Religious Discussion Thread

The DoggFather

OG DF
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
106,385
Reaction score
117,485
This man deserves a standing ovation. The idiot politician who was telling him to stop speaking couldn't even answer his question. He simply told him to stop speaking. What a dickhead.
It was "bad" that he read it out but ok for the kids to read it.

Typical hypocritical "woke" ****.
 

Kelpie03

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
3,223
I just hate this putrid hell hole and it's only getting worse.
I agree that the place in many ways has become a hell hole, I believe that it is due to the lack of Christ, that's why I resent any comment rubbishing him and those who at least try to do his work.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
It's
What I find most odd is that these books are only being targeting now. This book has been in schools for nearly 30 years but people only noticed now.

I remember that we had similar stuff when I was in school. Remember Puberty Blues?

There's another one I can't remember the name of. It was given to us as kids as it was similar to this. But it was a full book about a surfer having his first sexual experience. I read it thinking, "I'm a surfer and this is bullshit. This never happens"
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,077
It's


What I find most odd is that these books are only being targeting now. This book has been in schools for nearly 30 years but people only noticed now.

I remember that we had similar stuff when I was in school. Remember Puberty Blues?

There's another one I can't remember the name of. It was given to us as kids as it was similar to this. But it was a full book about a surfer having his first sexual experience. I read it thinking, "I'm a surfer and this is bullshit. This never happens"
Well the reason for that is because back then, it was a one-off here or there - some idiot would've published something, rattled a few cages, and not much harm was done.

Now, it's increasingly common and as such is viewed as a problem by conservatives and Christians. The reality is it's always been a problem, and should have been dealt with years ago.

Society let it grow, and now it's finally become a bigger problem than what it was before.

You give people an inch, they'll want a mile, and they'll slowly keep stretching until they get that mile.
 

The DoggFather

OG DF
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
106,385
Reaction score
117,485
It's


What I find most odd is that these books are only being targeting now. This book has been in schools for nearly 30 years but people only noticed now.

I remember that we had similar stuff when I was in school. Remember Puberty Blues?

There's another one I can't remember the name of. It was given to us as kids as it was similar to this. But it was a full book about a surfer having his first sexual experience. I read it thinking, "I'm a surfer and this is bullshit. This never happens"
Probably parents start hearing about it and looking at there kids school?
 

Caveman

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,563
Reaction score
4,393
The actual event of the last supper is of course used for the claim of transubstantiation, this is the first Mass, this was the institution of the Eucharist. My apologies if I never brought up the Last Supper as I assumed you already knew of the Last Supper. I brought up the John 6 discourse to give you a background of where the belief that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord. The John 6(“Eat My flesh, Drink my blood”) discourse happened at the Jewish Passover, one year later the Last supper happened at the same time at Passover. Jesus is clearly teaching His disciples about what is now called the Eucharist which led to the climax at the Last Supper when He held up the bread and wine and said to his disciples “Take all of you and eat from it, for this IS my body”, The apostles clearly understood what He was saying.

Such a doctrine does not “Fly in the Face” of Levitical Law(Lev 17:4):

Firstly, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.

Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink” (Col 2:17, 16).

Thirdly, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: “The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood” (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal’s life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, “Christ who is your life” (Col 3:4).



Had Jesus been speaking in a metaphorical sense here then this would have been the perfect point to clarify His intentions like what He did many times in scripture like in Matthew 16:5-12 where Jesus’ listeners thought that he was speaking in a literal sense, and he had to correct them. In this passage, Christ was warning the disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples concluded that he was speaking of the bread they had forgotten to bring for their journey. In seeing their confusion, Jesus had to reiterate that he was not speaking literally of bread.

But Jesus never corrected their confusion in John 6. Look how Jesus answers the Jews’ objections in John 6:53–58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed.” These words would hardly quell the Jew’s fear that Jesus spoke literally.

Following this, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

And regarding John chapter 10 like what you mentioned Jesus says, “I am the door.” Some say that this is the sense in which Jesus’ words in John 6 should be taken. However, no one understood Jesus to be speaking literally when he said that he was a door. The narrative does not continue, “And his disciples murmured about this, saying, ‘How can he be a door? Where are his hinges? We do not see a doorknob.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, I am a door, and my chest is real wood, and my hips are real hinges.’” This is absurd, but it illustrates how shocking Jesus’ words were when he said that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink.



I missed John 6:63 because I know this is a Protestant favourite used to try and disprove the Eucharist being the real flesh and blood of Christ, so I left it for you to mention :grinning:

The fundamental misunderstanding here springs from the implication that the word spirit is symbolic. Never in Scripture is this the case. We are told that God is spirit and that the devil is spirit, but no one would conclude from this that they are merely symbolic beings. What Jesus is driving at is that the carnal understanding of fallen human flesh is incapable of understanding spiritual realities—such as the Eucharist.

If one concludes from the above verses that Jesus was speaking metaphorically of his flesh and blood, a major difficulty arises. The Bible teaches that blood is essentially the seat of life within living things, and thus it is sacred. Every time the Bible speaks of symbolically eating another’s flesh and drinking their blood, this is the idiomatic phrase that meant to persecute, betray, and murder (see Micah 3:3; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:20, 49:26). Now read John 6 in light of those that understood Jesus to speak symbolically. “I solemnly assure you that unless you persecute and betray me, you have no life within you. He who does violence to me has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” This is senseless, but it is what his words would have meant if they were symbolic.



We do not believe that in the Mass we are re-crucifying or re-sacrificing Jesus on the cross. It’s not that Jesus is dying again. That is not what we mean when we say that the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ. Christ’s sacrifice is eternal, and since God is not limited by time, it is therefore that one sacrifice which we can draw from at any time, it’s a re-presentation of that one sacrifice. Let’s go back one verse from the Hebrews passage you quoted to Hebrews 7:24, We’re told that Jesus holds his priesthood permanently, and he’s exercising that permanent priesthood “in the sanctuary and the true tent, which is set up not by man but by the Lord.” That’s Hebrews 8:2. And what is he doing there? He’s “always living to make intercession” for us (Hebrews 7:25), so that all of us who draw near to him, we can be saved.

Now here’s the key: when you jump to 8:3, here’s what the author of Hebrews says—so this is coming after the author of Hebrews is saying that Jesus is our high priest who is exercising his priestly ministry forever, interceding for us in the heavenly sanctuary. Verse 3, he writes: “For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.” Now notice that the author of Hebrews is saying Jesus our high priest, as high priest in the heavenly sanctuary, must have a gift to offer in his heavenly priestly ministry.

Now which offering could that possibly be? It can’t be some distinct offering that he’s offering to his Father in this heavenly priestly ministry, because that would imply that his sacrifice on the cross was insufficient, which is absurd given revelation. So, what is it that he’s offering? What is the gift? What is the offering that he’s making present to the Father? It is his One sacrifice on the cross. But notice, that He’s making it present to the Father in the heavenly sanctuary in a different manner—in an unbloody manner. And we as Catholics are saying the Mass is simply that reality of Jesus making his one sacrifice present to the Father in an unbloody manner; that reality becomes present on the altar every time we go to Mass, and that’s the reality. You keep arguing “Context” “Context” “Context”, well I’ve just given you 100% context.



No, you have got this totally wrong and totally mis-representing what St Ignatius is saying.

St Ignatius is refuting Docetism which was a Christian heresy that affirmed that Christ did not have a real or natural body during His life on earth. Ignatius speaks of Christ having flesh, But he also points out this flesh of Christ is also denied by heretics to be the Eucharist. Two things, 1. Denying Jesus didn’t come in the flesh and 2. Denying the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ…But nice try buddy.

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”. —
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6

Here Ignatius equates the Eucharist to the same flesh of Christ that suffered for our sake on the cross. Jesus also uses this literal comparison when he explained, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).



Tertullian was not considered a church father in early Christianity. Tertullian died a Montanist Heretic. Tertullian taught heresy on many basic Christian beliefs. I’m not sure why you would use a Heretic like Tertullian to justify your beliefs. A Heretic loses credibility. But that doesn’t really matter for our purpose here, because he clearly did believe in the Real Presence anyway.

When Tertullian uses the term “figurative” he does not mean to deny the real presence. Tertullian is emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.

With Tertullian, all we have to do is go on reading in the very document quoted above by you to get a sense of how he is using the term “figure,” and it is entirely Catholic. Notice what he goes on to say:

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body…”

Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretending the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it.

Tertullian makes clear in multiple places that he believed that Jesus communicated his true body and blood under the “figures” or appearances of bread and wine:

  • On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ca. AD 200), chapter 8.
  • On Prayer, Of Stations (Fasting), chapter 19.
  • On Modesty, chapter 9.



This is a very poor understanding of the English language on your behalf. Origen states “we have a symbol of gratitude”. It’s a Symbol of our “Thank You” to God, Origen doesn’t say it’s ONLY a symbol of the body/flesh of Christ, but says it’s a symbol of gratitude. Protestants always uses the Either/OR approach, why not Both/And?

The Catholic Church has always understood the Eucharist both to employ “figures” or “symbols” AND to be God’s instrument to communicate the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, in his substantial reality, under the accidents or appearances of bread and wine to the people of God for their spiritual sustenance. The answer is both/and not either/Or.

Your quote of Origen doesn’t prove anything
I'll send you a private when I get a chance mate, buy I'll try to respond to these points you've raised one by one here publicly over the next few days as I'm very time poor at the moment and will be for some time in the future.
 

Caveman

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,563
Reaction score
4,393
At the Last Supper..no more clearer than that..
To simplify it, Jesus Himself said "do this in memory of Me".

That's more than enough for me...
That's exactly the point, communion is in remembrance of what Christ did, making Christ's finished work on the cross the high point of communion not communion itself.
 

Kelpie03

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
3,223
This is the bible reading from Christian vision media for Monday 12th June, I thought it might help athiests to understand what true Christians stand for.
Taken from 2 Corinthians 5:20;
Your job in the kindom of God is that of an ambassador. What a privilege, and what a responsibility. Over the next few days, lets look at some of the responsibility of an ambassador. You must be a citizen of the Country you represent. But your citizenship is in Heaven (phillippians 3:20. Exiled John said I .... was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. On the Lords day I was in the spirit.... (Revelations 1. 9-10). John knew it was not where he was but whose he was that counted the most as he represented his Lord. Your life is the only bible many people will ever read. From your lips, they will ever receive the only Gospel they ever hear. And your attitude may do more to win them .than all your arguments.
Before he was crucified Jesus prayed this prayer for his Disciples: I do not pray that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth. As you sent them into the world. I also have sent them into the world' ( john: 15-18). Before an ambassador is appointed , he or she goes through the closest scrutiny imaginable. Their moral integerity, their family life, their work record, their very word and action come under the microscope. Shouldn't it be more so for the King of Kings? never forget whose side your on. Never forget what kingdom you belong to . Never forget who you represent. You are Christs ambassador.
 

The DoggFather

OG DF
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
106,385
Reaction score
117,485
This is the bible reading from Christian vision media for Monday 12th June, I thought it might help athiests to understand what true Christians stand for.
Taken from 2 Corinthians 5:20;
Your job in the kindom of God is that of an ambassador. What a privilege, and what a responsibility. Over the next few days, lets look at some of the responsibility of an ambassador. You must be a citizen of the Country you represent. But your citizenship is in Heaven (phillippians 3:20. Exiled John said I .... was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. On the Lords day I was in the spirit.... (Revelations 1. 9-10). John knew it was not where he was but whose he was that counted the most as he represented his Lord. Your life is the only bible many people will ever read. From your lips, they will ever receive the only Gospel they ever hear. And your attitude may do more to win them .than all your arguments.
Before he was crucified Jesus prayed this prayer for his Disciples: I do not pray that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth. As you sent them into the world. I also have sent them into the world' ( john: 15-18). Before an ambassador is appointed , he or she goes through the closest scrutiny imaginable. Their moral integerity, their family life, their work record, their very word and action come under the microscope. Shouldn't it be more so for the King of Kings? never forget whose side your on. Never forget what kingdom you belong to . Never forget who you represent. You are Christs ambassador.
I like this.

What burns me these days with some believers, they act more like ambassadors of hell rather than heaven.

Quick to condemn people to hell rather than help them get to heaven.
 

Kelpie03

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
3,223
This is the reading from Vision Christian media for Tuesday 13 June.
YOU ARE CHRISTS AMBASSADOR PART (2):
'finally be strong in the lord and his mighty power'
.A decade ago our ideas about being an ambassador were radically altered when the US ambassador in Lidya was murdered by terrorists. It takes a special person to be an ambassador in a combat zone. And thats what you are in/ Paul writes: Finally be strong in the Lord and his mighty power. Put on the full armour of God, so that you can take your stand against the devils schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armour of God, so when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything to stand.
Stand firm then with the belt of honour around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet lifted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace, in addition to all this take up your shield of faith, with which you can extingish all the flaming arrors of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occassions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lords people."(Eph 6: 10-18). As an ambassador of Christ your loyality must always be to Him in all your dealings, to be disloyal is treasonous. You say. That is a high standard/ Yes it's a high calling' (see Philippians3:14) , It's also the most rewarding life you can live.
 

Tassie Devil

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
17,045
Reaction score
14,787
Is it wrong when the Mrs makes me cum that I shout out "Oh God"? Am I using the Lord's name in vain?
 

Kelpie03

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
3,223
Is it wrong when the Mrs makes me cum that I shout out "Oh God"? Am I using the Lord's name in vain?
Depends how and in what context you use the word God, Clericks have often frowned on those using the word but I would think that saying, "O my God please help me" in some circumstances should be OK.
I have heard an athiests say, "thank God I don't believe in God".
 

Dogna88

Kennel Addict
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
7,553
Reaction score
6,701
Was having a discussion today. Interesting questions arose.

If we design a robot to be selfless and programmed it to bring about what we the programs believe to be fairness. As the robout goes about its business fulfilling its programming and procuring fairness. Could you call it a moral agent when its just fulfilling commands of its programming?
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
Was having a discussion today. Interesting questions arose.

If we design a robot to be selfless and programmed it to bring about what we the programs believe to be fairness. As the robout goes about its business fulfilling its programming and procuring fairness. Could you call it a moral agent when its just fulfilling commands of its programming?
That's much like the Chinese Room thought experiment. In the case of the Chinese Room, the robot (or AI) could pass the Turning Test, but still be just a basic program carrying out instructions.
 

XPICATE

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
May 15, 2023
Messages
2,328
Reaction score
567

Memberberries

Desball 4 life
Gilded
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
22,345
Reaction score
2,675
The lawnmower man is now a reality.
That's such an awesome movie.
Way ahead of its time.
 

Memberberries

Desball 4 life
Gilded
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
22,345
Reaction score
2,675
Btw Noah Harari.
Isn't he that ugly Klaus Schwab homosexual Muppet who outright said he wants to hack the human mind and control humanity?


Let me guess, he never said it and I'm a conspiracy theorist?
Even though it was recorded and a room full of people watched and listened as he actually said it!
 

The DoggFather

OG DF
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
106,385
Reaction score
117,485
Btw Noah Harari.
Isn't he that ugly Klaus Schwab homosexual Muppet who outright said he wants to hack the human mind and control humanity?


Let me guess, he never said it and I'm a conspiracy theorist?
Even though it was recorded and a room full of people watched and listened as he actually said it!
Little Jewish homosexual gimp. 100% he is Anal Schwabs play toy.

Those 2 pole smokers are Dr Evil and Mini Me.
 
Top