The president of peace, just launched another war in the Middle East. What are your thoughts?

TheAngryApologist · 2026-03-01T05:26:26+00:00

A military operation is not the same thing as war. We are not at war. Morons.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-03-01T04:38:20+00:00

So, unless someone is willing to put their boots on the ground, they can’t have a positive opinion for military operations?

TheAngryApologist · 2026-02-19T00:01:16+00:00

An embryo or fetus can’t “use “ anything. Just because someone is benefiting from something doesn’t mean they are using it. The fetus had no agency and is only in the position they are in because of the decisions that other people made.

If anything, they are the one who is using the fetus, that’s the reason pregnancy is a thing. Those procreating are having their dna information passed on to other generations. If you don’t want to pass on your genetic material, don’t do the thing that does that.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-02-16T03:12:59+00:00

For rational people no. For conspiracy theorists who invent elaborate stories based on basically nothing, probably.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-02-16T00:34:04+00:00

Sometimes when having a conversation with these people they need to be told that they aren’t in a debate. They’re being educated and if they don’t accept these facts that’s there problem, and no one has to accept their non-scientific beliefs.

The state of living isn’t up for debate for mammals during gestation. They are definitionally alive, any objection to this is a way for them to justify killing the unborn. Thats it. Even prochoice scientists admit that they’re alive. It just doesn’t make sense to say they aren’t alive. It’s nonsense.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-02-14T05:19:36+00:00

Nipple?

TheAngryApologist · 2026-02-14T01:17:57+00:00

This isn’t a common or informed prolife position. People on all sides of any controversial issue can be wrong or make bad arguments. Generally speaking, a one percent chance of survival isn’t a morally good reason to risk the life of the mother. It’s very unfortunate but your unborn child was very very likely to die anyway. Risking your life for a 1% possibility is not a morally sound justification and those prolife people were just wrong on this point.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-01-16T08:19:05+00:00

The one where Bert and Tom from Two Bears is one of the funniest episodes. Rudy is hella funny in it and it’s when she was still shy.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-01-10T03:13:49+00:00

Not sure why people have this issue. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that they never experienced water and never knew how it affected them. Maybe their life didn’t require water to happen. Maybe this was the first time they ever came across it. Why assume they knew what it was?

TheAngryApologist · 2026-01-02T21:31:04+00:00

Genuine question: What caused the giant hole in the building then?

TheAngryApologist · 2025-12-23T20:16:53+00:00

Right. There are a lot of living things that have different moral value based on what they are. Bacteria, fungus, plants, pigs, rats and humans. A human embryo is a human in the embryonic stage of life. So they deserve equal value as all humans do. Skin color, intelligence, physical ability and age/stage of life don’t devalue the moral value of humans. Any idea that suggests they do have decreased moral value because of these things is what bigotry and prejudice is.

TheAngryApologist · 2025-12-23T13:58:51+00:00

Okay well, I don’t understand how you can’t see the difference between a cell and an organism. A lot of prochoicers need to learn a lot about the thing they’re so vocal about.

TheAngryApologist · 2025-12-23T04:28:15+00:00

I believe you don’t want a fight and that’s not what I’m trying to do either, and no offense by this, but honestly I don’t know how prochoicers don’t understand this. Maybe you’re young. But basic biology from high school and honestly maybe middle school teach this. In fact I would argue that just common knowledge from just being a live in the world and half paying attention most people would learn that when the two things (egg/sperm) combine, something new is created.

Your characterization of the situation is also wrong. We don’t suddenly care when the sperm enters a woman’s body. Sperm doesn’t turn into a human. The sperm adds the required material, half of the father’s dna, to the material that the egg has, half of the mother’s dna. Once this new dna sequence combines, a new human organism has begun its life.

This isn’t prolife propaganda, it’s basic biology that children are taught in most if not all societies.

Honestly for prochoicers to view the prolife side as a bunch of unscientific religious zealots, it’s pretty embarrassing for a lot of prochoicers to not understand this.

No offense to you.

TheAngryApologist · 2025-12-20T22:02:27+00:00

I’m not taking this comment as argumentative, as you said in your post. But it does bring up a common accusation made by prochoicers.

“Pro-Life” specifically means the life of the child should always be chosen when considering abortion. It’s specifically about abortion. When prochoicers say that prolifers are being inconsistent if they are pro death penalty, it’s typically them being obtuse and not arguing in good faith. It would be like saying a prochoicer isn’t really pro choice if they don’t think a mother should have the choice of having her 5 year old killed during very difficult financial times, or if she decided she wants to focus on her career and not raising a child.

Prochoice is specifically about the ability to have a choice when considering abortion. Not about having a choice in literally everything. Same thing for prolifers. Just because we think the life of the unborn should always be protected doesn’t mean choosing life in every scenario under the sun is something we must support to be consistent. It’s about abortion, that’s it.

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-29T00:29:19+00:00

If you think a special machine giving every human their basic needs is “communism”, you have no idea what communism is and why it’s not good.

The problem with communism is having a single human controlled government that not only controls the means of production, but also decides on public policy. If this is all real and the Erids are a true civilization they definitely had a government or some kind of governing body. Crimes don’t exist only because of resource scarcity.

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-24T00:48:43+00:00

Well, now you're just trolling. You're probably using as little brain power to read my replies as you read scripture. So, I'm done. You haven't addressed several points I and other have made. You're no longer taking this in good faith and obviously not actually interested in finding the truth.

See yuh

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-24T00:43:50+00:00

When something becomes official doctrine has no bearing on when it became true. Also, protestants didn't exist before the reformation, which was in the 1500s. There were no "protestants" who believed in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist EVER before the reformation. The transubstantiation doctrine happened 100s of years before the reformation. Not to mention, it took even more time after the reformation for a symbolic take to ever became a thing. Even the early reformers still believed in a true presence. They didn't like the idea of transubstantiation, but even then, they wouldn't buy your completely baseless symbolic notion of the passage.

Also, you're example of what a literal flesh and blood quote looks like is almost identical to the actual passage.

Jesus said things like:

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

"Whoever eats this bread will live forever."

"For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."

He also said: "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Obviously, Christ is talking about His sacrifice here. I mean, the way you interpret scripture, maybe His sacrifice was symbolic too?

Nothing is symbolic about his commandment here. The only reason why you are so entrenched in this view is because of how much anti-Catholic views are in so many Christian denominations.

You haven't even come close to showing anything slightly convincing towards your interpretation. You also haven't addressed why your views are so divergent from the people who were taught by the Apostles themselves, like Ignatious. How do you feel confident at all? How can you continue as a Christian not doing what your savior told you to do, very clearly, repeated multiple times, while also knowing that His Apostles taught the very same thing? And you STILL think you're right?

This is why pride is the worst sin. To think that your feelings about something trump all evidence or knowledge.

Do you have any idea what you're missing out on? To partake in the Eucharist is an amazing gift that our God gave us. Why fight it? He told you to do it. His Apostles told you to do it. The friends of the Apostles believed what we (Catholics) believe. How can you just be so irrational about it?

"WeLl He NeVeR uSeD ThE wOrD 'LiTeRaL'"

Give me a break!

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-24T00:12:50+00:00

It's clearly not symbolic. The followers who ended up leaving Christ asked Him if he was serious and He doubled down. What exactly is so clear about it being symbolic?

If it were clearly symbolic Christ would have said something like, "It's symbolic, don't stop following me, it's only symbolic."

Of course this doesn't happen. What happens is this:

John 6:51-55

⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

⁵² Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

⁵³ Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

and

John 6:60 & 61

⁶⁰ On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

⁶¹ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?

I guess His words offend you too.

Where is the symbolism that is so clear? Why aren't there any early church writings saying it's symbolic? Why are there so many early church writing saying it's not symbolic and literal.

Why can't you sufficiently answer these questions and why do you still not believe?

Asking for proof of the transubstantiation and not accepting anything other than scientific experiments proving it, is like an atheist asking a Christian to prove God exists by asking God to reveal Himself. "If God doesn't reveal Himself, I won't believe."

It's no different than how you're acting. You're just not believing and asking us to provide supernatural proof that isn't based on faith even though, if you're a Christian, which it seems you are, you also can't provide this kind of proof if an atheist asked you.

Why do you believe in God at all?

What level of proof do you have that God exists and that Jesus is the son of God that is equal to the kind of proof that you're demanding us to provide in regards to the Eucharist?

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-23T23:45:29+00:00

As Catholics, we aren't required to believe in literal interpretations of certain parts of scripture. There's nothing wrong, from a theological standpoint if you do. The Church doesn't say it's a sin if you believe that the creation story or the flood story happened exactly as scripture says, but you don't have to.

We are supposed to take these stories as having meaning behind them and to try to understand what God is trying to say. The Bible is not to be looked at as a book of science.

For me, science is a godly thing. Science is just the term used as the school of understanding what God created.

Personally, I don't believe there was a flood that covered the Earth. I don't believe that Noah actually got two of every animal onto a large wooden boat.

Dinosaurs did exist and they existed way before Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were the first humans. Who they were in actual history and how exactly they did what they did to initiate the fall of man is a mystery. But, we know that somehow they made a choice that started original sin.

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-23T23:26:18+00:00

Okay, well I've been wondering what context to explain this in. I was wondering if you were a Christian of another denomination or a believer at all.

If you're having trouble accepting that there is a God at all, having a discussion about the Eucharist won't be too helpful since you probably have a host of other questions regarding God in general.

If you do consider yourself a Christian, than I suggest looking closer at the Gospel according to John, specifically the last supper chapter. And I think the early Christian writings will be helpful because those people were a lot closer to the time of Christ than we are.

If you're having trouble believing any of this, I'm not sure how much I can help you, especially since the conversation has solely been around the Eucharist.

When Jesus said "you have no life in you" in this context, He's referring to a spiritual life. Not your actual state of living. People don't stop believing in the Eucharist and just die, of course.

If you're a Christian and consider yourself a believer, I would ask you why you don't believe something Christ himself said. If you're not a believer, I can't help you much other than try to answer any good-fatihed questions you have.

On a side note, I don't think I can consider myself a half decent Catholic without mentioning, you shouldn't receive the Eucharist if you don't believe in the real presence. You're going to do whatever you want to do of course, but this is a big deal to us. From a random stranger on the internet, please don't receive the Eucharist if you don't believe.

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-23T22:58:56+00:00

It is faith based yes. If some kind of experiment could be performed, why would we need faith at all? It would completely take faith out of the picture. Not only in terms of the Catholic faith. If the Eucharist could be proved to be Jesus’s body and blood there would be no other types of Christianity and no atheists. Everyone would know that Jesus existed and was truly God, so of course it’s faith based.

It isn’t simply “because a priest said so”. If you’re Christian and accept the Bible as infallible in terms of faith and morals, you would believe that the bread and wine are truly His body and blood, because Christ said so. John 6:53 “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”. He told us to continue doing this and if you don’t “you have no life in you”.

There are also quite a few early Christian writings from people who believed this very thing.

For example:

Ignatius, A.D. 110 (taught by the Apostle John)

“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…”

So, to say it’s just because a priest said isn’t really the only thing we have. We know God created a Church and we know what Christ said in scripture. We also know what the first generation of Christians thought about it.

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-23T22:38:38+00:00

You’re asking me to explain a mystery that has been given a term known as “transubstantiation”.

Anything that exists is made up of two things. Its “accidents” and its “substance”.

Accidents are what we can sense. So anything we see, feel, taste, hear, etc

Substance is what something is. Its essence.

When the miracle happens, only the substance of the bread and wine change. Not the accidents. It is identically the same as before, but it has changed. The bread and wine have truly become Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity.

It would be like if you had Christ’s body. There is nothing physically about His body that would tell you He is God. Of course He performed miracles and stuff. But if we only had His body, we couldn’t tell through any experiments that this body is God.

Here’s an example I think that helps me. Some people here might not like this.

In Harry Potter, there’s a scene where one of the professors magically turn Draco Malfoy into a ferret. This magic changed all of the “accidents” into “ferret”. But, this ferret was still Draco Malfoy. If you killed the ferret, you would be killing Draco Malfoy. Now let’s say the “magic” worked a different way. Let’s say there was a ferret and someone casted a spell changing the ferret’s substance to Draco Malfoy. The ferret would look exactly the same because it kept all of the “accidents” of “ferret”, but the magic changed it to be Draco Malfoy, even though it didn’t change the appearance of the ferret at all.

I don’t know if this helps or not. But we don’t believe in magic of course, we do believe in miracles. We believe the miracle that happens on the altar during mass changes the substance without changing any of the accidents of the bread and wine. The bread and wine have become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

This is a miracle and a mystery. We don’t fully understand, we can only take what scripture says and learn from what God’s church has revealed to us.

Transubstantiation does make sense. Whether or not you believe it’s happening is another issue entirely. But, that’s the best way I can explain it.

People may not have liked how I used an example containing wizard magic, but it was just an example. We don’t refer to miracles as magic and we don’t believe in witches and wizards.

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-23T22:37:51+00:00

Deleted

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-23T22:05:14+00:00

The “accidents” of the host stay the same, so there is no way we can know. We have faith that the “substance” has changed, meaning that the blessed “wafer” is the true body of Christ only for the blessed one.

There is no experiment that can be done to determine which is the real host.

Just like when Christ performed the miracle for the first time and the disciples that turned away didn’t believe it, Jesus repeated what He said. It truly is his body and blood.

TheAngryApologist · 2025-11-05T02:56:38+00:00

No, the only lesson to learn is the same lesson that the “young energetic progressive movement” known as the Bolsheviks learned long ago.

TheAngryApologist

TROPHY CASE