This is going to be a final warning for this topic. Lets be respectful and any blatant attempts at trying to derail the discussion/trolling will be dealt with accordingly.

 

~Stevepole

OK, so the little dry cracker is, like, Jesus' little toe flattened out, and somehow it regenerates in cracker form each week?

That's exactly what happens [/sarcasm]

Edit:

Clearly you're the expert on religion now, so I'm going to defer all questions to you.

No, I am seriously trying to understand. You seemed to say that you literally believe that the cracker and wine are Jesus's flesh and blood, and I was asking for clarification. Were you being sarcastic?

 

E: And I'm not an expert on religion at all, getting that info is the closest I've ever come to reading the Bible.

If you're looking for honest input, you need more than one answer. The Eucharist and transubstantiation are very highly debated topics in the church. I believe it's just symbolism, the cracker doesn't actually become flesh, nor does the grape juice actually become blood.

I never knew there were people who actually believed it was blood, somehow. Does it magically transform once ingested? Serious question for whoever understands the viewpoint.

 

Also, Saru, you may want to look through the website I quoted, as it has a whole page devoted to the Bible's opinions on homosexuality, including the New Testament. To me, it seemed the anti-homosexuality was more common, but it tended to be someone's interpretation of Jesus's teachings, and not Jesus himself saying it.

I realize it's OT, but read up on transubstantiation: substance vs accidence.

My reasoning for this is because people like Y_Guy believe the catholic doctrines interpretation of the New Testament to say that homosexuality is a sin. Since there is no direct evidence that can support this claim I am asserting that Catholics (although other sects of christianity do have similar beliefs as well) would follow ANY interpretation made by the catholic church.

 

you're implying that Muslims perform terrorism because they need it to "go to heaven". Muslims don't use terrorism mainly because they want to go to heaven.

 

you're also implying that "if" the Church interprets a form of jihad, Christians will follow it. you act as if that's a legitimate argument. are you kidding me? that's like me saying if you were a homosexual, you would be a child predator. it has no basis in reality or even this argument because you're assuming that 10% of Catholics are willing to commit a crime for the Church without any proof.

 

it's also painful to see you throwing around the Crusades as if that makes you any smarter. the Crusades for the most part were an attempt to prevent the Muslim expansion into Europe. it happened for political reasons, not because Baby Jesus wanted it to (which would be a religious reason). just because it was performed by Catholics, doesn't mean it was caused by religion.

My reasoning for this is because people like Y_Guy believe the catholic doctrines interpretation of the New Testament to say that homosexuality is a sin. Since there is no direct evidence that can support this claim I am asserting that Catholics (although other sects of christianity do have similar beliefs as well) would follow ANY interpretation made by the catholic church.

 

you're implying that Muslims perform terrorism because they need it to "go to heaven". Muslims don't use terrorism mainly because they want to go to heaven.

 

you're also implying that "if" the Church interprets a form of jihad, Christians will follow it. you act as if that's a legitimate argument. are you kidding me? that's like me saying if you were a homosexual, you would be a child predator. it has no basis in reality or even this argument because you're assuming that 10% of Catholics are willing to commit a crime for the Church without any proof.

Please, give us some insight. If terrorism is a religious act (or should I say an act of Islam), and it is not related to eternal salvation, then what is the motivation?

 

it's also painful to see you throwing around the Crusades as if that makes you any smarter. the Crusades for the most part were an attempt to prevent the Muslim expansion into Europe. it happened for political reasons, not because Baby Jesus wanted it to (which would be a religious reason). just because it was performed by Catholics, doesn't mean it was caused by religion.

LMFAO. Next you'll say the Bay of Pigs and quarantine of Cuba was to prevent Castro from nuking the US.

 

it's also painful to see you throwing around the Crusades as if that makes you any smarter. the Crusades for the most part were an attempt to prevent the Muslim expansion into Europe. it happened for political reasons, not because Baby Jesus wanted it to (which would be a religious reason). just because it was performed by Catholics, doesn't mean it was caused by religion.

LMFAO. Next you'll say the Bay of Pigs and quarantine of Cuba was to prevent Castro from nuking the US.

 

Sorry but you have no idea about history do you? The crusades cannot be attributed to one sole reason. Faux is right in that there were heavy political reasons for the crusades. If you want to have an informed opinion on the matter, go read a few books on the matter or I can try and find some notes I took from a few lectures on the crusades I took last year with a couple of world renowned Crusade historians and show you them. If not, then I would suggest you don't even mention the crusades in an argument as you will basically be saying pointless twaddle based on no evidence.

LMFAO. Next you'll say the Bay of Pigs and quarantine of Cuba was to prevent Castro from nuking the US.

 

nice strawman. i have no idea how your stupidity linked the Crusades to Cuba but you managed to do so. awesome.

So much for not flaming. When a mod begins a post with "You have no idea about history" you know something's wrong, and don't even get me started on Faux's post.

 

I find it strange that you would have no trouble identifying subtle political issues within a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church with the intention of reclaiming the Holy Land, but refuse to believe the modern issue with Islam, which is not even supported by a majority among Muslims, is not entirely religious.

 

Faux, you called the non-Christian group in the Crusades the "Muslim Nation". And the link there was the "prevention of expansion". The Cuba thing was irrelevant and unnecessary, but it was silly of you to pick it out to argue about.

 

Danqa, I am not an expert on the Crusades. However, the connection to religion is pretty clear. To be fair, I'm sure there were both religious and political issues involved.

 

just because it was performed by Catholics, doesn't mean it was caused by religion.

^ Sums up my argument.

just because it was performed by Catholics, doesn't mean it was caused by religion.

^ Sums up my argument.

 

Then can you please explain your logic?

 

c) Religion and politics in the Middle East are literally the same thing. If you need me to be more specific, I will.

...

You missed the point. I'm saying that terrorism and religion are two completely different things. There are extremists everywhere, to try to categorize by religion is just silly.

Religion and politics in the Middle East are the same. Check.

 

From the OP definition,

ter·ror·ism

   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm]

noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Check.

 

Which leads to: Terrorism and religion are two completely different things. Whaaaaa?

just because it was performed by Catholics, doesn't mean it was caused by religion.

^ Sums up my argument.

Then can you please explain your logic?

In this specific example, I am pointing out how Faux's logic changes depending on which religion is involved. When we're talking about Islam, terrorism is all about religion, but when it's the Crusades, he's very picky about the small political issues.

 

c) Religion and politics in the Middle East are literally the same thing. If you need me to be more specific, I will.

...

You missed the point. I'm saying that terrorism and religion are two completely different things. There are extremists everywhere, to try to categorize by religion is just silly.

Religion and politics in the Middle East are the same. Check.

"C" is quoted out of context and is an exaggeration. I forget what I was arguing, but the point was that religion is a political issue in the Middle East.

 

The second part is expressing the idea that terrorism is independent of religion - in the sense that there are Muslim terrorists and there are Christian terrorists, while there are terrorists who don't give a damn about religion.

From the OP definition,

ter·ror·ism

   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm]

noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Check.

 

Which leads to: Terrorism and religion are two completely different things. Whaaaaa?

Terrorism and religion are two different things. They can be connected, potentially, but by definition neither is inherently related.

Terrorism and religion are two different things. They can be connected, potentially, but by definition neither is inherently related.

 

In a thread specifically about "10% of the Worlds Muslim are Terrorists", explain how Muslim terrorists and Islam are two completely separate things.

Anarcho-communists across the world in the 1910s and 1920s were terrorists, but not related to any relgion.

 

As in, he's talking about general terrorism not speicifically islamic extremists.

 

Let's move on; we all know what he's talking about, why must we argue over the petty things.

Terrorism and religion are two different things. They can be connected, potentially, but by definition neither is inherently related.

 

In a thread specifically about "10% of the Worlds Muslim are Terrorists", explain how Muslim terrorists and Islam are two completely separate things.

I don't believe I ever said that. The debate at the time was about terrorism in general, and I doubt I used the word completely in that context.

 

why must we argue over the petty things.

Please stop trolling.

Let's move on; we all know what he's talking about, why must we argue over the petty things.

 

When the basic premise of your argument is flawed, deflect attention from it by debating over insignificant points.

 

Yet another fearful white Christian desperately seeks a way to legitimize his xenophobia: half of my family does precisely the same thing. All you can do is carefully point out the stupidity of distinguishing between parts of the human race, and hope that their ignorance will embarrass them into silence.

Giordano's an atheist. No comment on whether he's white or not though.

Also that personal attack didn't seem related to anything at all.

Giordano's an atheist. No comment on whether he's white or not though.

Also that personal attack didn't seem related to anything at all.

 

That response was directed towards See_All1.

 

EDIT: I don't feel that it was inappropriate, particularly when the general mood of the forum towards any of my posts on the forum considering religion is "oh-no, yet another Dawkins-loving, Christian-hating atheist."

 

I can speak on this topic from personal experience: I live in a very blue collar area, and the general idea is that you need to be racist, but without letting anyone else know, since it's pretty much unacceptable at all levels of the social ladder now (As it should be).

Giordano's an atheist. No comment on whether he's white or not though.

Also that personal attack didn't seem related to anything at all.

It actually wasn't directed at Giordano. And he's white, just look at his avatar.

Ah, okay.

In this specific example, I am pointing out how Faux's logic changes depending on which religion is involved. When we're talking about Islam, terrorism is all about religion, but when it's the Crusades, he's very picky about the small political issues.

 

and yet I said, "Muslims don't use terrorism mainly because they want to go to heaven."

 

i know you're sinking and grasping for straws now, especially after that hilarious beatdown by the mod. but i never once posted in this thread that Muslim terrorism is all about religion.

In this specific example, I am pointing out how Faux's logic changes depending on which religion is involved. When we're talking about Islam, terrorism is all about religion, but when it's the Crusades, he's very picky about the small political issues.

 

and yet I said, "Muslims don't use terrorism mainly because they want to go to heaven."

 

i know you're sinking and grasping for straws now, especially after that hilarious beatdown by the mod. but i never once posted in this thread that Muslim terrorism is all about religion.

I may have misinterpreted that quote - are you saying "Muslims refrain from terrorism because they believe it will keep them out of Heaven," or "Muslims have other reasons to terrorize than getting into Heaven"?

 

As for the second line, I'm going to ask you again to be mature and refrain from flaming. Think of it this way: Your personal attacks make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

oh please, it's too late for you to take the high road now. your responses like "LMAO" , "NO U" and other stupidity are obvious to everyone else who reads this thread.

 

maybe next time try to comprehend what you're reading instead of jumping on someone's throat because he has a different opinion.

My saying you have no idea about history is not flaming, it is me debunking your argument when you try to bring the crusades into it. Simply put, don't use anything in your argument you cannot prove or back up with knowledge or evidence.

As for the second line, I'm going to ask you again to be mature and refrain from flaming. Think of it this way: Your personal attacks make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

 

Your off topic attacks on Christianity/Catholicism make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

As for the second line, I'm going to ask you again to be mature and refrain from flaming. Think of it this way: Your personal attacks make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

 

Your off topic attacks on Christianity/Catholicism make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

 

They're not off-topic at all: we take off our shoes and have cavity searches because we're afraid of adherents to one religion, while ignoring the adherents to another religion shooting people and waging a holy war in the Middle East.

 

There's a strong link between religion and terrorism, and you don't get to single out one group in a pathetic attempt to justify your xenophobia.

As for the second line, I'm going to ask you again to be mature and refrain from flaming. Think of it this way: Your personal attacks make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

 

Your off topic attacks on Christianity/Catholicism make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

 

They're not off-topic at all: we take off our shoes and have cavity searches because we're afraid of adherents to one religion, while ignoring the adherents to another religion shooting people and waging a holy war in the Middle East.

 

There's a strong link between religion and terrorism, and you don't get to single out one group in a pathetic attempt to justify your xenophobia.

Your claims that other religions have the same link are baseless. Find me a study that says 10% of Christians support attacks on innocent civilians, and then we'll discuss it. Until then, piss off.

oh please, it's too late for you to take the high road now. your responses like "LMAO" , "NO U" and other stupidity are obvious to everyone else who reads this thread.

 

maybe next time try to comprehend what you're reading instead of jumping on someone's throat because he has a different opinion.

Each of your posts in this topic has involved some sort of personal attack. My obviously exaggerated responses were pointing out the lack of necessity for your hostility.

 

My saying you have no idea about history is not flaming, it is me debunking your argument when you try to bring the crusades into it. Simply put, don't use anything in your argument you cannot prove or back up with knowledge or evidence.

First of all, I think I explained it clearly, and second of all, flaming is in the presentation. I personally thought the way you presented your own opinion was questionable, but not offensive. Others may have interpreted it differently.

 

As for the second line, I'm going to ask you again to be mature and refrain from flaming. Think of it this way: Your personal attacks make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

 

Your off topic attacks on Christianity/Catholicism make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

 

They're not off-topic at all: we take off our shoes and have cavity searches because we're afraid of adherents to one religion, while ignoring the adherents to another religion shooting people and waging a holy war in the Middle East.

 

There's a strong link between religion and terrorism, and you don't get to single out one group in a pathetic attempt to justify your xenophobia.

Your claims that other religions have the same link are baseless. Find me a study that says 10% of Christians support attacks on innocent civilians, and then we'll discuss it. Until then, piss off.

I'm sorry, but you need to pay more attention to your own thread. By both your OP definition of terrorism and the "innocent civilians" thing above, the US military commits terrorism in the Middle East. Many Americans (Christian or not) support this. Is this not exactly what you are asking for?

 

As far as links go, I can go ask my semi-Christian mother if she supports the American military and then put the results on a web page, if you'd like.