A Tale of Two Children
Normally, a deacon would carry the Eucharist to the prisoners, but one day none was available, so a 12-year-old acolyte--an altar boy--named Tarcisius volunteered. The priest was reluctant to send a boy on such an errand because he knew that, if Tarcisius was caught carrying "the Mysteries," he could be summarily executed. In the end, Tarcisius prevailed, and the priest agreed.
Carrying the Eucharist clutched to his chest, Tarcisius set out on his mission. On the way, he met some boys--non-Christians--whom he knew, and they asked him to play. When Tarcisius, who normally enjoyed their company, said no, they began to suspect something. They knew he was a Christian, and they noticed the way he was clutching his hands to his chest. What was he holding?
Tarcisius, knowing how dear the Eucharist was, refused to show them. They set upon him, beating him, trying to take his precious parcel by force. In the end, Tarcisius lay on the streets of Rome, battered, bloodied, barely breathing--but holding on to the Eucharist with the last ounce of his strength.A fellow Christian found him there and brought him back to the catacombs, where the priest who had sent him on his mission was. Tarcisius died on the way, with his hand still tightly holding the Body of Our Lord. Only when the lifeless body of this 12-year-old martyr was laid before the priest did his grip loosen, so that the priest might retrieve that which Tarcisius valued more than his own life.
Eighteen centuries later, a 51-year-old biology professor at the University of Minnesota Morris named P.Z. Myers has expressed his desire to hold the Eucharist in his hands, too. Unlike Saint Tarcisius, however, Myers, baptized a Lutheran but now a confirmed atheist, has no desire to visit prisoners and to feed their souls with the Body of Our Lord. Indeed, he does not even resemble the children whose murder of Saint Tarcisius may have been motivated more by curiosity than by malice.
On July 8, 2008, on his blog Pharyngula, in response to Catholic outrage over a University of Central Florida student who took a consecrated Host from a Catholic Mass, P.Z. Myers issued a request to his readers:
Can anyone out there score me [emphasis his] some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them—my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure—but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a g-dd-mned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart.
The title of the post? "IT'S A FRACKIN' CRACKER!" (caps his). (In the URL, "frackin'" is replaced with "g-dd-mned.")
In an interview on July 14, 2008, with the Minnesota Independent, Myers ridiculed those Catholics who have reacted to his perverse desire to desecrate the Body of Christ:
The response has done nothing but confirm it: I have to do something. I'm not going to just let this disappear. It's just so darned weird that they're demanding that I offer this respect to a symbol that means nothing to me. Something will be done. It won't be gross. It won't be totally tasteless, but yeah, I'll do something that shows this cracker has no power. This cracker is nothing.
What's most revealing here--other than the fact that a tenured professor at a state university could pull such a stunt with no apparent consequences for his career--is that Myers' two statements are clearly at odds. If the consecrated Host is "a symbol that means nothing to me," then he can't "show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare." Nor can he engage in "desecrating" or even "profound disrespect." No one is capable of doing such things to a mere "cracker."
Myers clearly understands the doctrine of the Real Presence, which Lutherans as well as Catholics hold. He knows that, if Catholics and Lutherans are right, the Host is not a mere symbol, but a reality: the Body of Christ, no matter how much it looks and tastes like bread.
And that is why he intends to go through with this heinous act. If he really thought the Host a mere "cracker," he wouldn't be filled with such demonic rage against those who see with the eyes of a faith he once held.
Through his fanatical hatred for the God Whom he once acknowledged as his Lord and Saviour, P.Z. Myers has proved that age alone is not the measure of a man.
Eighteen centuries ago, in the streets of Rome, a 12-year-old boy gave his life to prevent what P.Z. Myers says he will do "joyfully and with laughter in my heart." Through his devotion to Christ, Saint Tarcisius proved himself a real man.
Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.
Comments
Why is it that Catholics constantly forget the centuries of oppression and slaughter they initiated due to the supposed desecration of these “crackers”? Countless jews and heretics have been thrown out of their communities, tortured, and put to death merely for the suggestion that they may have done something to one of these crackers.
PZ Myers reacts to this sort or overblown reaction in the 21st century and fire and brimstone are called down upon him. A student who walked out of church with a “cracker” is hounded by the Church and has his career, piece of mind, and life threatened by fanatics. It is this that PZ responded to. And the fact that it was over what he believes to be a cracker just makes it all the more maddening.
To compare some of the atrocities that the Catholic Church sponsored in the name of those crackers to the notion that he might do something unseemly to a cracker shows just why the reaction from the Church and its followers is so overblown.
Its just a cracker to other people. You can call it what you want. But you cannot force other people to worship your crackers as you do.
My first inclination was to call Mr. Myers a curse word, or more like a string of curse words. But how can anyone do anything but take pity on such an educated man filled with such hate and resentment.
I’m not saying that I am a good catholic or Christian for that matter but even I see that this poor soul is hurting for one reason or another.
Take pity on him and pray for him but dont pray for him to come back to god. Just pray that he finds peace. If he finds peace in his soul THAT WILL BRING HIM BACK TO GOD!.
Oh good lord!!! I’m so glad I’m out of your nutty religion! Everyone, please, please, please, take the time to read PZ Myers blog at scienceblogs.com/pharyngula. You’ll get a much better sense of what’s going on rather than taking the other Scott’s word for it.
The Catholic Church has done more for society than any group combined. Thanks to the Catholic Church, we have hospitals, schools, international law, university education, ancient literature, and the list goes on. We should all be eternally grateful for these things.
Christ said, “This is my body, this is my blood”, he told his apostles to “do this in memory of me”. The Eucharist is real, it is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Many miracles confirm this. The Eucharist has always been at the center of Christian worship. With God among us, how can we go wrong?
The Catholic church did commit evil acts, but the numbers are overstated to the point it is an urban legend. Vox Day takes this and more (including PZM) on in The Irrational Atheist. Meanwhile, you have Mao and Stalin on PZ’s side. One difference is that Catholics generally were trying to save Heretic’s souls. The atheists didn’t believe in souls so treated human beings as far more disposable than even crackers.
Without a basis for morality other than your personal opinion, on what basis do you condemn the Catholic church? You may not like pickles either.
Yes, the Catholic church consists of fallen men, but they have a mark so you can tell they have fallen short of it.
This guy is screaming for help. There will be an awful lot of sorrow sooner or later. God have mercy on this poor soul…
Well, I guess we need to know now. Can you consecrate pretzels? Perhaps you could do that and save the crackers. How about peanuts? Or do they not have sufficient yeast to be consecrateable?
Is there a minimum flour/water ratio for consecration?
Can plain flour, before baking, be consecrated to, you know, save time later in case there’s not someone about, or is it one of those just-in-time processes that has to be done at the time - in which case does it have a half-life, and wear off?
If it doesn’t wear off, then what happens to all the unconsumed wafers? I mean, you can’t go about throwing away the body of someone like that. Is there an un-consecration um, spell that can be used? And could it perhaps work at a distance, so you could send him a consecrated cracker but tell it to unconsecrate itself at a specific time?
Come on - if you’ve had these things around for so long, one presumes you’ve got all sorts of fixes for this. There must be something in the manual about it.
The one thing Professor Myers reveals is the troubled relationship he had with his own father. He is the one he is really angry with. Wise up. Stop trying to take it out on a surrogate. Saying that God doesn’t exit don’t make it so, pal.
In the midst of Charles’ snarkiness, there are, in fact, important issues. The unconsumed Host is reserved in the tabernacle precisely because It remains the Body of Christ.
If we Catholics believed that this were mere magic, then of course there would be an “unconsecration spell.” But we don’t. We take seriously Christ’s words that “This is my body…This is my blood.”
Of course, we understand that others do not. But it’s a far cry from mere disbelief to the act of destruction that P.Z. Myers is proposing.
“But it’s OK, because he thinks it’s a mere cracker!” And Peter Singer of Yale believes that children are not human until some time well after birth. He has written books and articles justifying infanticide on those grounds. “But that’s insane! Anyone can see that a baby is human.” Anyone, of course, other than Peter Singer. Should he be allowed, then, to destroy your child because he doesn’t believe him or her to be human?
Myers’ proposed desecration of the Host is not aimed at the Host Itself; it’s aimed at those of us who believe. Why else would he bother? It’s astounding to see those who claim to support tolerance (and who often justify atheism precisely because it’s supposed to lead to greater understanding among people, once these silly myths about gods finally wither away) now justifying an act designed to wound those who believe.
While I think this professor’s rant is atrocious, and his plans even more so, my question is about some of those who choose to comment…why are you on a Catholic site if you are so against our faith? I don’t go to your belief or non-belief sites and try to bash you…stay off of ours. Do you think your rants will have any affect on us? The weak are targets for anyone…but the strong will only become stronger. Thank you for helping make us stronger!
@God_is_etc_etc: “my question is about some of those who choose to comment…why are you on a Catholic site if you are so against our faith?”
Well, to point out its internal contradictions to see if you can mend them, for one.
“I don’t go to your belief or non-belief sites and try to bash you”
Listen, you’re welcome to try, but beware: there’s a risk I’ll say a spell over some bread. You can laugh all you like at us. They did at nitrous oxide, and look how *that* turned out.
@Scott: well, you can call it snarkiness, but I call it “seeking some definite answers here”. It’s only bread until the priest blesses it? If you say so. Can’t be unconsecrated? So what does happen to the stale stuff, or does it never decay? (Can God decay?) And can you consecrate a pretzel? Inquiring minds want to know.
I encourage all Catholics who read this awful story to make prayers of reparation for the sacrileges inflicted on the Blessed Sacrament. The level of bilious hatred displayed on that blog is astonishing. Come quickly Lord Jesus!
There is another point no one seems to have touched upon: unbelievers (especially atheists) are NOT being forced to believe in the corporal presence of our Lord in the Host. The blessed communion is kept inside our churches, locked away from the general public, and is only distributed during mass. How then, can non-catholics claim that they are being “forced” to believe, when in reality, men like Myers are INVADING our churches and STEALING a sacrament that belongs to us Catholics for petty reasons. Where is the religious tolerance and respect you demand from us Catholics towards your unbelief? I’ll tell you where it is: it is embedded in a double standard where atheists and others are allowed to desecrate our beliefs and traditions while we are forced to “respect” their ideas…
God Bless.
First of all, no where near as many christians were “tortured” or “discrimanated” againest as the church will have you think. Christians tortured and burned innocent pagans and destroyed their culture.
Long, tiresome, and disgusting instructions regarding the treatment of men who have a “running issue” out of their “flesh.” Very enlightening. “And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean …” 15:2-15
God’s law for wet dreams. 15:16-18, 32
God punishes Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men. 3:16
God likes Abel’s dead animals better than Cain’s fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved. 4:3-5
Lamech kills a man and claims that since Cain’s murderer would be punished sevenfold, whoever murders him will be punished seventy-seven fold. That sounds fair. 4:23-24
God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and “all flesh wherein there is breath of life.” He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17
Why respond to a Catholic blog if we are not believers? Because there is an hysteria building up within the religious community. And history has shown us in the past what can happen when any dogmatic belief(religious or political) goes out of control. As has been mentioned the very issue of the desecration of the Eucharist in the past has driven Catholics to acts of horrible consequence that echo still to this day. So we monitor and watch for public displays of hysteria such as on this blog that fan the flames of hatred against those who do not share your particular belief.
You live in a diverse pluralistic society. There are going to be those who believe that your beliefs are foolish, misguided, and even destructive. Just as you believe their beliefs are foolish, misguided, and destructive. If your God cannot stand up to a minor agitator doing something unkind to a cracker then I am sorry but your God has issues.
Let me just remind you how your God suggested you deal with incidents such as this.
Luke 6
27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Robert (@15):
Yes, it has been mentioned, and yet oddly, no examples have been given by you or anyone else. If the “horrible consequences . . . echo still to this day,” you should have no trouble providing specifics.
“Fan the flames of hatred”? People above are speaking of the need to pray for a man who has threatened to desecrate something they hold dear. Who’s fanning the flames of hatred here? This discussion began because of what P.Z. Myers has threatened to do, not because anyone has threatened to do anything to P.Z. Myers.
In your article, A Tale of Two Children, I am reminded of the likes of Sts. Lucy and Maria Gorretti, who died for the sanctity of another Sacrament, Marriage.
It is unfortunate that atheists seem to feel that they can only express themselves with this kind of vitrol, demonstrating what I like to say that of all the “isms” in this world, the most sanctimonious, and the most hypocritical is Atheism.
This has nothing to do with a “cracker”. It has to do with people’s sacred, spiritual beliefs. If it were a piece of used dental floss the issue would be the same. This person is spitting on someone’s scared beliefs. Just like wiping your butt on a page from the Koran. Would that be okay too?
Either we have religious freedom in this country, and that should come with respect for those beliefs even if you don’t agree with them, or we don’t.
It’s un-American, hate filled and childish for anyone to say or do anything other than respect that fundamental belief and right that we have.
I don’t really care what Professor Myers does in the privacy of his own home, or what he believes. If he believes that Christianity is so dreadful, at least, if he is honest with himself, he can acknowledge positive aspects of its legacy, namely, that things like secular humanism, international law, universities, doctrines of social justice, the anti-slavery movement, were all invented within the context of Christianity.
People like Myers think that faith in technology, rather than religion, is going to save humanity, but I’ll take the Spanish inquisition any day over chemical warfare and nuclear bombs. The end of humanity is far more likely to be caused by the accidental misuse of technology than anything that happens within the confines of religion.
One other point: when is it going to stop being fashionable in America to pick on Catholics. It’s now been more than 200 years of American Protestants and then Jews making fun of Catholicism.
I will challenge Professor Myers to the following: instead of desecrating the communion wafer, I challenge you to desecrate the Jewish seder dinner. Invite the president of your university and the Board of Governors to you “Desecration of the Seder” dinner, and see how long you keep your tenure at the university where you teach.
Now ask yourself who is more tolerant of people like you, Catholics or Jews.
Madrid (@20):
If you want to issue a challenge to Myers, don’t take that route. Invite him to attend Mass for a month, or to read the Fathers of the Church. Give him a copy of Butler’s Lives of the Saints, and challenge him to deal with the stories therein. Provide him with the art and literature and music produced by Christendom, and ask him whether beliefs that are as destructive as he believes Christianity to be could lead to such beauty.
Challenge him not to be moved by a beautiful performance of the “Panis Angelicus.”
Scott:
Thanks for your response. I teach at a Catholic university, but I am not a Catholic. I am not even particularly religious. I am sure you and I would agree on quite a bit, but I doubt we would be in total agreement on such issues.
What irks me about biologists like Professor Myers and Richard Dawkins is that their arguments don’t appear to acknowledge the way in which communities can’t simply divorce from their relgious history without doing great damage to the entire body politic (in precisely the way the Bolsheviks destroyed Russian culture in their zeal to destroy the Orthodox Church). You can’t, for example, dismiss the Christian religion without also dismissing all of its so-called secular literary figures, Dante Alleghieri, Geoffrey Chaucer, William Blake, Soren Kierkegaard, even writers like William Faulkner, James Joyce, and Cormac McCarthy, since so much of their literature is inspired by scripture. Once you do so, what are you left with? Worship of technology, worship of DNA and the genome structure, naked and self-centerd pursuit of pleasure and self-fulfillment beyond everything else in the world. You end up abandoning the language itself, by introducing stupid neologisms like the Dawkins word, “meme,” which incidently seems to be the same thing as the already existing word, “ideology.” The only thing that separates the two concepts that I can see is that Dawkins seems too ignorant of Western philosophy to know that a prior word existed.
Even Myers, I assume, refers to things in his everday life like love, forgiveness, the mind (as opposed to the body), reason and passion. All of those concepts were formed within a religious universe, and they bear the traces of that religious legacy. Even Myers infantile act of sacrilege is inscribed within a religious universe that he can’t simply escape with the snap of his fingers.
My problem with people like Dawkins (and his mini-me, Myers) is that their infantile books, which evince not the slightest knowledge of over 2000 years of Western philosophy, is that they assume that humanity can exist on the basis of science alone, when Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and countless other atheistic regimes of the 20th century show the madness of such decisions.
For all of those folks who have posted a comment making light of/mocking the Eucharist and the Divine Presence Which it is, I refer you to the below thrice-defined dogma of the Catholic Church, the same and ONLY Church established by Our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ. Make of it what you will, but it remains as valid today as it has always been -regardless of whether the leaders of the Church are too embarrassed by political correctness to any longer proclaim it. Pewrhaps, by your thoughtful pondering of it, you might yet save your soul!
Nulla Salus ex Cathedra
(Outside of the Catholic Church there is no Salvation)
“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Eucharistic Body , that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Its just a cracker to other people. You can call it what you want. But you cannot force other people to worship your crackers as you do.
No one’s forcing you to worship it, just asking you to leave it alone if you don’t believe it. What’s so hard about that?
“Its just a cracker to other people. You can call it what you want. But you cannot force other people to worship your crackers as you do.”
I wouldn’t dream of it. Just leave our crackers alone, please.
I am puzzled as to why professor Whatsit is making such a big deal out of what is to him, admittedly only a cracker. I don’t know a lot of people who would be so single-mindedly obsessed with, say, eating a cheeseburger at a PETA meeting, or going out of their way to eat pork in front of a group of orthodox Jews.
The action is calculated to offend. That is all. It advances no argument and illustrates no point. It’s just a big “F*** you” to Catholics. Please don’t try to paint that as somehow courageous. It’s as courageous as sucker-punching Gandhi.
Our Lord is now beyond the pain and scorn heaped upon him in His short life.
His presence in the Eucharist is primarily for those with the gift of Faith (although it benefits all mankind).
In His own time, even those who had witnessed His many miracles doubted He was able to give His Body and Blood for us to consume.
In the Gospel of John, Chapter 6 He says:
65 “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67
Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
68
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
I thank God for the gift of Faith and completely understand the lack of Faith present in most people today.
Any profanation of the Eucharist only harms the person who commits it (and those who approve of it) until/unless they repent of their behavior.
Any person who feels a need to do such a thing is in a sad state and is in need of the same Mercy Christ bestowed on those who crucified Him.
“..forgive them Father they know not what they do..”
re specific examples of Catholic reaction to host desecration… taken from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=938&letter=H
The accusation of the desecration of the host arose after Pope Innocent III. had recognized (1215) the doctrine of transubstantiation, which resulted in the public and general worship of the consecrated host. Hence the first authentic accusation does not occur before the middle of the thirteenth century. This was made in 1243 at Belitz, near Berlin, and in consequence of it all the Jews of Belitz were burned on the spot subsequently called “Judenberg.” Similar accusations, resulting in more or less extensive persecutions of the Jews, were brought forward in 1290, at Paris; 1294, at Laa, in Austria; 1298, at Röttingen, near Würzburg, and at Korneuburg, near Vienna; 1299, at Ratisbon; 1306, at Saint-Pälten; 1325, at Cracow; 1330, at Güstrow; 1337, at Deggendorf; 1338, at Pulka; 1370, at Enghien (see Brussels); 1388, at Prague; 1399, at Posen; 1401, at Glogau; 1410, at Segovia; 1420, at Ems; 1453, at Breslau; 1478, at Passau; 1492, at Sternberg, in Mecklenburg-Schwerin; 1510, at Berlin; 1514, at Mittelberg, in Alsace; 1558, at Sochaczew, in Poland. The last Jew burned for stealing a host died in 1631, according to Basnage, quoting from Manasseh b. Israel. Casimir IV. of Poland (1447), Martin Luther (1523), and Sigismund August of Poland (1558) were among those who repudiated the accusation, the repetition of which gradually ceased after the Reformation.
re “I am puzzled as to why professor Whatsit is making such a big deal out of what is to him, admittedly only a cracker. I don’t know a lot of people who would be so single-mindedly obsessed with, say, eating a cheeseburger at a PETA meeting, or going out of their way to eat pork in front of a group of orthodox Jews.”
Again, its not the cracker itself. It was the reaction of the Catholic Church and its followers to the students actions regarding a cracker. I assure you that Prof Myers is not going to be entering a Church and taking your crackers any time soon. His comments were aimed at the reaction to the initial incident. And of course in typical internet fashion only a segment of the commentary is being focused on and subsequently the gist of the issue is being twisted.
Have your crackers. Enjoy them. Worship them. That is your well earned prerogative. But when the Church as a whole places unreasonable pressure on an individual and followers of that Church threaten them then the process becomes mockable for the simple reason that it has become ridiculous. Better it remain ridiculous and be ridiculed than become deadly serious and someone is hurt.
It was the Church and its followers behaving unconscionably that set this off. Not the Professors desire to do things to munchables. And it is a testimony to the very problem that this issue continues to roll on.
Robert,
You are wrong. As Myers wrote on his blog, he’s been intending to do something like this for months:
No, I am not “stuck”. I’ve been intending something along these lines for a few months now. This was actually a good opportunity for something that is already written.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 14, 2008 4:25 PM
The incident at the University of Central Florida is just a convenient excuse for Myers to vent his hatred of Catholics.
Genesis
God gives Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan “forever”. This promise is still used to justify the unending battles over the land in the Middle East. 13:14-15, 17:8
An uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community. 17:14
God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining “fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” Well, almost everyone — he spares the “just and righteous” Lot and his family.19:24
Lot’s nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26
Abraham makes his servant swear that he won’t let Isaac marry a Canaanite. 24:3
Isaac tells Jacob not to marry a Canaanite. 28:1
Jacob’s sons can’t stand the idea of their sister marrying someone who is uncircumcised. 34:14
“And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.” What did Er do to elicit God’s wrath? The Bible doesn’t say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7
After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to “go in unto they brother’s wife.” But “Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and … when he went in unto his brother’s wife … he spilled it on the ground…. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also.” This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10
After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she “played the harlot” and “is with child by whoredom.” When Judah hears this, he says, “Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.” 38:24
Exodus
God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26
God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts “a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.” 11:7
After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh’s heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished “there was not a house where there was not one dead.” 12:29
No stranger, foreigner, or uncircumcised person can eat the Passover. 12:43, 45, 48
If you do what God says, he won’t send his diseases on you (like he did to the Egyptians). But otherwise…. 15:26
When the people complain to Moses, he tells them they aren’t complaining about him, but about God, making them apostates and heretics, and therefore deserve severe punishment. Religious leaders have used this tactic ever since. 16:8
Joshua, with God’s approval, kills the Amalekites “with the edge of the sword.” 17:13
The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” 17:14
God favors Israelites “above all people.” 19:5
The first commandment (”Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”) condemns those who worship any other than the biblical god. 20:3
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18
“He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20
My God has problems?
I’m not sure why “warrior” is quoting all the outrageous sections of the Old Testament.
The history of mankind and it’s “salvation” is full of incredible atrocities regardless of the religion (or lack of it)involved in the stories.
The Catholic Church has evolved (and devolved) throughout the centuries, (just as most individuals do themselves do throughout their own lives).
As I see it, recognizing wrongdoing, admitting it and then turning from it is the core of Christ’s teaching.
I am not surprised that men within the Church have used their positions of power, (never intended by Christ) for evil. I am surprised that people outside the Church think that Catholics would or should be any more immune to evil than the rest of mankind. Where there is great good, great evil lurks. Any kind of power has the inherent tendency to corrupt whoever possesses it.
Our “wonderfully enlightened” western society killed and maimed more people and generations of people with two bombs, (in two minutes, in the name of what is good and right) than any religion has over any hundred year period.
Does anyone have any actual evidence that a consecrated eucharist is, in fact, anything more than a piece of bread?
If not, then Catholics’ assertion that it’s the body of Christ is nothing more than opinion. And it seems an overreaction to call for someone to be fired for saying that another’s opinion is ridiculous.
In reply to “arensb”.
Make of this what you will, but read the whole thing (especially the scientific reports section. I don’t know if this site allows live links or if you will have to copy and paste the following site address into your address bar).
God bless, Anthony
http://www.acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html
Eucharistic Miracles
When is this hero going to video himself desecrating a Koran? In the name of equality and diversity and all that. Should I start holding my breath now?