Student steals Communion wafer and receives death threats

[General Zod]

According to a missionary to whom I once spoke about this very thing, it's not cannibalism because it's living flesh. So I guess it's symbolic assault.

Oh, okay. Symbolic zombies then.

Not really, Lutherans maintain that the body and blood of Christ exists together with the bread and wine, as opposed to Catholics who believes that the bread and wine transforms entirely into the actual physical body of Christ.

Hence the emphasis on the "symbolic" part.

[Surlethe]

When you're thinking about eucharist, transsubstantiation, consubstantiation, and the like, you have to realize that the Catholic church subscribes to an outdated Aristotelian philosophy of existence. IIRC, there's "accident" and "substance": accident is the material nature of a thing, while essence is what it actually is. Example: a stone's accidents are the properties that permit you to identify it as a stone - its shape, weight, molecular structure, makeup, etc. Its substance is what you might call its "stonehood": what makes it a stone, and not a tree or an animal that just looks like a stone.

Eucharist, then, is a swap (I'm not joking: it's literally been called the "Divine Swap") of substances. God (so the Church says) performs some divine sleight of hand during the eucharistic prayer at mass and switches the substance of the bread and blood for the substance of Jesus' body/blood.

Therefore, if you test a consecrated host, you'll find that it is in every measurable way identical to an unconsecrated host. But (if you subscribe to RCC teachings) it's still Jesus, and not bread. Conclusion? If it looks like a wafer, smells like a wafer, smells like a wafer, and (God forbid) tastes like a wafer, it's not a wafer! It's Jesus! Shits all over Occam's Razor, but then Aristotle didn't have Occam's Razor back when he was making his stuff up.

EDIT: I was wrong in my terminology. Corrected. Thanks, Metatwaddle.

[FSTargetDrone]

Here (from Catholic.net) is a bit more about transubstantiation and dogma:

The basic objection to the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence is not that it is against Scripture, but that it is against reason.

Transubstantiation and reason

By John Young

Protestants reject transubstantiation, and so do many Catholic scholars. The average Catholic is vague concerning the nature of the Eucharistic presence of Christ, and one can sympathize with him, in view of the lack of clear teaching about the Most Blessed Sacrament.

The basic objection to the Catholic doctrine of the real presence is not that it is against Scripture, but that it is against reason. The words of Jesus seem plain enough. “This is my body.” This is my blood.” “Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you.” “My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink.” When some of his disciples complained, “This is a hard saying; who can accept it?”, he didn’t explain that he had not been speaking literally in saying he would give his body to eat and his blood to drink. Instead he let them go. As St. John tells us, many left him because they would not accept this teaching.

Our Lord’s words are not interpreted non-literally because that is the obvious way to interpret them, but because a literal interpretation seems to be repugnant to reason. The conservative Protestant theologian Louis Berkhof, in his famous work Systematic Theology, insists that the Roman teaching “. . . violates the human senses, where it asks us to believe that what tastes and looks like bread and wine, is really flesh and blood; and human reason, where it requires belief in the separation of a substance and its properties and in the presence of a material body in several places at the same time, both of which are contrary to reason.”1

Among Catholics firmly committed to all that the Church teaches, one finds much confusion and various misunderstandings regarding Christ’s Eucharistic presence. Take these questions: Do we receive (for instance) Christ’s head and arms and feet? If the accidents of bread were removed, would we see the substance of his body, as though a curtain had been drawn back? Are the bread and wine converted into his soul and divinity? Attempted answers to these questions show up the confusion existing in the minds of most Catholics.

Then there is the grave situation of those Catholics who think transubstantiation is against reason. Common sense and science, they believe, demand its rejection. It is an impossible theory based on the erroneous natural science of Aristotle.

This denial is extremely serious, for the Church teaches infallibly that Christ is present through transubstantiation. As the Council of Trent says, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church repeats: “. . . by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”2 Trent pronounces an anathema against those who deny transubstantiation.3

Substance and accidents

If one thinks transubstantiation is repugnant to reason, this may be due to not having understood what substance is, and how it is related to accidents. We can’t see a substance or touch it or taste it, so it may seem unreal. Perhaps we tend to think of it as an inert something, having no function except to support the active qualities shown by the senses. George Berkeley (1685-1753) declared material substance to be a meaningless term. He says: “It neither acts, nor perceives, nor is perceived; for this is all that is meant by saying it is an inert, senseless, unknown substance: which is a definition entirely made up of negatives, excepting only the relative notion of its standing under or supporting.”4

That notion of substance is grotesque, but it does not seem so to an empiricist philosopher because of his reduction of all knowledge to sense knowledge; and it continues to influence some theologians when they think about transubstantiation. That is one reason for the widespread rejection of this dogma, and the substitution of transignification or transfinalization.

The truth is that denial of the reality of substance is a contradiction of common sense. For something must either exist in its own right, such as water, a tree, a cat; or else it must exist in something else, such as color or shape. What “stands on its own feet,” as it were, is a substance; what exists in something else is an accident. Denial of substances leaves color, size, weight and so on without a subject of inherence; which implies a color which is not the color of anything, size which is not the size of anything, weight which is not the weight of anything.

The substance is the essence, the nature, of a thing which exists in its own right. It isn’t inert, as Berkeley imagined, but dynamic, for it is the source from which all the powers and activities emanate. The accidents depend on it for their existence and their operation.

Take a stone, by way of example. We experience its hardness, its smoothness, its color, its shape. But the substance that has these attributes eludes our observation. Even were we to break the stone in two we wouldn’t see the substance; if we broke it into a hundred pieces we would be no more successful. So we might try some scientific tests, but still the results would be in the order of phenomena.

The substance of the stone is material, but it is not sensible. Yet it is not unknown, for its accidents manifest it. From the accidents perceived by sight and the other senses, the intellect gains an insight into the essence (the substance). Therefore words like stone, water, tree, horse have meaning: each brings to mind the thing named, and we have in our intellect the essence of the reality in question, although never perfectly, for no substance can be perfectly understood through abstraction from sense knowledge.

The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change; we know it only by faith in God’s word.

After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “. . . the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject.”5 St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that God directly sustains the quantity of bread (or wine) in being, and that the other accidents inhere in the quantity.6 For quantity is the fundamental accident: the others, such as color, exist as quantified—as having extension. There is no such thing as a non-extended color.

Answers to some difficulties

I quoted Louis Berkhof’s assertion that separation of a substance and its properties is contrary to reason. If we said this happened naturally it would indeed be contrary to reason. But what we say is that it happens through the supernatural action of God. He holds all things in being simply by an act of his will, the accidents depending on their substances as on secondary causes; and in the Eucharist he dispenses with those secondary causes.

What of the objection, also given by Berkhof, that a material body cannot be present in several places at the same time? Well, a substance becomes present in a place because of its quantity; substance of itself is indifferent to place. So when this unique conversion occurs, caused supernaturally by God—a conversion of substance into substance—Christ’s body can be present in any number of places, being related to the place by reason of the accidents of bread which are situated there.

Berkhof asserts that it is a violation of what the senses show to be asked to accept that what tastes and looks like bread and wine is really flesh and blood. But what are we tasting and seeing? The accidents of bread and wine which remain after the consecration. They have not changed, and they taste and look as they did before the consecration. There is no denial of what the senses show.

Earlier I mentioned confusion among Catholics about the implications of Christ’s Eucharistic presence, and I posed the question: Do we receive (for instance) Christ’s head and arms and feet? Many today would be uncomfortable with an affirmative answer, which would savor, to them, of a grossly materialistic view of the Real Presence. Yet it is the right answer. Suppose we didn’t receive those parts: then the same would have to be said of all the other parts of his body. So there’d be nothing left! We would not be receiving his body. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent says, in this sacrament are contained “. . . all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews. . . .”7

Another question noted earlier asked whether the accidents are hiding the substance from our gaze, so that their removal would be like drawing back a curtain, allowing us to see Jesus’ body. If one is tempted to say yes, a moment’s reflection should show that the right answer must be no. A substance can’t be seen or tasted or experienced by any of the senses. To think otherwise would reduce substances to the status of accidents, thus making it impossible to see what the dogma of transubstantiation means, and inevitably leading one into bewilderment when trying to explore the teaching.

A third question asked whether the bread and wine are converted into our Lord’s soul and divinity. Most orthodox Catholics will instinctively answer yes, because they know well that we receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. But that cannot be the answer, for it would involve the absurdity of a piece of bread becoming God. It would be converted from bread into divinity. A finite piece of matter would become the Infinite Spirit.

The Church teaches that the bread is changed into Christ’s body and the wine into his blood, and that his soul and divinity become present through concomitance. He is one indivisible being, so when the bread is changed into his body, the whole Christ necessarily becomes present. But the actual transubstantiation—the changing of one substance into another—is only of his body and blood. It is the change of a material substance into another material substance.

As the Council of Trent says, the body is “. . . under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who has now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with his body and soul.”8

What of the accidents of Christ’s body? They too are there; otherwise he would not be fully present. As St. Thomas says: “. . . since the substance of Christ’s body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body and all its other accidents are really in this sacrament.9 But the mode of their existence is conditioned by the fact that Jesus becomes present through transubstantiation. Substance is converted into substance, and the accidents, consequently, are there in the manner of substance.

Think of quantity. It is the fundamental accident, as we have noted. Normally it is the accident whereby its substance occupies a place; but the essential thing it does is to give the substance parts. And in the Eucharist all the parts of Christ’s body are present and are situated relatively to each other. But because of the unique way in which the quantity is there—in the manner of substance—the parts are not spread out in relation to the surrounding place. To put it another way: substance as such is distinct from quantity, and it occupies a place only because of its quantity. But when quantity becomes present through transubstantiation it exists in the manner of substance, and therefore without actual extension.

An insidious obstacle to an understanding of the Real Presence (of course it can never be fully understood in this life) is the almost overwhelming influence of the imagination. The imagination is a picture-making power which accompanies all our thinking; but it is distinct from the intellect and it deals only with what can be seen, touched or in some way sensed. The deeper level of being, accessible to the intellect, is beyond the reach of the imagination. However, the imagination still provides images, and these easily mislead us.

For example, the statement that Jesus is in the Eucharist with all his parts may bring a picture into the imagination of a tiny body small enough to fit in the host. We know it’s not like that, but the imagery can still distort one’s thought, or block it, or even tempt one to discard the Real Presence in favor of a symbolical or “spiritual” presence.

Deepening our faith

A clearer understanding of what God, through his Church, tells us about the Eucharist, and a consideration of the objections to the doctrine, should deepen our faith. Vagueness and perplexity about it are often associated with errors lurking deep in the mind—errors which, if allowed to surface, can bring temptations against faith. A right understanding will dissipate the errors and show that reason need not be embarrassed by transubstantiation, even though it far transcends reason.

Not only that, but exploration of the doctrine makes it more real to us. We realize more clearly that the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ are as truly present as they are in heaven, or as they were when he labored in his workshop in Nazareth. While that realization is dominant, every genuflection will be a conscious act of adoration of the Incarnate God; the Consecration will always absorb our attention; we will never want to hurry out of church as soon as Mass is over.

Jesus comes to us physically because of his great love for us. Anyone who loves wants to be physically close to the one who is loved, but it is sometimes impossible. It is not impossible for God. Divine power changes bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, and he dwells physically on earth in every tabernacle, and comes physically into us in Holy Communion.



1 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1958, p. 652.
2 DS 1642; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1376.
3 DS 1652.
4 George Berkeley, On the Principles of Human Knowledge, section 68.
5 The Catechism of the Council of Trent, translated by McHugh and Callan, Sinag-Tala Publishers, Greenhills, Phillipines, p. 229.
6 Summa Theol., III, q. 77, a. 2.
7 Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 233.
8 DS 1640.
9 Summa Theol., III, q. 76, a. 4.

Mr. John Young, B.Th., is associated with the Cardinal Newman Catechist Centre in Marylands, N.S.W., Australia. He has taught philosophy in three seminaries, and is the author of an introduction to philosophy, Reasoning Things Out, published in the United States by Stella Maris Books, Fort Worth, Tex. Mr. Young writes on philosophical and religious topics for Australian publications. His last article in HPR appeared in March 1997.

[Metatwaddle]

IIRC, there's "substance" and "essence": substance is the material nature of a thing, while essence is what it actually is. Example: a stone's substance are the properties that permit you to identify it as a stone - its shape, weight, molecular structure, makeup, etc. Its essence is what you might call its "stonehood": what makes it a stone, and not a tree or an animal that just looks like a stone.

But the article that FSTargetDrone quoted has the Catholic apologist repeatedly saying that the "substance" of the bread and body becomes the "substance" of the body and blood. Are they just saying "substance" when they mean "essence"?

[Surlethe]

IIRC, there's "substance" and "essence": substance is the material nature of a thing, while essence is what it actually is. Example: a stone's substance are the properties that permit you to identify it as a stone - its shape, weight, molecular structure, makeup, etc. Its essence is what you might call its "stonehood": what makes it a stone, and not a tree or an animal that just looks like a stone.

But the article that FSTargetDrone quoted has the Catholic apologist repeatedly saying that the "substance" of the bread and body becomes the "substance" of the body and blood. Are they just saying "substance" when they mean "essence"?

I got it mixed up. The substance in my post is actually accident, and the essence in my post is substance. I'll go and edit it to make it correct.

[Morilore]

Where did this pseudo-cannibalistic ritual come from, anyway? How did it get so damn important?

The Church teaches that the bread is changed into Christ’s body and the wine into his blood, and that his soul and divinity become present through concomitance. He is one indivisible being, so when the bread is changed into his body, the whole Christ necessarily becomes present. But the actual transubstantiation—the changing of one substance into another—is only of his body and blood. It is the change of a material substance into another material substance.

So a property of an object that is not able to be measured by any means whatsoever is altered, and this is the physical part of this process? This notion of substance, which is separate from size and mass and texture and chemical makeup and all the real properties of matter, is the material and not the mystical elemant of the Eucharist?

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

[Surlethe]

Where did this pseudo-cannibalistic ritual come from, anyway? How did it get so damn important?

It's been around quite literally as long as Christianity. See here: people were teaching it as far back as 110, and it's even mentioned in the writings of Paul and the gospels in the Bible. It probably came from some of the mystery cults present in the middle east and Roman world at the time which involved rituals consuming the flesh of the cult god - I think this happened in the Cult of Isis or the Cult of Mithras, but I'm not clear on that. The ideas involved here are not original to Christianity.

[Rye]

It was probably inherited from Judaism; there were a few associations with breaking bread and drinking wine, plus some sort of blessing or requests for divine guidance. The text of Mark is figurative in my opinion; his "body" is for the community (much as the food is), his blood for the renewal of the covenant with God, and, well, wine is reminiscent of blood so it drove the point home. The subsequent catholic view of it is just what dogma does to stuff like that. It was celebrating the "imminent" empire of God.

[FSTargetDrone]

So a property of an object that is not able to be measured by any means whatsoever is altered, and this is the physical part of this process? This notion of substance, which is separate from size and mass and texture and chemical makeup and all the real properties of matter, is the material and not the mystical elemant of the Eucharist?

You are trying to find a logical explanation for something that is inherently illogical.

Catholicism teaches that when the priest says consecration, this bread and wine instantly become the actual, physical, real flesh and blood of Christ. You eat the bread wafer and you are eating his body. You drink the wine and you are drinking his blood. It's that simple and Catholicism requires no explanation.

And believers take it on faith because Christ himself told his followers to eat his body and blood. Despite the fact that there is no physical transformation. It is simply an act of faith on the part of the believers. You can try to understand or translate the mishmash of the absurdity I quoted above, but it's pointless. It is an act of faith.

It would make so much more sense for Catholicism to treat this as merely symbolic, but it is absolutely not symbolic.

Someone above pointed out how bizarre Christianity is. There is veneration of an executed man who is simultaneously a third person of an indivisible Trinity. Representations of his body hanging from a cross are in every Church. There is blood and pain and death, and Catholics worship it like some cult of old.

It's madness. Don't try to understand it.

[Qwerty 42]

There's an ur-Eucharist in the New Testament, although it's not exactly clear even there whether or not the ceremony is symbolic:

22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

[sketerpot]

PZ Meyers just posted a large collection of the hate mail he's been receiving lately over his stated desire to desecrate a holy cracker. The disturbing link.

Here are some excerpts:

I urge you not to desecrate the Eucharist.

In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.

Such a sacrilege would not only be deeply offensive to Catholics, but also to people of all faiths for such a blatant disrespect of a profoundly held religious belief.

It's always amusing how many religious people think that just saying their views will make people suddenly believe them. It's like a Catholic version of the Jack Chick fantasy: "Gosh! I never knew that Jesus literally-but-not-really-but-really came to be in the wafer! I'm going to hit my knees and pray now! [John 4:12-14]".

And why is is that disrespecting one religious belief would be offensive to every other religious person? Did they feel this way when someone called a teddy bear Mohammed? Do they feel this way when someone makes fun of the Mormon magic underwear?

Myers, you certainly sound like a B.Y.E.

What do you do in your spare time, watch The Exorcist and root for Satan?

You supposedly "teach" science and math?

I doubt it.

Remember that Freedom of Speech is not freedom to harm others, which is what you are doing.

But since you are snug in your relative values of the moment, I know that will mean nothing to you, or your sick ego.

Thinks atheists worship Satan: check! Doesn't know the distinction between sentences and paragraphs: check! Thinks that saying something disrespectful is literally harming others: check! This guy is an ignorant looney.

[Another letter was overly long but accused PZ and those like him of being the greatest killers of our time, and worse than the 9/11 terrorists. Some people just don't have a sense of proportion. Or any sense at all.]

Do you find yourself amusing? I bet you do. Your latest , about the Holy Eucharist , just makes you repugnant.

Do you have RESPECT for anything, anyone, yourself? This is not a rhetorical question. Why must you offend?

I'm sorry that you are an atheist. I'm sorry that the Church hurt you in some way. We will pray for you, your pathology is in need of prayer.

"Love One Another ,as I Have Loved You!"

This guy assumes that if PZ doesn't respect his ridiculous beliefs, then PZ probably doesn't respect anything. Because atheists believe in nothing! Oh noes! And he tops it off by assuming that people would only become atheists because they're angry at the Church or God, not through lack of belief. Honestly, these people are a perfect sampling of everything that makes atheists look down on them.

I can definitely score a Eucharist for you. You may not care for the taste though, but then again I don't care for your moronic position regarding the desecration of the Eucharist. Would you be bold enough to take this type of childish stance if it were involving a sacred Muslim object/ I'd bet cash money that you wouldn't as folks like you hide in the insulated academic world, as you are too frightened and inept to work in the corporate world where one is paid and advances based on performance, not liberal childish rants. Where do you want me to send it?

I'm not sure what to make of this guy's baffling offer to give PZ a eucharist that might taste bad. What the hell?

This lovely letter combines two big themes:

1. "I bet you wouldn't say that about Muslims! They would kill you, but Catholics are generally raised in less violent societies. For some reason I think this means that making fun of either group is highly immoral. I like to eat toothpaste."

2. "You're a typical pathetic liberal professor who's putting lies into the minds of kids and you're not acting very scientifically and you suck and you're a professor and college is for loser atheist professor bitches and you suck professor!!! (P.S. I'm praying for you!!!)"

In other words: "It's okay to piss off Muslims but not us" and "I don't need no learnin', you damn intellectual."

That's enough for now. If you're feeling masochistic or you just want to stare into the abyss, there's a lot more on Pharyngula.

[Resinence]

I can't help but laugh that they don't even realise how bigoted they are for saying "well why don't you piss on a koran/shit on a buddha etc etc?". I guess it's all at once or nothing right? Black and White? Typical.

or you just want to stare into the abyss

He who fights with monsters should be careful least he thereby becomes a monster. When you stare at the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.

[sketerpot]

He who fights with monsters should be careful least he thereby becomes a monster. When you stare at the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.

Trust me: when you stare into this abyss, the only thing it does is fill you with contempt for most of humanity and make you want to not be like them, ever. Check it out:

You are really fucked now. Lock your doors at night, and check under your car before you turn the ignition key.

And while we're on the topic of the amazing forgiveness of Christ:

[

At least this guy has the honesty to come out and say it rather than just obliquely implying it, as most of these wankers do in order to make themselves feel like they're not being horrible people.

[Resinence]

I think the comments are right, there is a serious case of fatwa envy among fundies if those emails are any indication of their mindset.

DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR REGARDING THE MUSLIM RELIGION? I DOUBT YOU DO, YOU KNOW THEY WOULD LOP YOUR HEAD OFF ! ATTACKING CHRISTIANS, ESPECIALLY CATHOLICS IS EASY FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU !

I am sponsoring efforts to get you fired for your comments on the CATHOLIC EUCHARIST - free speech has nothing to do with your idiotic & disrespectful comments - Now just go pick on the Muslims - or are you too afraid - you must be - you assinine PHD - too afraid to affront a religious belief that would terminate you. God Bless

Truly, they are the kings of the "passive-aggressive dickhead" syndrome.

But hey, I guess they really do wish the Inquisition was still around, tolerent and respectful though, remember them for their love while their inquisition henchmen draw and quarter you.

At least this guy has the honesty to come out and say it rather than just obliquely implying it, as most of these wankers do in order to make themselves feel like they're not being horrible people.

I question whether they are even capable of realizing that they sound and behave like monsters and psychopaths, after all; in the name of God, anything is justified to expand the faith and/or destroy those who threaten the glass house.

[sketerpot]

I am sponsoring efforts to get you fired for your comments on the CATHOLIC EUCHARIST - free speech has nothing to do with your idiotic & disrespectful comments - Now just go pick on the Muslims - or are you too afraid - you must be - you assinine PHD - too afraid to affront a religious belief that would terminate you. God Bless

Truly, they are the kings of the "passive-aggressive dickhead" syndrome.

The thing that really gets me about those letters is that so many of them use "Ph. D" as a grave insult, roughly synonymous with "cowardly effeminate elitist cocksucking infidel". It's sometimes easy to forget just how strong anti-intellectualism is in America.

I question whether they are even capable of realizing that they sound and behave like monsters and psychopaths, after all; in the name of God, anything is justified to expand the faith and/or destroy those who threaten the glass house.

There was a truly beautiful experiment that Richard Dawkins wrote about in The God Delusion. Here's the excerpt, which I'll only quote parts of. A psychologist had a bunch of Israeli schoolchildren read this passage:

Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction. . . But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.'. . . Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword. . . And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

And then the students were asked "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?"

66% gave total approval, 26% gave total disapproval, and 8% were in the middle. Most of them cited religious reasons for this, like these:

In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim.

In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways.

Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth.

And many of those who voiced total disapproval did so only because they thought that killing the livestock was wasteful, or because entering the impure city of Jericho to conquer it would make the Israelites themselves impure.

The really fascinating part of the experiment is what happened with the control group:

Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by 'General Lin' and 'Israel' replaced by 'a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago'. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7 per cent approved of General Lin's behavior, and 75 percent disapproved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of the children agreed with the moral judgments that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it.

So the answer to your question is probably no. They really can't tell that they sound like psychopathic monsters.

[Kanastrous]

Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason.

This kind of, well, non-reasoning drives me up a fucking tree.

Why not say that 2+2=5 is not against arithmetical reason, it is above it?

Why not say that any chunk of nonsensical bullshit is not against the truth, but simply above it?

[Darth Wong]

Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason.

This kind of, well, non-reasoning drives me up a fucking tree.

Why not say that 2+2=5 is not against arithmetical reason, it is above it?

Why not say that any chunk of nonsensical bullshit is not against the truth, but simply above it?

It comes from the Christian belief that logic is just a set of rules like the legal system, and that a sufficiently powerful person can ignore it. Hence, they believe God has the power to overrule logic if he wants to, so it is possible to be "above" logic.

Basically, it's just a load of meaningless babble designed to conceal the fact that Godsense is nonsense. That's why I'm fond of telling them that they shouldn't get angry when I say that their belief system is nonsense. They believe it is above the requirement that it make sense, so they should be proud to call it nonsense.

[Kanastrous]

I'm fond of telling them that they shouldn't get angry when I say that their belief system is nonsense. They believe it is above the requirement that it make sense, so they should be proud to call it nonsense.

That's good.

I'm borrowing it.

[Zablorg]

Isn't this one cracker out of like, twenty billion? You'd think this kind of thing would be fairly common.

[Shroom Man 777]

Man... these people are assholes.

[Phillip Hone]

Someone needs to make a cartoon for this, similar to ones about the Muslim incident. For example, a bunch of gun wielding subhuman looking characters dressed as priests with one saying "Death to the godless heathen! He insulted our peace loving and highly intellectual religion by stealing one of our Jesus crackers!"

[Kanastrous]

Maybe a cartoon contrasting the RCC's concern for the welfare of one of their crackers, over the welfare of their altar boys...?

[Kitsune]

There is also Mother Teresa's real care from the sick and dying under her care which might be usable......

[Kitsune]

Discussing this on another board and there are some Catholics on the board. I try to respect other's religions but I just have trouble grasping the idea that a little piece of unleavened bread is really the body of Christ.

[Kanastrous]

It's madness. Don't try to understand it.

Second rule of warfare: know your enemy.

I doubt I will ever be able to bellyfeel the crapola that the religious buy into, but I think it's necessary to understand it as well as possible, in order to combat it more effectively.