Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: jeremyp on January 18, 2018, 01:13:46 PM
-
This story might be more suitable for Entertainment because it is quite funny. However, it does talk about the theme of transubstantiation.
http://gallusrostromegalus.tumblr.com/post/169723347468/the-1969-easter-mass-incident
-
Hilarious! ;D
The idea that the bread and wine actually change into the body and blood of Jesus is absolutely crazy. How anyone can believe that to be true beggars belief. ::) I wonder what AB has to say on this topic?
And the idea of baking a life sized crucified Jesus and allowing people to tear pieces off throws the gruesomeness of the belief into sharp relief.
-
Many people believe in transubstantiation, not quite as described. Alan undoubtedly does, maybe one or two others - Humph perhaps? The Orthodox do believe something similar as do 'High Anglicans'. There's also Consubstantiation. It means a great deal to them but I've never seen anyone on this forum try to push it onto anyone. So no need, surely, to be quite so scathing.
I did think the article was quite funny.
,Hilarious! ;D
The idea that the bread and wine actually change into the body and blood of Jesus is absolutely crazy. How anyone can believe that to be true beggars belief. ::) I wonder what AB has to say on this topic?
You'll certainly find out soon.
-
Hilarious! ;D
The idea that the bread and wine actually change into the body and blood of Jesus is absolutely crazy. How anyone can believe that to be true beggars belief. ::) I wonder what AB has to say on this topic?
Transubstantiation is absolutely central to my faith.
I know it can seem odd to people outside the faith, or even to some of those inside, but it is what God's church does in order to follow what Jesus asked of us when He says "Do this in commemoration of me" at the last supper.
-
I read a bit about it earlier & it seems that at the consecretion of the elements (bread and wine) Jesus is present but the elements do not change physically.
in other traditions Communion is considered to be a holy occasion, where Christ is with the congregants but without him being present in the bread and wine.
In all, everyone present is in communication not only with Jesus but with eachother. A reverent time.
I can see the attraction for believers & why it is so important to them.
Anyone who is not part of a faith group will see their practices as 'odd', but nobody has to do it so I fail to understand why it is laughable to some.
Consubstantiation is slightly different and various traditions practice it, anyone interested can google as I did. The doctrine is basically that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
I'm to bed now.
-
But AB it is easily proved that the bread and wine don't change their nature.
Depends whether you consider the change to be symbolic or actual. If the latter then it is easy to prove that no change has taken place. If symbolic, well that depends entirely on your belief - if someone wants to argue that their is a symbolic change that is important to them, well fine by me. If they want to argue that there is an actual change from bread/wine to flesh/blood then they are wrong.
-
According to Wikipedia:
The doctrine of transubstantiation is the result of a theological dispute started in the 11th century, when Berengar of Tours denied that any material change in the elements was needed to explain the Eucharistic Presence, thereby provoking a considerable stir. Berengar's position was never diametrically opposed to that of his critics, and he was probably never excommunicated, but the controversies that he aroused (see Stercoranism) forced people to clarify the doctrine of the Eucharist. The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the 11th century. By the end of the 12th century the term was in widespread use.
The Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood". It was only later in the 13th century that Aristotelian metaphysics was accepted and a philosophical elaboration in line with that metaphysics was developed, which found classic formulation in the teaching of Thomas Aquinas."
So, the idea of transubstantiation is essentially one of metaphysics. Where is Vlad when you need him?
-
But AB it is easily proved that the bread and wine don't change their nature.
I know there is no change in nature or appearance, but we believe that Jesus is physically present in the bread and wine after the moment of consecration. It is re enacting what Jesus did and said at the last supper.
-
I know there is no change in nature or appearance, but we believe that Jesus is physically present in the bread and wine after the moment of consecration. It is re enacting what Jesus did and said at the last supper.
physically present or symbolically present. If the former surely there would be some physical change which would be detectable.
-
physically present or symbolically present. If the former surely there would be some physical change which would be detectable.
I have read that there is a value placed on the consecrated host by devil worshippers who pay for it in order to perform ritual abuse on the host. And apparently these devil worshippers can tell whether the host has been consecrated.
-
I have read that there is a value placed on the consecrated host by devil worshippers who pay for it in order to perform ritual abuse on the host. And apparently these devil worshippers can tell whether the host has been consecrated.
You aren't answering the question Alan.
-
Transubstantiation is absolutely central to my faith.
I know it can seem odd to people outside the faith, or even to some of those inside, but it is what God's church does in order to follow what Jesus asked of us when He says "Do this in commemoration of me".
Sad
-
It sounds like a symbolic ritual that has become ingrained through tradition and authority, possibly because it involves 'doing something' that reinforces the core beliefs. No doubt those who buy into the tradition find it gives them a warm and cozy feeling.
Of course ritual behaviour isn't just confined to religions: for example some sports seems riven with ritual, for instance golf with its special clothes and special words, and where golf enthusiasts (and I;ve met a few) would be bereft without all the flummery that they seem to think is essential in order to hit a wee white ball with a stick in the general direction of a hole in the ground.
-
I have read that there is a value placed on the consecrated host by devil worshippers who pay for it in order to perform ritual abuse on the host. And apparently these devil worshippers can tell whether the host has been consecrated.
Now, is it the Klingons or the Vulcans that have a belief similar to this one of yours Alan?
Even more necessarily kind regards to you Alan, ippy
-
I've also read the same, Alan, but that only proves the consecrated blood and wine have great significance to the devil worshippers. Personally I do not believe those people would be able to tell, unless they nicked the same from the place where consecrated hosts are kept.
My understanding (which I've already said) is that, to those who believe, transubstantiation means Christ is actually present but the elements still have the appearance of bread and wine - you wouldn't know from looking or putting under a microscope. All a matter of faith.
Some traditions believe that Christ is spiritually present at the time of consecration and while people are taking communion.
-
I've also read the same, Alan, but that only proves the consecrated blood and wine have great significance to the devil worshippers. Personally I do not believe those people would be able to tell, unless they nicked the same from the place where consecrated hosts are kept.
My understanding (which I've already said) is that, to those who believe, transubstantiation means Christ is actually present but the elements still have the appearance of bread and wine - you wouldn't know from looking or putting under a microscope. All a matter of faith.
Some traditions believe that Christ is spiritually present at the time of consecration and while people are taking communion.
I did hear of a prison vicar who noted a quite different reaction and reception to himself from the inmate body when he went with communion wafers and when he never and decided to experiment with hidden wafers.
-
So no need, surely, to be quite so scathing.
So when did the rule come in that you can only be scathing when there are people on the forum who believe in the thing?
-
I did hear of a prison vicar who noted a quite different reaction and reception to himself from the inmate body when he went with communion wafers and when he never and decided to experiment with hidden wafers.
All that would do is test inmate side psychological alteration in behaviour. It would address the issue which is a more credible explanation if there was a change in behaviour. Namely that the vicar changed his behaviour towards the inmates (and therefore received a different response in return) when he was carrying wafers and not. Give that the vicar is likely the be the person 'in the room' most bought into the significance of the wafers, then the alteration in behaviour is much more likely to be on his side.
But hey I'm just a scientist.
-
All that would do is test inmate side psychological alteration in behaviour. It would address the issue which is a more credible explanation if there was a change in behaviour. Namely that the vicar changed his behaviour towards the inmates (and therefore received a different response in return) when he was carrying wafers and not. Give that the vicar is likely the be the person 'in the room' most bought into the significance of the wafers, then the alteration in behaviour is much more likely to be on his side.
But hey I'm just a scientist.
No one is disputing that Professor or your suggestion of a methodology.
What is a bit dubious is an advocacy of a particular outcome of your methodology.
He could of course have arranged for someone to drop a wafer into a pocket unannounced.
Of course we don't know the nature or methodology of his experiment.
-
No one is disputing that Professor or your suggestion of a methodology.
What is a bit dubious is an advocacy of a particular outcome of your methodology.
He could of course have arranged for someone to drop a wafer into a pocket unannounced.
Of course we don't know the nature or methodology of his experiment.
I think the point being, firstly that (as I mentioned before) the vicar is probably the person most bought into the significance of the wafers as a priest, compared to a bunch of inmates. Secondly that he (rather than the inmates) is the only person reporting a change in behaviour, so it could be purely that to be his subjective perception, rather than an objective observation.
And in science we develop hypotheses, which are exactly what you complain of - in other words an expected outcome, that is tested and proven to stand up to the testing or rejected.
So it is perfectly reasonable to have a hypothesis that claims that 'carrying communion wafers alters the manner in which the vicar interacts with inmates' with secondary hypotheses that:
'the inmates alter their behaviour too' or alternatively 'that the vicar perceives an alteration in their behaviour due to his altered psychological state.
How would you test - well it would need to be a double blinded independently observed study. So you could have an envelope that may or may not contain wafers - whether it does or not is not known by the vicar, the inmates or the observer. You would then need an independent person to observe the interactions (obviously not the vicar nor the inmates). What would be interesting too would be, following the independent observations, to have another researcher interview (or use a questionnaire etc) to determine whether the inmates perceived a difference in the response of the vicar to them or a response of themselves to the vicar. And to do the same for the vicar.
In order to assess psychological effects you would repeat the experiment under circumstances where you tell the vicar, the inmates or both whether or not the wafers are in the envelope - and you would do this in a random manner, so sometimes what you tell them is true sometime not.
That would be how you would go about the experiment.
-
I think the point being, firstly that (as I mentioned before) the vicar is probably the person most bought into the significance of the wafers as a priest, compared to a bunch of inmates. Secondly that he (rather than the inmates) is the only person reporting a change in behaviour, so it could be purely that to be his subjective perception, rather than an objective observation.
And in science we develop hypotheses, which are exactly what you complain of - in other words an expected outcome, that is tested and proven to stand up to the testing or rejected.
So it is perfectly reasonable to have a hypothesis that claims that 'carrying communion wafers alters the manner in which the vicar interacts with inmates' with secondary hypotheses that:
'the inmates alter their behaviour too' or alternatively 'that the vicar perceives an alteration in their behaviour due to his altered psychological state.
How would you test - well it would need to be a double blinded independently observed study. So you could have an envelope that may or may not contain wafers - whether it does or not is not known by the vicar, the inmates or the observer. You would then need an independent person to observe the interactions (obviously not the vicar nor the inmates). What would be interesting too would be, following the independent observations, to have another researcher interview (or use a questionnaire etc) to determine whether the inmates perceived a difference in the response of the vicar to them or a response of themselves to the vicar. And to do the same for the vicar.
In order to assess psychological effects you would repeat the experiment under circumstances where you tell the vicar, the inmates or both whether or not the wafers are in the envelope - and you would do this in a random manner, so sometimes what you tell them is true sometime not.
That would be how you would go about the experiment.
No trouble on methodology. Could you expand on any significance of buying into the significance of the wafers. At present it seems like a bit of innuendo on your part at the moment designed to muddy waters.
-
No trouble on methodology. Could you expand on any significance of buying into the significance of the wafers. At present it seems like a bit of innuendo on your part at the moment designed to muddy waters.
Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about.
All I am proposing is a study (were anyone inclined to perform it) that would objectively assess whether the presence of wafers affected the interaction between the vicar and inmates. And were it to do whether it was due to a psychological effect and whether that was drive by the response of the vicar, the inmates or both, possibly in a reciprocal manner.
But given that the basis of the study appears to be a single person, who is clearly not an objective observer, making an anecdotal claim, then I doubt any serious psychology researchers would be interested.
-
I listened all the way through the link yesterday evening and thought it was very funny. I wrote to say so and, as so very often happens, I got the 'this page can't be displayed. Extremely annoying;
-
I did hear of a prison vicar who noted a quite different reaction and reception to himself from the inmate body when he went with communion wafers and when he never and decided to experiment with hidden wafers.
They were probably thinking to themselves, here comes that poor old silly sod again, best humour him and knowing this silly stuff he comes out with from time to time they couldn't help looking a bit stand off'ish to him.
A bit of a similar reaction most of us would have if we happened to associate with some of those people that think Elvis is still hanging around somewhere.
Regards ippy.
-
So when did the rule come in that you can only be scathing when there are people on the forum who believe in the thing?
I don't believe anyone should be scathing about anything that is posted. Disagree, discuss, find out why people believe what they do, see things from a different angle....that's what a forum like this is for, surely.
I did hear of a prison vicar who noted a quite different reaction and reception to himself from the inmate body when he went with communion wafers and when he never and decided to experiment with hidden wafers.
Intriguing Private Frazier, don't quite understand what you're saying in that one sentence. I'm mentally trying to put in commas but they might be in the wrong places. Perhaps you'd explain, describe the reaction and reception to himself and how he experimented with hidden wafers. Why were they hidden, did he pull them out from behind an inmate's ear or something? Prison church sounds quite entertaining :D.
-
You already said that a very short while ago!
-
I have read that there is a value placed on the consecrated host by devil worshippers who pay for it in order to perform ritual abuse on the host. And apparently these devil worshippers can tell whether the host has been consecrated.
"Consecrated" simply means 'set apart for special use, Alan.
Many branches of the church set the elements apart for a 'holy use and mystery', accepting thespecial nature of the sacrement without transubstantiation.
Nothing is lost in accepting by faith that these elements symbolise the body broken and blood shed for us.
-
"Consecrated" simply means 'set apart for special use, Alan.
Many branches of the church set the elements apart for a 'holy use and mystery', accepting thespecial nature of the sacrement without transubstantiation.
Nothing is lost in accepting by faith that these elements symbolise the body broken and blood shed for us.
The moment of consecration was always denoted by the ringing of the church bell during the Mass celebration in the early Christian church. It is still denoted during our RC Mass by the alter server ringing the hand bell at the moment of consecration.
-
Alan: With respect, are we to conclude that the irst Eucharist - the Last Supper - the elements somehow became the 'real presence' of Christ....the day BEFORE His sacrifice on Calvary? That doesn't make sense. When He instituted the sacrament, there was no sacrifice....but the elements were to be a future reminder of sacrifice.
-
Alan: With respect, are we to conclude that the first Eucharist - the Last Supper - the elements somehow became the 'real presence' of Christ....the day BEFORE His sacrifice on Calvary? That doesn't make sense. When He instituted the sacrament, there was no sacrifice....but the elements were to be a future reminder of sacrifice.
I do respect those who believe the Eucharist to represent the body of Christ, but I personally believe in the Gospel scripture from Luke 22:19
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
-
I do respect those who believe the Eucharist to represent the body of Christ, but I personally believe in the Gospel scripture from Luke 22:19
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
You still haven't answered the question - is this a physical or symbolic conversion. If the former then this could be easily proven via analysis of the physical composition before and after.
-
I do respect those who believe the Eucharist to represent the body of Christ, but I personally believe in the Gospel scripture from Luke 22:19
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
OK.....but surely He was using symbolic language at the Last Supper? After all, how could the elements He distributed be Himself when He Himself was still very much present and Active? They had to remain, in every sense, bread and wine.
When Christ said "I am the door'...was tghere a handle or a letterbox?
When He said "I am the true vine" WAs He a plant?
When He said "I am the Way", was He a Roman road?
Yes, I know these are flippant, but they are examples of Him using spiritual language and metaphor to make a point.
Why was the Last Supper any different?
-
Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about.
All I am proposing is a study (were anyone inclined to perform it) that would objectively assess whether the presence of wafers affected the interaction between the vicar and inmates. And were it to do whether it was due to a psychological effect and whether that was drive by the response of the vicar, the inmates or both, possibly in a reciprocal manner.
But given that the basis of the study appears to be a single person, who is clearly not an objective observer, making an anecdotal claim, then I doubt any serious psychology researchers would be interested.
Your last sentences demonstrate that the direction of scientific discovery is chosen by a higher priesthood.
How is not doing experiments science?
-
OK.....but surely He was using symbolic language at the Last Supper? After all, how could the elements He distributed be Himself when He Himself was still very much present and Active? They had to remain, in every sense, bread and wine.
When Christ said "I am the door'...was tghere a handle or a letterbox?
When He said "I am the true vine" WAs He a plant?
When He said "I am the Way", was He a Roman road?
Yes, I know these are flippant, but they are examples of Him using spiritual language and metaphor to make a point.
Why was the Last Supper any different?
In the end, I accept the authority and wisdom of God's appointed church leaders, whom I believe to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
-
You still haven't answered the question - is this a physical or symbolic conversion. If the former then this could be easily proven via analysis of the physical composition before and after.
I believe that God is physically present in the Eucharist after consecration. I would assume that any scientific analysis will still verify that the atomic elements in the consecrated Eucharist are unchanged, but this will not prove or disprove God's physical presence.
-
I believe that God is physically present in the Eucharist after consecration. I would assume that any scientific analysis will still verify that the atomic elements in the consecrated Eucharist are unchanged, but this will not prove or disprove God's physical presence.
Are you then suggesting a recapitulation of the incarnation?
-
Are you then suggesting a recapitulation of the incarnation?
Yes, that is what I and my church believe.
-
In the end, I accept the authority and wisdom of God's appointed church leaders, whom I believe to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Even if that authority contradicts the Scripture it claims as its subordinate standard?
Which is more authoratative: Scripture or the Church?
-
If some of the Catholic church leaders are appointed by god, it is incompetent, or having a bad joke at the congregations' expense! For a start, what about the paedophiles in their ranks, whose crimes have been swept under the carpet by the hierarchy?
The fact that some have infiltrated God's church for their own selfish reasons does not diminish the divinely designated authority of the church.
-
All that would do is test inmate side psychological alteration in behaviour. It would address the issue which is a more credible explanation if there was a change in behaviour. Namely that the vicar changed his behaviour towards the inmates (and therefore received a different response in return) when he was carrying wafers and not. Give that the vicar is likely the be the person 'in the room' most bought into the significance of the wafers, then the alteration in behaviour is much more likely to be on his side.
But hey I'm just a scientist.
Sorry prof, but I think your analysis is incorrect. I think that the vicar's observations of the inmates' behaviour are what's most likely to be influenced by him carrying hidden wafers.
-
"Consecrated" simply means 'set apart for special use, Alan.
Nope
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consecrate
-
The moment of consecration was always denoted by the ringing of the church bell during the Mass celebration in the early Christian church. It is still denoted during our RC Mass by the alter server ringing the hand bell at the moment of consecration.
In the early Christian church there probably wasn't a bell.
-
I do respect those who believe the Eucharist to represent the body of Christ, but I personally believe in the Gospel scripture from Luke 22:19
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
Do you really think he meant that literally even though he was right there with them?
-
I believe that God is physically present in the Eucharist after consecration. I would assume that any scientific analysis will still verify that the atomic elements in the consecrated Eucharist are unchanged, but this will not prove or disprove God's physical presence.
Yes it does - if something is physically present, then there will be physical evidence, which would be readily proven by science. If the atomic elements are unchanged then there is no new 'physical presence'.
-
Nope https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consecrate
Sorry; not in as Presbyterian sense, it doesn'r. It's a Kirk thing. I'm consecrated - set apart as a reader in the Church o Scotland. (Hey, nobody's perfect.) My certificate authorising me to preach states: That he is ste apart, consecrated to ehw work of Readership, with all the duties thereof". That's different from ordination - I'm ordained elder, studying for ordained local ministry. In communion, the elements are 'consecrated' - the modern lingo in the "Book of common order" - the Kirk book where formulaic stuff can be dredged up for services, states ".....that we take these elements of bread and wine, set apart for this holy use and mystery."
-
Sorry; not in as Presbyterian sense, it doesn'r. It's a Kirk thing.
This isn't about the presbyterian church.
-
Nope. It's about the Church, of which Presbyterianism is a part.
-
Nope. It's about the Church, of which Presbyterianism is a part.
Catholics (and the dictionaries) have a different interpretation of what "consecrated" means. Your definition is irrelevant in this context.
-
The word, "Consecrated" has several meanings, no-one here is wrong.
consecrate
ˈkɒnsɪkreɪt/Submit
verb
past tense: consecrated; past participle: consecrated
make or declare (something, typically a church) sacred; dedicate formally to a religious purpose.
"the present Holy Trinity church was consecrated in 1845"
(in Christian belief) declare (bread and wine) to be or represent the body and blood of Christ.
"they received the host but not the consecrated wine"
ordain (someone) to a sacred office, typically that of bishop.
"he was consecrated bishop of York"
synonyms: sanctify, bless, make holy, make sacred, hallow, set apart, dedicate to God
-
The word, "Consecrated" has several meanings, no-one here is wrong.
Anchorman is wrong to correct the meaning to what he and his church thinks because, as the story makes abundantly clear, this is about the Roman Catholic Church, not the Kirk in Scotland.
-
I'd have thought non-alcoholic wine wasn't really wine, just grape juice.
-
I have heard it stated, by some fundie Christians, the wine Jesus drank wasn't alcoholic! Where on earth they get that gem of information from, goodness only knows, certainly not from the Bible.
It wouldn't have had a high alcohol content, and wasn't what we'd call vintage.
Unless the disciples had a source of ready cash to spare, the stuff would have been made from dates, grapes or whatever fruit was available as a sugar source, matured for a few weeks, decanted into unglazed jars (which had to be opened PDQ or the contents would evaporate), or wineskins which were meant to be used asap.
Only wines meant for export and the tables of the rich would be matured in vats, stored in glazed amphorae, etc.
-
The only time really good plonk is mentioned is at the wedding feast, where it was stored in stone vessels. That suggestss either that some of the wedding party was Greek, or that the groom - who usually forked out for the bill - had saved up for good stuff. Everyday wine would have been pretty weak by our standards; just enough to kill off the bacteria in the water, but not enough to have everyone roaring drunk every day, unless they were serious about it...and if they were, they'd probably have resorted to beer...which was almost as wine, made as it was with fruits and stuff, but a lot stronger as far as alcohol was concerned.
-
Well we will never know for sure as the people concerned turned up their toes so long ago.
Not entirely true.
Archaeology and chemical analysis has revealed much about the cultivation of the various fruits which made wine in the Middle East in the first century; experimental archaeology using the same production methods and ingredients hs given us ideas of the potency - or otherwise - of various brews.
-
Still wine is mentioned quite a lot in the NT where that guy Jesus was concerned, so he and his mates must have imbibed a lot. Maybe they were permanently inebriated, which would explain some of the dafter things Jesus is quoted as saying. ;D
Back in the day, everybody drank alcoholic beverages all the time because the water was too dangerous to drink.
-
I do respect those who believe the Eucharist to represent the body of Christ, but I personally believe in the Gospel scripture from Luke 22:19
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
But he was actually there with them, in the body, when he said it!
-
Back in the day, everybody drank alcoholic beverages all the time because the water was too dangerous to drink.
Wot jeremyP said.
Total abstanance wasn't an option in the area, unless one had a fetish for gastro-enteritis.
-
In the end, I accept the authority and wisdom of God's appointed church leaders, whom I believe to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
That's breathtakingly naive. Many church leaders have been abusers of high order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Borgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Borgia)
There are downsides in deferring to authority. That is what prison guards at Auschwitz did.
-
That's breathtakingly naive. Many church leaders have been abusers of high order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Borgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Borgia) There are downsides in deferring to authority. That is what prison guards at Auschwitz did.
I hope Alan isn't naive enough to suggest that all those who have led 'the church' in the past have been guided by the Spirit....some have had only a passing aquaintance with either theiology or doctrine, and even less concern for anything approaching faith.
-
Sam Harris's summing up of transubstantiation where he refers to Elvis says all there is to know, all that's needed to be known about this ridiculous subject, it would be laughable but for the numbers taken in by this absolute nonsense, and actually do believe it.
Regards ippy
-
That's breathtakingly naive. Many church leaders have been abusers of high order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Borgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Borgia)
There are downsides in deferring to authority. That is what prison guards at Auschwitz did.
I am well aware that some appointed leaders have pandered to their own self centred desires, and they are easily recognised. But I have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring the leaders of God's church back into line. It is now apparent that many critics of the Roman Catholic leadership base their criticisms on what amounts to pandering to the self centred desires of human nature which currently dictate popular opinion.
-
I am well aware that some appointed leaders have pandered to their own self centred desires, and they are easily recognised. But I have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring the leaders of God's church back into line. It is now apparent that many critics of the Roman Catholic leadership base their criticisms on what amounts to pandering to the self centred desires of human nature which currently dictate popular opinion.
Pity then that this 'Holy Spirit' didn't stop these scumbags from occupying prominent positions in the 'God's Church' in the first place and then taking advantage of their status.
No doubt you have some rationalisation at the ready.
-
Sam Harris's summing up of transubstantiation where he refers to Elvis says all there is to know, all that's needed to be known about this ridiculous subject, it would be laughable but for the numbers taken in by this absolute nonsense, and actually do believe it.
You can't just mention what he said - here it is:
This to me is the true horror of religion, it allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley - you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus you're just a Catholic.
-
You can't just mention what he said - here it is:
This to me is the true horror of religion, it allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley - you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus you're just a Catholic.
Nothing to say Alan?
-
I am well aware that some appointed leaders have pandered to their own self centred desires, and they are easily recognised. But I have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring the leaders of God's church back into line ...
and how many people have been abused by catholic and other priests because they were encouraged to trust and have faith ? If people are encouraged to develop critical thinking then they will be less vulnerable to exploitation.
-
Pity then that this 'Holy Spirit' didn't stop these scumbags from occupying prominent positions in the 'God's Church' in the first place and then taking advantage of their status.
No doubt you have some rationalisation at the ready.
We must never underestimate the power of evil in this world.
-
We must never underestimate the power of evil in this world.
It would appear that this 'Holy Spirit' has done exactly that if it can't keep 'God's Church' scumbag free.
-
We must never underestimate the power of evil in this world.
So God shouldn't have created the Devil then,
It's not rocket science you know.
-
So God shouldn't have created the Devil then,
It's not rocket science you know.
God created free will -
-
God created free will -
Free will isn't evil. You keep presenting free will as the ability to choose between slightly varying alternative ways to satisfy need, such as being able to choose between tea and coffee to satisfy thirst. What is evil about that.
Try giving honest straight answers instead of your trademark slippery obfuscation. You might find you like it.
-
God created free will -
Bringing in Satan and his hordes to explain evil and suffering creates more logical problems than it solves.
How could angels, created sinless and capable of remaining so, and in direct, unmediated communion with God, ever come to sin? If we accept for the moment that they did, why didn't God forgive and restore them? Given that God didn't, why didn't God annihilate them, rather than allowing them to continue in an existence of suffering for them and danger for others? Given that God didn't do that, why did God allow Satan and his chums to have any influence over humanity? Given that God did, why did the sin of Adam and Eve infect the rest of us?
These are the logical knots you tie yourself in if you believe in an objectively-existing Satan - or God, for that matter. The early chapters of Genesis, as well as much else in the OT, are so obviously myth and allegory that you've got to be literarily cloth-eared, as well as a scientific troglodyte, to think it's literally true.
-
Bringing in Satan and his hordes to explain evil and suffering creates more logical problems than it solves.
How could angels, created sinless and capable of remaining so, and in direct, unmediated communion with God, ever come to sin? If we accept for the moment that they did, why didn't God forgive and restore them? Given that God didn't, why didn't God annihilate them, rather than allowing them to continue in an existence of suffering for them and danger for others? Given that God didn't do that, why did God allow Satan and his chums to have any influence over humanity? Given that God did, why did the sin of Adam and Eve infect the rest of us?
These are the logical knots you tie yourself in if you believe in an objectively-existing Satan - or God, for that matter. The early chapters of Genesis, as well as much else in the OT, are so obviously myth and allegory that you've got to be literarily cloth-eared, as well as a scientific troglodyte, to think it's literally true.
Bravo !
-
Bravo !
And added to best bits, as I agree with the Bravo!
The whole idea of Satan makes the god idea almost rational in comparison.
-
Not if god created Satan in the first place.
The god idea though doesn't need to have Satan as part of it. SteveH believes in an idea of a god that has none of the baroque He Man and Skeletor stuff of the more literal Christians.
-
Christians create their own versions of god. Literalists like to think the Biblical god is the business, whereas more moderate Christians prefer to believe in a god who isn't as unpleasant as that one.
I think the difference between what SteveH's God (and please correct me if I get this wrong SteveH) and some Christians is bit more than their congeniality. The very anthropomorphic idea that is probably the most common way to talk about the Christian god isn't really what many of the Christians on here believe in.
-
Those who describe god as loving and merciful, very human characteristics, as some on this forum do, don't appear to have read the Bible, the god featured there is exact opposite.
There is a spread of opinion on here amongst Christians about what they say about their god and many of them will call out the problems they have offering any real explanation even if they sometimes use human terms. Now I think that the very idea of something so beyond description takes the concept into the realms of the nonsensical but I am interested in what it is that they feel.
-
Bringing in Satan and his hordes to explain evil and suffering creates more logical problems than it solves.
How could angels, created sinless and capable of remaining so, and in direct, unmediated communion with God, ever come to sin? If we accept for the moment that they did, why didn't God forgive and restore them? Given that God didn't, why didn't God annihilate them, rather than allowing them to continue in an existence of suffering for them and danger for others? Given that God didn't do that, why did God allow Satan and his chums to have any influence over humanity? Given that God did, why did the sin of Adam and Eve infect the rest of us?
These are the logical knots you tie yourself in if you believe in an objectively-existing Satan - or God, for that matter. The early chapters of Genesis, as well as much else in the OT, are so obviously myth and allegory that you've got to be literarily cloth-eared, as well as a scientific troglodyte, to think it's literally true.
Well said!
-
It is fine if they wish to believe it to be true, I get irritated when they state it as a fact instead of a belief.
Not sure what that has to do with what I posted, but if someone thinks something to be a fact then they may be wrong in stating it to be so, but it's about what they feel to be true.
-
The god idea though doesn't need to have Satan as part of it. SteveH believes in an idea of a god that has none of the baroque He Man and Skeletor stuff of the more literal Christians.
Indeed - and I'm glad my little peroration earlier was well-received.
-
I like the way you express things Mr H, and agree.
-
A B has to be one of the sadist cases of deep religionosis I've ever seen, his responses to Gordon's posts etc.
As for the devil, I can understand early human kind up until the time of say a bit of Darwin and the enlightenment and perhaps a little bit of an over run after both of those occasions?
We now live in the 21st century, it's not as though there's any, in fact there's, no, zero viable evidence that has the slightest likelihood of supporting any of Alan's delusions; it's going to be absolutely years and years before we reach a point where christianity and the rest of these types of believers reach the status of present day Zeus worshipping knuckle heads, where they should be, filed as just another harmless fringe group.
ippy
-
Bringing in Satan and his hordes to explain evil and suffering creates more logical problems than it solves.
How could angels, created sinless and capable of remaining so, and in direct, unmediated communion with God, ever come to sin? If we accept for the moment that they did, why didn't God forgive and restore them? Given that God didn't, why didn't God annihilate them, rather than allowing them to continue in an existence of suffering for them and danger for others? Given that God didn't do that, why did God allow Satan and his chums to have any influence over humanity? Given that God did, why did the sin of Adam and Eve infect the rest of us?
These are the logical knots you tie yourself in if you believe in an objectively-existing Satan - or God, for that matter. The early chapters of Genesis, as well as much else in the OT, are so obviously myth and allegory that you've got to be literarily cloth-eared, as well as a scientific troglodyte, to think it's literally true.
But after creating beings with their own freedom, if God obliterates or manipulates everything that turns out not to be in accordance with His will then there is no freedom - just midless puppets.
If there was no capacity for hatred, would we recognise love?
If there was no sorrow, would we know joy?
If there was no war, would we appreciate peace?
If a child was born with everything they need, what would happen to the parental bond?
-
You are making excuses for your god's obvious enjoyment of human suffering!
I believe a world created entirely by humans would be a living hell
-
I believe a world created entirely by humans would be a living hell
I think that would depend on the quality of those humans who created it. As it is though, if one considers that your God created it, then it seems to show much evidence of Him as a very inferior designer who, at the very least, wasn't able to either understand or place any importance on suffering. To be honest, He didn't really seem to have much of a clue what on earth(excuse the pun) He was creating in the first place. :)
-
I believe a world created entirely by humans would be a living hell
Well, aren't we just lucky that it wasn't created by anything at all, it just happened. Your latest words make as little sense as they usually do.
-
But after creating beings with their own freedom, if God obliterates or manipulates everything that turns out not to be in accordance with His will then there is no freedom - just midless puppets.
If there was no capacity for hatred, would we recognise love?
If there was no sorrow, would we know joy?
If there was no war, would we appreciate peace?
If a child was born with everything they need, what would happen to the parental bond?
If it wasn't for the fact people like you Alan, teach this mythical, magical, superstitious nonsense to innocent very young children as though it were true, you and the larger amount of the things you and your's come out with could be taken as laughable, Elvis/Transubstantiation? Sam Harris.
Enjoy, your crackers Alan, ippy
-
But after creating beings with their own freedom, if God obliterates or manipulates everything that turns out not to be in accordance with His will then there is no freedom - just midless puppets.
There is also no freedom to choose if god hides away from us (or allows itself to be hidden) and does not make its message clear to everybody. There is no freedom if we are born with a sinful nature such that none of us can please god with our own efforts and we all need "saving"...
If there was no capacity for hatred, would we recognise love?
If there was no sorrow, would we know joy?
If there was no war, would we appreciate peace?
If a child was born with everything they need, what would happen to the parental bond?
So how's all this going to work out in heaven, then?
-
Even the very worst human is a saint compared to the Biblical deptiction of god. >:(
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
There is also no freedom to choose if god hides away from us (or allows itself to be hidden) and does not make its message clear to everybody. There is no freedom if we are born with a sinful nature such that none of us can please god with our own efforts and we all need "saving"...
Whatever nature we were born with, we all have freedom, given to us through the power of the human soul, to invite God into our lives. But it may take strength and courage to do it.
So how's all this going to work out in heaven, then?
Having freely chosen good over evil, we will be well prepared for the everlasting joy of our spiritual home.
-
Whatever nature we were born with, we all have freedom, given to us through the power of the human soul, to invite God into our lives. But it may take strength and courage to do it.
It's not so much about strength and courage, it is more about evidence and reason. Do you really think the reason science has found no evidence for god is because scientists, as a class, lack courage ?
Really ?
-
Having freely chosen good over evil, we will be well prepared for the everlasting joy of our spiritual home.
To have everlasting joy though, you will need an everlasting memory of sorrow won't you?
-
To have everlasting joy though, you will need an everlasting memory of sorrow won't you?
Good point! :) There will just be some bland, irrelevant response from AB, I suppose.
-
Whatever nature we were born with, we all have freedom, given to us through the power of the human soul, to invite God into our lives.
Obviously not (from any god's point of view) - for the reasons discussed elsewhere - but leaving that aside, it is cannot be genuine choice if we are not aware that there is a god or that a choice is being offered.
There is no evidence and no reasoning (that I'm aware of) that can lead to that conclusion and every reason to think that all religions and all their contradictory messages are nothing but old superstitions.
So why would a just and fair god, with an important message for us, hide itself and its message from us (or allow itself and its message to be hidden)?
But it may take strength and courage to do it.
It appears to have nothing to do with strength and courage. If you are anything to go by, it takes incredible gullibility and a complete disregard for logic, evidence, and reasoning.
-
It's not so much about strength and courage, it is more about evidence and reason. Do you really think the reason science has found no evidence for god is because scientists, as a class, lack courage ?
Really ?
No - It is just a matter of scope. You will not discover spiritual attributes by investigating material entities. There are many scientists who have embraced the Christian faith. And it does take strength and courage, and perhaps a bit of humility, to invite God into your life - which may require you to leave behind some of the things which make up your comfort zone and embrace the challenges of the Christian faith.
-
You will not discover spiritual attributes by investigating material entities.
So how do we discover these 'spiritual attributes' then?
And again, the question you keep ignoring: if your god exists, is just and fair, and has an important message, why is it hidden - why is it not plain to everybody?
-
No - It is just a matter of scope. You will not discover spiritual attributes by investigating material entities. There are many scientists who have embraced the Christian faith. And it does take strength and courage, and perhaps a bit of humility, to invite God into your life - which may require you to leave behind some of the things which make up your comfort zone and embrace the challenges of the Christian faith.
This post of yours Alan, is just a series of words that don't say anything, they only amount to another load of your usual unsubstanciated unstanciatable drivel.
I often wonder why you, it seems you really do think you actually know the things that you insist on asserting really are facts, when the only facts you have about your superstition based ideas only exist in your imagination, certainly
nowhere else; unless of course?
Hope you manage to free yourself of this delusional behaviour in time Alan, regards ippy
-
No - It is just a matter of scope. You will not discover spiritual attributes by investigating material entities. There are many scientists who have embraced the Christian faith. And it does take strength and courage, and perhaps a bit of humility, to invite God into your life - which may require you to leave behind some of the things which make up your comfort zone and embrace the challenges of the Christian faith.
That does nothing to substantiate your insinuation that science has not discovered god because of some lack of strength and courage.
It is also circular, one of your favourite fallacy dependencies, assuming the conclusion as a premise. To invite a something, there has to be reason to suppose that the something is there to invite in the first place.
it is also a sentiment whose general thrust is more truthful when expressed contrarily. By which I mean, it takes strength and courage to follow the evidence, which typically leads us out of our comfort zone of simple beliefs.
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Hang on;
LR said "saint", SteveH.....
And she's going to produce evidence t validate her claim, just as soon as she defines "saint".......
-
A very good person! Not that I believe in the definition of 'saint' upheld by the Catholic Church. They want to make that woman Mother T a saint, from what I gather from someone who worked with her, she was very far from being a good person.
"a very good persin"?
That's not even the definition of "Saint used by the RC, far less other churchws.
So you're using the erroneous definition of something you don't believe in to ascribe virtue?
Er..........
-
A very good person is my definition of a saint. The catholic church reckons all who make it to heaven are saints, apparently. Then they single out people like that Teresa woman for special recognition. I was pointing out she wasn't a particularly good person by all accounts.
Ah; so, you're ignoring the definitions of 'saint' from all denominations, differing though are, and dicrionary definitions as well?
Because I've never come accross 'a veey good person' as a qualification for sanctity, either in this life or the next.
-
The 'born again' lot think that even the worst person is destined for heaven if they convert, yet the unsaved will go to hell, even if they are good people. Crazy or what? :o
What's that goy
t to do with defining 'saint'?
-
"a very good persin"?
That's not even the definition of "Saint used by the RC, far less other churchws.
So you're using the erroneous definition of something you don't believe in to ascribe virtue?
Er..........
Actually I understood LR perfectly when she said, 'Even the very worst human is a saint compared to the Biblical depiction of god'. It seems I was right when she described what she meant by 'saint' as 'a very good person'. It doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with her, of course, but her definition seems to me to be quite adequate, when one considers that one of the dictionary definitions(e.g. The Cambridge Dictionary colloquial definition) is 'a very good, kind person'.
I genuinely don't see what all the fuss is about. You asked for a definition, she gave you one, and you seem to suggest that her definition is erroneous in some way, when a dictionary suggests that her meaning is completely acceptable.
-
Anchorperson is being unnecessarily pedantic, possibly deliberately to wind up LR (which is commendable, if so). As Enki said, the ordinary, everyday definition of "Saint" is an exceptionally good, kind person by ordinary human standards.
-
Charteris would agree with you as would, no doubt, Lowry.