USA Today/Pew Forum - "Catholics don't know shit"

[D1B]

[
You cannibals eat the flesh and drink the blood of your man god zombie every Sunday - fact.

Thank you for so succinctly pointing out the anti-Catholic bigotry which is implicit is this oversimplified statement of Catholic belief. You've made my point.

Yep, in your world Joe.

You answered the question correctly. Remember your perfect score?

Just own it and quit making excuses. You can't hide.

No one respects you here.

[JoltinJoe]

Catholics were essentially set up to fail with this question. They got two bad answers, one of which is correct in a grossly oversimplified way and which is the gross simplification used by anti-Catholic bigots to accuse them of cannibalism. For that reason, it is not surprising that many Catholics would resist choosing the first option.

The best thing about this is that D1B helped to prove my point.

[Cap'n Cat]

Catholics were essentially set up to fail with this question. They got two bad answers, one of which is correct in a grossly oversimplified way and which is the gross simplification used by anti-Catholic bigots to accuse them of cannibalism. For that reason, it is not surprising that many Catholics would resist choosing the first option.

The best thing about this is that D1B helped to prove my point.

Joe,
Unrelated question and something I've always wondered about law - can you explain the concept of a "hostile witness". I comprehend the precept, but I am dark on details.

Thanks,

The Cap'n

[JoltinJoe]

Catholics were essentially set up to fail with this question. They got two bad answers, one of which is correct in a grossly oversimplified way and which is the gross simplification used by anti-Catholic bigots to accuse them of cannibalism. For that reason, it is not surprising that many Catholics would resist choosing the first option.

The best thing about this is that D1B helped to prove my point.

Joe,
Unrelated question and something I've always wondered about law - can you explain the concept of a "hostile witness". I comprehend the precept, but I am dark on details.

Thanks,

The Cap'n

Pay me my hourly rate and I'll explain it to you.

Otherwise, you'll have to ponder D1B's fate in this exchange and learn Socratically what it means to be a hostile witness.

[Cap'n Cat]

Joe,
Unrelated question and something I've always wondered about law - can you explain the concept of a "hostile witness". I comprehend the precept, but I am dark on details.

Thanks,

The Cap'n

I was serious, but, nevermind, I'll go look it up.

Pay me my hourly rate and I'll explain it to you.

Otherwise, you'll have to ponder D1B's fate in this exchange and learn Socratically what it means to be a hostile witness.

[JoltinJoe]

I was serious, but, nevermind, I'll go look it up.

Pay me my hourly rate and I'll explain it to you.

Otherwise, you'll have to ponder D1B's fate in this exchange and learn Socratically what it means to be a hostile witness.

You were being serious?

Ok, a hostile witness is a person who has information which is material to your case and whom you intend (more likely need) to call as a witness to support your case-in-chief or defense, but whose outlook on the case and/or his hopes for the outcome are not consistent with yours. (I say "need" because, generally speaking, a good trial attorney will only use as a hostile witness when there is no other source or way to get critical, material facts into evidence. When there are other ways or sources, an attorney does not need to get that information from a hostile witness. And, because the attorney cannot expect to control the hostile witness the way he can control his own witness, it is not a good idea to use the hostile witness).

However, in order for a court to rule that a witness is "hostile," it is not enough to show that the witness has a different outlook on the case, or that his hopes for the outcome are different than the attorney's hopes. The fact of "hostility" has to be demonstrated through evasion of questioning while on the stand. Therefore, after asking a number of questions which elicit evasive or irrelevant responses, the attorney may ask the court to declare the witness "hostile."

If the court agrees and rules that the witness is hostile, the attorney may now use leading questions and effectively "cross examine" the witness that he has called to the stand. Generally speaking, an attorney may not ask leading questions of witnesses that he calls to the stand, and may only use leading questions when examining the other side's witnesses. This rule changes once a witness is declared to be "hostile" to the party who called that witness.

[D1B]

Catholics were essentially set up to fail with this question. They got two bad answers, one of which is correct in a grossly oversimplified way and which is the gross simplification used by anti-Catholic bigots to accuse them of cannibalism. For that reason, it is not surprising that many Catholics would resist choosing the first option.

The best thing about this is that D1B helped to prove my point.

What were you taught?

The Pew forum has it for catholics!?

Joe, you got the answer correct, remember? You were bragging about it earlier, remember?

You can't hide, you cant evade, you can't set up strawmen, you can't smokescreen.

Catholics scored horribly in this survey - "Bottom of the class".

Atheists were at the top of the class.

[D1B]

Hen, what were you taught, regarding the eucharist?

Hogan, what were you taught, regarding the eucharist?

[JoltinJoe]

Hen, what were you taught, regarding the eucharist?

Hogan, what were you taught, regarding the eucharist?

Catholics believe that, upon consecration of the bread and wine, the substance of the bread and wine contain the actual presence of Jesus, while the bread and wine maintain their physical appearance. The actual presence of Christ, therefore, is a metaphysical claim. We do not believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in a physical or perceptible sense, as the question recites. To say that Catholics believe the bread and wine "actually become the body and blood of Christ" is a simplification of this concept of transubstantiation, which asserts that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed, not their physical appearance or attributes.

[Cap'n Cat]

You were being serious?

Ok, a hostile witness is a person who has information which is material to your case and whom you intend (more likely need) to call as a witness to support your case-in-chief or defense, but whose outlook on the case and/or his hopes for the outcome are not consistent with yours. (I say "need" because, generally speaking, a good trial attorney will only use as a hostile witness when there is no other source or way to get critical, material facts into evidence. When there are other ways or sources, an attorney does not need to get that information from a hostile witness. And, because the attorney cannot expect to control the hostile witness the way he can control his own witness, it is not a good idea to use the hostile witness).

However, in order for a court to rule that a witness is "hostile," it is not enough to show that the witness has a different outlook on the case, or that his hopes for the outcome are different than the attorney's hopes. The fact of "hostility" has to be demonstrated through evasion of questioning while on the stand. Therefore, after asking a number of questions which elicit evasive or irrelevant responses, the attorney may ask the court to declare the witness "hostile."

If the court agrees and rules that the witness is hostile, the attorney may now use leading questions and effectively "cross examine" the witness that he has called to the stand. Generally speaking, an attorney may not ask leading questions of witnesses that he calls to the stand, and may only use leading questions when examining the other side's witnesses. This rule changes once a witness is declared to be "hostile" to the party who called that witness.

Highlighted part was what I was missing. Was wondering why the word, "hostile"?

Gracias, Jose'!

[Cap'n Cat]

Hen, what were you taught, regarding the eucharist?

Hogan, what were you taught, regarding the eucharist?

Catholics believe that, upon consecration of the bread and wine, the substance of the bread and wine contain the actual presence of Jesus, while the bread and wine maintain their physical appearance. The actual presence of Christ, therefore, is a metaphysical claim. We do not believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in a physical or perceptible sense, as the question recites. To say that Catholics believe the bread and wine "actually become the body and blood of Christ" is a simplification of this concept of transubstantiation, which asserts that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed, not their physical appearance or attributes.

My HS girlfriends were all Catholic and had very nice tasting pussies. Does that make me cool in the eyes of Jesus?

[D1B]

Hen, what were you taught, regarding the eucharist?

Hogan, what were you taught, regarding the eucharist?

Catholics believe that, upon consecration of the bread and wine, the substance of the bread and wine contain the actual presence of Jesus, while the bread and wine maintain their physical appearance. The actual presence of Christ, therefore, is a metaphysical claim. We do not believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in a physical or perceptible sense, as the question recites. To say that Catholics believe the bread and wine "actually become the body and blood of Christ" is a simplification of this concept of transubstantiation, which asserts that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed, not their physical appearance or attributes.

Whiffed again Joe. Answer the question. Here it is again, with help.

What were you taught.

[D1B]

Hen, what were you taught, regarding the eucharist?

Hogan, what were you taught, regarding the eucharist?

Catholics believe that, upon consecration of the bread and wine, the substance of the bread and wine contain the actual presence of Jesus, while the bread and wine maintain their physical appearance. The actual presence of Christ, therefore, is a metaphysical claim. We do not believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in a physical or perceptible sense, as the question recites. To say that Catholics believe the bread and wine "actually become the body and blood of Christ" is a simplification of this concept of transubstantiation, which asserts that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed, not their physical appearance or attributes.

From John 6:53

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Sick cannibal fucks, the catholics....

[AZGrizFan]

Catholics believe that, upon consecration of the bread and wine, the substance of the bread and wine contain the actual presence of Jesus, while the bread and wine maintain their physical appearance. The actual presence of Christ, therefore, is a metaphysical claim. We do not believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in a physical or perceptible sense, as the question recites. To say that Catholics believe the bread and wine "actually become the body and blood of Christ" is a simplification of this concept of transubstantiation, which asserts that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed, not their physical appearance or attributes.

From John 6:53

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Sick cannibal fucks, the catholics....

D....when you quote bible verses like that and apply THAT context, you sound EXACTLY like (and thus appear no better than) those sick fundamentalist fucks who use the bible to warp the minds of their followers (see Jim Jones, et. al.) Your argument loses ALL validity and steam....

[D1B]

From John 6:53

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Sick cannibal fucks, the catholics....

D....when you quote bible verses like that and apply THAT context, you sound EXACTLY like (and thus appear no better than) those sick fundamentalist fucks who use the bible to warp the minds of their followers (see Jim Jones, et. al.) Your argument loses ALL validity and steam....

Z, you ever go to a catholic mass? Those idiots believe they're drinking the blood and eating the flesh of christ. It's the most important part of the mass.

Stay out of this shit Z, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Here, this may help you.

[youtube][/youtube]

[AZGrizFan]

D....when you quote bible verses like that and apply THAT context, you sound EXACTLY like (and thus appear no better than) those sick fundamentalist fucks who use the bible to warp the minds of their followers (see Jim Jones, et. al.) Your argument loses ALL validity and steam....

Z, you ever go to a catholic mass? Those idiots believe they're drinking the blood and eating the flesh of christ. It's the most important part of the mass.

Stay out of this shit Z, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Only for 16 years, Jim Jones. And never ONCE at communion did I think I was "drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Christ."

Maybe YOU did, and that might explain why you're so fucked up.

[D1B]

Z, you ever go to a catholic mass? Those idiots believe they're drinking the blood and eating the flesh of christ. It's the most important part of the mass.

Stay out of this shit Z, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Only for 16 years, Jim Jones. And never ONCE at communion did I think I was "drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Christ."

Maybe YOU did, and that might explain why you're so fucked up.

You lying sack of shit. Catholic my ass.

[AZGrizFan]

Only for 16 years, Jim Jones. And never ONCE at communion did I think I was "drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Christ."

Maybe YOU did, and that might explain why you're so fucked up.

You lying sack of shit. Catholic my ass.

WTF do you know, Denunzio?

Born and raised Irish Catholic. Now a non-practicing Catholic. Baptized a Catholic. Communion every Sunday for about 10 years. Never ONCE did I actually think that eucharist WAS the body of Christ. Or the wine actually WAS the blood of Christ.

GFY.

[D1B]

You lying sack of shit. Catholic my ass.

WTF do you know, Denunzio?

Born and raised Irish Catholic. Now a non-practicing Catholic. Baptized a Catholic. Communion every Sunday for about 10 years. Never ONCE did I actually think that eucharist WAS the body of Christ. Or the wine actually WAS the blood of Christ.

GFY.

No shit it's symbolic, but that aint what the church want's you to believe. What were you taught Z - so far none of the three stooges have answered. Maybe you will, honestly.....doubtful...

Also,Dipshit, pay attention to the thread title. This aint about you Liar Joe Jr.. This is about what your typical catholic dumbass knows or believes - which aint much, according to a highly respected research group.

[AZGrizFan]

WTF do you know, Denunzio?

Born and raised Irish Catholic. Now a non-practicing Catholic. Baptized a Catholic. Communion every Sunday for about 10 years. Never ONCE did I actually think that eucharist WAS the body of Christ. Or the wine actually WAS the blood of Christ.

GFY.

No shit it's symbolic, but that aint what the church want's you to believe. What were you taught Z - so far none of the three stooges have answered. Maybe you will, honestly.....doubtful...

Also,Dipshit, pay attention to the thread title. This aint about you Liar Joe Jr.. This is about what your typical catholic dumbass knows or believes - which aint much, according to a highly respected research group.

So you believe that Catholic churches in small towns all over the world are teaching their faithful that the eucharist is actually THE body of Christ?

Dude, you really ARE delusional.

[D1B]

No shit it's symbolic, but that aint what the church want's you to believe. What were you taught Z - so far none of the three stooges have answered. Maybe you will, honestly.....doubtful...

Also,Dipshit, pay attention to the thread title. This aint about you Liar Joe Jr.. This is about what your typical catholic dumbass knows or believes - which aint much, according to a highly respected research group.

So you believe that Catholic churches in small towns all over the world are teaching their faithful that the eucharist is actually THE body of Christ?

Dude, you really ARE delusional.

Answer the question Liar Joe Jr.

[AZGrizFan]

So you believe that Catholic churches in small towns all over the world are teaching their faithful that the eucharist is actually THE body of Christ?

Dude, you really ARE delusional.

Answer the question Liar Joe Jr.

Actually, I have. In fact, I respectfully submit myself as "Exhibit A" for "typical catholic dumbass", and I've NEVER thought what you're implying.

[D1B]

Answer the question Liar Joe Jr.

Actually, I have. In fact, I respectfully submit myself as "Exhibit A" for "typical catholic dumbass", and I've NEVER thought what you're implying.

What were you taught, Liar Joe Jr.