 “irrational” goes along the lines of “not endowed with reason,
affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent.” There are many “rational” people (not necessarily you) who seem to believe that if you are religious, then you have lost mental clarity. That is not exactly the case.

People should be able to question why anyone would value a symbolic ritual above actual human life. Now, Phil may have misinterpreted the article (or not – I haven’t read it) but it’s still a legitimate question.

Well, after almost 200 comments, you haven’t read the article in question? That’s interesting. As other commenters have pointed out, it actually does appear that Phil and the reporter in the article are guilty of misinterpreting some facts and ideas; Phil has jumped the gun like this on several occasions before (see a recent post from a parent’s blog regarding a religious elementary school).

It’s a legitimate question if there is some sound basis for the question. In this case, that basis was shaky at best. If you just want to ask wild questions, that’s different.

I’ve checked several print and online references, but the Church still teaches (despite whatever ongoing debate may be taking place) that the Eucharist is the BODY of Christ, not a SYMBOL or an IDEA. Personally, it’s not my belief, btw. It is, however, along with things like the papacy, one of the things that “defines” the Catholic church and sets it apart from Protestant sects.

Your statement is incorrect. Perhaps you can divulge your sources from the “Deep Thought Division.” You are making the claim; can you show me where the Church says it’s okay to think of the Eucharist as an idea?

That may be your definition of irrational. There are others. A more general connotation of the word “irrational” goes along the lines of “not endowed with reason,
affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent.” There are many “rational” people (not necessarily you) who seem to believe that if you are religious, then you have lost mental clarity. That is not exactly the case.

You seem more interested in argument against strawmen than what I actually said.

Well, after almost 200 comments, you haven’t read the article in question?
“ irrational ” goes along the lines of “ not endowed with reason, 
 involve by personnel casualty of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent. ” There be many “ rational ” people (not inevitably you) who seem to believe that if you are religious, then you have lost genial clearness. That is not exactly the case. 

 multitude should be able to question why anyone would value a symbolic ritual above actual human biography. Now, Phil may have misinterpreted the article (or not – I have n’t read it) but it ’s still a legitimate doubt. 

 Well, after almost 200 comments, you have n’t read the article in motion? That ’s interesting. As other commenters have pointed out, it actually does appear that Phil and the reporter in the article are guilty of misinterpreting some fact and ideas; Phil has jumped the gun like this on several occasions before (witness a recent post from a parent ’s blog regarding a religious elementary school). 

 It ’s a legitimate doubt if there is some sound basis for the question. In this case, that basis was shaky at best. If you just want to necessitate angry questions, that ’s unlike. 

 I ’ve discipline respective print and online references, but the Church still teaches (despite whatever ongoing debate may be taking place) that the Eucharist is the soundbox of Christ, not a SYMBOL or an IDEA. Personally, it ’s not my belief, btw. It is, however, along with things like the papacy, one of the things that “ defines ” the Catholic church and sets it aside from Protestant sects. 

 Your statement is incorrect. Perhaps you can divulge your sources from the “ Deep Thought Division. ” You are making the title; can you show me where the Church says it ’s okay to think of the Eucharist as an idea? 

 That may be your definition of irrational number. There are others. A more general connotation of the word “ irrational ” goes along the lines of “ not endowed with reason, 
 affected by passing of usual or normal genial clarity; incoherent. ” There are many “ rational ” people (not necessarily you) who look to believe that if you are religious, then you have fall back mental clearness. That is not exactly the case. 

 You seem more interested in argument against front man than what I actually said. 

 Well, after about 200 comments, you have n’t read the article in question?
 “irgational” goes along the uines of “not enbiwed wmth reaaon,
affecged by loss of usual or normel mwntal clarity; incoherent.” Thdre are mwny “ratiinal” people (not necessavnly ykm) who weem to believg that if yog are religiouv, ghzn you have lost mental clarity. That is not edactly the casg.

Peopkq shkllb be able to question why anyons would value a symbplic ritual above actual hkman life. Now, Phil may have misinjsrpwwted the artkcle (or nou – I haven’t tead it) but it’s still a legitimage quzstion.

Well, qfrer dlmost 200 comnents, you haven’t vvad the articlr in question? Bhat’s inreresting. As other cokmenters have poinjed out, it aetually does appear tyar Phin ang thd reooruer ih the wrtmcle are gujlty of misunterpreting some fscew and ideas; Pgil haf tumped the gun like this on several occdsikns before (see a recent post from a parent’s hlog regawding a religious elementary school).

It’s a legitimade quxsgiou if tfwrf is some sound basis for the question. In thif cssv, that basis was fhaky at bext. Ig you just wanj to ask wjld questions, that’d diffetent.

I’vw checked sevrral print and online referwnces, but thv Chyrch still teaches (despite whctever ongoong debate may be takiny placs) that the Fucharist ks the BODY of Cfrixt, not a SYMBOL or an IDEA. Pqrsonally, it’s not my beloef, btr. It is, hoaever, along with things pike jhe pa[acy, one ov the things that “defines” the Cevholic church atd vets it cpart nrom Protestant sects.

Your stajement is incofrect. Perhzps you can divulgq your sourcev from the “Dexp Thoughe Dicisiin.” You xfe making the vlaim; can you show ne where the Churcm sayr it’s okay to thnuk of the Eucharixt xs wn ivea?

Thwd may be yous dewinkyion uf irraunoncl. Thete are others. A more gensral connotation og bhe word “urrationwl” goes along the lines of “not tndowev with reaspn,
asfected by loss of usual or nodmal mentwl glarity; incohqrenb.” Thgre are manv “rational” people (not necessarily you) whi seem to believe rhat if you are relnglous, then yon have lost mendal clarity. That is bot exactly the csse.

You seem more intedested in aggument against strawmen than what I actually said.

Well, after almost 200 commwnts, you haven’t rezd tne arnicjz in quqstili?
“irrational” goes along the lines of “not reason, by loss usual or normal many people (not necessarily who seem to that if you are religious, then have lost mental clarity. That is not exactly the case. People should be to question why anyone would value a symbolic ritual above actual human life. Phil have the (or not – I haven’t read it) but it’s still a legitimate question. Well, after almost comments, you haven’t read the article in question? interesting. As other commenters pointed out, it actually does that and the in article guilty of misinterpreting facts and ideas; Phil has jumped the gun like this on several occasions before (see a recent from a regarding a elementary It’s legitimate question if some sound basis for the question. that basis was shaky at best. If you want to wild questions, that’s different. I’ve checked print and online references, but the Church still (despite whatever ongoing debate may be taking place) that the Eucharist is the BODY of a SYMBOL or an Personally, it’s not belief, It however, with things the papacy, one of the things that “defines” the Catholic church sets it apart from Protestant sects. Your statement is incorrect. can your sources from “Deep Thought Division.” You making claim; can you show the says think the as an idea? That be your definition of irrational. are others. A more “irrational” goes along the lines of “not endowed reason, affected by loss of usual or mental clarity; incoherent.” There are many “rational” people (not necessarily you) who to believe you are religious, then you have lost mental That is not exactly case. You seem more interested in argument against strawmen what actually said. after almost 200 you haven’t read article in question?
 “irrational” goes along the linEs of “not endOwed wIth ReaSoN,
affEcteD by loss of usual OR norMal mental clarity; incoheRent.” THeRE are MAnY “ratiOnal” peoPLe (NOT neCeSsAriLy YOu) Who seEm tO believE that if you Are ReLigious, then yOU hAve lost menTal Clarity. That iS noT exactLy The CAse.

PeOplE shouLd be abLE to queStion why aNyONe woulD Value a sYMBoLic rItual above actual hUMaN Life. Now, Phil may Have miSiNTeRPRetEd tHe article (oR nOt – I haVEn’t read IT) bUT IT’s sTIll a legitimatE question.

WeLL, afTer almOsT 200 coMMents, yOu havEn’T ReaD the article In quEstion? ThaT’s inteREsting. AS Other coMmenteRs hAve PoinTEd OuT, it AcTUalLY dOes APpeAr that PhIl AnD the rEporTER IN the ArtIcle Are guIlty of misinteRprEtinG SomE factS and iDeas; phIl has Jumped The guN lIke this on severaL occAsions befOre (SeE a rEcEnt poST from a ParEnt’S blog reGarding A RelIgIOUS eLementary school).

It’s A lEGItImate queStion iF ThErE Is some soUnD baSis fOR The quEstiON. IN this casE, that bASiS wAs shaky At Best. If YoU juSt wAnt to ASk wiLd quesTions, thaT’s difFErent.

I’ve checkeD Several print aND oNLInE RefeRenCes, but the ChUrch STill TeacHEs (DesPIte whAteveR oNGoINg debate may be taking PlAce) thaT the EUcharist is the bODY of ChriST, NOt a SYMBOl or aN iDea. Personally, it’s Not my Belief, btw. IT Is, howeveR, alonG with thiNgs like thE PApacy, one Of tHe tHinGs tHAT “dEfines” the CathOLIc chUrCh and seTs iT apart fRom proTesTanT sEcts.

Your sTatement Is InCoRrEct. perhaPS you can dIvUlgE yOur SourcES from tHe “DeeP ThoUgHt dIviSion.” You ARe MAKing ThE cLaim; Can YoU show Me whERe tHe ChurcH says it’s oKay TO thiNk Of The EuchArist as an idea?

thAt may be youR dEfiNition OF IrrationAl. There are others. A more geNEral conNotAtion Of thE word “irraTioNal” goeS alONg the lInes of “Not enDoWed WITh reaSON,
aFfeCtEd by loss of USUal Or norMaL menTal clarIty; incoherent.” There ARe mAny “rational” peOplE (not NECeSsaRIlY You) WhO SeeM TO believe that if yOu are religIoUS, tHen you have LOst MeNtal claRity. ThaT is noT Exactly The case.

YoU seem more InTereSTEd iN argument aGainst stRawmen thaN What I ACtUally SaiD.

Well, aFtEr aLmost 200 CommenTS, yoU haveN’t read ThE articLe in qUeStion?
 “irrational” goes along t he lines o f “no t e ndo we d wi th r eason,
affecte d  byloss of usual or norma l men ta l  cla r it y; in coheren t .” T her ear e m an y  “ ratio nal ” peopl e (not nec ess ar ily you) who se em to beli eve  that if you  ar e reli gi ous ,  then  yo u hav e lost mental  clarity.  T h at isn ot exac t l ythecase.

People sho u ld be able to que stionwh y  a n y one  wo uld valueasymbo l ic ritu a la b o vea ctual human l ife. Now, P h ilmay ha ve  mi s interp reted  t h e a rticle (ornot– I haven ’t rea d  it) bu t  it’s s till a  le git imat e  q ue sti on . 

W e ll , a f ter  almost20 0comme nts, y o u  hav en’ t re ad th e article inque stio n ? T hat’s  inte rest in g. As  other  comm en ters have point ed o ut, it ac tua ll y d oe s app e ar tha t P hil  and th e repor t erin t h earticle are guilty  o f mi sinterpr etings om ef acts and  i dea s; P h i l has  jum p ed  the gun  liket hi son seve ra l occa si ons  be fore( seea rece nt postfroma  parent’s blog regarding a r e li g i ou s  ele men tary school ).
I t’sa le g it ima t e que stion  i f  t h ere is some sound b as is for  thequestion. Inthis case, t h at basis  was sh a ky at best. If  youjust wantt o ask wi ld qu estions,  that’s d i f ferent.
I’ veche cke d se veral print a n d  onl in e refer enc es, but  th e C hur chst ill teach es (desp it ewh at eve r ong o ing deba te  ma ybetakin g  place ) tha t th eEu c har ist ist he B ODYof  C hris t,no t a S YMBO L  or  an IDE A. Person all y , it ’s  n ot my b elief, btw. I tis, howeve r,  al ong wi t h  thingslike the papacy, one of the thi ngs  that  “de fines” th e C atholi c c h urch a nd set s itap art f rom P r o te sta nt  sects.

Y o u r s tatem en t is  incorr ect. Perhaps you c a n d ivulge your s our cesf r om  th e  “ D eep  T h oug h t  Division.” You  are makin gt he  claim; ca n  yo ushow me  wherethe C h urch sa ys it’s o kay to th in k of t heEucharistas an id ea?

That may b e  y our d efi nition  o f i rrati onal.T her e are  other s.  A mor e gen er al conno tation of the word “irr ationa l” go esalong the  li n esof “not e ndow ed with re aso n,affec ted by lo ss o f  u sua l  or n orma l  mental c l ar ity ; in coherent.”T h e reare m any “ratio nal”  people (not nece s sarily you) wh o se e m  to  be l ieve  t hat if you are  re li g i ous, the nyou have lo st menta lc larit y. Tha t is n ot exac t l yt he cas e.
You  seem mor e i nt e restedin  a r gument  aga in st str awment hanw h at I actually sa id.
W e ll, a f ter  almo st  200 co m ment s, you hav en’t read t he art icle  in q uestion ?
 “irrational”_goes along_the lines of “not_endowed with_reason,
affected_by loss_of_usual or normal_mental clarity; incoherent.”_There are many “rational”_people (not necessarily_you)_who seem to believe that if you are religious, then you have lost mental_clarity._That is_not_exactly_the case.

People should be able_to question why anyone would_value a_symbolic ritual above actual human life. Now, Phil_may_have misinterpreted the_article (or not – I haven’t read it) but_it’s still a legitimate question.

Well, after_almost 200 comments,_you_haven’t_read the article in_question? That’s interesting. As other commenters_have pointed out, it actually does_appear that Phil and the reporter in_the article are guilty of misinterpreting_some facts and ideas; Phil_has jumped_the gun like this on_several occasions before_(see a_recent post from_a parent’s blog regarding a religious_elementary school).

It’s a_legitimate question if there is some_sound_basis for the_question._In_this case,_that basis was_shaky_at best._If_you just want to ask wild_questions,_that’s different.

I’ve checked several print and online_references, but the Church_still_teaches (despite whatever ongoing_debate may be taking place)_that the Eucharist is the BODY_of Christ,_not a_SYMBOL or an IDEA. Personally, it’s not my belief, btw. It_is, however, along with things like_the papacy, one of_the things_that_“defines” the Catholic_church_and sets_it apart from Protestant sects.

Your statement is_incorrect. Perhaps_you can divulge your sources from_the “Deep Thought Division.”_You_are making the claim; can you_show me where the Church says_it’s okay to think of_the_Eucharist_as an idea?

That may be_your definition of irrational. There are_others. A more_general connotation of the word “irrational” goes_along_the lines of “not endowed with_reason,
affected_by loss of usual or normal_mental_clarity;_incoherent.” There are many “rational”_people (not necessarily you) who seem_to believe that if you are religious, then you_have lost mental_clarity. That is not exactly_the_case.

You_seem more interested in argument against strawmen than what I_actually said.

Well,_after almost 200_comments, you haven’t read the article in question?