Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Florida Christians protest atheist billboard

Page 9 of 13 [ 206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Aug 2009, 12:51 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Holy foods, therefore, play a great part in religious dogma - the wafers and wine of Catholicism, the matzos of the Jewish faith and all those peculiar tasty dishes of the Seder etc.


I don't think the communion of the Catholics compares quite so well with the Pesach meal. Catholicism has the belief of the communion elements becoming the body and blood of Christ. Jesus had said, "do this in remembrance of me" where the wine at Pesach and the unleavened bread represented his blood shed and his body broken, not that they literally were. For non-Christian Jewish people, the Pesach meal doesn't carry the same significance, but only the exodus from Egypt.


I suppose it's a matter of whether one should revere digestive nostalgia over symbolic cannibalism.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 1:12 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Holy foods, therefore, play a great part in religious dogma - the wafers and wine of Catholicism, the matzos of the Jewish faith and all those peculiar tasty dishes of the Seder etc.


I don't think the communion of the Catholics compares quite so well with the Pesach meal. Catholicism has the belief of the communion elements becoming the body and blood of Christ. Jesus had said, "do this in remembrance of me" where the wine at Pesach and the unleavened bread represented his blood shed and his body broken, not that they literally were. For non-Christian Jewish people, the Pesach meal doesn't carry the same significance, but only the exodus from Egypt.


I suppose it's a matter of whether one should revere digestive nostalgia over symbolic cannibalism.


Would you rather that Christianity had continued the ancient practice of animal sacrifice instead?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Aug 2009, 1:18 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Holy foods, therefore, play a great part in religious dogma - the wafers and wine of Catholicism, the matzos of the Jewish faith and all those peculiar tasty dishes of the Seder etc.


I don't think the communion of the Catholics compares quite so well with the Pesach meal. Catholicism has the belief of the communion elements becoming the body and blood of Christ. Jesus had said, "do this in remembrance of me" where the wine at Pesach and the unleavened bread represented his blood shed and his body broken, not that they literally were. For non-Christian Jewish people, the Pesach meal doesn't carry the same significance, but only the exodus from Egypt.


I suppose it's a matter of whether one should revere digestive nostalgia over symbolic cannibalism.


Would you rather that Christianity had continued the ancient practice of animal sacrifice instead?


You mean it's an either or? Why must one confirm one's faith by symbolically or actually killing and eating something? It's that stomach thing I mentioned. I prefer the nervous system to the digestive system.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 1:25 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Holy foods, therefore, play a great part in religious dogma - the wafers and wine of Catholicism, the matzos of the Jewish faith and all those peculiar tasty dishes of the Seder etc.


I don't think the communion of the Catholics compares quite so well with the Pesach meal. Catholicism has the belief of the communion elements becoming the body and blood of Christ. Jesus had said, "do this in remembrance of me" where the wine at Pesach and the unleavened bread represented his blood shed and his body broken, not that they literally were. For non-Christian Jewish people, the Pesach meal doesn't carry the same significance, but only the exodus from Egypt.


I suppose it's a matter of whether one should revere digestive nostalgia over symbolic cannibalism.


Would you rather that Christianity had continued the ancient practice of animal sacrifice instead?


You mean it's an either or? Why must one confirm one's faith by symbolically or actually killing and eating something? It's that stomach thing I mentioned. I prefer the nervous system to the digestive system.


There's also the opposite of eating, fasting. But then you also have things which are unrelated to the stomach, such as reading, singing, praying, ...

As for Christ's once-for-all sacrifice compared to a few hundred sacrifices per day, which would you choose?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Aug 2009, 1:40 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Holy foods, therefore, play a great part in religious dogma - the wafers and wine of Catholicism, the matzos of the Jewish faith and all those peculiar tasty dishes of the Seder etc.


I don't think the communion of the Catholics compares quite so well with the Pesach meal. Catholicism has the belief of the communion elements becoming the body and blood of Christ. Jesus had said, "do this in remembrance of me" where the wine at Pesach and the unleavened bread represented his blood shed and his body broken, not that they literally were. For non-Christian Jewish people, the Pesach meal doesn't carry the same significance, but only the exodus from Egypt.


I suppose it's a matter of whether one should revere digestive nostalgia over symbolic cannibalism.


Would you rather that Christianity had continued the ancient practice of animal sacrifice instead?


You mean it's an either or? Why must one confirm one's faith by symbolically or actually killing and eating something? It's that stomach thing I mentioned. I prefer the nervous system to the digestive system.



There's also the opposite of eating, fasting. But then you also have things which are unrelated to the stomach, such as reading, singing, praying, ...

As for Christ's once-for-all sacrifice compared to a few hundred sacrifices per day, which would you choose?




Christ's sacrifice? What sacrifice?
The guy, according to the faithful, had a rather rough dying not comparable to what the ordinary cancer patient endures in final stages or what people in Africa or the US Guantanamo go through and then sailed off to join his father as ruler of the universe. Seems to me he had a rather good deal. And this is an excuse to callously murder innocent domestic animals who were raised as children and cared for for their whole lives and expected only kindness? The extent that humans use odd fantasies to justify needless cruelty always amazes me.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 1:45 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Holy foods, therefore, play a great part in religious dogma - the wafers and wine of Catholicism, the matzos of the Jewish faith and all those peculiar tasty dishes of the Seder etc.


I don't think the communion of the Catholics compares quite so well with the Pesach meal. Catholicism has the belief of the communion elements becoming the body and blood of Christ. Jesus had said, "do this in remembrance of me" where the wine at Pesach and the unleavened bread represented his blood shed and his body broken, not that they literally were. For non-Christian Jewish people, the Pesach meal doesn't carry the same significance, but only the exodus from Egypt.


I suppose it's a matter of whether one should revere digestive nostalgia over symbolic cannibalism.


Would you rather that Christianity had continued the ancient practice of animal sacrifice instead?


You mean it's an either or? Why must one confirm one's faith by symbolically or actually killing and eating something? It's that stomach thing I mentioned. I prefer the nervous system to the digestive system.



There's also the opposite of eating, fasting. But then you also have things which are unrelated to the stomach, such as reading, singing, praying, ...

As for Christ's once-for-all sacrifice compared to a few hundred sacrifices per day, which would you choose?




Christ's sacrifice? What sacrifice?
The guy, according to the faithful, had a rather rough dying not comparable to what the ordinary cancer patient endures in final stages or what people in Africa or the US Guantanamo go through and then sailed off to join his father as ruler of the universe. Seems to me he had a rather good deal. And this is an excuse to callously murder innocent domestic animals who were raised as children and cared for for their whole lives and expected only kindness? The extent that humans use odd fantasies to justify needless cruelty always amazes me.


I think I either wrote something in a confusing manner or you did... you know my vote...



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Aug 2009, 1:49 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

As for Christ's once-for-all sacrifice compared to a few hundred sacrifices per day, which would you choose?


You call the Roman murder of a Jewish preacher and once-for-all sacrifice? Jesus was crucified by the Romans for being a political pain in the ass, a rather brutal act. It took the deranged followers of Jesus to construe this act as a sacrifice.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 1:51 am

Christ's sacrifice was that he, as God taking on human flesh, gave up his divine rights and allowed himself to be executed on Passover to be our Passover lamb. I'm sure you know what I'm referring to, but I'm also sure you're just going to reply with a bunch of derogatory and degrading remarks strung together in a manner not more consistent or coherent than graffiti tagged on railroad cars in 20 different languages.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 1:56 am

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

As for Christ's once-for-all sacrifice compared to a few hundred sacrifices per day, which would you choose?


You call the Roman murder of a Jewish preacher and once-for-all sacrifice? Jesus was crucified by the Romans for being a political pain in the ass, a rather brutal act. It took the deranged followers of Jesus to construe this act as a sacrifice.

ruveyn


It fit with Isaiah 53 and Daniels "seventy sevens", a lot of the relevant prophecies are referenced in the books of Matthew and Luke beside the accounts of events.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Aug 2009, 2:01 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

It fit with Isaiah 53 and Daniels "seventy sevens", a lot of the relevant prophecies are referenced in the books of Matthew and Luke beside the accounts of events.


These so-called prophecies were taken out of context. And most of the so-called prophets were mental cases.

ruveyn



mgran
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,864

19 Aug 2009, 2:08 am

ruveyn, I assume that you have studied the Bible in depth, and are a qualified psychologist, with a sub specialty in historical research?

I was just posting to say, having read the OP, I'm a Christian, and I wouldn't protest against the sign. In a country with freedom of speech, people should be free to say whatever they want, even if I don't agree with it.

If people feel so strongly about it, they could use their right to reply, and design their own poster. :idea:



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

19 Aug 2009, 2:10 am

Sand wrote:
Nobody accused you of being a bigot. You are obviously a biogt.

Actually, that seems contradictory, the former statement contradicts the latter.
P and not P

Also, this.....
Sand wrote:
What you have to understand is that the above poster is notoriously an anti-atheist biogt.
It seems someone already have done that, isn't it?

Quote:
If you don't know what that is you're in trouble.
I gather you have no idea what a biogt is either. Shame on you.

First, someone disagreeing with you about where and when bigotry applies doesn't mean they don't know the definition of it, they just don't agree with you.
Second, they can accuse you of bigotry as well, given your reaction and the way you present your arguments.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Aug 2009, 2:18 am

greenblue wrote:
Sand wrote:
Nobody accused you of being a bigot. You are obviously a biogt.

Actually, that seems contradictory, the former statement contradicts the latter.
P and not P

Also, this.....
Sand wrote:
What you have to understand is that the above poster is notoriously an anti-atheist biogt.
It seems someone already have done that, isn't it?

Quote:
If you don't know what that is you're in trouble.
I gather you have no idea what a biogt is either. Shame on you.

First, someone disagreeing with you about where and when bigotry applies doesn't mean they don't know the definition of it, they just don't agree with you.
Second, they can accuse you of bigotry as well, given your reaction and the way you present your arguments.


You obviously are unaware of my succeeding cogent posts outlining the logic of the situation.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2009, 2:26 am

greenblue wrote:
Actually, that seems contradictory, the former statement contradicts the latter.
P and not P

The question is whether accusing someone and stating a supposedly obvious fact are the same thing. If they are conceptually different in Sand's mind then Sand didn't engage in contradiction in those two sentences.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 2:26 am

Sand wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Sand wrote:
Nobody accused you of being a bigot. You are obviously a biogt.

Actually, that seems contradictory, the former statement contradicts the latter.
P and not P

Also, this.....
Sand wrote:
What you have to understand is that the above poster is notoriously an anti-atheist biogt.
It seems someone already have done that, isn't it?

Quote:
If you don't know what that is you're in trouble.
I gather you have no idea what a biogt is either. Shame on you.

First, someone disagreeing with you about where and when bigotry applies doesn't mean they don't know the definition of it, they just don't agree with you.
Second, they can accuse you of bigotry as well, given your reaction and the way you present your arguments.


You obviously are unaware of my succeeding cogent posts outlining the logic of the situation.


No, that was defining an acronym which has the same basic meaning as the actual spelling.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 2:31 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Actually, that seems contradictory, the former statement contradicts the latter.
P and not P

The question is whether accusing someone and stating a supposedly obvious fact are the same thing. If they are conceptually different in Sand's mind then Sand didn't engage in contradiction in those two sentences.


Engaging in contradiction within one's own mind is a tricky thing.

By Sand defining bio-g-t to be essentially identical in meaning, perhaps with a few quintillion extra derogatory connotations than the actual spelling of bi-got, his stating of ShadowGirl as being obviously one such person is an accusation of a sort, while in the previous sentence he said that she wasn't accused of being one.