Athiests, where do you get your moral values?

[Island Girl]

It is a combination of trickery, and infringing on a religious rite that is offensive. It is also trespassing.

 

Offensive to only those who are believers but not others, correct?

 

How is it trespassing? Please explain. I will be awaiting your answer.

[calizaggy]

Respect for your race/heritage and from your parents. Of course these days both would be difficult for the younger generation.

[sally4sara]

I am not finding anything firm as to whether all tax exempt churches are public. I cannot find anything yet saying the are now private either.

They are private property in the UK.

 

I'll keep digging because I don't want to let anything I say be false and not address it.

[sally4sara]

WHEW!

 

Called in a life line (AKA bar certified lawyer)

 

Churches are private property rather than public. However, they lose their tax-exempt status if they discriminate against anyone in a manner that infringes that person's constitutional rights.

An atheist can enter any church they find interesting as long as the hours of operation are observed and they do not set about causing property damage. To stop them at the door (as if an atheist is readily recognizable ) and deny their access would be discriminatory.

The wafer does not count as private property because their consumption is implied. Once consumed, no longer viable for further use. How does one damage it to a point equal to consumption, while it remains unconsumed, and define it as damaged "property"?

At the instance the atheist broke ceremony, the church was within rights to request he leave. The wafer goes with him if they gave it to him.

 

So I was incorrect; churches use to be public property but have not been so for a long while. My pardons.

 

But FnB is wrong about the atheist entering being trespassing.

 

The atheist can only steal it if it isn't given freely.

 

What is the retail cost of the wafer and is it high enough to kick some tail over?

[clv0116]

Wow this discussion is off the tracks.

[FleshNBones]

I am not much interested in the above but I am burning with curiosity on one point.

 

I read that eventually he gave the cracker back. What I want to know is what will happen to the cracker. After it was blessed, I understand that it became the literal body of Christ. Will the cracker be destroyed? If so, won't it be a terrible sacrilege to destroy the body of Christ? Will it be given to someone else to eat at a future communion? Can it be unblessed so that it just reverts to being an ordinary cracker again? Or will it need to be put in a jar and preserved for ever more as holy relic? FNB, please give us the benefit of your knowledge on these matters.

If that "cracker" landed on a pile of poo, the priest must eat it.

 

If you really want some, you can approach a priest and ask for some unbless ones. I don't think he would give you any trouble.

[Enema]

What is the retail cost of the wafer and is it high enough to kick some tail over?

 

How do you put a price on the body of the Lawd?

[sb129]

Where would the pile of poo come from? If there was a pile of poo in a church that would be sacreligious too. I bet those bitter atheists put it there.

 

I bet the priest wouldn't eat it.

 

He would play switchy switchy and get another one from the box I bet.

[FleshNBones]

Respect for your race/heritage and from your parents. Of course these days both would be difficult for the younger generation.

Nothing is sacred to an Athiest, and they aren't shy about it.

[FleshNBones]

WHEW!

 

Called in a life line (AKA bar certified lawyer)

 

Churches are private property rather than public. However, they lose their tax-exempt status if they discriminate against anyone in a manner that infringes that person's constitutional rights.

An atheist can enter any church they find interesting as long as the hours of operation are observed and they do not set about causing property damage. To stop them at the door (as if an atheist is readily recognizable ) and deny their access would be discriminatory.

The wafer does not count as private property because their consumption is implied. Once consumed, no longer viable for further use. How does one damage it to a point equal to consumption, while it remains unconsumed, and define it as damaged "property"?

At the instance the atheist broke ceremony, the church was within rights to request he leave. The wafer goes with him if they gave it to him.

 

So I was incorrect; churches use to be public property but have not been so for a long while. My pardons.

 

But FnB is wrong about the atheist entering being trespassing.

 

The atheist can only steal it if it isn't given freely.

 

What is the retail cost of the wafer and is it high enough to kick some tail over?

For your information, this is about morality not legality.

 

Adultry is legal, but not necessarily moral. Do you get the idea?

[FleshNBones]

Where would the pile of poo come from? If there was a pile of poo in a church that would be sacreligious too. I bet those bitter atheists put it there.

 

I bet the priest wouldn't eat it.

 

He would play switchy switchy and get another one from the box I bet.

He would probably wash it down with something really strong.

[sally4sara]

For your information, this is about morality not legality.

 

Adultry is legal, but not necessarily moral. Do you get the idea?

 

 

OH, so NOW the thread is about morality. Now.....that you got caught in a corner that is! :lmao:

 

What was all that rant and tangent you were posting anyway? And, hey!, lets not forget the thread title was posed for atheists. You came along why?

[dobler33]

 

Who really cares if I didn't eat my cracker. You? Did you not get your own cracker?

 

 

this made me laugh out loud. it comes down to who has a cracker and who does not have a cracker. FnB, if it makes you feel any better, i will share all my crackers with you. it's one of my heathen atheist sacreligious anti-beliefs - that you should share with those who have not. i'll have to clean up all this goat's blood off the floor first, though.

 

Nothing is sacred to an Athiest, and they aren't shy about it.

 

as for sacred, there are a couple of different ways to answer this. i just looked up the definition of sacred, cause i like to be precise about this kind of thing:

 

Pronunciation: \ˈsā-krəd\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from past participle of sacren to consecrate, from Anglo-French sacrer, from Latin sacrare, from sacr-, sacer sacred; akin to Latin sancire to make sacred, Hittite šaklāi- rite Date: 14th century 1 a: dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b: devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>2 a: worthy of religious veneration : holy b: entitled to reverence and respect 3: of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>4archaic : accursed5 a: unassailable, inviolable b: highly valued and important

 

so the ones underlined and in italics are obviously the ones i can't purport to hold to. in this way, you're right. as an atheist i hold nothing intrinsically religious or holy, because i do not believe in the possibility of an idea or object or person being imbued with metaphysical properties.

 

the ones in bold, however, are absolutely relevant to my experience. i hold many things sacred: human love, nature, creativity, my friends and family, my work, my patients, hope, connection, progress, justice..... a whole lot more, too. i hold respect sacred, and i respect everyone's right to believe what they need to believe, even if it makes no sense to me. i do not hold sacred the imposition of beliefs on nonbelievers through legal, political or financial oppression, which is the defining experience of these dark ages of neo-con dominion from which we are gratefully emerging, blinking in the light of reason like newborn puppies. THAT i hold sacred.

 

so, there is a definition by which i hold nothing sacred (metaphysically imbued) and a definition by which i hold many things sacred (worthy of respect and devotion). why is your definition better than mine? more accurate? more moral? what, by all that is sacred, gives you the right to judge?

[Moai]

Let's be honest here. You called it stealing. Now what would give you that idea?

 

Yes, I did, an that was wrong, now that I think on it.

 

I also notice that you have not condemned those who threatened him with death. You yourself claimed he needed an "ass-kicking." Therefore, we can all assume that you think that it is ok to use deadly force in order to stop someone, or to punish someone who steals a cracker.

 

Notice, too, that what he did was not illegal. No charges were filed, nor is it possible to file charges. In essence, you think that it is ok to kill someone if they offend your religious sensibilities.

 

As I posted previously, you share a great deal in common with the Taliban.

[Moai]

It is not freely given.

He must say "amen" to recieve it. If he did, he lied, and deceived whoever gave it out.

 

Fine. He lied. What a horrible, unforgivable thing. Certainly, he should be put to death. In fact, I think it would be great to turn him over to the congregation and have them do it. Or we could bring him over to your house. You'd love to get your hands on him, huh?

 

Actually, the only entity that should be offended would be god, as he made off with his body, after all. Funny he didn't do anything.

 

Not only that, but transubstantiation is easily tested. Have a priest bless the cracker, and then test it. it should be flesh, and should be genetically identical to all the other blessed crackers. Not only that, we could use cells from said cracker and clone Jesus,

 

I wonder how the right words were found to make the change happen. Was there a trial and error process? Did they come close a couple of times--"Gee, this tastes like horse, not Jesus. But we're getting closer!"--but come up just short? Can they tell by looking, even though a blessed cracker looks just like all the other crackers?

 

Let's say that it will be a cracker until someone eats it. Then the kid in question did not steal anything substantive, and Catholic freaked out over nothing, as he didn't eat it.

 

AND, if someone must eat the cracker for the full "flesh effect", we can have someone eat the cracker and then exercise. We would expect his body to process the cracker as protein, not carbohydrate.

 

Name any test you can think of and I guarantee that the test will come back "cracker".

[Moai]

It is a combination of trickery, and infringing on a religious rite that is offensive. It is also trespassing.

 

I thought churches were open to all. That sort of obviates trespassing.

[Moai]

Nothing is sacred to an Athiest, and they aren't shy about it.

 

Human life is sacred, for one thing. Superstitions aren't. The fact is that you do not any other religious beliefs or rituals as sacred, and that is a-ok by you.

 

If you did, your church would not support missionaries.

[Tony]

Many of the last 150 posts are so far off topic leaving this thread open cannot be justified. I hope the OP got out of it what was required...after hundreds of posts. Thank you for participating!