Bill O’Reilly is a big fat idiot » « Bookclub on autism

Nothing significant

Just more eliminationist rhetoric from a good Catholic. Fortunately, this stuff is ebbing right now.

From: [email protected]
Subject: Your desecration of the Eucharist
Date: October 1, 2008 1:25:00 PM CDT
Received: by 10.141.86.17 with SMTP id o17cs33336rvl; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.40.16 with SMTP id s16mr14590483qbj.74.1222885505714; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtain-w.tc.umn.edu (mtain-w.tc.umn.edu [134.84.119.8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s12si172335qbs.9.2008.10.01.11.25.05; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by mtain-w.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:25:04 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [email protected] by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v39.1.) id 6.bff.4865a02f (30738) for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:25:00 -0400 (EDT)
Return-Path:
Return-Path:
Received-Spf: neutral (google.com: 134.84.119.8 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of [email protected]) client-ip=134.84.119.8;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 134.84.119.8 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of [email protected]) [email protected]
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38] #+NR+UF+CP (A,-)
X-Umn-Report-As-Spam:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34
X-Spam-Flag: NO

Professor Myers:

Your actions are decisive evidence that if your brains were blown out with a shotgun the collective intelligence of the world would increase a million times. Fortunately, you do no damage. Nobody subhuman is of consequence.

James B. Williams

Bill O’Reilly is a big fat idiot » « Bookclub on autism

Comments

  3. Timothy Wood says

    If by “subhuman” he means not created in the image of God… I would take that as a compliment.

    If anyone’s brains were blown out with a shotgun the “collective” intelligence of the world would decrease.

    If a stupid person’s brains were blown out with a shotgun the average intelligence of the world would increase.

  4. schism says

    Fortunately, you do no damage.

    Yet he felt obligated to email you in response. Funny how that works.

  6. Holbach says

    Hey, I’ll let my god take care of this Myers desecrater. god, take care of this for me will you? Can you hear me? Are you there? What the fuck am I talking to you for? I’ll take care of it myself. Moron.

  7. Feynmaniac says

    Oooooh, what will we find out here? Is he an idiot who will get his wife fired? Will he have blogs featuring aborted fetuses with Obama’s face photoshopped into them?

  8. says

    Man that is awesome.

    PZ your brain has the relative power of a all the brains in the world times ONE MILLION!!!11

    Sure he says it’s negative, but coming from Mr. James “Shot his load early” Williams that’s gotta say something.

  11. Gregory Kusnick says

    What he seems to be saying is that the collective intelligence of the world is zero, if someone of no consequence can alter it a millionfold.

  12. BobC says

    He sounded like a typical Catholic to me. There’s virtually no difference between Catholics and Muslim terrorists. They’re all nuts.

  15. Longtime Lurker says

    Ahh, more love from a true Defender of the Faith.

    If we were in Indonesia, he’d be accusing our Tentacled Overlord of stealing penises through witchcraft and exhorting stoning.

  19. Sastra says

    Nobody subhuman is of consequence.

    Well, just by itself, this rather explodes the hypothesis that belief in God necessarily entails belief in human equality.

    When all the value, importance, and significance in the universe is wrapped up in a package labeled “God,” then I think it is very easy — even reasonable — to conclude that people who are ‘without God’ are therefore without value, importance, or significance.

    Sheesh.

  20. Eric Atkinson says

    Right to Life!
    Ok, would you believe… “this guy is crackers?”

    Jesus H Fracking Christ on crutches.

    Well, its not much different than the stuff you see on the DU.

  21. Ryan F Stello says

    Fortunately, you do no damage

    It really is hard to expect these jerks to be consistent in their hyperbolic hysteria, huh?

  22. beebeeo says

    Could that be the james B. Williams who wrote: “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man : A Layman’s Guide to How We Got Our Bible”
    I found that guy on Amazon.

    How likely is it that his email address was hijacked?

  24. Flex says

    I really need to wean my parents from AOL.

    Maybe showing them examples of the other people who still use it may help.

  25. Tulse says

    this rather explodes the hypothesis that belief in God necessarily entails belief in human equality.

    Yeah, lucky he has religion to give him morality, or no telling what he might do…

  28. Longtime Lurker says

    Let us never speak of penis stealing again..

    Don’t be scared of the witches, Rev, just hide your penis! That’s what I do.

  31. KB says

    What did you expect? Hateful, moronic actions attract the attention and wrath of other hateful morons.

    Why don’t you go spray paint some swastikas on synagogues, or go burn some crosses on lawns and see what kind of responses you get? After all they are only symbols.

    Not enough cheek turning in the world.

  33. says

    What did you expect? Hateful, moronic actions attract the attention and wrath of other hateful morons.

    Why don’t you go spray paint some swastikas on synagogues, or go burn some crosses on lawns and see what kind of responses you get? After all they are only symbols.

    Um, KB? Re-work your analogies, please. You’re comparing apples to goats here, not apples to apples.

    Did PZ spraypaint a church? No. He put a nail that he owned through another piece of property that he owned, and took pages out of books that he owned, and no one else’s property, mind, body, or bank account was harmed thereby.

  35. says

    Hey Myers, I bet if you ever did commit suicide Kurt Cobain style, you would score higher on an IQ test than this moron.

  36. Interrobang says

    Not enough cheek turning in the world.

    Yes, exactly. Which is why the people who were sending Webster Cook death threats, and sending PZ death threats for supporting Webster Cook should have shut the fuck up and sat the fuck down before their big mouths brought all this on. They (and not PZ) have got nobody to blame but themselves.

    Smarter trolls, please.

  37. Patricia says

    Silly Chimp! We don’t need to steal a whole penis. Just the foreskins.
    200 foreskins will buy the daughter of King Saul. 1 Samuel 18:27

  38. tsg says

    What did you expect? Hateful, moronic actions attract the attention and wrath of other hateful morons.

    Why don’t you go spray paint some swastikas on synagogues, or go burn some crosses on lawns and see what kind of responses you get? After all they are only symbols.

    Not enough cheek turning in the world.

    Your concern is noted.

  39. says

    What did you expect? Hateful, moronic actions attract the attention and wrath of other hateful morons.

    Why don’t you go spray paint some swastikas on synagogues, or go burn some crosses on lawns and see what kind of responses you get? After all they are only symbols.

    Not enough cheek turning in the world.

    Anyone have a tally on the number of comments making this ridiculous claim?

  40. Desert Son says

    KB at #31 posted:

    Why don’t you go spray paint some swastikas on synagogues, or go burn some crosses on lawns and see what kind of responses you get? After all they are only symbols.

    Ah, yes. Equivalency. Actually, in the cases you cited, those aren’t symbols, they are property owned and/or inhabited by individuals. The events you described fall under the criminal conduct code of vandalism (at the least), as well as hate crimes, and threats of violence (such as intimating a relationship between a shotgun, for example, and someone’s brains being blown out).

    In the case of the wafer, no one is wounded. You (or I, or anyone, including Catholic churches) can purchase wafers and effect upon them whatever action we wish, in the privacy of our own homes, or in publicly accessible spaces, without fear of recrimination. In the same way that anyone can purchase a flag and burn it. The flag is a symbol. Assuming the burner does not burn his/her self, or others, in the process of burning the flag, the action is defensible, and an expression of free speech (which is protected in this nation, or used to be, at least). The nation and its inhabitants remain unharmed. Unlike the property and individuals you cited in your dishonest attempt to muddy the waters.

    Thanks for trying, though, and better luck next time with your self-righteous wounded pride.

    No kings,

    Robert

  41. says

    @39: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM

    I’ll start keeping tally when I can afford a quantum computer. ‘Cause damn!

  42. Benjamin Franklin says

    If your brains were blown out with a shotgun the collective intelligence of the world would increase a million times.< ?blockquote>

    Math – yer doin it wrong!

  43. tsg says

    Anyone have a tally on the number of comments making this ridiculous claim

    What I don’t get is why they think we’re surprised at the reaction. If the Catholics had shrugged their collective shoulders and said, “to each his own”, that would have been a surprise.

    No, the reaction was completely expected. That doesn’t make it right. And that was the point.

  45. Benjamin Franklin says

    Lets try this again-

    If your brains were blown out with a shotgun the collective intelligence of the world would increase a million times.

    Resistance is buckshot!

  47. says

    And why don’t you say mean things about Muslims, PZ? It’s because you’re a coward. You know that if you did, they’d threaten your life.

    [/sarcasm]

    Sheesh.

  50. WRMartin says

    From her writings (boobies and slutty and all that) I expected Patricia to be all nice and, well, probably hawt. But now there is no way she’s getting anywhere near my penis.
    [crossing legs tightly]

  51. firemancarl says

    goddamn cannibals! Hell bent on eating your lords body in the shape of a Saltine cracker! You miserable bastards!

  52. tsg says

    But now there is no way she’s getting anywhere near my penis.

    You mean, there was a chance she would before?

  53. says

    Re #40:

    Oh no, you don’t understand. The Catholics threatening Webster Cook and PZ are the victims here, see? Just like a terrified freedom rider in the Jim Crow south waking up to a cross burning on their lawn at 3 am, and knowing it’s a very explicit message to shut up or be lynched, PZ’s sticking a nail through a wafer says to the Catholics writing hate mail… ummm….

    Okay. Bad example. But just like the terrified population of Jews in 30s Germany, it says to them, just like the defacing of synagogues said then, that, umm…

    Okay. Actually, it just says ‘a blogger and his readers are mocking your endless blustering threats and presumptuous demands your hocus pocus be ‘respected’, where ‘respected’ means no one is allowed simply to say it’s the sheer superstitious nonsense it so clearly is’. But y’know. The principle’s the same…. I mean, really. It’s a slippery slope. Sure, today you’re just making fun of people who deify crackers and who demand kids be thrown out of school over failing to show what you deem is appropriate respect for said belief. But tomorrow you’ll be building gas ovens. Fersure…

    Therefore, you shouldn’t make fun of people who deify crackers. QED.

  54. WRMartin says

    You mean, there was a chance she would before?

    No. But just in case she passes by I want to be protected. I mean, I want it to be protected. Or at least well hidden.

  56. tsg says

    No. But just in case she passes by I want to be protected. I mean, I want it to be protected. Or at least well hidden.

    Oh, you see, I’d be quite willing to risk it.

  58. Bunk says

    Haha! Very Good A.J. @ #53. You could probably could’ve copied and pasted that hundreds of times when crackergate was really flared up. Actually, maybe you did. I couldn’t work my way through all those comments.

    Those poor Catholic hate mail writers. You guys just don’t understand how difficult it is to be so loving of mankind, no that’s not it, um, true to Jesus’ word, no, um . . . hell, nevermind, pass the crackers.

  59. dubiquiabs says

    @ KB #31

    Hateful, moronic actions attract the attention and wrath of other hateful morons.

    Why do you think it hateful and moronic to point out the absurdity of ideas like transubstantiation, especially of the RCC variety? Sounds like you want to ‘kill the messenger’.

    Aren’t the offenders here the pushers of lunatic doctrines? Especially those who cause real damage as opposed to the damage imagined by professional ‘offendees’?

  61. Fred Mounts says

    I just had a funny idea for a cartoon: wafers are held behind counters like cigarettes, and anyone wanting to buy them has to show ID. Any artists want to draw?

    (or maybe it’s not such a great idea after all, but it made my sorta chuckle.

  62. says

    Looks like our guy is also Dr J.B. Williams, a trustee, or former trustee, of Bob Jones University, and if you search for his name on this page you’ll find he’s really upset some people, all over which ancient text is less-stupid than which other ancient text

    Sons of a bitches. Bob Jones. Scar on my state. No surprise really. That place is factory for these types of knuckleheads.

    /fist shake at the sky

    JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONES

  63. Inky says

    He really should take up some constructive hobbies if he has nothing better to do than to write emails to inconsequential “subhumans”. For instance, I really think Christian fanatics that advocate self-righteous acts of violence could really use a good talking to regarding the Beatitudes or Jesus’s treatment of the lowest in society, but you don’t see me writing emails to them. After all, Jesus actively sought out tax collectors and prostitutes to hang out with. *shrug* WWJD?

    *Disclaimer: I don’t believe in the zombie Jesus, but a message of caring for humanity isn’t a bad thing.*

  64. Alex says

    I just don’t get how any sane person could pretend so hard that they know for certain that the cracker actually turned into the flesh of a deity. I mean, if they used beef jerky instead, that’s an easier sell in my mind, but a cracker? Hmmm.

  66. IceFarmer says

    As always, a very Catholic comment in complete contradiction to the scriptures they cling to without any apparent understanding of what they say.

  67. Tulse says

    Looks like our guy is also Dr J.B. Williams, a trustee, or former trustee, of Bob Jones University

    …which is especially weird, since the Protestants generally see Catholics as idolatrous precisely because of things like the Eucharist.

  69. Qwerty says

    Ouch. The junk mail I get is in Russian or whatever language the cyrillic alphabet is. I can’t read it; so, I don’t know if it’s from kooks.

  70. ThatOtherGuy says

    I still say you turn this stuff directly over the the FBI or other law enforcement. See if THEY think it’s amusing. I doubt they will.

  71. erik Remkus says

    Actually yes the collective intelligence would increase by a factor of 1 million because we would then have 1,000,000 PZ brains!

  72. the petey says

    …which is especially weird, since the Protestants generally see Catholics as idolatrous precisely because of things like the Eucharist.

    not to mention that the catholics rewrote the 10 commandments to REMOVE the no idolatry rule.

  73. Hank says

    Lessee, the last time somebody talked about somebody being “subhuman,” as in “untermenschen,” and “not counting” a helluva lotta people died. But then, he was Catholic, too.

  74. the petey says

    Actually yes the collective intelligence would increase by a factor of 1 million because we would then have 1,000,000 PZ brains!

    so… you are saying that 1/1,000,000th of PZ’s brain acts as well as a standard person’s brain and that all of his parts operate independantly?

    He’s like a replicator

  75. Alex says

    But how can life have any meaning without any idols? And fancy costumes. With big hats. And a master magician. Who mutters incantations. You know? Real meaning!

  76. Cesium says

    Let’s do some math here.

    Average intelligence of world = ( (Intelligence of PZ) + (~6 billion) * (Average intelligence of everyone else) ) / (~6 billion)
    (Average intelligence of world) * (1 million) = Average intelligence of everyone else

    If we let x = Average intelligence of world,
    x = ( (Intelligence of PZ) + (~6 billion) * x * (1 million) ) / (~6 billion)
    x = (Intelligence of PZ) / (~6 billion) + x * (1 million)
    Intelligence of PZ ~= (-6 quadrillion) * x

    Congratulations, PZ! You are 6,000,000,000,000,000 times as unsmart as everyone else.

  77. nicknick bobick says

    C’mon people “James Williams” is much to common a name to be making stupid conjectures about which one he is.

    Flood his mailbox if you want, but with the evidence available that is the most we can do.

  78. The Petey says

    PZ:

    since you obviously suck the smart out of people heads, are you a professor because it gives you so many aspiring youngs minds to feed on? Do you sit in your classroom and just bask in the glow of your intellectual vampirism?

    That is SOOO cool if you do.

  81. FlameDuck says

    What he seems to be saying is that the collective intelligence of the world is zero, if someone of no consequence can alter it a millionfold.

    Well no. If something is zero, no orders of magnitude will make it something else. What he’s saying is simply rubbish. Like #3 pointed out, there is no way the collective, that is the sum, of everyone’s intelligence could possibly increase if someone were eliminated from the sample. However the average could theoretically be increased six orders of magnitude, if Professor Myers had a very small fractional IQ. However IQ is not measured in fractions, and it is virtually impossible to achieve very low scores, even if you try intentionally.

    *shrug* WWJD?

    To be entirely fair to Jesus and his unevolved Cro-Magnon remnant followers, shotguns weren’t around then, and “mouthfull of ballista” doesn’t really have the same ring to it. I think suicide by Romans was easily the simplest way to do it back then.

  82. Kook hunter says

    “C’mon people “James Williams” is much to common a name to be making stupid conjectures about which one he is.”

    Yes, you’re right–turns out that there’s a lot of whacky James Williams’s, and DR J.B. Williams’s amd JB Williams’s out there.

    It should be compulsory for psychos to have psycho names…like James B. Strangelove…that would be easier.

  83. Steve_C says

    I think we should all send him an email that just says.

    Subject: Jesus Christ!

    Body: It’s just a cracker.

  84. God says

    Dear Dr Myers:

    Once again, I must apologise for my followers. I sincerely hope you will forgive the blusterings of deluded individuals who, alas, believe in me and my cohort, the Tooth Fairy. They cannot, I fear, help themselves, as they appear to have severe father-figure issues, yet avoid psychotherapy.

    Sincerely, God

  86. Eli says

    PZ, this can’t be legal. Death threats are seriously uncool… why not prosecute people like this instead of merely shaming them online?

  89. FlameDuck says

    It should be compulsory for psychos to have psycho names…like James B. Strangelove…that would be easier.

    Or Vernon Wayne Howell, Eric Robert Rudolph, Paul Jennings Hill, Mark David Uhl, Marion Gordon Robertson. Wait, I think I see a pattern here. All these Christian psychos have three names. Wait a minute. Paul Zachary Myers?!? Oh dear, only a matter of time now before he reveals himself as Bill Donahues sidekick, and when it happens, remember that I fucking called it! :o>

  90. the petey says

    if the current acculated intelligence is:
    X = C + PZ
    where: X is the accumulative intelligence
    C is the accumulated intelligence of non-PZ
    PZ is PZ’s IQ

    Without PZ we have
    1,000,000 X = C – PZ

    I get that PZ’s intelligence = -0.999998 that of everyone elses collective intelligence.

    with an average IQ of 100
    and roughly 6,600,000,000 people in the world

    I get his IQ as -659,999,900,000

    which makes him -65,999,990,000,000 times as unsmart as other people

    but, I’m an engineer. Can someone check my math please?

  92. wrpd says

    Patricia: Unfortunately, they have to be Philistine phoreskins which are kind of rare these days.
    Besides, wouldn’t King Saul’s daughter be rather old and quite dead by now? Not that I’m knocking necrophilia, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.

  93. John Robie says

    So PZ is subhuman, yet he displays human-like characteristics (such as blogging). Does this make him a transitional life form we can point to when the fundies claim there is no proof of evolution?

  94. The Petey says

    @#92 WRPD

    if we use philistine foreskins instead of “Philistine” foreskins, we could use most funagelicals’.

    though, I don’t want to collect them…..

  95. says

    You know, just once, I wish one of these gutless, god-slurping cowards would show up in one of these threads so as to defend himself and his ridiculous threats.

    Has anyone emailed this ass-hamster yet to let him know we’re having a whole heap of fun at his expense?

  96. Alex says

    “Can someone check my math please?”

    Very sloppy. For those calcs to have any validity it should be recognized that IQ varies with age. So the value of an average IQ would have to be given in context to the average age of all humans. Furthermore, we now need to factor in the sub-human population(s) IQs, since clearly, it can be shown that PZ the sub-human does have an impact on overall intelligence. So who’s going to tackle defining precisely what a sub-human is? Is it the beard?

  101. Patricia says

    Are we out of Philistines? Nobody tells me anything!
    The actual purchase price for Michal was 100 foreskins. David was just having so much fun he didn’t stop until he had 200. In reading the whole thing, as I recall, that was the worth of a kings daughter. Surely we have a king somewhere with some daughters. You could haggle a bit if you like.

  102. Tziedel says

    Have never quite understood just how crackers become fleshy god goodness. What happens to the crackers that are damaged during the manufacturing of said crackers? What happens if the box o’crackers gets smooshed or dropped and get all crumbly or some bird poops on the box while it sits on the shipping dock? What happens if the crackers are made at a facility where a non-believer of crackers works? Do the crackers get cooties?

    These things really concern me – much more so than the economic meltdown and global warming and wars and famines and disease and cute polar bears drowning due to inadequate ice and all the other eleventy-billion things that are more important than what happens to a frackin’ cracker.

  103. SEF says

    @65: “your brians”

    It must have been comrade Judith. ;-)

    “You’re all individuals!”

    “Yes, we’re all individuals.”

    “I’m not.”

  104. says

    SEF, I was going to do an erratum post, but thought I’d leave it there in case a Pharyngulite decided to pick it up and run with it.

    Glad you didn’t disappoint and did it with a classy Python riff.

    (Historical note: the actress who played Judith Iscariot became mayoress of a Welsh town where The Life of Brian had been banned for the last 30 years. She had it unbanned this year.)

  105. jj says

    @Petey #80

    Also,in the header the message was passed through AOL’s Sterling VA, server (205.188.157.38). This doesn’t really mean much, but it is unlikely that would happen if the message originated in CA and was going to MN. It could, but that route would be unlikely. Most likely went through that server, to MN and the IP you see is for where the address is registered, which would be on AOL’s servers. You’d need more info to track further back past the MX server.

    If your tracking IP’s and see Mountain View CA, it’s probably an ISP and not the end user, as that city is were a huge portion of the US networks servers reside (google, aol, yahoo and a bunch others), it’s the heart of the Silicon Valley

    http://www.zoneedit.com/lookup.html?ipaddress=205.188.157.38&server=&reverse=Look+it+up

  106. Alex says

    @ 102

    I don’t think you’re giving pretend-flesh-crackers their proper foundational merit. I mean where would we be without them? How could the witch hunts, inquisitions, tortures, burnings, and crucifixions be justified without delusional thinking? I mean, without delusional thinking and notions of deities, scientific progress would never have been stunted for 1600 years! Just think where the world will be in 1600 years of scientific secular progress! I mean, we would have had to do calculus in kindergarten! Sick man. Really sick.

  107. says

    Foreskin collecting: Donated by parents in the maternity ward.

    PZ mocking my God: Did you hear about the time God and Peter …

    Death threats: Everybody dies, you just have to be patient.

    Just remember that evolution works with what’s available. Past the very early days of life evolution has been stuck making do with stuff that isn’t quite right, and will never be made quite right.

  108. woozy says

    Okay, in all seriousness which this topic doesn’t deserve, wouldn’t transubstantiation have exclusion clauses?

    Okay, I know most of you have no interest in discussing hypothetical philosophy but I find it fascinating. Sorry.

    Suppose for a moment that transubstantiation where possible and did occur. (I’m being serious.) Well, what would that mean? We know, and catholics know, and even way back in the dark ages when they’d know meat doesn’t taste like bread, that no chemical and/or physical change occurs. Okay, I can accept this. So what does it mean to say that even though it is chemically and physically the same as the cracker it was before, it *is* something else entirely? Well, that means what something *is* can be independant of its physical compound and a priest can control that. Okay, I can accept this (drugs help… just kidding; I can understand this as a philosophical outlook).

    So what happens when we descrate it. Physically and chemically we are feeding it to the ducks. But what *is* happening on the level where the cracker is human flesh? Can’t it cease being the body of christ? Okay, it can’t but then, what is desecration? I mean if an enemy burns down a church, nobody claims they’ve killed the God living in it because he still “lives” in the “hearts” of the believers. Even material rationalists (who think I’ve gone off the the deep end for even attempting to understand transubstantiation) have no problem understanding this concept. So, I fed the body of Christ to a duck. What exactly does this mean?

    I mean, I *know* I am not the first to wonder what happens transubstantiation-wise when we poop out the body of christ. I just *know* there has to be a serious and official answer and I’m pretty sure the poop is no longer the body of Christ. I’m pretty sure the answer would be something of the nature the essence of Christ substains you *fully* whereas earthly food only partially, so when chemically digested the digested bits stay the host and break down to spirit but the undigested chemical bits revert. Surely something similar happens when I feed them to a duck.

    I mean, Catholics have laws. For example, a confession without honest repentence can not be absolved and is not a confession. Surely a wafer not consumed has some similar law.

    Actually, I’m serious. What *do* doctrines say about the excretion of communion. Wafers hurked up by the Heimlich manuver. For that matter, what happens if the communion wafers get moldy of mice get into them. Oh wait, They don’t become the body of Christ until the priest consecrates them so if they get moldy before they can be thrown out. But what of heimlich.

    Actually, um, can we actually believe that all these wafers *have* been consecrated. I mean, the priest consecrates them at mass and gives them one at a time and under observation the leity who are to consume them there and then. That’s a really slim window of oppurtunity.

    Hmmm, I’m reminded of Trufout’s (?? it was trufout, wasn’t it??) “Murmurs of the Heart” where an atheistic alter boy willingly acts blasphemous by munching on communion wafers after lunch. Technically speaking that isn’t blasphemy, is it?

  109. wrpd says

    In addition, I would be the last person to forgo a foreskin hunt, providing it was a capture-and-release program.

  110. DuckPhup says

    #102

    These things really concern me – much more so than the economic meltdown and global warming and wars and famines and disease and cute polar bears drowning due to inadequate ice and all the other eleventy-billion things that are more important than what happens to a frackin’ cracker.

    As I see it, the greatest mystery is why they didn’t switch to Cheezits™, or something like that, when they became available.

    Hey… wouldn’t it be a hoot to manufacture ‘Eucharist’ crackers, and sell them is a snack? Each box could come with a desecration tip. Great with Cheeze Whiz. Picture of a ‘zombie-on-a-stick™’ on the box.

  111. woozy says

    from Wikipedia:

    …through transubstantiation Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and that the transformation remains as long as the appearances remain….

    I guess that answers my poop question. Poop is no longer bread in appearance so it is no longer Christ in substance. But chemical “appearence” can be traced forever… What’s up with that?

  112. Alex says

    @ 108

    Good points. Furthermore, what if the consecration is botched by a novice priest? How is quality assurance handled? And as far as the mold issue, what if it’s in such small amounts as to not be visible? Does the presence of a single mold spore contaminate the host? If not, what is the spore-count threshold before a host must be unconsecrated and discarded?

  113. says

    What was it Jesus was supposed to have said, something about, what you do to the least of mine, you do to me.

    James B. Watson, why do you want to blow out the brains of Jesus Christ?

  115. woozy says

    And as far as the mold issue, what if it’s in such small amounts as to not be visible? Does the presence of a single mold spore contaminate the host? If not, what is the spore-count threshold before a host must be unconsecrated and discarded?

    Honestly. I’m sympathetic toward pretty much any belief and respect the Catholics belief that a cracker becomes the body of Christ. I even think the idea that something can be one thing in “appearence” while something completely different in “substance” is … rational. (Wrong. And derived of no evidence or historical validity. And wacky. But not … insane.)

    However, if crackers *are* the body of Christ and feeding them to the ducks *is* sacrelege, well, I can’t help but wonder, well, so what? I’m pretty sure Jesus can take it.

    And if God is a petty vindictive bastard the Catholic Church believe him to be (Again: Wrong. And derived of no evidence. And … well pretty darned … mean! And wacky. And horrifyingly depressing. And nasty! But not … irrational) well, that’s the duck feeder’s problem, isn’t it?

  116. Dogheaven says

    Could not find any James Williams among the directors or committees of the parent group to Pine Springs Ranch. They are Adventists. Would they worry about the cracker?

  117. Gregory Kusnick says

    #81:

    If something is zero, no orders of magnitude will make it something else. What he’s saying is simply rubbish. Like #3 pointed out, there is no way the collective, that is the sum, of everyone’s intelligence could possibly increase if someone were eliminated from the sample.

    Not to belabor this rather weak joke, but yes, there is a way. If PZ is of no consequence, then by definition he has no net effect on the collective. Hence PZ = 0. There is exactly one value of the collective intelligence C for which C – PZ = 1,000,000 C, namely C = 0.

  118. Tziedel says

    OK, let me see if I have this straight. A cracker is a cracker until some guy in a dress does some sort of hoodoo over it and then it becomes a tasty chip o’Christ. Then after it’s sitting in the cracker recipient’s mouth, it’s no longer a chip o’Christ because it no longer has the appearance of a cracker.

    Does the now unhoused Christ shoot out the recipient’s nose and wander about waiting for the guy in a dress to find another empty cracker to house Christ until another eviction via nostril, etc.? Wouldn’t this cause Christ to have abandonment issues, not to mention a major mucus phobia? And what kind of religion would want to inflict that on its god?

    And, mmmmmmmm Cheezits™….but not so much on the calculus in kindergarten, though.

  119. says

    Hey… wouldn’t it be a hoot to manufacture ‘Eucharist’ crackers, and sell them is a snack? Each box could come with a desecration tip. Great with Cheeze Whiz. Picture of a ‘zombie-on-a-stick™’ on the box.

    As has already been noted in various threads (way back there… somewhere in the mists of the Crackerstorm), you can actually buy them as a snack food in Quebec (unconsecrated, of course… and, y’know, you can totally tell… they don’t have that spooky angelic glow the ‘real’ ones have). And tho’ I don’t believe they come with desecration tips, mebbe the distributor would consider it were it suggested… Y’know… Rice Krispies come with their ‘Find Snap, Crackle and Pop in the picture’ games, the wafers can come with ‘Quick blasphemy for beginners’ pointers.

  120. says

    You don’t want PZ to desecrate the cracker? Don’t provoke him into doing so by sending in terroristic death threats to some poor student who did so by accident. It’s that simple, Catholic fundies.

    PS: Any not-insane Catholics, it’d be really nice if you’d call up the Pope or whoever and ask for the excommunication of those who sent in death threats.

  121. Silver Fox says

    Lets see what I have here:

    Humanity created religion
    Religion poisons humanity
    ergo,
    Humanity poisons humanity

    Just for curiosity, let me ask this: Could this pass as an example of an inverse rhetorical fallacy?

  124. woozy says

    Lets see what I have here:

    Humanity created religion
    Religion poisons humanity
    ergo,
    Humanity poisons humanity

    Just for curiosity, let me ask this: Could this pass as an example of an inverse rhetorical fallacy?

    It’s not a fallacy at all. An incorrect conclussion does not make an argument invalid. A valid argument does not need to have correct hypothesis although, supposedly, a valid argument which arrives at a false conclussion must have incorrect hypothesis.

    All whales are fish.
    All fish can fly.
    Ergo: All whales can fly.

    A perfectly valid (and incorrect, and useless) argument.

    ‘course the argument *is* invalid in that it hasn’t been established that being a poisoner is transitive to creators.

    Joseph of Nazereth created Pinochio.
    Pinochio assasinated Lincoln.
    Ergo: Joseph of Nazereth assasinated Lincoln.

    Not valid.

    ====
    Why do communion wafers taste like cardboard and not like beef jerky? Also the wine needs to be saltier.

    OK, let me see if I have this straight. A cracker is a cracker until some guy in a dress does some sort of hoodoo over it and then it becomes a tasty chip o’Christ. Then after it’s sitting in the cracker recipient’s mouth, it’s no longer a chip o’Christ because it no longer has the appearance of a cracker.

    Does the now unhoused Christ shoot out the recipient’s nose and wander about waiting for the guy in a dress to find another empty cracker to house Christ until another eviction via nostril, etc.?

    As humorous as these observations are, I guess I don’t find them that funny as there are actual doctrine answers.

    I mean, what essentially is the difference between smugly and self-righteously making these jokes and smugly and self-righteously quipping “if man evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys”? In both cases true non-believers are seriously trying to expose what they see as an obvious absurdity of the belief, and in both cases they are demonstrating their of basic lack of understanding of the principal.

    (I can’t go so far as to say ingorance as mocking the eucharist doesn’t, in my mind, display ignorance. Refusing to believe a difference between emparic “appearance” and arbitrarily unobservable “substance” makes any kind of coherent sense and finding the idea that a guy can change said “substance” simply because he says so, to be patently absurd isn’t ignorance. But pretending to not understand it, because it is absurd, makes one *appear* ignorant.

    Oooh. Oooh. Oooh. I got one. “Ya see, In appearance, and in all empirical evidence and determination, Catholics may be wacky insane nut-jobs who intolerant censure and threaten violence to all who question them, but in substance they are actually humanitarian rationalists how approach all things which academic inquiry and deeply held respect for all beliefs. Ya see, in appearance it may be that Cook was threatened with death threats and expulsion but in substance he was actually exalted for his fine inquiring mind and embraced by all who knew him”.

    Okay, have I gone off the deep end enough for you all?)

  125. SEF says

    @ #108

    Some of that what-if semi-serious discussion of the cracker people’s completely messed up theology did take place in previous crackergate threads. However, I think (at least) one more point has been missed: is there an equivalent of a 5-second-rule applicable to consecrated (or even preconsecrated) crackers? If dropped, does zombie Jesus take falling damage, does he fall out of that particular cracker, is the cracker rendered impure and incapable of hosting zombie Jesus (after some time-frame) etc etc?

  126. Max Verret says

    Re: Woozy 124

    That just doesn’t quite cut it.

    All whales are fish
    Nemo is a whale
    ergo
    Nemo is a fish

    syllogism:
    You have to have a universal subject in the major premise.
    The predicate of the minor premise has to correspond to the subject of the major premise in order for the logic to work.

    That was not my issue. The issue was whether my faulty syllogism was an example of an inverse rhetorical fallacy where the cause and effect are reversed.

  127. Crudely Wrott says

    Well, there you have it. The ultimate goal of that meddling class that just knows how tight and right they are.

    Since they have to defend their defenseless claims against any protest, and since the protests are many, voiced (if only to one’s own self) by many and are of demonstrable interest to an enlightened society, these defenders soon are confronted with the task of demonizing everybody (else). For them is the sad task of contemplating the vast uselessness of an individual human living in a time of increasing freedom and challenge. They see their fellow humans and themselves as utter and hopeless failures.

    Pity them.

  128. Tulse says

    If dropped, does zombie Jesus take falling damage

    Sure, 1d6 per 10 feet like usual, but that bastard has a ton of hit points, so it doesn’t really matter.

  130. Sastra says

    woozy #108 wrote:

    Okay, in all seriousness which this topic doesn’t deserve, wouldn’t transubstantiation have exclusion clauses? Okay, I know most of you have no interest in discussing hypothetical philosophy but I find it fascinating. Sorry. Suppose for a moment that transubstantiation where possible and did occur.

    For me, this whole issue of transubstantiation raises a question a bit different than “what happens to Christ transubstantiation-wise” when we desecrate or poop out the consecrated wafer. Assuming that transubstantiation were possible and does occur — what is the underlying point in the first place?

    What is it that is supposed to happen when you eat the flesh and drink the blood of another person? This has no analog in our regular life. We don’t nibble on actual pieces of grandma at her funeral (or at other times) for some normal, recognized purpose. The miracle of the eucharist seems to assume that of course we require actual flesh we can eat, and thus the cracker has to change. So lo and behold, gape and wonder and focus on the amazing solution. But let’s not run too quickly over that first “need.” Say what?

    Unlike turning water to wine or stones to bread, human flesh isn’t supposed to be considered food. Jesus presumably isn’t performing a miracle of feeding the hungry here, at every church service. Is he?

    Could it be some sort of sentimental memento, like carrying around a lock of hair, only more dramatic? When you eat a bit of grandmother’s arm, she will always be a part of you? Or is this pure contact magic — the “courage” or “wisdom” of the person you eat somehow gets into you, so that you will now be courageous and wise just like them?

    I don’t understand what problem transubstantiation is supposed to solve. We almost didn’t have actual flesh to eat. So what.

    When I think about it, this is a problem even if the miracle is only “symbolic.” Again, symbolic of what? As woozy points out, reams and reams have been written on this. Somewhere, they must have addressed what the actual value of flesh eating is, in the first place.

    Looked at objectively, this entire scenario is just as bizarre, archaic, childish, superficial, superstitious, and magical as thinking that, when you cause harm, the “badness” of what you did can be placed into a goat, and if you kill the goat, you have now killed the “badness” that you did, and gotten rid of the harm.

    Huh?

    Have these people really thought this one through?

  132. Tulse says

    What is it that is supposed to happen when you eat the flesh and drink the blood of another person?

    Ask Valentine Michael Smith.

  133. Luftritter says

    All this cracker business has made me realize how important is children religious indoctrination…
    You see, when I first heard about what had happened, I felt a very uneasy feeling that it was somehow very wrong.This lasted a few seconds, but then Reason appeared and helped me out of that emotional state.
    I haven’t been a catholic for many, many years, but regardless of that fact I reacted in the same way a faithful would. At that very moment I began to remember all the things I had to do as a child, in order to eat that cracker (sunday school every week, go to the Mass and read the cathechism). It’s really some kind of brainwashing!

  135. Gregory Kusnick says

    Sastra #130, re the actual value of eating flesh:

    Communion is a re-enactment of the Last Supper. The day before he died, Jesus gave his apostles bread and wine and told them it was his body and blood. This was his way of sharing himself with them so they could carry around a little piece of him inside them and thereby feel his presence even after he was gone.

    In Communion, the priest stands in for Jesus and converts the bread and wine into little pieces of Jesus so that parishioners can commune with him the same way the Apostles did. It’s not about eating flesh per se, it’s about being physically connected to Jesus by having some of his substance inside you. In a way it’s not unlike Carl Sagan’s observation that “we are all star stuff”, i.e. recycled supernova debris. Catholics want to be made of Jesus stuff. But since Jesus (unlike supernovas) is a fictional character, they have to invent weird miracles like transubstantiation to make it work.

  136. woozy says

    Sastra. #130. What I like about these questions is to examine how ideas can have an internal consistancy and how one can derive results through … interesting … logic.

    I think there are two very likely origins as to the “you must eat of my body” comment. First, he was being metaphorical and claiming as the body must consume food for nurishment, the spiritial body must “consume” Christ’s doctrines for spiritual nurishment. Or, Christ was demagogical head case and said all sorts of weird things. Or it could mean something really strange. Or a combination. Or something else. The first though really makes sense to me given Christ pentient for metaphor and “the spitit is willing but the body is weak” stuff. I mean, seems like an obvious metaphor to me.

    Now somehow there came about a … weird … idea that metaphors were okay but as the spiritual and religious world is more important than the empirical world the spiritial world must also be more real than the empirical world and that as we use the empirical world as a metaphor for the “real” spiritual world, the empiracal world must be merely a metaphor for the spiritial world. Thus we have seasons *solely* because its a metaphor for Christ’s resurection. Men seek sexual congress *solely* because it is a metaphor for Jesus’ love of his church. And, finaly, we eat food only because it’s a metaphor for for our need to consume Christ whose body “substance” is obvious pure spirit.

    Or someone in the second century was exceeding obtuse and humor-impaired.

    What interests me though is what people *do* with the conclussion once they make it. The logic and conclusions of the Eucharist arising from the assumtion that Jesus wants us, and we literally do, eat his body… the logic and conclusions arising from that are … interesting.

  137. woozy says

    GK. #135

    I think Sastra knows the origin of Eucharist. I believe her observation was that telling the disiples that the food was his body was a weird thing to say and what an even wierder thing it is to take it literally. What, she supposes (I suppose), are the implications if you follow this literal idea. Isn’t actually eating Jesus bizaar? Wouldn’t eating Grandma be … odd.

    Actually I’ve often thought consuming our dead as a memorial had a natural and logical appeal to it. Seriously.

  138. SEF says

    Jesus gave his apostles bread and wine and told them it was his body and blood.

    It’s very strange how often the religious are afflicted with literalism though – especially given the way the Bible (original Jewish and Christian add-ons) is really quite explicit throughout about story-telling (from parables/lies to dream interpretations) being the way to go instead of ever(?) giving straightforward answers to anything. You’d think they might take the hint from that. Literalism is one of the more obvious signs of the (self-inflicted, iterative feedback) retardation of the religious.

    Obviously this particular bit of literalism becomes a convenient stick with which to beat the rival Jews (after Christians had made up yet another lie over hosts being desecrated and the visible effect of that). However, it’s not clear that that was the basis for being literal in the first place. The literalism and habitual lying seem to be normal features of religion – and occur somewhat regardless of their utility to religious leaders (which is one reason why heresies continually have to be crushed whenever rival making-up-of-lies takes place within sects/cults, lest they split yet again).

  139. Samantha Vimes says

    The reason for eating Christ is given away by the Lamb of God title.

    Lambs were slaughtered as offerings to deities in those days. After the offerings were burnt (cooked) so that God(s) could enjoy the aroma, the flesh was passed around so that the priests and congregants could eat. Christ was to be the last sacrifice; instead of people slaughtering their livestock to ask god for forgiveness or favors. And so the flesh of Christ was “eaten” in place of the previous sacrifices that were actually edible, and because one death pays the price forever, they keep making new Chriistilicious crackers so everyone can partake of the sacrifice (in the sense of partaking=eating).
    It’s the kind of weirdness you get when a tradition gets reapplied to a changed situation without anything being thought through.

  140. clinteas says

    Patricia,No 37 :

    //Silly Chimp! We don’t need to steal a whole penis. Just the foreskins.
    200 foreskins will buy the daughter of King Saul. 1 Samuel 18:27//

    That one cracked me up ! …grabs his pinched Bible,finds 1 Samuel 18,reads about foreskins in unbelief,shakes his head,has a chuckle…That is actually really in there !! WTF ??

  141. SEF says

    The cracker thing itself was a change in tradition though. It used to be a proper(-ish) meal which was shared, as a community / congregation. I.E. a bonding ritual with real content. Except of course the rich don’t like to literally share with the poor, ie restrict themselves to only the same fare which is being made available to the poor (who wouldn’t otherwise even have that much). So it became a bonding ritual free of meaningful content and higher in nonsensical “spiritual” content.

    Again there’s the weird partial (evolved for convenience-only) literalism. Although the Romans when making up Christianity had reason to incorporate all the pagan and philosophical guff, they and modern Christians are very selective and dishonest in their literalism. Not thinking things through fully is a necessary characteristic of religion (which accounts for another big batch of heresies – the ones where people are at risk of thinking themselves out of being religious).

  142. SEF says

    Oops – I should have been more precise. The Romans were making up their bit of Christianity (eg as in the term Roman Catholicism) from parts already made up by other people behaving in much the same way in their turn. Religions tend to be connected and inter-related by all the stolen and mutilated stories, lies, traditions, rituals, philosophies and so forth. One of the big problems in modern Christianity is how outstandingly ignorant its proponents are of its roots (background culture etc) – without knowledge of which the whole edifice makes even less sense than it would anyway!

  143. the petey says

    …And as far as the mold issue, what if it’s in such small amounts as to not be visible? Does the presence of a single mold spore contaminate the host? If not, what is the spore-count threshold before a host must be unconsecrated and discarded?

    does this mean that christ would have a yeast infection?