On Thursday’s show I fielded a question about Prof. P. Z. Myers, the Minnesota professor who has threatened to desecrate the Eucharist and post the results on the Internet.
Here is an mp3 of the exchange.
LISTEN
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Great, great response, Jimmy. You should blog your CA Live stuff more often!
BTW, an atheist friend at work and I exchanged a couple of emails about the Myers controversy. Here’s an excerpt from our exchange:
Exactly correct, and thank you! P.Z. Myers is an atheist fundamentalist, as intolerant as any flat-earth biblical hyper-literalist or Taliban warlord.
He and Fred Phelps should get together.
Thanks for being there, Jimmy.
A.M.D.G.
What the Aztecs believed in wasn’t true. Catholicism is 100% true. In the famous words of Dr. Kreeft, “the only reason to believe anything is because it’s true.” Pray for this professor’s conversion.
I suppose I should pipe in here. As I was waiting for the mp3 file to download (I have dial-up at home), even before I knew what department P. Z. Meyers worked for, I guessed that it had to be either English or Biology and I was right (he is a biologist). I work around a variety of academic people and I have found that these two disciplines tend to generate the largest number of atheists.
I have had many discussions with biologists over evolution and God and the entire department has an almost written rule now that no one is allowed to shout the word evolution in a faculty setting. This is to prevent the combustive arguments that almost always follows.
There are many devout biologists and English professors. I do not know why the topic of God affects some of them to the point where they reject God and seem to become actively hostile (much more than music professors, say – in fact, in my many years in academic music as well as science, I have yet to run into a musician who is an atheist).
I am neither a biologist nor English professor (I’m in the hard sciences), but you would have to be on the other side of the desk to realize how hard it is not to let college teaching become a matter of the cult of self. I struggle with this all of the time and I have not always been successful. Some biologists forget that theirs is not a hard science and it is not a finished science. They also forget that science is not in the business of finding truth – it is in the business of excluding falsehood. One does not assume that something is false and take that stance as the truth. If P. Z. Meyer were a good scientist he would be looking at ways that atheism might be false, rather than assuming that it is true without basis.
I find this the case with many scientists. They forget the purpose of their discipline.
Nevertheless, what P. Z. Meyers seems to be proposing to do goes against all charity that one is supposed to have in any sorts of academic pursuits. How can he claim to be a scientist and not know how to behave in the forum? Even at conferences where it is obvious that the speaker hasn’t got a clue as to what he is talking about, most scientists I know of would be kind and quiet until the presenter were finished and perhaps speak to him in private.
Even though he does not believe in God, he must believe in sin, since he seems to recognize it in others, if not himself.
There is also the problem that anti-Catholicism is still very much alive in academia. I doubt that he will be brought up on morals charges, as he should be, if he goes ahead with what he proposes as he would have been, a few generations ago.
I was actually witness to a situation once where two professors had to split an introductory biology class because one had another commitment half-way through. The first professor was an ardent creationist while the second was an ardent evolutionist (neither was an atheist). Those poor students. It must have been like being caught in the middle of a custody battle between two divorcing parents.
Jimmy is right. Not all atheists are arrogant. We have had a few here who have acquitted themselves with respect even though they obviously do not agree with most of the other posters. This man has not given a good example for atheism. He has simply been rude.
A few more points, just to get everyone on the same page:
1. Richard Dawkins is calling for an anti-boycott of P Z Meyers at his blog
2. P. Z. Myers has a relatively famous science blog. His post entitled, “An evil atheist and a Catholic priest have a conversation,” is about half-way down the first page. It has 400 comments.
3. Properly speaking, P. Z. Myers is not demonstrating atheism. The negative prefix, a, from the Greek means: no, absence of, without, lack of, not, according to the Wordinfo site. An atheist is one who says that there is an absence of God or no God. As such, they cannot argue for their own belief (since, properly speaking, they have no belief). Rather, they are arguing about belief itself. Theirs will always be an argument from the outside. The best they can do is make meta-statements about belief. They cannot really make any sorts of statements about God without implying some acknowledgment that he could exist. No one can talk about a square circle, since it does not exist.
In fact, P. Z. Myers appears to be not an atheist, but an anti-theist. According to wikidictionary, anti is from the Greek, αντί meaning, against, instead of. P. Z. Myers seems to want something instead of God, but he never quite says what. Reason? Reason is not opposed to God. It may be opposed to P. Z. Meyer’s definition of God, but the last I heard, only God gets to define who he is. Thus, it would seem that P. Z. Myers wants to bestow Godhood on either himself or every atheist.
My hope is that he repents. If not, for the good of the Academy, I hope is fired (although I know this will be defended on the grounds of free speech). My hope is that he might have a bit more charity. My hope is that he might learn to look beyond himself.
The Chicken
P. S. At least I didn’t mess up the links his time.
I suppose I should pipe in here. As I was waiting for the mp3 file to download (I have dial-up at home), even before I knew what department P. Z. Meyers worked for, I guessed that it had to be either English or Biology and I was right (he is a biologist). I work around a variety of academic people and I have found that these two disciplines tend to generate the largest number of atheists.
I have had many discussions with biologists over evolution and God and the entire department has an almost written rule now that no one is allowed to shout the word evolution in a faculty setting. This is to prevent the combustive arguments that almost always follows.
There are many devout biologists and English professors. I do not know why the topic of God affects some of them to the point where they reject God and seem to become actively hostile (much more than music professors, say – in fact, in my many years in academic music as well as science, I have yet to run into a musician who is an atheist).
I am neither a biologist nor English professor (I’m in the hard sciences), but you would have to be on the other side of the desk to realize how hard it is not to let college teaching become a matter of the cult of self. I struggle with this all of the time and I have not always been successful. Some biologists forget that theirs is not a hard science and it is not a finished science. They also forget that science is not in the business of finding truth – it is in the business of excluding falsehood. One does not assume that something is false and take that stance as the truth. If P. Z. Meyer were a good scientist he would be looking at ways that atheism might be false, rather than assuming that it is true without basis.
I find this the case with many scientists. They forget the purpose of their discipline.
Nevertheless, what P. Z. Meyers seems to be proposing to do goes against all charity that one is supposed to have in any sorts of academic pursuits. How can he claim to be a scientist and not know how to behave in the forum? Even at conferences where it is obvious that the speaker hasn’t got a clue as to what he is talking about, most scientists I know of would be kind and quiet until the presenter were finished and perhaps speak to him in private.
Even though he does not believe in God, he must believe in sin, since he seems to recognize it in others, if not himself.
There is also the problem that anti-Catholicism is still very much alive in academia. I doubt that he will be brought up on morals charges, as he should be, if he goes ahead with what he proposes as he would have been, a few generations ago.
I was actually witness to a situation once where two professors had to split an introductory biology class because one had another commitment half-way through. The first professor was an ardent creationist while the second was an ardent evolutionist (neither was an atheist). Those poor students. It must have been like being caught in the middle of a custody battle between two divorcing parents.
Jimmy is right. Not all atheists are arrogant. We have had a few here who have acquitted themselves with respect even though they obviously do not agree with most of the other posters. This man has not given a good example for atheism. He has simply been rude.
A few more points, just to get everyone on the same page:
1. Richard Dawkins is calling for an anti-boycott of P Z Meyers at his blog
2. P. Z. Myers has a relatively famous science blog. His post entitled, “An evil atheist and a Catholic priest have a conversation,” is about half-way down the first page. It has 400 comments.
3. Properly speaking, P. Z. Myers is not demonstrating atheism. The negative prefix, a, from the Greek means: no, absence of, without, lack of, not, according to the Wordinfo site. An atheist is one who says that there is an absence of God or no God. As such, they cannot argue for their own belief (since, properly speaking, they have no belief). Rather, they are arguing about belief itself. Theirs will always be an argument from the outside. The best they can do is make meta-statements about belief. They cannot really make any sorts of statements about God without implying some acknowledgment that he could exist. No one can talk about a square circle, since it does not exist.
In fact, P. Z. Myers appears to be not an atheist, but an anti-theist. According to wikidictionary, anti is from the Greek, αντί meaning, against, instead of. P. Z. Myers seems to want something instead of God, but he never quite says what. Reason? Reason is not opposed to God. It may be opposed to P. Z. Meyer’s definition of God, but the last I heard, only God gets to define who he is. Thus, it would seem that P. Z. Myers wants to bestow Godhood on either himself or every atheist.
My hope is that he repents. If not, for the good of the Academy, I hope is fired (although I know this will be defended on the grounds of free speech). My hope is that he might have a bit more charity. My hope is that he might learn to look beyond himself.
The Chicken
P. S. At least I didn’t mess up the links his time.
Sorry for the double post. This has not been my week for blog posting.
The Chicken
Since I would probably be the only one to speak in the man’s defense, I feel I must do so. I would like to inquire if when a blog post critical of another individual is made, if that individual is first or opportunely informed so that he is able to defend himself if he so chooses or to write the blogger with a defense.
I do not deny that Myers is not perfect in charity, but neither is anyone here. I don’t think it can be said that his charity seems lesser than the charity of those who have written him hatefully.
I do not see any evidence that would reliably indicate that Myers purpose is to offend. It seems rather by his statements his purpose is to make an artistic demonstration of the powerlessness of the consecrated bread. He is hoping, it would seem, that this would spur Catholics to realize its powerlessness and in turn to question their belief in transubstantiation.
BTW, I’ve noticed some arguments against sacrality of the bread made by some in the comments thread over there which have adequate (internal to Catholicism, at least) theological explanation but which went unanswered. Some crude commends were made about the digestive process to which can be answered that that is far past the point where Jesus is no longer present in that fashion (that he or God is still present in another generalized fashion is problematic for theism in general). If Catholics were to answer in such manner I think that would be more impressive (that is liable to make a good a impression), than the personal back and forth a few have engaged in.
I’m sure you would disagree with my description of his proposal as, from his point of view, an “artistic demonstration” but people of all faiths are regularly offended by various artistic productions — Catholics have protested certain plays about the pope or the virgin Mary, Muslims have protested a play which portrays the beheading of various religious figures, some Christian and one Mohammed. Most Christians seemed to criticize the fact that Muslims protested against that play and how they caused a cave-in. If some of those same Christians are the ones who are protesting against Myers, is not there some measure of disparity in self-application (the keen reader will note the euphemism)?
If the argument is that Catholicism is “100% true” whereas Islam and Aztec religion isn’t true, then that’s one thing and would need to be established by a proper Catholic apologetics. If the argument is based on something else however, there seems to be a disparity in self-application as I noted above.
Given the factual truth of what I say above and prescinding from the arguments I make based on those facts, Myers is not a “fundamentalist atheist”; he is simply a person, who happens to be an atheist, and who wishes to make an artistic demonstration of his view that the consecrated bread is powerless and to make an argument-in-art that this is indicative of the falsity of certain Catholic beliefs. Arguing that the beliefs of various religions is false does not make you a fundamentalist — whatever that term even means. That his artistic demonstration is distateful to many Catholics is granted, but he has recently said on his blog (in a comment) that he does not intend to do anything gross.
There are already btw some artistic works — one that I know of — that make use of consecrated bread in a manner that you would find, based on the brief description of it I have read, much more distasteful than anything Myers would do. I suspect that there was no outcry over this because most Catholics did not know about it whereas with Myers, it was made known.
I cannot imagine myself doing what Myers is doing and proposing to do. But then, I cannot imagine myself as Myers. I do not know fully what he knows, what he has and is experiencing and the situation to which he himself is responding to which was what he saw as a potentially deadly and already somewhat violent religious hysteria surrounding some consecrated bread that was taken out of a church and eventually returned.
You really can’t discuss or argue with someone like Myers.
thanks for your comments Jimmy.
Now if Prof. P. Z. Myers was really brave he would desecrate the Quran and post the results on youtube.
How quickly would the video be pulled?
How quickly would he have to go into hiding – even in the US?
He could compare and contrast the consequences of “anti-Islamic hate speech” with “anti-Catholic free speech”.
He would then discover if there was an equivalence between “Political Popery” as he imagines it, and Sharia? And which was a greater threat to his values.
If he were rational he would prioritize his ire.
BTW I’m not suggesting anyone should deliberately insult the most deeply felt sensibilities of others.
which was what he saw as a potentially deadly and already somewhat violent religious hysteria surrounding some consecrated bread that was taken out of a church and eventually returned.
I don’t know of anyone in our world who would commit murder over the Eucharist. I assume you don’t either. Given that, Myers actions can only be seem as an attempt to provoke reactions which would ‘prove’ what he must already think: that Catholics aren’t are hypocrites. That, when is comes down to it, we’re just in it for self-gratifying self-righteousness. He isn’t trying to prove anything. He is insulting my Beliefs for whatever his latest cruddy experiment is. I feel sad for a man who comes to that point.
P.S. Myers’ anarchist, amoral actions remind me of the irrational thought process with which the Joker in Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight acted. (Everybody must know that I’m not comparing them.)
John,
Meyers has already stated, in a comment IIRC, that he intends to do certain things with certain other religions. I don’t think he intends to do anything with the Koran, however.
Expecting him to do something that may cause danger to his life is unreasonable. Someone choosing not to do something out of fear of his life is reasonable. Choosing to do something noble even when it endangers one’s life may render it nobler still if the good gained is greater than the evil posed — otherwise it may render something noble, simply foolish. In any event, no one, including Myers, is claiming that it is morally imperative that he do this; he is simply choosing to do it for various reasons. I’m afraid that I cannot make much more sense of this non-sequitor response that is all too common to Meyers.
@David,
Death threats were received in both cases over the Eucharist. In fact, in one case, where the emailed death threat was published with full header information on Myers’ blog, an employee of 1-800-flowers to whom the email account apparently belonged, ended up losing her job. If Myers had just made it up, 1-800-flowers would not have fired that person. Myers did not rejoice over the firing; however I think he should have realized that it would have led to that.
“I do not deny that Myers in not perfect in charity, but neither is anyone here. I don’t think it can be said that his charity seems lesser than the charity of those who have written him hatefully.”
I don’t see where “anyone here” has “written him hatefully”.
Bill,
I was not speaking of anyone here, but rather of some of the comments on Myers’ blog (not this blog, but Myers’ own blog) and the hate mail, including a few death threats that he has received — one of which resulted in the account holder’s firing from 1-800-flowers and a press statement from the same.
“I do not see any evidence that would reliably indicate that Myers(sic) purpose is to offend.”
I suggest that this example of blindness is willful.
Bill,
To clarify, the first sentence you quoted is speaking of everyone here; the second is speaking of what I mentioned above.
“…he is simply choosing to do it for various reasons.”
The main one being he is an anti-Catholic bigot.
Bill,
You can judge that I am being “willful” in “blindness” if you wish. I hope that I am not and I am not conscious of being so but it is your choice to believe or not to believe me and there is nothing I can do to convince you of my veracity.
However, since discussions where mutual veracity is unreasonably doubted are not fruitful I think I will avoid any further discussion with you and leave you with the last word. I was disappointed that Mr Chicken made a similar suggesting about my character, for which he gave somewhat of an apology for, and while I am disappointed that you have done the same here, except more directly, at the same time I am happy that it provided more anecdotal confirmation to certain beliefs I hold.
They were the only 2 sentences of the same paragraph. Gramatically speaking, they must refer to each other.
Bill,
You can believe what you wish but it is rather inconvenient to me for you to use your last word to level yet another charge of dishonesty against me. If I used poor grammer, I used poor grammar, but I did not lie. Secondly, none of the postings in this blog’s comment thread constitute having “written him.” “Written him” in the English language, in this context, and in any other that I can think of at the moment, refers to writing to someone, not writing about someone.
In any event, due to the presence of persons such as yourself on this blog and the rarity of persons such as SB on the same, my participation in this blog presents a challenge for me in terms of my persisting in having the deepest love for every person and acting out of that same abiding and fruitful love.
Therefore, I think from now on, I will confine myself to forums, at least when it comes to the internet, which are operated by atheists.
Perhaps as someone who has engaged in formal speech and debate, I am not used to the wild west of the internet. In any event, I wish you well Bill and the same for everyone here, regardless of what posts by you about me may follow, I wish you the same good fortune.
Dear CT,
I do not think that a word spoken in haste and repented of, numerous times, should be evidence that, as you say:
I was disappointed that Mr Chicken made a similar suggesting about my character, for which he gave somewhat of an apology for,
I made no comment about YOUR character, at all, in fact. I made a comment about someone called Eric, wondering if you might be the same person because of similar choice in language. Since you are not Eric, my comment does not apply to you. Had you been Eric, I still would have apologized for making a hasty remark, but I would have commented more directly on the content of the post in question.
In fact, at least several times (including above, at least indirectly), I have praised how you have acquitted yourself on this blog.
I offer no offense. I ask for none, in return.
The Chicken
Dear CT,
You wrote:
Perhaps as someone who has engaged in formal speech and debate, I am not used to the wild west of the internet.
As someone who has also engaged in formal speech and debate, I agree that the modern Internet can be a bit much. I was around when the Internet started. It was a much different place. We often talk about the Eternal September.
That is not to say that the modern Internet has not benefited in some ways by having many new people, but since there is no period now where people learn netiquette before they post, many places are often shouting matches. This blog is much more charitable than many places I have visited and very similar to the early days of the Internet when academic researchers were the only ones on bulletin boards.
I would not give up, yet. I regularly visit blogs with a rabid atheistic bias and I have not noticed any greater charity. It seems that the lack of manners in society is reflected in many places on the Internet, as well. Most people here are very well-mannered, although occasionally frustrated and human.
The Chicken
CT,
If Myers had just made it up, 1-800-flowers would not have fired that person.
I suppose I should have been clearer. I didn’t deny that death threats were made. I only am saying that I am unaware of any living person who is actually willing to murder someone over the Eucharist. Words are not actions, even when the words are wicked and scandalous.
BTW, I said to you that I would try to answer your comments on another thread. I still hope to.
I’ve come to realize there’s no percentage in attempting to explain the idea of something sacred to a person who inherently lacks the capacity to grasp the notion of the sacred.
Even if they wanted to.
It’s sort of like trying to explain the concepts of “honor” and “integrity” to a sociopath.
Even to a brilliant sociopath.
They may be acquainted with the concepts, but to them, they simply does not register and do not represent not anything to be taken seriously; “honor” and “integrity” are seen as either a joke or a delusion.
So, too, with the theistically-impaired.
“I do not see any evidence that would reliably indicate that Myers(sic) purpose is to offend.”
No, it isn’t to offend. If he wanted to offend, he’d stick a crucifix in a jar of urine, splatter an icon of the Blessed Virgin with dung, or write a hackneyed novel about albino Opus Dei assassins. Those things offend.
What Myers intends to do is hurt. He wants to take something so sacred to Catholics and destroy it knowing it will render pain unto those of us who believe the Host isn’t a cracker, but Christ. Clearly – even though he, and many other atheists out there – think Catholicism is a load of crap, they certainly go out of their way to make a statement about it. Which means for all their whining and moaning about there not being a God and religion being for the unintelligent, they take it seriously.
As another blogger says, too, you can scratch an atheist and find a fundamentalist. Both take pretty much the same approach and attitude toward Catholicism.
And what it comes down to here is the hypocrisy of folks like Myers. “Tolerance” and “compassion” are words used carelessly in society – and especially on college campuses. We’re always told we have to respect other cultures, all cultures are the same and equally valid, yet these same people turn around and not only denounce – but go out of their way – to attack one culture with which they vehemently disagree: the Catholic Church. Myers would never desecrate a Koran in the manner he wants to desecrate a Eucharist.
So why is this in any way acceptable? You cannot compare Catholicism to the Aztecs – the latter no longer exists. Catholicism is mainstream and – just like all those other beliefs and ideologies we *have* to treat with respect – it is its own culture and worthy of equal regard. No one would say or do the things Myers or anyone else does about *any* other group without serious repercussions. But since the target of their venom is Catholicism, their bigotry is labeled “dialogue” and given a pass.
The hate mail they received? Wrong. I condemn it fully. But you get angry and stupid and vicious folk of all types – so anyone who thinks this is exclusive to Catholicism is either naive or lying.
I would never threaten anyone if they attempted or actually desecrated a Host. But I take so seriously the sacredness of the Eucharist that I would lay down my life to defend Christ. And – given how things are going – I wouldn’t be surprised if some of us have to eventually.
And then – only then – will we see if our faith is as big a load of tosh as Myers thinks. I, on the other hand, believe it to be the Truth. And I will always defend and fight for the respect my faith deserves.
Thank you for that, Jimmy. I felt like standing and applauding when the MP3 and finished playing (and if I hadn’t had a nursing baby in my lap, I would have!).
I wonder how seriously Professor Myers has taken any of these death threats. Has he requested police protection? Has he gone into hiding a la Salman Rushdie?
Or does he know full well, just as you and I do, that he’s in no danger from any real Catholics, whatever anonymous internet posters may spout off in his comboxes?
P.Z. Myers is being thoroughly dishonest. His parading around these “death threats” as though they were some sort of evidence against the characters of Catholics is thoroughly dishonest. And, whatever he may say about courage and integrity, he’s not making this statement for anyone else’s benefit. At best, he’s a vandal, spraypainting his idea of art on someone else’s wall. At worst, he’s offering insult to his Creator and Redeemer.
The good news for Professor Myers is that God has encountered this kind of treatment before, and he has a special prayer for people like him: “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”
FWIW, Myers does indicate that (a) he’s not real concerned about the threats and (b) the vast majority of objectors haven’t threatened physical violence:
Assaulting him with prayer. Now, that sounds like a really good idea.
I would like to share two bits of thought. Neither are mine.
First, to all readers, I say reflect on the famous wager made by Blaise Pascal. In short, according to Pascal, if Mr. Myers is an atheist, he had better hope he is right because I doubt the God of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or any other theistic religion, Buddha, Thor, Zeus, and any other supreme entities (assuming at least one of the many could possibly exist) would look kindly upon one who intentionally or even negligently offends one or many of his people. Personally I would never take such a risk even if I were an atheist.
Second, to all Catholics, Christians, and fellow brothers and sisters of good will. I will share the best response to this whole controversy I have read so far. It is from a priest I know who resides in St. Louis MO. Here it is.
Hello,
Some of you may have received an e-mail (or read stories) regarding the desecration of the Most Blessed Sacrament.
May I propose a course of action to all:
(1) Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet for this misguided soul, a Minnesota
professor, who so wishes to desecrate our Lord in His Greatest Gift in a
public way in front of cameras and so on. We are called to pray for this
man who desecrates our Lord in so public and so thumb-nosing an action.
– BUT –
(2) Pray a second Divine Mercy Chaplet for ourselves, when we by our
sins, desecrate the Most Blessed Sacrament. After all, if Catholics, who
quote unquote truly believe Christ is present in this Most Wondrous Gift,
can desecrate that Gift by coming in front of Him dressed immodestly, if
we can come before Him in this Wondrous Gift with petty rivalries, if we
can come before Him in a state of sin from sexual misconduct, should we
not ask for mercy our selves? What has this professor done that we have
not done with our own actions?
People of God, I KNOW that there is a difference between what this
professor is doing and what we do in our sin. And truly, we are called
to take the gentle actions Christ would take to stop it. His desecration
is shameful, and hurts us all. Still, this remains a moment to look at
our own sins and how they wound that Gift, that Jesus who we profess to
adore.
God bless,
Fr. Tim Henderson.
************************************************
Laudetur Iesus Christus; semper laudetur
Pascal’s Wager always seemed like flimsy grounds for faith. In fact, a faith based on Pascal’s Wager isn’t really faith at all, is it? It seems a good argument for giving religion(s) serious consideration, but the only reason to believe something is that it is true.
The death threat was phrased, “Leave for the sake of the children or get your brains bashed in.”
Stupid to send and yes, the authorities have to treat it seriously. But it also seems to be the human response of the anger when threatened. Myers doesn’t really get the pain he’s causing others. He reminds me of a child who persists in provoking negative attention. It amazes me that he’s in a position as “teacher” to young adults when he acts more immature than they do.
Of course, Catholics should be all about the superhuman response.
Sleeping Beastly: you are right… it is an argument for giving religion serious consideration, not to believe religion. But unless you give it serious consideration, it is unlikely anyone would come to believe it. Mere flippant discourse is not going to convince anyone. And reading the treatment most atheists give to common miracles, even a miracle would not convince them. What they need to do is approach religion with humility of heart–and allow God to work in their lives. So the wager is a good first step towards getting that humility. But it is not a last step, by a long shot.
PZ Myers. PT Barnum.
A sucker is born every minute.
This Myers guy is mirror worshipping to the extreme.
Also, I don’t think any real person threatened his life, real Catholics don’t do this.
Taking an idea from Jimmy Akin’s comment about the Kabba: I think Catholics should offer to donate airfare, so he can go to Mecca and see if he’d spit on the Kabba. I can bet a huge sum of money that he wouldn’t do it. They’d slaughter him in seconds, and he knows it.
Taking an idea from Jimmy Akin’s comment about the Kabba: I think Catholics should offer to donate airfare, so he can go to Mecca and see if he’d spit on the Kabba. I can bet a huge sum of money that he wouldn’t do it. They’d slaughter him in seconds, and he knows it.
I think it’s moot anyway, as non-Muslims are not permitted near the Ka’ba. I don’t think they’re even allowed into Mecca. The most he could do would be to get within a few miles of it.
its ok to insult the eucharist when a priest who is in mortal sin offers the eucharist to his flock. its ok to spit it out in those cases. or throw it on the ground. because he is not offering the true body and blood of christ soul and divinity…he is offeing you sins…so his offering is not acceptable
a priest who transfers his sins into the eucharist IS desecrating it…so its not holy anyway and therefore you should refuse to take it
those who are sensitive to the presence of god and the holy spirit know what i am talking about
“while Catholics believe Jesus is all-powerful and that desecrating the eucharist, though a great sacrilege, does him no actual harm.”
i agree with this….so either way its no biig deal
its wrong to abuse the body of christ and priests seem to be doing that to members of the body of christ
i am thinking about insulting a priest because he has insulted me. i am a child of god so when a priest insults me it is like insulting god.
it is morally and ethically wrong for a priest to expect people to forgive them when they haven’t confessed to their own wrongdoing or sought forgiveness or made reparation to the person they have injured. it is wrong to thtreaten people that if they don’t forgive a priest then the person will have to carry the cross. torture is against the law. harassment is against the law. that kind of priest is lower than dirt
if a priest says it is wrong to desecrate the host then stop making an example of the suffering of christ on the cross. stop calling to mind the night of the last supper and all that happened the next day. stop celebrating the torture of jesus. idiots!
its against the law to treat people like that in case you failed to notice. you will be arrested and thrown in jail for torturing people, harassing them, etc. any of the punishments inflicted on jesus were morally and socially unacceptable. they are war crimes. and you are encouraging abusive behavior by continuing to enjoy it.
i’ m sure god forgave that guy that did that.
according to your logic as so called good and holy people, its up to you as catholics to forgive this so called ‘desecration’
i am sure you did something sinful that provoked this atheist to make an example out of you in the form of a questionably consecrated host
those who are sensitive to the presence of god and the holy spirit know what i am talking about
Which god is that?
i am a catholic and its ok with me that this guy did what he did. i dont’ know the details of what he did, but he was probably inspired by the holy spirit.
i really don’t think that it would hurt god as you so rightly pointed out. and it is ok to use it as a sign of disrespect to believers when so called believers have failed to show respect and behaved like the animals who killed jesus 2000 years ago…
if a priest conspired to have someone killed he is probably in mortal sin. so his eucharistic offering is worthless. and rightly so
which god is that?
….that would be jesus
you know
the triune god….
father
son
holy spirit
that god
stay on topic
k?
Cue the Twilight Zone theme.
when a priest thinks its ok to insult the blessed virgin mary or to put her on the cross of cause her pain and suffering
you know there is something seriously wrong and delusional with the morals of catholic church
ok
i’ll limit to that catholic priest
these priests should be fired
they think they have a job for life and can get away with being abusive and murder.
if you cannot distinguish the body and blood of christ then you are not to partake of it.
as a catholic if you claim to have a sense of the sacred then you should be able to discern when the host is sacred and when it isn’t
if you disagree with a priest’s sermon on the grounds of morals or ethics, you should not partake of his offering because then you are giving assent to his immorality and becoming a partaker of it.