Cracker taken hostage - Page 10

On July 11 2008 21:48 Klogon wrote:
Yeah because the church is actually one huge conspiracy to control people.

lol

On July 12 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote:
When I say it is priceless, I mean that literally. If Bill Gates went into a Catholic church and offered to pay a billion dollars to receive a wafer blessed in the communion, to become his personal property that he could dispose of as he pleases, his offer would be rejected.

People have certain rights to interfere with the commission of a crime. If someone is stealing your priceless sacred object, you are allowed to hold them from running away or snatch it back out of their hands.

On July 12 2008 00:20 Jibba wrote:

Doubtful, many places of worship would be willing to take that trade, but that's beside the point.

I'm not sure if that's true either. There have been a number of lawsuits in the US where stores have been sued for restraining or simply laying a hand on someone who was caught in the act of stealing. In this case, I'm assuming that the lady wasn't employed by the Church. Someone who works in retail would be better suited to explain it, but most major retailers don't allow their workers to try and apprehend shoplifters.

On July 12 2008 00:42 Funchucks wrote:

That is like saying, "Many nannies would sell the children they are caring for."

Conceivably it is true that you would find someone to do it, but it would be completely in violation of their role and they could expect serious consequences to follow.

On July 12 2008 00:52 Jibba wrote:
It's quite common for religions to make alterations for pragmatic reasons. In this case, the price tag of 1 billion dollars is so extreme that it might even be difficult to find one that doesn't. No surviving group is so steadfast that they don't bend the rules.

On July 12 2008 01:19 Funchucks wrote:

...and a religion doesn't survive by demonstrating to its followers that its principles mean nothing in the face of earthy temptation, either.

Under Catholic doctrine, the Eucharist is the literal substance of Christ. It is not an object of commerce. Abuse of the Eucharist is abuse of the body of Christ, and it is a sacrilege serious enough to be classified as mortal sin.

On July 12 2008 06:01 L wrote:
Which is why no one's supporting either of those actions. : )

Way to throw incendiary stupidity onto an otherwise finished topic.

On July 11 2008 12:15 Fr33t wrote:

I just lost a lot of respect for you. Perhaps if you had paid more attention and not just looked for ways to criticize it you might understand. Religion is such an easy thing to bash and if you didn't know, all these things have been said before many, many times. It takes faith to be a member of a religion. A lot of these things can't be proven but they were constructed following the teachings of what many people believe to be the son of God.

In the end, this whole situation boils down to respect for other people or groups. But I guess plenty of you were never taught respect.

On July 12 2008 12:15 Klogon wrote:
Actually, they're probably willing to forgive it after some more thought than the pure emotional reaction that took place in the spur of the moment, but then again it is THIS DOUCHE that is pushing the case forward. If he'd drop it, I'm sure they'd drop it as well. Right now, they are just protecting themselves legally after being sought after intentionally for trouble. It's one thing to know forgiveness and practice it, but that doesn't mean you will always be perfect at every moment. You make mistakes, and you can learn to forgive them later.

On July 11 2008 04:34 Ryot wrote:
Can you explain to me the cracker-eating thing then? I don't know much about Catholicism so obviously to an outsider it seems weird.

On July 12 2008 12:47 Mindcrime wrote:


The douche has dropped it.

On July 12 2008 00:56 pooper-scooper wrote:
Calling it a cracker is kind of missing the point, and being at least a bit close minded. I agree that threatening to kill the kid is way over the top, but it isn't just a cracker. If you are a catholic it is a symbol of your faith and the man who died for you, it is even a bit more literal than that.

Are you really so close minded to not understand how something objectively trivial can take on great meaning?

Lets say that you go on a date with a woman you've been in love with for years who finally agreed to go out with you. As a joke at the end of the night, she gives you as a "gift" a pack of saltines. A year later you are married, and you put the pack of saltines in your memory box. Your wife dies 20 years later of cervical cancer.

Then some punk ass kid who is visiting your house goes into your memory box, takes the crackers and uses them for his soup because he thinks it is funny that they are so important to you.

Now objectively, of course they are just crackers, but they mean something more than that, and if you think you wouldn't be pissed you aren't thinking it through. Yes, you might forgive the kid, but you would be angry at losing the symbol and he even knew it was important to you.

We can bash religion, but you can be just as big a dogmatist bashing religion as you can supporting it.

On July 12 2008 13:13 TheOvermind77 wrote:


Great example! It is very true that close-mindedness can go both ways...there are fanatically religious people, disgustingly blinded by faith, and their are extremely disrespectful atheists who mock those who believe in a religion. They are extremes and definitely aren't a good representation of either group, but I guarantee you that if you sift through TL religious threads you will find them both.

On July 12 2008 00:56 pooper-scooper wrote:
but it isn't just a cracker