good God who created an ordered universe such that a greater good is produced from all suffering. Therefore, you need to consider the 4th option. That's all we're saying. So when we screw up like I did and say things like:
"God orders all the universe to a greater good, thus your argument fails."
Then you're right to call me on it. What I should have said is “It's possible that if God exists, he orders... etc”.
I don't see how animals lacking souls or enduring hardships really discounts that option, but I think that's what you might be getting at when you say the following:
It cannot influence humans to greater moral good, because for most of those years there were no humans.
But this assumes that all suffering must directly influence humans to a greater moral good in order for it to be worthwhile. I think there's room for causality in here, both primary and secondarily. From the perspective of that “possible” Christian view, I see it more as building blocks along the way to that ultimate good. Somewhere along the line, a prehistoric crocodile ate a prehistoric zebra which in turn was about to trample the prehistoric ape that would someday evolve into my uncle Ned. Had the Zebra not been eaten, Ned would not exist (maimed in a tragic zebra hit-n-run), and thus there would be no possible salvation of Ned. One could argue that natural selection and all the suffering it entails served as the building blocks and foundation upon which humanity could be crafted, and thus the world could be brought closer to its perfect purpose.
You also made the claim:
“If God is all-good, then he will do everything in his power to destroy evil, and if he is all-powerful, he can do that in an absolute manner.”
I think that's true, but it doesn't necessitate anything on God's schedule. He can do what He wants, when He wants. It's like that one George Carlin rant (one of the few times I agreed with him) “What's the point of having a Divine Plan if everybody's got the right to dictate when you do things...”
Aaaand the science nerd stuff... I agree that the length of time can be rather fluid and relative to situations, but you're still working with time. And time's still a created substance. So when we examine:
“As for when time was done away with, some say that before the big bang the universe was so condensed that time as we know it didn't exist, and neither did things like cause and effect or the other laws.”
We're really talking about T-zero. As Christians, we have no problem with Time as we know it not existing before the universe came to be. But what you're claiming here is sort of a redundant statement: There was no time before the universe and time existed. What I do take issue with here is two-fold. First, that's a theory that I'm not really familiar with, which doesn't make it wrong, just that I'm not sure how widely accepted it is. Second, you seem in a rush to toss causality out the window. If there's no causality and no time, then why should that big lump of super-condensed matter change? No cause could necessarily bring about that effect, and since we don't have time, there's no time in which it could change, period. It strikes me as slightly fishy that you're willing to insist that a God who is timeless and omnipotent conform to laws of logic and causality, but this lump of matter gets a free pass. To me, it seems that either all things were created together, or it just couldn't happen at all in a way we can understand and is thus out of reach of science. Either way, I feel it still points strongly to a creator!
Fr. Terry Donahue,
Good job Father except the difference between the people over at Friendly Atheist vs Myers & his ilk is like the difference between the Christian Reseach Institute Vs Chick Comics.
Both are theologolically against Catholicism. But one is sane & tries to be Fair while the other are total fruitbats.
The Friendly Atheist crowd are what they say they are Non-believers who try to be friendly to believers. I respect that. But Apples N' Oranges.
Kaltrosomos,
You have not given a reasonable example of purpose for natural evil prior to humans arriving.
Once God decides to create a universe with matter, space and time tied together in the way that this universe is (perhaps in order for creation to be "in a state of journeying" as I quoted from the Catechism earlier), it stands to reason that God's purposes unfold over time.
This means that certain conditions in creation (such as the state of the world during the long process of evolution) may only be fully understood in light of a future state (when rational human beings are given stewardship over creation).
If you're making a chair, frame doesn't serve much purpose until the seat is placed on it later.
We might press the question further by asking why such a God would create us over time through so many secondary causes. And I think that's a fruitful area of debate.
But I don't think it is fair to claim that a condition in one stage of a temporal process serves no immediate purpose and is therefore indefensible.
[Fr. Donahue: The problem of evil is an attempt to disprove the existence of an all-good, all-loving, all-powerful God by claiming that is incompatible with the existence of evil.]
I think it's clear that there are (at least) two kinds of arguments from evil: the evidential and the logical. Only the latter is disarmed by showing the logical compatibility of evil and the existence of God.
[Fr.Donahue: But I don't think it is fair to claim that a condition in one stage of a temporal process serves no immediate purpose and is therefore indefensible.]
I think you've misunderstood Kaltrosmos. AFAICT he doesn't deny that it could be that all the apparently pointless suffering of animals in the past will be overcome by some countervailing good in the future. What he does seem to deny is that (i) that would constitute a solution to (either of) the problems of evil, and (ii) that we have reason to believe that that's likely to happen.
Suppose we know a father who stands by while his daughter's dog is kicked to death by the neighbourhood thug. His daughter blames him for it. When he notices her resentment, suppose he tells her that it is unjustified because he intends to get her another, even better, pet. Should she be satisfied? No. That, I think, is the judgement underlying (i); it is plausible enough to me
Your the sort of clueless fellow who if a Thug broke into your house would say "Golly Gosh Gee Mr. Crook. Why not sit down with me before you rape my wife & kill my child & tell why you hurt so?"
I just read back through my posts in this discussion so far, and I honestly don't see where you're getting that. I think I've riled up your temper, and you're seeing what you want to see, not trying to understand.
Again: I'm not advocating doing nothing. I'm advocating not being hateful and making complete jackasses out of ourselves.
There is a way to respond to persecution and folks like Myers without stooping to their level. THAT is what I'm saying, and I honestly don't see how that isn't getting through to you.
Tough love
I see lots of bravado in your words, but I'm not seeing any love.
Looking through all of this discussion, especially our little exchange, I keep thinking:
"...if you are confident that you are a guide for the blind and a light for those in darkness, that you are a trainer of the foolish and teacher of the simple, because in the law you have the formulation of knowledge and truth--then you who teach another, are you failing to teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples?
You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
For, as it is written, 'Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles.' (Romans 2:19-24)
So I'm going to bow out of the fun for now and go check my eye for logs. But dear Ben, you might want to do some speck-checking yourself.
Cirdan,
Ok, now I really do need help understanding. I don’t mean to be snarky here when I ask: What’s the difference between the someone choosing the Evidential argument and essentially someone saying “Well, all that suffering is really bad, so I choose to select that no possible good could make up for it?”
Doesn’t it degenerate into pure opinions at that point? I’ve read most of the article you posted, but even in the introductory section, it’s rather straightforward on two points:
First, the logical argument that’s made against God needs about 4 extra statements to function:
16. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
17. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
18. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
19. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
Now, putting aside the fact that I disagree with the first of those points (or would want to slightly alter it from the Christian POV), the article correctly maintains that without those, the argument from evil is not logically valid or “fatal”.
Second, it seems to suggest that the evidential argument can only yield probabilities towards disbelief. To me, that’s where I start to lose faith in the method. It seems like a sort of loophole to allow people to shirk having to develop a logical argument. The article even says that the process is usually started by ignoring all positive evidence and merits for existence. Again, I don’t mean any disrespect, but how is that any different then someone saying: “Well, I just don’t think a good God would do that”? To a math junkie like me, that’s like taking your ball and going home. No argument can follow that, because it’s purely rooted in the subjective.
Like you said “What he does seem to deny is that (i) that would constitute a solution to (either of) the problems of evil, and (ii) that we have reason to believe that that's likely to happen. “
That sounds an awful lot like relegating things to the subjective to me.
“Suppose we know a father who stands by while his daughter's dog is kicked to death by the neighbourhood thug. His daughter blames him for it. When he notices her resentment, suppose he tells her that it is unjustified because he intends to get her another, even better, pet. Should she be satisfied? No. That, I think, is the judgement underlying (i); it is plausible enough to me”
That’s all well and good, but I don’t think that analogy is exactly suited for what’s going on. For one thing, we don’t possess all the things that suffer evil in this earth. We’re talking everything from Dinosaurs to Caterpillars here, so the scope of suffering is a) not as personal, and b) much more broad. Second, assuming the Father represents a possible God, he didn’t invent/purpose both the girl and the dog. Thus there really can be no higher purpose possibly served in your comparison. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the God of Christianity doesn’t just offer a new Dog, it’s actually an infinitely better, resurrected and transformed package. That would be like the Father not only resuscitating the Dog and transforming the thug but, I dunno, creating a whole new dog park for the pet. At least that’s how it looks from my perspective. Like I said, I’m not a philosopher king… that much is very obvious. But I just don’t get why I’m supposed to revoke my faith based on a probability cloud created only after ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
(P.S. I’m sorry I butted in on your discussion. I realize you weren’t really talking to me, but I AM curious!)
Perhaps I have not read each comment closely enough, but it seems to me that:
a. the possibiity of evil being intertwined definitively with the concret reality of what true freedom consists of has not been considered by those who question why God would allow suffering.
b. the possibility that, like the all redemptive suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ, which encompassed not only the present and future but also the past, the Fall of Man also brought suffering and disorder not only to everything that would follow their definitive choice againt God, but also to everything that proceeded them.
Something to consider.
Apologies to anyone waiting for my replies in this thread. I've been having internet connection troubles for the past day or so. But now--at least for now, i'm crossing my fingers-- it's working.
RM
"Somewhere along the line, a prehistoric crocodile ate a prehistoric zebra which in turn was about to trample the prehistoric ape that would someday evolve into my uncle Ned. Had the Zebra not been eaten, Ned would not exist (maimed in a tragic zebra hit-n-run), and thus there would be no possible salvation of Ned. One could argue that natural selection and all the suffering it entails served as the building blocks and foundation upon which humanity could be crafted, and thus the world could be brought closer to its perfect purpose."
But my point is that God, being God, should have just created man in the form he wanted, instantly. He also should have created the world in the form he wanted, not force it to evolve over billions of years. In that way there would be no need for the ages of animal suffering which make up the evolutionary timeline. He would do this, I argue, due to his being all-good and therefore only allowing evil when absolutely necessary. It is well within his power to draw the relatively modern world out of his imagination and create it, with humans included, in six days. Or six seconds. Or instantly.
The trail of animal suffering you say leads to humans is only necessary for evolution. But evolution is a long, drawn out method for something God could do instantly. Further, the method requires an incredible amount of suffering that God could have avoided by instantly creating the world as it was about ten thousand years ago, if he was aiming for how humans were at the beginning of our recorded history. Or if there was a different period he was aiming for, he could have created the world at that moment.
Sure, as you say, God can do what he wants when he wants. But the attributes he is said to have would dictate that he does things certain ways, to be consistent with himself. I think the long suffering involved with evolution is an unneccesary evil, which conflicts with the idea of an all-good god.
In this case, oddly enough, creationism seems more in line with God's attributes than evolution does. creationism reflects a god who knows what he wants to create, and creates it quickly, thereby avoiding unecessary animal suffering. From the point of creation, in the creationist scheme, animal suffering could be justified in relation to humanity, since humanity was present almost from the start.
There is no such justification over the long timeline of evolution, of which humans are a relatively recent addition.
Julie B,
I admit that for your "a", suffering can be justified in the context of humanity as a consequence of free will. What I object to is the existence of suffering before there were any humans, and thus before free will, which is the primary justification for the existence of suffering.
as for b: are you suggesting that before the fall of man there was an entirely different evolutionary timeline, free of suffering? And that the fall of man changed all of that long past into the one we are aware of now? That's an interestingly hypothesis, to say the least. But I don't see how it could possibly be tested. It also suffers from the usual timeline-changing paradoxes.
If it was the peaceful timeline that led to the fall of man, and the fall of man changed that timeline, how could the fall of man come about? The peaceful timeline, or whatever alternate timeline it was, no longer exists. So perhaps the fall of man wouldn't have happened either, and thus the timeline wouldn't get changed.... temporal paradoxes. hrrmph.
Kaltrosomos,
That's all well and good, but I think at this point we're just at a difference of opinions, as noted by my post to cirdan above. You seem to think that it's necessarily evil that God created a world that required evolution and thus so much suffering. Ok, fine, but that's only an opinion. There's nothing I can really say at that point to contradict you other than reinforce my argument that it doesn't have to be so! If God exists and is accurately described by the Christian point of view, then naturally I could just reply by saying that an all knowing all powerful and all good God could have a perfectly good reason for making a world with evolution. He could still choose not to act instantaneously without suddenly becoming evil or less Godly.
But as I said, I think we're at an impasse here, and I respect you for your opinions and willingness to talk about them with a boor like me! I'll pray for you (no offense meant by this statement) and I hope you'll consider the possibility that perhaps God can still be good while doing things His way. I mean, the God I believe in is generous with creation and splendor, hence His creation of more planets than earth and more things than we can presently understand. Perhaps evolution is a beautiful thing after all. I also believe that not all suffering is intrinsically evil though. Is it evil for me to eat a chicken for dinner, thereby inflicting suffering? If so, all I can say is I hope you are a vegan to be internally consistent.
Anyway, I've enjoyed debating with you these past few days, and I thank you for your time and well thought out responses. God Bless!
Kalstramos:
Thank you for considering my conjectures.
No, I am not suggesting that before the fall of man there was an entirely different evolutionary timeline. I am suggesting the possibility that the one time Fall of Man, by his free choice to turn away from God, affected both the time preceeding and the time after that choice - before time even began. All of creation was disordered by The Fall. Just as all of mankind is redeemed by Jesus Christ - not just those people that came after Him. These answers are merely my own theological musings. They are not taught by the Church. Christian theology does assert, though, that all of creation will rise to a new and glorified life in Christ at the end of time. He makes all things new.
Kaltrosomos - sorry about the name thing - julie b
Commenting by HaloScan
