ok.... now that i have your attention... is there anything in the jewish, or any other religion besides christianity that can be interpreted as cannibalistic?

|x|me|x

Well, in catholicism they eat the "flesh" and drink the blood of God. Its supposed to be symbolic, but it is what it is.

Edit: Sorry, you mean besides Christianity. I think Rastas were rumoured to eat children back in the day, but I dont think it was true.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-23-2005).]

Lots of small tribes in S America and Africa have cannibalistic rituals. Some Voo-dooish groups in the Carribean may do so as well (Thats where the Rastas might have gotten blended in with it).

As far as Jews eating people? I don't think so...

Well if breathing in the ashes of Jewish bodys while shoveling them out of the gigantic stove is canabalistic.... other then that I'd say no.

[This message has been edited by TEAMKILLER (edited 02-23-2005).]

Stupid Jews...they do not help with my research paper at all. Grr.

I eat christians. Does that count?

quote:Originally posted by succhia:

Stupid Jews...they do not help with my research paper at all. Grr.

hah, your fucked.

|x|me|x

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Well, in catholicism they eat the "flesh" and drink the blood of God. Its supposed to be symbolic, but it is what it is.



strange, if some old white guy with a beard in all-white came up to me asking me to eat his flesh, i wouldn't take it as a symbol....

Its supposed to be symbolic. Because god is not corporeal you cant really eat his flesh. He goes through extra effort to make you believe it though, because he's an asshole.

Catholics believe that they are actually eating and drinking the blood and flesh of christ. They believe that the bread and wine transform into real flesh and blood. So yes, according to them, they are cannibals (But we all know its bullshit).

That was one of the big reasons for the Protestant Revolution, Protestants weren't stupid enough to believe those latin speaking bastards.

Nowadays, I don't think many people actually believe in the transformation.

Armin Meiwes was a Catholic I believe. In the book, it made reference as to how he praised god as he tore into his victim's flesh. However, his motive was more sexual than spiritual, so I wouldnt be too sure about that.

I'm sure there are tons of ancient indian religions (and perhaps even some current 3rd world country religions) that practice cannibalism as a spiritual ritual.

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Its supposed to be symbolic. Because god is not corporeal you cant really eat his flesh. He goes through extra effort to make you believe it though, because he's an asshole.

So... If christians could, they would eat God?

...Is there something I'm missing here?

It was a rumor popularized/spread by The Knights Of Templar to demonize Jews because they were considered heathens and this was at a time when the christians were trying to convert the pagans. They sort of lumped them all in together and tried to make them out to all be people who ran around naked, screaming in tongues, and setting shit on fire.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Well, in catholicism they eat the "flesh" and drink the blood of God. Its supposed to be symbolic, but it is what it is.

Edit: Sorry, you mean besides Christianity. I think Rastas were rumoured to eat children back in the day, but I dont think it was true.



Right. The Jews, however, do practice the ritual genital mutilation of helpless male infants, which is pretty sick.

Yeah thats very true, as means to show racial covenant with God no less. Maybe someone could start a new hybrid religion where instead of eating the body of Christ symbolically, they could eat the foreskins of Gods chosen people literally. You know, REALLY demonstrate yourself to the Old Man.

I'll shut up now.



And Great Sage - Krispy is right. Catholics do in fact believe what they are doing is real (so much for benefit of the doubt). Christ IS god incarnate(you know the trinity and all that other perfectly cogent reasoning), so Catholics are in effect, eating the flesh of God.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

Right. The Jews, however, do practice the ritual genital mutilation of helpless male infants, which is pretty sick.

Can't blame them though, it's pretty difficult to wash under the foreskin with sand.

quote:Originally posted by AngrySquirrel:

Can't blame them though, it's pretty difficult to wash under the foreskin with sand.

Plus your soldiers aren't going to try and escape if you provide an easy way for the enemy to identify them upon capture.

Um... Actually saying that Christ is God incarnate is about the most simplistic understanding of the faith as it is possible too have, only held by fucking morons.

True understanding comes fairly quickly after looking into the Zohar or the tree of life.

Also the miracle of the blood and flesh of christ is that whilst remaining corporaly a waffer and some wine, it does in fact spiritually become the very real blood and flesh of christ.

quote:Originally posted by MaxSteiner:

Um... Actually saying that Christ is God incarnate is about the most simplistic understanding of the faith as it is possible too have, only held by fucking morons.

True understanding comes fairly quickly after looking into the Zohar or the tree of life.

Also the miracle of the blood and flesh of christ is that whilst remaining corporaly a waffer and some wine, it does in fact spiritually become the very real blood and flesh of christ.





No actually the things Catholics take seriously are fucking retarded.

quote:it does in fact spiritually become the very real blood and flesh of christ

Case in point.

quote:The Incarnation deals with the relationship between Jesus and God. This doctrine tries to walk a narrow line. On the one side, Christians are committed to monotheism: there is only one God. Jesus is not to be seen as a second God. However, from the earliest days, Jesus was seen as somehow being God's presence on earth. Based on the accounts in the Bible, it is clear that his followers had the experience that in Jesus they were encountering God. This is expressed in the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation.

Taken from,

http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/incarnation.html



I've never read the zohar, but its kabbalist text, not a catholic one. So if you want to take all sorts of jewish liberties with the doctrine then fine. But its by your demented stretch of imagination that its even relevant by orthodox catholic standards.

Its funny that christians continually mistake "making absolutely no rational sense" for some sort of spiritual depth, that they then feel they can pretentiously hold over other people in piety.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Well, in catholicism they eat the "flesh" and drink the blood of God. Its supposed to be symbolic, but it is what it is.

Edit: Sorry, you mean besides Christianity. I think Rastas were rumoured to eat children back in the day, but I dont think it was true.



"Eat this bread it is my body!? Drink this wine it is my blood!? Jesus, that's cannibalism and vampirism in the first few days of the new religion! Why not 'drink this wine, it's a merlot'?"

Eddie Izzard is awesome.

Heh, yes indeed he is.

Incidently I didnt say I was a catholic at any point, your arguing about the teneants of a religion and from the posts it seems pretty cleart you've never read any of the works connected.

Secoundly, What is exactly wrong with using Jewish Texts too illuminate Catholicism, its the same basic religion you idiot, otherwise you wouldnt have any old testament

Fianlly when Jesus was baptised buy John the Baptist, God was meant too have said this is my own dear son and I am proud. How pray tell would this have occured if Jesus was god?

Why is it that the vast majority of poeple who feel the need too talk about religion have no understanding whatsoever about it?

quote:Incidently I didnt say I was a catholic at any point, your arguing about the teneants of a religion and from the posts it seems pretty cleart you've never read any of the works connected.

I have read the bible, and i was raised Catholic. You said that the Catholics are literally drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Christ, which makes you at first presumption a Catholic, or a complete fucking idiot. So now we've ruled out the possibilty of you being a catholic.

quote:Secoundly, What is exactly wrong with using Jewish Texts too illuminate Catholicism, its the same basic religion you idiot, otherwise you wouldnt have any old testament.

Early Judaism (pre rabbinical, the literal Judaism of the Old Testament) has the same basic metaphysic regarding god - biblically up until jesus, whereupon Catholicism later introduces the trinity and the incarnation (not to mention immaculate conception and all that other bullshit) - there is nothing remotely similar in Judaism (any of the myriad branches of Judaism). Judaism has some pretty succinct and legitimate philosophy intertwined with it. (maimonides, Levinas, Spinoza, the Hasidic tradition). There is furthermore nothing wrong with using Jewish texts to "illuminate" anything. What you implied is that you need to read jewish texts (relatively obscure ones at that) in order to validate Catholicism. And this is stupid. If Catholicism cannot stand alone, than it cannot stand.

Catholicism is founded on Christianity, which is very different than Judaism, even though they share similar texts (insofar as they are rooted in a common god). Thats why its called something other than Judaism, and why people have been killing each other for 2000 years, you idiot.

And you know what buddy. I'm telling you right now you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are, even if you happen to know a fact or two that someone else might not, so cool it with the insults. There are many people on this site that are worthy of alot more respect than you have been showing. You are blatantly a first or second year university student, who I'm guessing has no friends and is probably the type of kid who used to call his mother stupid for serving dinner he didnt like. Dont bring your spoiled brat nerd shit around here.

quote:Fianlly when Jesus was baptised buy John the Baptist, God was meant too have said this is my own dear son and I am proud. How pray tell would this have occured if Jesus was god?.

Let me see if I can pu this any more elequantly, ahem BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY IS STUPID AND MAKES NO SENSE. Particularly Catholicism. The whole fucking book is filled with contradictions. Regardless, the fact that he refers to jesus as his son does not contradict the trinity, it is perfectlly in tune with it. (Father, son, holy ghost). Jesus is the son of god AND god incarnate. Whats that? Doesnt make sense? Well gee whiz guess you learned something. Further, you cant use the bible to debate the legitimacy of the bible. It takes itself as self evident. You can only talk about the legitimacy of the bible using philosophy - which is why arguing with a christian is a fruitless venture, because they are unable to comprehend their beliefs philosophically.

quote:Why is it that the vast majority of poeple who feel the need too talk about religion have no understanding whatsoever about it?

I would agree, its part of being religous.

Like I said pal, why dont you enlighten us on how the incarnation is NOT a tenet of Catholicism by general understanding. Thats all we're talking about here. I posted a quote from a reputable Catholic website clearly stating it is. So why dont you back up your rhetoric with some valid argument and resources. (they'll teach you that in second year).



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

people who ran around naked, screaming in tongues, and setting shit on fire.

Now that's my kind of people.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

Catholics believe that they are actually eating and drinking the blood and flesh of christ. They believe that the bread and wine transform into real flesh and blood. So yes, according to them, they are cannibals (But we all know its bullshit).

That was one of the big reasons for the Protestant Revolution, Protestants weren't stupid enough to believe those latin speaking bastards.

Nowadays, I don't think many people actually believe in the transformation.

Actually, the Vatican has stated that it is transformed (transubstantiation) in our hearts. So in laymans terms, if you believe it is the flesh and blood of Christ that is aiding/perhaps giving you salvation; then that is what is happening. If some random person just came to a mass and participated in the communion, it wouldn't work because it wouldn't be in his heart.

It's really not a ridiculous idea at all.

Not to attack you sean, but just because the vatican says it doesnt make it true. Its a ridiculous belief for any person capable of thinking outside doctrinal religous authority. "if you believe it, than its true", regarding matters of fact, is not a good argument. I can believe I am Napoleon, or that the moon is made of green cheese. Basic reasoning can easily demonstrate otherwise. Now if this is admittedly a symbolic gesture, then whatever, but to claim a literal transformation, which Catholics do, is insulting to normal intelligence.

Fact is believe what you want, but outside the specific axioms intrinsic to the religion there is NO grounds for a thinking (critically reasonable) person to believe such a thing. It cannot be reasonably argued to be true. It relies on very specific religous tenets which themselves are matters of arbitration and "faith".

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-02-2005).]

Ok dagnabitt, you ill informed plebian. There is in fact something exactly the same as the triniity in early judaism: Namely the first three sephiroph in the tree of life.

Even a perfunctionary glance at it wil inform you of that. Secoundly, as the Torah hasnt been translated into english I would question where you came by your all encompasing knowledge.

I never said that they were litrally eating and drinking the blood of christ, I was explainig what is philosphically meant too occur at the eucharist. Also if the vatican issues a papal bull then it is infact, as far as the cathlic faith goes true.

Your arguament (If it can be called that) is all over the place.

And the fact that you were raised a catholic is no sort of ground work for expertise in any form of religion. Try reading the Upanishads, its clear you havent read the apophrica either, broaden your horizons, theres much more too christianity than the sterile bullshit your fed as a little boy, and stop being so eager too mouth off on topics you dont understand.

Your contention that the bible makes no sense only further goes too prove that you are unable too understand metaphysics on any level describable, and as such you should just keep your mouth shut on such things.

In addition nowhere have claimed that I was smarter than everyone else, just that you were a fucking moron.

Also what grounds do you have for calling me either spoilt or a nerd? The fact that Ive actually read something in my life besides Playboy, or perhaps that I have some command over the english language?

Too quote Wilde, this is a battle of wits, and you are clearly unarmed.

Ok, regarding Jesus being the actual physical incarnation of God, it isn't part of Catholicism, the fact that it says it nowhere at all in the bible might be your first fucking clue!

Jesus doesnt even admit too being the son of God.

All of this bullshit tacked on is just so stupid people can go too church and think they have some grasp on their religion, and I thank you for illustrating the point oh so clearly for me.

Hell even the quote you used too disprove it doesnt say it!

In conclusion, since we seem too be trading insults, your breath must stink of shit, cause your talking out your ass.





[This message has been edited by MaxSteiner (edited 03-02-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by MaxSteiner:

[B]Ok dagnabitt, you ill informed plebian. There is in fact something exactly the same as the triniity in early judaism: Namely the first three sephiroph in the tree of life.

Even a perfunctionary glance at it wil inform you of that. .

Oh gee, and still no supporting evidence. OH OH OH. Look I have some that says your wrong.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq026.html



quote:Secoundly, as the Torah hasnt been translated into english I would question where you came by your all encompasing knowledge.

Yeah, the BIBLE has never been translated into English. What a pain this has been http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:I never said that they were litrally eating and drinking the blood of christ

or really, remember this

quote:it does in fact spiritually become the very real blood and flesh of christ

quote:I was explainig what is philosphically meant too occur at the eucharist. Also if the vatican issues a papal bull then it is infact, as far as the cathlic faith goes true.

If you accept that the vatican has the authority to dictate reality. There was nothing philosophical about what you have said up until this point.

quote:Your arguament (If it can be called that) is all over the place.

I'm the only one making an argument here. All you're doing is spouting your mouth off at any area of what I've said where you can drop the names of books you've read about as if merely mentioning them proves a point. You provide no reasoning, and no supportive evidence. You further refuse to address the obvious contradictions that I have pointed out to your case, by repeating the same crap I have already criticized.

quote:And the fact that you were raised a catholic is no sort of ground work for expertise in any form of religion. Try reading the Upanishads

I have read a good deal of the upanishads. Yet again this has nothing to do with Catholicism. Hey, the THE

MALLEUS MALEFICARUM is an obscure book thats that loosly relates to the subject matter, does that drove anything? Your just trying to demonstrate how obscure you are. You have yet to quote a single one of these works in support of your point. You're just name dropping, and doing a bad job of it.

quote:theres much more too christianity than the sterile bullshit your fed as a little boy

Prove it.

quote:Your contention that the bible makes no sense only further goes too prove that you are unable too understand metaphysics on any level describable

I studied metaphysics for years at uiniversity. Believe me, you are the one that has no idea what your talking about. The trinity is the LEAST cohesive system on the western books.



quote:In addition nowhere have claimed that I was smarter than everyone else, just that you were a fucking moron..

Asshole, I havent seen a single positive reaction to you from any thread i've seen you post in. You're a Know Nothing Know it All. You backpeddal, ignore valid criticism, and cant seem to back up a single one of your claims with any actual proof. I feel like i'm talking to a teenage son about why momma needs the car to run errands and thats why he cant have it. You are throughly retarded.

quote:Also what grounds do you have for calling me either spoilt or a nerd?

For such a supporter of self-evidence in your own arguments, i'm suprised this particular observance passed you by. Yet we've already established your not the most developed person. Take it on a matter of faith. You're good at that.

quote:The fact that Ive actually read something in my life besides Playboy, or perhaps that I have some command over the english language?

You know these insults have to be based on something to be the least bit effective.

quote:Ok, regarding Jesus being the actual physical incarnation of God, it isn't part of Catholicism

Read the SOURCE that i posted above, where it clearly states that it is. If you have a SOURCE that says otherwise please post it. Please get a clue what you're doing. To say that the trinity does not apply to catholicism is the stupidest thing ever posted on this board.

quote:the fact that it says it nowhere at all in the bible might be your first fucking clue!

There are many instances of God referring to jesus as his son. Christ, even the quote you provided he does. There are also numerous instances where jesus refers to god as his father.

Oh look, look, another supporting quote from a reputable link saying what Jesus did say that might lead to the conception of the trinity.

"So, who did Jesus claim to be? Who does the Bible say He was? First, let's look at Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” At first glance, this might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement, “We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood Jesus’ statement to be a claim to be God. In the following verses, Jesus never corrects the Jews by saying, “I did not claim to be God.” That indicates Jesus was truly saying He was God by declaring, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). John 8:58 is another example. Jesus proclaimed, “I tell you the truth, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!” Again, in response, the Jews take up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus (John 8:59). Jesus announcing His identity as “I am” is a direct application of the Old Testament name for God (Exodus 3:14). Why would the Jews again want to stone Jesus if He hadn’t said something they believed to be blasphemous, namely, a claim to be God",

Taken from,

http://www.gotquestions.org/who-is-Jesus.html

quote:Jesus doesnt even admit too being the son of God.

Show supporting evidence.



You are one of the worst arguers on this board. You have no idea that you simply stating something proves nothing. Yet you have the zeal of a dictator. That means you actually have a drive to be the worst arguer on TOTSE. Quite simply, i'm not taking any more of your tyrades seriously, unless you start showing relevance and evidence of your ridiculous claims. You are the type of person that will just argue around the issue, changing his point whenever he see's fit, just to avoid any concession to the person he is arguing with. I'm too tired to repeat myself over and over, and then have to go through the same set of criticisms for the next ridiculous claim you make.

There is a difference between rhetorical insitance and a well thought out response. You incidentally seem to be capable of either. Your a loud mouth fucking brat, and you would be a professors worst nightmare (oh wait they're probably just all stupid too)

Fool.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-02-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Show supporting evidence.



You are one of the worst arguers on this board. You have no idea that you simply stating something proves nothing. Yet you have the zeal of a dictator. That means you actually have a drive to be the worst arguer on TOTSE. Quite simply, i'm not taking any more of your tyrades seriously, unless you start showing relevance and evidence of your ridiculous claims. You are the type of person that will just argue around the issue, changing his point whenever he see's fit, just to avoid any concession to the person he is arguing with. I'm too tired to repeat myself over and over, and then have to go through the same set of criticisms for the next ridiculous claim you make.

There is a difference between rhetorical insitance and a well thought out response. You incidentally seem to be capable of either. Your a loud mouth fucking brat, and you would be a professors worst nightmare (oh wait they're probably just all stupid too)

Fool.



Damn, I've been trying to get that out for days... I kneel before your majesty.

JEWS SUCK LIKE LOASTCASUE! i eat babies.

"Oh gee, and still no supporting evidence. OH OH OH. Look I have some that says your wrong" http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/YL_Trinity.asp

"It is a well-known fact that the Zohar frequently describes the Godhead as a threefold unity, doing so in different ways. The tenfold structure of the Kabbalistic sefirot can actually be fitted into threefold division, particularly in accordance with a certain passages from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer - a passage on which the Zohar bases itself (see note 15) - thus remaining within the realm traditional Judaism"

Cocksucker, you can prove anything with the internet, the fact that you admit you havent read it, and your quote doesnt actualy disprove it lends me too think Im right.

The Torah isn't the bible and by you saying makes me wonder if you do know what your saying?

There is a differance between spirirtually and physically, I suggest you look it up you stupid prick.

As too having too disprove that Jesus denied he was God, I dont, you should just read any of the Gospals.

By denying the relavence of the Upanishads in this descusion is too deny Huxleys arguaments as expressed in the Perenial Philiosophy, and incidently the Malleus Maleficarum is in no way an obscure book, its one of the priciple sources in a study of which craft, nice try (I like how you had too paste it in) The fact is the Zohar isn't even that obsucre, and certainly if you have an interest in such matters as comparitve religion (Which is what this post is about) you should have fuckin read it!

Thje fact that the Apohrica exist, or the dead scrolls exist is enough too prove thers more too chrisitanity than meets the eye you moron, take a fucking look.

The trinity is the least cohesive is it? You are an idiot! How can you study religion for yeasrs and not understand the place of trinities in religion, read the fucking Golden Bough by Fraiser (And if you say thats obsucre you clearly have never studyied any aspect of religion you prick let alone at university)

Any more points I have too fucking hold your hand and lead you through?

A search of any of the points I list will prove not only that you are wrong, but you are a prick.

"Oh gee, and still no supporting evidence. OH OH OH. Look I have some that says your wrong" http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/YL_Trinity.asp

"It is a well-known fact that the Zohar frequently describes the Godhead as a threefold unity, doing so in different ways. The tenfold structure of the Kabbalistic sefirot can actually be fitted into threefold division, particularly in accordance with a certain passages from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer - a passage on which the Zohar bases itself (see note 15) - thus remaining within the realm traditional Judaism"

Cocksucker, you can prove anything with the internet, the fact that you admit you havent read it, and your quote doesnt actualy disprove it lends me too think Im right.

The Torah isn't the bible and by you saying makes me wonder if you do know what your saying?

There is a differance between spirirtually and physically, I suggest you look it up you stupid prick.

As too having too disprove that Jesus denied he was God, I dont, you should just read any of the Gospals.

By denying the relavence of the Upanishads in this descusion is too deny Huxleys arguaments as expressed in the Perenial Philiosophy, and incidently the Malleus Maleficarum is in no way an obscure book, its one of the priciple sources in a study of which craft, nice try (I like how you had too paste it in) The fact is the Zohar isn't even that obsucre, and certainly if you have an interest in such matters as comparitve religion (Which is what this post is about) you should have fuckin read it!

Thje fact that the Apohrica exist, or the dead scrolls exist is enough too prove thers more too chrisitanity than meets the eye you moron, take a fucking look.

The trinity is the least cohesive is it? You are an idiot! How can you study religion for yeasrs and not understand the place of trinities in religion, read the fucking Golden Bough by Fraiser (And if you say thats obsucre you clearly have never studyied any aspect of religion you prick let alone at university)

Any more points I have too fucking hold your hand and lead you through?

A search of any of the points I list will prove not only that you are wrong, but you are a prick.

As for not having single supporting thread, how about the one about coke in conspiracy, or perhaps the parts of the WW2 thread? Or perhaps the fact that since these tend to be topics you shouldn't discuss, and I've actaully had time too form opinions rather than just regurgitating whatever Ive been told, theres bound too be disagreements between me and lesser mortals.

quote:Originally posted by MaxSteiner:

Cocksucker, you can prove anything with the internet, the fact that you admit you havent read it, and your quote doesnt actualy disprove it lends me too think Im right.

No I havent read it. I already admitted that. That is a good link. Thank you, that is something I did not know. I figured you'd be coming back with something like that, seeing as I already found a rebuttal to it. However, it is NOT common belief in Jewish Faith. It is an obscure referance and the link I posted shows that it is not undebated - it is far from representing common jewish understanding. Further, this adds nothing on the level of metaphysics or philosophy. However, I will concede that it is a jewish belief I was not aware of. It does nothing to prove the legitimcay of the belief though. Only that the jews have made an attempt reconcilling the belief with their own.

quote:The Torah isn't the bible and by you saying makes me wonder if you do know what your saying?

Torah

Level: Basic

""Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah."

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

The bible contains the torah, which has been translated into english many times. You claimed that the most common religious work in the history of western faith was never translated into English, which is R E T A R D E D.



quote:There is a differance between spirirtually and physically, I suggest you look it up you stupid prick.

The diference is between symbolically, and actually. You claimed, in any way you want to say it, that it actually happens. That is, outside any religous context, that they really are eating the flesh and drinking the bllod of christ. Argue this to be true without quoting the bible or scapegoating faith. ITS A STUPID BELIEF.

quote:As too having too disprove that Jesus denied he was God, I dont, you should just read any of the Gospals.

See the quote above, from the bible, which outlines that the exact opposite of what you say is true.

quote:By denying the relavence of the Upanishads in this descusion is too deny Huxleys arguaments as expressed in the Perenial Philiosophy

Stop dropping names and show quotes. Your insistance proves nothing.

quote:and incidently the Malleus Maleficarum is in no way an obscure book, its one of the priciple sources in a study of which craft

If your a catholic withcburner maybe. The book was put out by the church in order to persecute witches. Its not a principle source of anything - except obscurity, and how ridiculous beliefs were back then. Unless you'd like to add "if she floats, she's a witch" to your wealth of "knowledge" Or better yet relate it to what we're talking about which was my point.



quote:nice try (I like how you had too paste it in)

Incidentally a little cutting and pasting wouldn't hurt you at all. I know "Malleus Maleficarum" isnt as hard to spell as "gospel"

quote:...gospals

but hey we cant all be as bright as you http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote: The fact is the Zohar isn't even that obsucre, and certainly if you have an interest in such matters as comparitve religion (Which is what this post is about) you should have fuckin read it!

Baseless.

quote:Thje fact that the Apohrica exist, or the dead scrolls exist is enough too prove thers more too chrisitanity than meets the eye you moron, take a fucking look.

Stop name dropping, support your argument.

quote:The trinity is the least cohesive is it? You are an idiot! How can you study religion for yeasrs and not understand the place of trinities in religion, read the fucking Golden Bough by Fraiser (And if you say thats obsucre you clearly have never studyied any aspect of religion you prick let alone at university)

Ahem, quote and provide links. Stop name dropping.

Noone said the trinity was an unimportant idea. I said it was a stupid idea, and a foolish metaphysic. It relies on biblical faith for any legitimacy it has. It is not an independant philosophical system and is not worthy of that status.

quote:Any more points I have too fucking hold your hand and lead you through?

Max, you are a fucking little baby. A shrill, colicy, walking temper tantrum. You DONT PROVE THINGS BY INSISTING ON THEM and calling people names. All of this spazing proves nothing. Show supporting evidence.

quote:A search of any of the points I list will prove not only that you are wrong, but you are a prick.

Knock yourself out. So far some of your points i'd like to see proved are,

1)The Torah has never been translated into English

2) The Incarnation is not a part of Catholicism, even though by your own argument it is a real thing.

3)If the vatican issues a rule it becomes true by all accounts.

4) The trinity is not a catholic belief.

5) Jesus never said he was the son of god, and the bible doesnt claim this. Nor does God claim to be the father of jesus. Eve though in the very reference you posted he did.



You're using references to non-catholic texts to try and compromise the fundamentals of catholicism for your own argument, and then to try and defend it when it suits you. You're arguing for the legitimacy of catholicism one minute, and then trying to deny that its principle claims are even catholic the next. Why not discuss all of the valid criticisms I have raised against you instead of just starting over again as if nothing was posted before.

This argument is about 1) the presence of certain behaviors in Catholicism.

2) Their philosophical validity.

You have danced around these issues to the point of contradicting yourself many times over. And your so eager to get one up on me that you need to call me an idiot with every point you make, even though 90% of what your saying is CLEARLY either unsupported, not relevant to the conversation, or just flat out wrong. Your trying so hard to impress people with what books you've read, yet you have not used a single example to support your claims. The existence of a book proves nothing. You, even if there is some truth hidden under all your bullshit, are a terrible arguer and a thoroughly unlikeable person. Focuss on whats being discussed, concede if you cant support your beliefs, show examples, dont flip flop on your points, and for god sakes stip being such an asshole.



quote:As for not having single supporting thread, how about the one about coke in conspiracy, or perhaps the parts of the WW2 thread?

You do realize these are different discussions right? Not everything is relevant to everything else. Dont grasp at straws.



quote: theres bound too be disagreements between me and lesser mortals



Whatever dungeon master, go draw yourself a wizard on a mountain or something and leave the discussion to people that know what they're doing.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-05-2005).]

orry, been away for the weekend, in furtherance too our correspondance

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is NOT common belief in Jewish Faith[QUOTE]

That wasnt your contention though was it? you were saying there was no such belief.

In addition all pointers indicate that the Zohar is influanced by verbal traditions, dating back before the arrival of Christianity, hence not being a reaction too it.

[QUOTE]Further, this adds nothing on the level of metaphysics or philosophy.

[QUOTE]

Ok, so wait, the concept of a trinity isn't a metaphysical one?

I suggest you look into!

[Quote]

Torah

Level: Basic

""Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah." http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

{Quote}

Hell of a way too use half a source dude! And the first thing that comes up on google at that, here let me add the rest of the quote, the bit you left out

"the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings. "

Therefore the Torah can be argued too include all Jewish writings, not just the few books that make up the OT.

In fact the Torah comprises 39 books I believe, including several that are only found in the Apocrytha, not in the bible.

For you too calim that the OT is all of the Torah seems a remarkably sweeping, and for that matter simply wrong, remark.

Carrying on our theme, of me being right, you being full of shit and the possibility of using the Torah as a catch all term including the Talamud, or oral tradition. Now, follow this line of thought, the Talamud is oral, and as such not generally printed.

And there are infact parts which have not seen print, and hence not been translated. Now I admit I was partially wrong for claiming that the Torah hasn't been translated, it is a rather broad statement, but the fact remains, you try finding the Toldoth Yeshu in English but you wont as:

"In 1631, a Jewish synod in Poland ordered the offending passages to be expunged, and that these teaching were to be passed on orally to young Jews by Rabbis and parents."

Siince you seem not to accept books as sources: http://biblia.com/jesusbible/genealogy-toledot.htm



[QUOTE]There is a differance between spirirtually and physically, I suggest you look it up you stupid prick.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still stand behind this, you actually seem incapable of accepting things you cant understand, and indeed lashing out at anyone who defends such points. The fact is, if you cant understand what happens at the Eucharist, you should just decline from talking about it.



quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As too having too disprove that Jesus denied he was God, I dont, you should just read any of the Gospals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok you ignorant sonava married couple, here are some quotes which prove it, and another weblink (Again since according too you, Books are not admisable sources)

"but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt 24:36)

If he was god he wouldnt have too say this

"I can of mine own self do nothing: As I hear I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me." (John 5:30)

If he was god he wouldnt have too say this

"Verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..." (John 5:19)

If he was god he wouldnt have too say this

John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I."

If he was god he wouldnt have too say this

Luke 22:42, "not my will but thine be done,"

If he was god he wouldnt have too say this

John 5:30, "I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me."

If he was god he wouldnt have too say this

You might begin too see my point, there a whole lot more, and hell Ive provided quotes, and a website: http://www.iiie.net/Brochures/Brochure-08.html

Now what was your point again? Oh never mind.

Ok, onto your next glaring ideological hole::

I said

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thje fact that the Apophryca exist, or the dead scrolls exist is enough too prove thers more too chrisitanity than meets the eye you moron, take a fucking look.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said "Stop name dropping, support your argument."

Now come with me on a rollarcoaster ride you poor stupid cunt. The deadsea scrolls being unearthed is one of the most important religious events in the last hundred years, Im not refering too anythinng within them, merly their existance, and the fact that they contain Christian works outside the contempory cannon, for instance the book of the Magdaline. Hence there is clearly more too the faith than what is presented in the bible.

The Apophryca are books of the bible which were removed because it was felt that they would only confuse the common flock of the church, once again there is more too the bible than what is presented outright.

How the fuck was any of this obscure or hard to understand???????

The

"Noone said the trinity was an unimportant idea. I said it was a stupid idea,""It is not an independant philosophical system and is not worthy of that status."

Ok now you see, youve made two mistakes the first is your seriously saying you havent read the Golden Bough, one of the most important works on the subject of comparitive religion?

And yet youve "studied for years", possibly your navel, little else I fear.

The secound is your claiming that the Trinity only exists within christianity.

Ok son, now why is this, would you care too explain away the hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, the Egyptian triad of Isis, Osiris, and Horus, or perhaps the Norse trinity of Odin, Thor and Frey, hell infact a google search on any world faith will show that they have a trinity.

Now, if you had actually read the Golden Bough you would know this, because the gist of the work is (Aside from a bit of Jingoism) all religionbs tend too be made of the same elements because they are made too fulfill the same need.

s the concept of the trinity is found in all faiths, it is clearly a seperate concept.

The fact that you are unable too explain it doesnt detract from this, and the fact that you dont know it is pretty shocking.



quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any more points I have too fucking hold your hand and lead you through?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Max, you are a fucking little baby. A shrill, colicy, walking temper tantrum. You DONT PROVE THINGS BY INSISTING ON THEM and calling people names. All of this spazing proves nothing. Show supporting evidence.



quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A search of any of the points I list will prove not only that you are wrong, but you are a prick.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If the vatican issues a rule it becomes true by all accounts" Now, If I recall, what I infact said was from a religious standpoint it became true. As the Vatican serves as the head of the church any papel bulls issued bare the authority of the head of the faith, and hence are true, from a religious stand point, moron.

"Jesus never said he was the son of god, and the bible doesnt claim this. Nor does God claim to be the father of jesus. Eve though in the very reference you posted he did"

I didnt say that you stupid gimp, I said that Jesus wasnt God, which Ive proven.

Ok, there you go. As an aside, why is it that you think posting the first link that comes up in a Google search is more relevant than a common book?

And where and what did you "study for many years" because you seem too be lacking understanding in a great deal of things.

And dont reply with "Ugh, these not weblinks, me no check, only websites matter"

If I list the name of a book, all you have too do is run a search and read the synopsis. God forbid, maybe even fucking read it!

First Use the quote function properly. Its [ QUOTE ] and then [_/quote] removing the underscore in the second field.



quote:Ok, so wait, the concept of a trinity isn't a metaphysical one?

I suggest you look into!

Sigh, the trinity IS a metaphysical concept, as I have stated before many times. I said that your corrolation with the zohar does not add or substract from this metaphysic, it just spreads it out culturally a little, if anything. No book can prove the trinity philosophically. The Trinity, without the bible, cannot stand as an independent metaphysical system. Contrast with Pantheism, Panenthesism, Dualty (descartes), Berkeleys Idealism. All metaphysical systems have problems, but the trinity revels in its own contradictions, without any justification from which this can be deduced. It is a relatively (compared to other philosophical systsms) arbitrary set of statements about God, that do not cohesively form a working model of anything.

quote:Hell of a way too use half a source dude! And the first thing that comes up on google at that, here let me add the rest of the quote, the bit you left out

"the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings. "

Therefore the Torah can be argued too include all Jewish writings, not just the few books that make up the OT.

In fact the Torah comprises 39 books I believe, including several that are only found in the Apocrytha, not in the bible.

Maybe, but again this is not the more common or orginal definition. The common defintion is that the torah is precisely what I stated. And 9 out of 10 sources will tell you that first. The thing that Ive come to learn about Judaism is that there are very few consistencies in jewish though. They are very intellectual and value change. They are also openly critical about their beliefs. Therefore, you can find SOME jewish thought to support any idea. I could find numerous sources from jews that dont believe in God at all, but I wouldnt equate that with typical Judaism. The standard definition of the Torah is the one that I posted. Now you have some interesting information that shows that IT IS POSSIBLE to see things another way, but that is not universally that way and that way alone. Your exception may compromise, but it certainly doesnt disprove the rule. You have NO GROUNDS AT ALL for saying I am wrong.

Even if it was true, to say what you did "The Torah has never been translated to English", when referring to the entire work of jewish writing, is a stupid comment. Even if there are SOME books that may not have. I think it can be said that most if not all jewish writing and oration is to some extent commentary on the biblical Torah, so even if some of those fade into Jewish obscurity and remain within the community, they are still in effect a commentary on the original Jewish work - which is the traditional biblical torah. You can say Torah = Everything Jewish, but everything jewish is either an adaptation to, acceptance, or rejection, of those original books. The biblical Torah is the original Torah, and after that its a matter of semantics.

Incidentally, the biblical TORAH is probably the MOST translated text in the history of the world I would bet. Your comment, which is the point of this arguments, was ludicrous.

Again max, when your not being a condescending prick you are very capapble of adding good elements to the dabate. This one does not prove me wrong however, but it does add a new perspective.

quote:I still stand behind this, you actually seem incapable of accepting things you cant understand, and indeed lashing out at anyone who defends such points. The fact is, if you cant understand what happens at the Eucharist, you should just decline from talking about it.

I understand what they're telling you to believe. I dont believe it because my better sense tells me its stupid. Just because these people believe in what they're doing does not mean its a true belief. I'm not criticising it as a religous practice, I'm criticising it a a true thing. Outside their mere insistance there is no reason to believe anything is happenning there other that shitty crackers and bad wine.

Referring to your posts about Jesus being a son of God. Good. But you do realize there are many more that do support the idea. I'm not going to spend to much time on this,

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/son2.htm http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/tbsonofgod.htm http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/son-of-man.html

At best what we've shown here is that, as many already know, the bible is full of contraditions. Just more reason to doubt the legitimacy of the bible. Thank you.

PS whats a "ignorant sonava married couple"?

quote:Now come with me on a rollarcoaster ride you poor stupid cunt. The deadsea scrolls being unearthed is one of the most important religious events in the last hundred years, Im not refering too anythinng within them, merly their existance, and the fact that they contain Christian works outside the contempory cannon, for instance the book of the Magdaline. Hence there is clearly more too the faith than what is presented in the bible.

The Apophryca are books of the bible which were removed because it was felt that they would only confuse the common flock of the church, once again there is more too the bible than what is presented outright.

How the fuck was any of this obscure or hard to understand???????

I never said I wanted to know what they were. I want to know how their relavant to the discussion. You still have not shown this. All you've said, a little more descriptively this time" is that . These books exist. So what. This adds nothing to the conversation.

quote:Ok now you see, youve made two mistakes the first is your seriously saying you havent read the Golden Bough, one of the most important works on the subject of comparitive religion?

And yet youve "studied for years", possibly your navel, little else I fear

Are you retarded? Your not arguing right now you know. STOP DROPPING NAMES. If the book your talking about has relevance to the conversation than sight a passage. Its mere existence shows nothing. And note, I have been studing philosophy and metaphysics for years. I'm relatively new to religion as an academic study. This is why I insist on keeping things at a philsophical level when debating the legitimacy of systems in their entirety. Religions cannot justify themselves using there own texts, because those texts are, in faith, considered self evident. All the biblical knowledge in the world cannot prove the legitimacy of the bible in itself.

quote:The second is your claiming that the Trinity only exists within christianity.

I never said that at all. I said it didnt exist within Judaism, and i stand corrected. You said that the Trinity IS NOT a catholic belief, which it is. And the trinity as understood by Catholics is different from other conceptions of it, (regarding the incarnation, and Jesus as Gods both Son and Equal). Brahma is a different metaphysic than the Christian one altogether. In That tradition Brahma (Ishvara) Is the universe, as well as transcedant. In that tradition, the subdivisions of lesser dieties like, shiva, kali, ganesh, Krishna and hundreds of others etc.... are supposed to signify that God is everywhere and in everything and that as such there are infinite paths to him. It is a ploytheism wrapped in a monotheism. The trinity says that Jesus and God are one at the same time as they are not. And that it is through this schism we are supposed to identify with monotheism. In hinduism the emphasis is on the many paths to God, in Catholicism the emphasis is on one path, one incoherent path at that.

Those other examples you gave Odin and Osiris - that is merely polytheistic geneolgy. That is not the same vein as the Catholic trilogy.



As far the concept of the trinity being found in all faiths. There is no trinity of Catholic sort in Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Hinduism (see above) and many other religions. I can see what you are claiming might be laboriously true for jewish, christian, and muslim scholars trying to arrive at some cohesiveness with their shared God. But just because you have 3 things that go together does not mean they are identical with the Christian Trinity. These religions are different for a reason, even if some beliefs are similar. The trinity states that God is incarnate in Jesus, that they are the same person, yet at the same time they discourse with each other as if they are different. Maybe this has to do with miscoceptions between the myriad individuals that made the book, but all in all a stupid thing to believe IMHO.

quote:"If the vatican issues a rule it becomes true by all accounts" Now, If I recall, what I infact said was from a religious standpoint it became true. As the Vatican serves as the head of the church any papel bulls issued bare the authority of the head of the faith, and hence are true, from a religious stand point, moron.

No, you didnt say it in the context of anything. You said it as a matter of fact. To say that what the Vatican issues as rules are true for Catholics is an obvious and redundant statement. You implied if the Vatican issued a law it was TRUE.

quote:"Jesus never said he was the son of god, and the bible doesnt claim this. Nor does God claim to be the father of jesus. Eve though in the very reference you posted he did"

I didnt say that you stupid gimp

oh really,

quote:Ok, regarding Jesus being the actual physical incarnation of God, it isn't part of Catholicism, the fact that it says it nowhere at all in the bible might be your first fucking clue!

Jesus doesnt even admit too being the son of God.



quote:I said that Jesus wasnt God, which Ive proven.

No you havent, there are just as many sources if not more that say HE IS both the son of God and God Incarnate. Which I have shown.

quote:Ok, there you go. As an aside, why is it that you think posting the first link that comes up in a Google search is more relevant than a common book?

And where and what did you "study for many years" because you seem too be lacking understanding in a great deal of things.

Because those links might actually contain information. The titles of books do not.

I studied at The University Of Toronto, and coming from a guy doesnt even understand the concept of referencing and sources I wouldnt talk to much there buddy.

Like I said before %90 of your argument you dont feel you actually need to substantiate. You drop names, you make obscure comments as if they represent common understanding, you dont back up most of what you say. And even thoug I continue to discredit your posts, you just throw new things into the conversation that have no relevance so you can try to fool people into believing you know what your talking about.

Argue with facts and logic, not name calling and temper tantrums.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-07-2005).]