It is technically ritual cannibalism. Think about the ritual. I have attended Mass many times and I've discussed it with Catholic Priests. Think about the taking of the communion wafer and what it symbolizes.


Yes. I am well educated. I've actually attended the services of, and had long discussions with priests of, most religions on the planet. It's one of my interests.


And I've posted at least three times in this thread that Judiasm has plenty of wacky stuff when seen from the outside.... even from the inside, in my opinion.




.:)

My understanding is that they are uncomfortable and meant to remind you to be kind to others.

Bullshit.

Sperbonzo, don't expect to be taken seriously when you persist in ridiculously describing eating a wafer as cannibalism.

Which religion, of a mere few million people, modestly considers itself "chosen" by God and has a special word for everyone else on the planet?

I'll second the "full of shit" motion.
The body of Christ represents Eucharist at the Last Supper that "This is my body" in Luke 22:19-20, or the explicit usage of the term by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 12:12-14 to refer to the Christian Church.
Now run off and go marry a three year old, bozo. :321GFY

Let me guess?
Catholics?

A yet lots of them are voting for Romney

I'm looking forward to a scientologist nominee myself lol

are you apart of the group of Jewish people that circumsize boys, then let the rabbi take the babies penis into his mouth as part of the ceremony?

don't worry, we'll understand if so.

Good point

is that a real thing? i just threw up in my mouth a little

this thread is fascinating, i cant stop lurking in it

Im sure theres explanation why this shit is not really jewish, how some Rabbi like the taste and so on. You can't question Jews.

It's a tough one, isn't it. You'd think such a supremacist, if not flat out racist, belief might be challenged, perhaps in the media, but it seems to cause no controversy at all.

Likewise, you wouldn't get away with calling the USA the Christian State, and 'Islamic States' are considered to be nuts. Yet it's fine for one country, where 20% of the population doesn't share the main religion, to be referred to as if belongs to a certain religion.

You'd think the media would be all over that too, the way they are about Catholic priests. Maybe even a Hollywood movie exposing it. I wonder why they're not...

actually recently in the news the practice was in the spotlight because one rabbi gave the baby herpes which killed the kid. so people were lobbying to get it outlawed.

get back to throwing rocks at each other now

Have a long in-depth conversation with a Catholic priest about it sometime. Talk about it's basis, and it's relation to symbology. I had this discussion over months with a priest who was a historical researcher at the Vatican for 15 years before coming back to the US.

My info doesn't come from some "Catholics are bad" website on google....




As for Mormons, the original point of this thread, I would not base judgement of a religion on some "Mormons are freaks" website with poltical agendas so clearly in the news right now. Personally I have great relationships with Mormons, and I have found them to be the most honest people to do business with.

My point about the Catholic thing was that certain rituals look crazy from the outside (and no, I don't even know anyone that is involved in that freakish thing with the Rabbi's and the penis. I'm not chabbad and I think those guys are wacky myself). I have no problems with Catholics per se, and although I have certain reservations about the actions of the Catholic church in the world historically, I have no problems with the people that believe.


My point, and apparently you have all helped me prove it, is that religious prejudice based on the "knowledge" you can gleen from online websites that have an agenda, is a pretty piss poor way to figure out your opinions on such complex topics.




.




.

http://www.centralparksunsettours.co...dsJuly2007.jpg



Keep carrying on... :)

Peace and Love,

ADG

Religious fundamentalists of all religions share one thing in common.

Their faith driven desire to impose their beliefs on others who do not believe as they do.

All religious fundamentalists are dangerous to the rest of us.

you do not know that to be true

i always wondered why it was ok to put a dead guys image on a stick and show it around also...odd

anyway, i dont have a dog in this fight...just observations from the sidelines

Sure, and I talked to Rabbi who was senior Rabbi in Israel. As matter of fact he was a Rabbi to Rabbis and was teaching them how to properly lick penises. The Jewish way, not the gay way. And yes, he confirmed they like penises.

Oh ye baby, sacred kosher herpes. I bet 2 dollars this Rabbi bolted out to Israel and now they won't extradite him citing "malicious prosecution of jews in america"

I will try exactly that the next time my cameraman calls off "sick." Excellent suggestion!

In the beginning, the Chuch and State were one. The ruler was a living God or a descendant of the Gods.

Then men began to believe in self-actualization instead of pre-destiny. We learned that eclipses are caused by the rotation of the planets and moon and earthquakes are shifts in the earths plates.

Kind of throws all those religious fallacies under the bus.

Sadly, more men and women have died in the name of God than Stalin ever killed.

this thread proves that the world would be better off if everyone just dumped all religions.

So you do not know that mormons can have more than one wife? Strange because THIS is the main and usually the only thing that most of the people in the world knows about them.

It's kinda crazy to be talking about this issue on a porn board, and pretty nuts to get into any kind of serious discussion on GFY, but here I am.

Michael is right on the money as usual.

And the whole issue was actually more intense in Christ's lifetime than it looks to us now.

One of the most rock-solid prohibitions in Judaism was the law against the drinking of blood. Blood was sacred - the essence of life - and permitted only for God when blood was spilled for him in the Temple Think back to Cain and Abel - It was blood sacriifice itself that satisfied God just as it was absolutely forbidden to men. The idea of consuming blood is emotionally repugnant to anyone raised as a Jew. Meat is treated with salt before cooking to draw out the blood.

In the face of that, Christ announced in public that no one could share in eternal life without drinking his blood and eating (the literal translation is "gnawing" as in gnawing a chicken bone) his body. Some of Christ's close followers were so disgusted with this that they talked to him about it, and he only dug into his position more fiercely. No metaphor was intended. John records that as a result of this harsh teaching, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer followed him. John 7:66. They understood that he meant it just as it sounded. He later went on to say to remind his opposers that scripture called all of the followers of God, Gods. John 10:34, quoting Psalm 82:6.

This understanding is probably the biggest divide between Catholics and Orthodox on one side and Protestantism on the other.

I guess it's a bit more difficult to ignore the death of a baby than it is to ignore Jewish leaders sucking off babies. Apparently the latter was not worth exposing.

Like US Navy traitor Jonathan Pollard who they keep demanding the release of?

it sounds like you have studied religion seriously. From a secular academic perspective OR like Sperbonzo are you now or were you a practicing Jew or Christian?

You are describing an event in the life of Jesus that you believe is an actual historical real event OR a story written by the committee of writers who wrote the Bible long after his death?

The oldest physical fragments of the Book of John that have been uncovered are dated by the experts between 90 a.d. and 110 a.d. at the outside, and what's on those fragments tracks identically with the content of the current Koine Greek editions. It's pretty ancient and that same text has existed and endured since approximately the lifetime of some who actually had heard Christ preach. By contrast, no physical copy of any Hebrew Torah exists older than about 1100 a.d. (the Masoretic Text, the most respected, though some fragments from the Song of Solomon exist from the 800's.) What's curious about the passage I mentioned is that it's all John has to say about the Eucharist; unlike the other three gospels, the "synoptic" Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there is no account of the Last Supper or the institution of the Eucharist in John. Some speculate this is so to avoid laying out the ritual of the Eucharist in a writing that could be found by antagonists to Christianity, but still teaching the same message in veiled words, and from that, that it was written in a time of persecution.

As for me, my personal background away from law, government, and politics has nothing to do with anything, and, as a lawyer, laying such personal matters out in a place like this can only serve to alienate some people and encourage the kind of stupidity and crudity that has unfortunately become the lifeblood of GFY.

Congrats sir, you sound just as smart and inteligent as your buddy Mike. The only problem is there is no John 7:66 in the bible. :1orglaugh

Ok, I take that back. Maybe, just maybe, John did write additional 13 verses in chapter 7, still unpublished. We just haven't filed motion of discovery or called any witnesses to testify for him.

i cant believe how anyone in USA takes this seriously..

That song always puts me in a good place.

Agreed. Except for Santa...i still believe in him even though I havent got jack shit in 4 years! Not even coal, but I have a feeling this is my year.

Typo. Chapter 6, v. 66.

OK, I'll play. What does v. 63
You really think he's talking about cannibalism? :1orglaugh
You can't be serious.

Here, maybe this will help.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/john6pt2.htm

I have to admit, I find myself conflicted that I have to side with Alex; especially Michael and JD, but they have just blown me away. I hope they are just trolling . . . . please Lord.

Maybe it's time to give it all up rather than promote a 'your religion is so much whackier than my religion' perspective.

Another senior moment or basic need to be grumpy asshole?

Hey Pal, I'm not here to argue the theology of transubstantiation, but it's clear that's what you'd like to do here. No thanks.

Michael has stated the Catholic position more or less accurately and that's my point here: Catholics believe that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist, that the bread and wine have become his actual body and blood through a miracle, though still appearing to remain bread and wine, their substance has been changed to body and blood. Aha, you observe, but they still look and taste like bread and wine! The Catholic Church teaches that things are not always what they appear to be, and they are "accidents" in the philosophy of Aristotle and the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. That's the essence of transubstantiation, a bitterly contested issue during the Protestant Reformation. Some Protestants went so far as to accept consubstantiation, the idea that the consecrated species in the Eucharist were simultaneously bread and wine but also the body and blood of Christ; but most of the Protestant leaders thought that it was just a symbol. (By the way, Mormons substitute water for the wine because of the teachings in the Word of Wisdom about alcohol, and many of the Bible Thumper sects - the ones who oppose this industry and who join AFA and MIM - substitute grape juice.) If you find it hard to believe that the Catholics really believe this, you can check it out yourself in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1374-1377. (That same Catechism takes the position that all governments should outlaw pornography, and while it condemns prostitution, it's notably silent about suggesting that prostitution should be outlawed. In this respect, it tracks with the teaching of Aquinas, though it disregards his reasoning that things which protect against sexual predation should not be outlawed.)

Baddog, I'm taking no position here except that Michael does accurately understand what Catholics believe. Whether it's true or false, crazy, stupid or wise, is not my concern here, just accuracy.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I don't give a faq

Typically no one wins when you argue religion or politics or anything labelled as a conspiracy.


so...everyone can just back away before it gets personal

thats not true anyways. at one time sure, but they stopped that around 1890. the only groups that continued broke off from the mormon church and started their own.

I just thought they wore funny hats had long beards and many wives ..Do they have gang bangs with all thier wifes together ?

Nope, the Catholic Church stance is the host is transformed into the body of Christ. Not ritual but actual cannibalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euchari...atholic_Church

Bible is nothing but a book of parables with philosophical meaning. Ever read any Hindu books? Now thats some stuff. Want to talk about elephants with 6 arms and reincarnation into a bug?
You really want to take everything literally just because it says so? So let me get this straight, Torah is nothing but book of arguments between Rabbis and shouldn't be taken literally, yet when the bible says take my body and few verses later explains that body means "my words and faith in me", you describe this as cannibalism? Some scholar you are!

This is what Catholics are told to believe. i understand you are not getting this but that is their current teachings/beliefs, not some verse in the bible.