Transubstantiation

[Robbie]

I'd have thought non-alcoholic wine wasn't really wine, just grape juice.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

Back in the day, everybody drank alcoholic beverages all the time because the water was too dangerous to drink.

[SteveH]

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!

[Anchorman]

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.

[torridon]

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

There are downsides in deferring to authority.  That is what prison guards at Auschwitz did.

[Anchorman]

That's breathtakingly naive.  Many church leaders have been abusers of high order. 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.

[ippy]

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

[Alan Burns]

That's breathtakingly naive.  Many church leaders have been abusers of high order.

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[ippy]

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?

[torridon]

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.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Alan Burns]

So God shouldn't have created the Devil then,

It's not rocket science you know.

God created free will -

[torridon]

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.

[SteveH]

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.

[torridon]

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 !

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.