Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
gone

deleted

deleted
Shaker

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

Floo wrote:
Some people have condemned the Harry Potter books as encouraging children to dabble in the occult.

Yes. They're called idiots.
Jim

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

Floo wrote:
Some people have condemned the Harry Potter books as encouraging children to dabble in the occult.

The Harry Potter books are much less harmful than the Bible, imo. They are a great read, quite moral and as far as I know, no one is forcing anyone to believe the tales therein are factually true! The Bible is full of hocus pocus, which if practised by a witch doctor, for instance, would have some Christians rushing for their crosses and garlic for protection. Many of the Bible stories are no more credible than those in the Harry Potter books, yet Biblical literalists reckon they actually happened as recorded. Whilst Harry Potter is read for pleasure, the Bible is often forced down the throats of people using scare tactics. I vote Harry Potter for  post of DEITY.
   





Usual stuff here
Opinion is NOT fact,.
I love the Harry Potter series (though with the caviat that the last two novels are not suitable for under tens).
They are a good intro to the fantasy genre.

Scripture - the Spirit given word of God, is, to wquote one of the vanishingly few bits of Church of Scotland speak with which I wholeheartedly concur is
"The Supreme rule for faith and life".


Oh, and before you use the words "hocus-pocus", especially in a Christian context, can I suggest that you check the origin of the phrase?
I don't object - but it may cause offence to those on the board who agree with the concept of transubstantiation.
JMC

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

Jim wrote:

I don't object - but it may cause offence to those on the board who agree with the concept of transubstantiation.


Or those who like Latin.  
The origin of the term is obscure though, and may not refer to the RC mass. Even if it did, using the term isn't particularly offensive to any one who believes that the Body and Blood of Christ is eaten at the Eucharist; at worst it just throws a light on the sneering ridicule that some self-proclaimed Christians are/were capable of when referring to others' beliefs (if it is indeed the source of the term).
gone

deleted
The Boyg

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

Jim wrote:

I don't object - but it may cause offence to those on the board who agree with the concept of transubstantiation.


It doesn't bother me.

I'm not even perturbed by the subsequent clanging of the perennial empty vessel.
Jim

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

The Boyg wrote:
Jim wrote:

I don't object - but it may cause offence to those on the board who agree with the concept of transubstantiation.


It doesn't bother me.

I'm not even perturbed by the subsequent clanging of the perennial empty vessel.



I know my tradition doesn't take the same view on sacraments as yours, but I think that ridiculing them is simply below the belt, and something I, for one, would never do.
gone

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

deleted
Jim

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Jim wrote:

I don't object - but it may cause offence to those on the board who agree with the concept of transubstantiation.


It doesn't bother me.

I'm not even perturbed by the subsequent clanging of the perennial empty vessel.



I know my tradition doesn't take the same view on sacraments as yours, but I think that ridiculing them is simply below the belt, and something I, for one, would never do.


I will certainly ridicule the silly notion that the bread and wine actually turns in to the body and blood of Jesus, which is a LIE! I can live the sacrament as the representation of his body and blood.
 




Sorry, floo, your definition of 'lie' is incorrect.
I may not agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation, but whether I agree with it or not, I acknowledge that, whatever it is it is NOT a lie.
gone

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

deleted
cyberman

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Jim wrote:

I don't object - but it may cause offence to those on the board who agree with the concept of transubstantiation.


It doesn't bother me.

I'm not even perturbed by the subsequent clanging of the perennial empty vessel.



I know my tradition doesn't take the same view on sacraments as yours, but I think that ridiculing them is simply below the belt, and something I, for one, would never do.



I will certainly ridicule the silly notion that the bread and wine actually turns in to the body and blood of Jesus, which is a LIE! I can live the sacrament as the representation of his body and blood.
 




Sorry, floo, your definition of 'lie' is incorrect.
I may not agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation, but whether I agree with it or not, I acknowledge that, whatever it is it is NOT a lie.


Of course it is a lie, claiming the bread and wine actually turns into the body and blood, when of course it doesn't!


Are you aware that it is possible for a person to be wrong, and not be lying?
genghiscant

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

cyberman wrote:
Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Jim wrote:

I don't object - but it may cause offence to those on the board who agree with the concept of transubstantiation.


It doesn't bother me.

I'm not even perturbed by the subsequent clanging of the perennial empty vessel.



I know my tradition doesn't take the same view on sacraments as yours, but I think that ridiculing them is simply below the belt, and something I, for one, would never do.



I will certainly ridicule the silly notion that the bread and wine actually turns in to the body and blood of Jesus, which is a LIE! I can live the sacrament as the representation of his body and blood.
 




Sorry, floo, your definition of 'lie' is incorrect.
I may not agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation, but whether I agree with it or not, I acknowledge that, whatever it is it is NOT a lie.


Of course it is a lie, claiming the bread and wine actually turns into the body and blood, when of course it doesn't!


Are you aware that it is possible for a person to be wrong, and not be lying?


floo isn't  talking about a person lying, but a whole faith. Are you saying your faith is lying or that your faith is wrong?
cyberman

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

genghiscant wrote:


floo isn't  talking about a person lying, but a whole faith.  


The piont still applies. It can be wrong without lying, as most grown ups know.

genghiscant wrote:

Are you saying your faith is lying or that your faith is wrong?


I am saying neither of those things, as anyone with the abilty to read can see.
genghiscant

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:


floo isn't  talking about a person lying, but a whole faith.  


The piont still applies. It can be wrong without lying, as most grown ups know.

genghiscant wrote:

Are you saying your faith is lying or that your faith is wrong?


I am saying neither of those things, as anyone with the abilty to read can see.


Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?
bnabernard

Wrong without lying what creates the wrong that leads to the spread of something that is not true?

bernard  (hug)
Shaker

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

Floo wrote:
Of course it is a lie, claiming the bread and wine actually turns into the body and blood, when of course it doesn't!

That's not what's actually claimed, though - in reality it's far more subtle, though no more or less hugely silly, than that.
The Boyg

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?


Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.
Shaker

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

The Boyg wrote:
It's a miracle.

... though only in the David Hume sense, of course  
genghiscant

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?


Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.


Fucking pile of shit. Some people will believe all kinds of crap.
The Boyg

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?

Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.

Fucking pile of shit. Some people will believe all kinds of crap.


Your erudition is always so refreshing.  
genghiscant

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?

Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.

Fucking pile of shit. Some people will believe all kinds of crap.


Your erudition is always so refreshing.  


Thanks.
The Boyg

And your ability to completely miss the point is always so amusing.  
Leonard James

I doubt very much if anybody actually lies when they proclaim their weird religious beliefs.

I suppose if they are convinced that "supernatural powers" exist, then anything attributed to such powers is believable.

To the rest of us it all sounds daft.
trentvoyager

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?


Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.


Fucking pile of shit. Some people will believe all kinds of crap.


Moderator's Note:
Whilst it may, or may not be, a steaming pile of horse manure can I just take this opportunity to remind you that this is not the Bear Pit. Thank you.
gone

deleted
Jim

Why?
Even I, who find the mystery of the elements of bread and wine a 'sign and symbol' of the body and blood shed for me on Calvary, n intensely moving occasion, can appreciate the awe with which my RC brothers and sisters approach the elements, even though I do not share their doctrine.

I have participated in hundreds of services of communion.
Each one is an intensely personal, moving affair, and many, many times I have been moved to tears in the partaking of the elements.
If 'symbols' do that for me, then how much more intense for RCs?
'Yucky' is so far from the truth of the experience that it is not on the radar.
Leonard James

Jim wrote:
Why?
Even I, who find the mystery of the elements of bread and wine a 'sign and symbol' of the body and blood shed for me on Calvary, n intensely moving occasion, can appreciate the awe with which my RC brothers and sisters approach the elements, even though I do not share their doctrine.

I have participated in hundreds of services of communion.
Each one is an intensely personal, moving affair, and many, many times I have been moved to tears in the partaking of the elements.
If 'symbols' do that for me, then how much more intense for RCs?
'Yucky' is so far from the truth of the experience that it is not on the radar.


I'm sorry Jim, but anybody who doesn't consider the idea of drinking human blood and eating human flesh (no matter what the source) yukky is a bit weird in my book.
Jim

Leonard James wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why?
Even I, who find the mystery of the elements of bread and wine a 'sign and symbol' of the body and blood shed for me on Calvary, n intensely moving occasion, can appreciate the awe with which my RC brothers and sisters approach the elements, even though I do not share their doctrine.

I have participated in hundreds of services of communion.
Each one is an intensely personal, moving affair, and many, many times I have been moved to tears in the partaking of the elements.
If 'symbols' do that for me, then how much more intense for RCs?
'Yucky' is so far from the truth of the experience that it is not on the radar.


I'm sorry Jim, but anybody who doesn't consider the idea of drinking human blood and eating human flesh (no matter what the source) yukky is a bit weird in my book.
 



I appreciate your point, Len - but when we partake of the elements, we remember just who asked us to do it, why He did so, and what the sacrifice He gave means to us...everything.
Leonard James

Jim wrote:

I appreciate your point, Len - but when we partake of the elements, we remember just who asked us to do it, why He did so, and what the sacrifice He gave means to us...everything.


And I appreciate your point, Jim, but I don't believe that anybody taking the sacraments sincerely believes that they are actually the blood and flesh of Jesus. The very idea is vomit-making.
Leonard James

Even Jesus himself used the expressions symbolically.
The Boyg

Gospel of John, Ch6:

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said,  “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”  
42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say,  ‘I came down from heaven’ ?”  
43  “Stop grumbling among yourselves,”  Jesus answered.  
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.  
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’  Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.  
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.  
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.  
48 I am the bread of life.  
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.  
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.  
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.  
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.  
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.  
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”  
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.  
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?  
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!  
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit   and life.  
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”  For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
bnabernard

Thats wierd, after going into all that detail about how important his flesh is he then says the flesh counts for nothing,  

bernard (hug)
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Gospel of John, Ch6:

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said,  “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”  
42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say,  ‘I came down from heaven’ ?”  
43  “Stop grumbling among yourselves,”  Jesus answered.  
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.  
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’  Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.  
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.  
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.  
48 I am the bread of life.  
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.  
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.  
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.  
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.  
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.  
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”  
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.  
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?  
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!  
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit   and life.  
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”  For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.


Oh dear, my mistake! He certainly seems to mean it literally there. What a revolting idea!
Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
Oh dear, my mistake! He certainly seems to mean it literally there. What a revolting idea!

Not necessarily - he called himself real food, presumably in the sense of real sustenance or nourishment: he referred to himself (rather repetitively) as bread as well but I doubt he literally meant he was a large sliced white.
bnabernard

Hardly Len cos he adds a caveat in 63

63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit   and life.

so somewhere along the line there is a riddle.

bernard (hug)
Farmer Geddon

This is what the author of "John" wants Jesus to say. Doesn't mean that Jesus actually said it...
Jim

Leonard James wrote:
Even Jesus himself used the expressions symbolically.



Agreed.
As I posted above, I'm no 'transubstantiationalist'.
Yet, having taken the elements so often, I can appreciate the feelings those who are transubstantiationalists might have toward the sacrament.

I agree with you - Jesus made it very clear (as far as I understand it) that the elements were to be symbolic; for one thing, how could He share Himself out when He Himself was fully present?
However the fact that, for me the elements are symbols of His sacrifice for me takes not one jot from the solemnity, emotion and significance of the communion itself.
Farmer Geddon

In fact it is universally acknowledged that the author of "John" had never witnessed Jesus' preaching, in fact he wasn't even born when Jesus was doing his stuff, so just made shit up to justify his own preaching..
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
And your ability to completely miss the point is always so amusing.  


And your own inability to spot a sarcastic reply, is even funnier.
gone

deleted
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
And your ability to completely miss the point is always so amusing.  

And your own inability to spot a sarcastic reply, is even funnier.


If you say so.  
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Oh dear, my mistake! He certainly seems to mean it literally there. What a revolting idea!

Not necessarily - he called himself real food, presumably in the sense of real sustenance or nourishment: he referred to himself (rather repetitively) as bread as well but I doubt he literally meant he was a large sliced white.


I can't for the life of me imagine what he really meant if it wasn't just symbolic. If he just meant them to believe him and live their lives as he taught, why not just say so?

Of course, we don't really know that any of the dialogue attributed to him is what he actually said, so it's a bit silly to argue about it!
Jim

Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why?
Even I, who find the mystery of the elements of bread and wine a 'sign and symbol' of the body and blood shed for me on Calvary, n intensely moving occasion, can appreciate the awe with which my RC brothers and sisters approach the elements, even though I do not share their doctrine.

I have participated in hundreds of services of communion.
Each one is an intensely personal, moving affair, and many, many times I have been moved to tears in the partaking of the elements.
If 'symbols' do that for me, then how much more intense for RCs?
'Yucky' is so far from the truth of the experience that it is not on the radar.


The whole crucifixion saga was yucky and horrible, I don't find anything remotely good in the death of a youngish radical, who could be said to have brought his tragic demise upon himself by deliberately winding up the religious authorities. The whole 'dying to save humanity' bit isn't the slightest bit credible, or necessary, imo.
   



Dunno who you're on about, floo.
I'm talking about Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.
gone

deleted
bnabernard

Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why?
Even I, who find the mystery of the elements of bread and wine a 'sign and symbol' of the body and blood shed for me on Calvary, n intensely moving occasion, can appreciate the awe with which my RC brothers and sisters approach the elements, even though I do not share their doctrine.

I have participated in hundreds of services of communion.
Each one is an intensely personal, moving affair, and many, many times I have been moved to tears in the partaking of the elements.
If 'symbols' do that for me, then how much more intense for RCs?
'Yucky' is so far from the truth of the experience that it is not on the radar.


The whole crucifixion saga was yucky and horrible, I don't find anything remotely good in the death of a youngish radical, who could be said to have brought his tragic demise upon himself by deliberately winding up the religious authorities. The whole 'dying to save humanity' bit isn't the slightest bit credible, or necessary, imo.
   



Dunno who you're on about, floo.
I'm talking about Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.


You might be, but I don't think such an entity exists or ever existed. I reckon the real Jesus was a guy with charisma who could hold the attention of a crowd. The idea of him being some sort of deity is not credible, imo. He was far too human with faults and failings if the gospel accounts of his activities had any credence at all. If I had been his poor longsuffering Mum I would have given him a few clips around the ear. But maybe she did!


You can't put the blame on Jesus, he was simply doing a job, the real culprit is Saul who never met the guy.
Saul a self apointed apostle following a relisation, as most do, that he had the opotunity to turn a disadvantage to an advantage.
Realising the hopless situation he was in by persecuting those who had paid attention to Jesus he turned it to his advantage, seeing the opotunity to raise himself into a high authoritive position he endevoured to make a name for himself by changing sides on his own terms.
It's not suprising that a man used to leading men became more than a match for the close companions of Jesus, briefed up in authoritive knowledge of the Pharasese, being a commander the humble uneducated became putty in his hands.
Note that Saul did not come to the selected few chosen by Jesus but circumnavigated them.
However when his true colours shewed through he was relegated to the gentile and excluded while a close but helpless eye was on him.
None the less a God was created and the prophesys was fulfilled regarding wolves.

bernard (hug)
Jim

[quote="bnabernard:111924"]
Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why?
Even I, who find the mystery of the elements of bread and wine a 'sign and symbol' of the body and blood shed for me on Calvary, n intensely moving occasion, can appreciate the awe with which my RC brothers and sisters approach the elements, even though I do not share their doctrine.

I have participated in hundreds of services of communion.
Each one is an intensely personal, moving affair, and many, many times I have been moved to tears in the partaking of the elements.
If 'symbols' do that for me, then how much more intense for RCs?
'Yucky' is so far from the truth of the experience that it is not on the radar.


The whole crucifixion saga was yucky and horrible, I don't find anything remotely good in the death of a youngish radical, who could be said to have brought his tragic demise upon himself by deliberately winding up the religious authorities. The whole 'dying to save humanity' bit isn't the slightest bit credible, or necessary, imo.
     







Dunno who you're on about, floo.
I'm talking about Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.


You might be, but I don't think such an entity exists or ever existed. I reckon the real Jesus was a guy with charisma who could hold the attention of a crowd. The idea of him being some sort of deity is not credible, imo. He was far too human with faults and failings if the gospel accounts of his activities had any credence at all. If I had been his poor longsuffering Mum I would have given him a few clips around the ear. But maybe she did!


You can't put the blame on Jesus, he was simply doing a job, the real culprit is Saul who never met the guy.
Saul a self apointed apostle following a relisation, as most do, that he had the opotunity to turn a disadvantage to an advantage.
Realising the hopless situation he was in by persecuting those who had paid attention to Jesus he turned it to his advantage, seeing the opotunity to raise himself into a high authoritive position he endevoured to make a name for himself by changing sides on his own terms.
It's not suprising that a man used to leading men became more than a match for the close companions of Jesus, briefed up in authoritive knowledge of the Pharasese, being a commander the humble uneducated became putty in his hands.
Note that Saul did not come to the selected few chosen by Jesus but circumnavigated them.
However when his true colours shewed through he was relegated to the gentile and excluded while a close but helpless eye was on him.
None the less a God was created and the prophesys was fulfilled regarding wolves.  


-
But Paul didn't write the account in Luke's Gospel...he simply quoted it.
bnabernard

 Rolls on floor laughing, Jim, words fail me.

bernard (hug)
cyberman

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

genghiscant wrote:


Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?


I am saying neither of those things. (Try asking an open question..)
cyberman

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?


Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.


Fucking pile of shit. Some people will believe all kinds of crap.


What do you think substance means, in an Aristotelean context?
bnabernard

Quote:
What do you think substance means, in an Aristotelean context?


Oh this just gets better, pity the poor peasant alas.

bernard (hug)
genghiscant

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?


Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.


Fucking pile of shit. Some people will believe all kinds of crap.


What do you think substance means, in an Aristotelean context?


Haven't got a clue & don't really care.
cyberman

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?


Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.


Fucking pile of shit. Some people will believe all kinds of crap.


What do you think substance means, in an Aristotelean context?


Haven't got a clue & don't really care.


That's fine. Given that you haven't got a clue, then you cannot possibly refute the claim that the substance changes while the matter remains the same.

#outofyourdepth
genghiscant

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?


Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.


Fucking pile of shit. Some people will believe all kinds of crap.


What do you think substance means, in an Aristotelean context?


Haven't got a clue & don't really care.


That's fine. Given that you haven't got a clue, then you cannot possibly refute the claim that the substance changes while the matter remains the same.

#outofyourdepth


I know bullshit when I see it.
bnabernard

I know bullshit when I see it.

Probably them barn conversions you kind of develop a nose for it.  Dr Who

bernard (hug)
genghiscant

bnabernard wrote:
I know bullshit when I see it.

Probably them barn conversions you kind of develop a nose for it.  Dr Who

bernard (hug)


I did a barn restoration once. It had a huge silage tank right next to it. Funny thing is, after half an hour you can't smell it anymore.
cyberman

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?


Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.


Fucking pile of shit. Some people will believe all kinds of crap.


What do you think substance means, in an Aristotelean context?


Haven't got a clue & don't really care.


That's fine. Given that you haven't got a clue, then you cannot possibly refute the claim that the substance changes while the matter remains the same.

#outofyourdepth


I know bullshit when I see it.


Yes dear. You haven't got the foggiest idea what the words mean, but you are convinced that they are wrong. I'm sure in your funny little sweary world that makes sense.
genghiscant

Re: Harry Potter v The Bible

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Are you saying that the bread & wine actually turn into flesh & blood or is it all symbollocks?


Catholics believe that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the outward appearances remain those of bread and wine. It's a miracle.


Fucking pile of shit. Some people will believe all kinds of crap.


What do you think substance means, in an Aristotelean context?


Haven't got a clue & don't really care.


That's fine. Given that you haven't got a clue, then you cannot possibly refute the claim that the substance changes while the matter remains the same.

#outofyourdepth


I know bullshit when I see it.


Yes dear. You haven't got the foggiest idea what the words mean, but you are convinced that they are wrong. I'm sure in your funny little sweary world that makes sense.


Jesus, you can talk about a little sweary world, you invented it!

Words mean what they mean, changing the interpretation to suit your own meaning is the oldest trick in the world.

Me & athiests around the world are used to theists changing their position to justify their faith in the light of scientific discoveries.
Leonard James

bnabernard wrote:
Quote:
What do you think substance means, in an Aristotelean context?


Oh this just gets better, pity the poor peasant alas.

bernard (hug)


It's all just God-speak for bullshit, Bernie!
Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
It's all just God-speak for bullshit, Bernie!

Rose

This is an interesting piece on it!

Quote:


So why isn't partaking the Holy Eucharist the same thing as cannibalism?

Short explanation...

Cannibalism = (1) eating of human flesh by a human being; (2) eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind.

Holy Eucharist (partaking of) = eating the accidents of bread and wine, having the substance of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of a divine person, Jesus Christ.

Cannibalism is evil because it causes unjust injury to human beings (i.e. unjustly injuring them so as to use them for food). Historically, cannibalism has been done ritually after victory in battle, when they ritually eat the flesh of their enemy, for example.

Christians do not do injury to a living Incarnate God by sacramentally consuming the accidents of bread and wine whose substance metaphysically becomes the incarnate body and blood of the same living God.

Cannibalism is an injustice to humanity, whereas Holy Eucharist is faithful obedience to Jesus Christ who told his disciples to eat his body "as true food."

Longer, metaphysical explanation...
http://itsjustdave1988.blogspot.c...taking-of-holy-eucharist-not.html






Julie
Rose

What I want to know is, does this (see below) mean they drink the water in the font ?



What ablutions are they on about?

Quote:


The purpose of the piscina is to dispose of water from, for example, liturgical ablutions. In my experience the more normal practice is drinking the ablutions directly after communion, but a further wash of chalice and paten in the sacristy/vestry could have the water from that poured down a piscina there. A font preferably drains directly into earth – if not, the blessed water might be poured down the piscina. [Bad practice: directly after baptising someone at the west end of the church building, just as everyone was returning to the front, the priest reached down deeply into the font pulling the plug!] Holy oils, and remaining ash from Ash Wednesday can also be disposed of down the piscina.

http://liturgy.co.nz/piscina



Or does that mean they drink the washing up water?



Whatever it is, it seems to be taken seriously!


Quote:


The Roman Catholic Church could not be clearer:

Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

Using a piscina/sacrarium for this is specifically mentioned as forbidden at 107 here.



Julie
The Boyg

Rose wrote:
What ablutions are they on about?

Quote:
In my experience the more normal practice is drinking the ablutions directly after communion, but a further wash of chalice and paten in the sacristy/vestry could have the water from that poured down a piscina there



Isn't it obvious that this refers to the cleaning of the chalice and paten that have held the Eucharist immediately after communion has been distributed?
Shaker

Rose wrote:
This is an interesting piece on it!

Quote:


So why isn't partaking the Holy Eucharist the same thing as cannibalism?

Short explanation...

Cannibalism = (1) eating of human flesh by a human being; (2) eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind.

Holy Eucharist (partaking of) = eating the accidents of bread and wine, having the substance of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of a divine person, Jesus Christ.

Cannibalism is evil because it causes unjust injury to human beings (i.e. unjustly injuring them so as to use them for food). Historically, cannibalism has been done ritually after victory in battle, when they ritually eat the flesh of their enemy, for example.

Christians do not do injury to a living Incarnate God by sacramentally consuming the accidents of bread and wine whose substance metaphysically becomes the incarnate body and blood of the same living God.

Cannibalism is an injustice to humanity ...


In the aftermath of the famous 1972 Andes plane crash some of the survivors ate the dead bodies of those who had previously perished. They weren't killed specifically to be eaten - they had already died of their wounds, or of exposure, or starvation, or a combination thereof. I wonder if this is regarded as "evil" and an "injustice to humanity"? Wikipedia says:

Quote:
All of the passengers were Roman Catholic. According to Read, some rationalized the act of necrotic cannibalism as equivalent to the ritual of Holy Communion, or justified it according to a Bible verse (no man hath greater love than this: that he lay down his life for his friends).
Rose

The Boyg wrote:
Rose wrote:
What ablutions are they on about?

Quote:
In my experience the more normal practice is drinking the ablutions directly after communion, but a further wash of chalice and paten in the sacristy/vestry could have the water from that poured down a piscina there



Isn't it obvious that this refers to the cleaning of the chalice and paten that have held the Eucharist immediately after communion has been distributed?


So basically they drink the washing up water it is cleaned in?

I knew the priest drank any remaining wine but not the washing up water as well.

Julie
The Boyg

Then you've learned something new today.
Shaker

Indeed; but was it something worth knowing?
The Boyg

Depends on whether you find knowing the details of religious rituals interesting, I suppose.  
Shaker

Such things can be useful to know in the same sense and for the same reason that it can be useful to stockpile ammunition, that much I admit.
Rose

The Boyg wrote:
Then you've learned something new today.


Yes, I have.

I have found this on it.

Quote:


Continuing with GIRM, No. 163: "Upon returning to the altar, the priest collects (and consumes) any fragments that may remain."

The term "fragment" would seem to refer to larger parts easily taken up by the fingers and not to the tiny particles that remain upon the paten and in the ciborium.

"Then, standing at the altar or at the credence table, he purifies the paten or ciborium over the chalice then purifies the chalice..." This is usually done by placing the paten over the chalice at an angle so that the tiny fragments fall into it. If necessary, this process may be helped by moving the particles with the corner of a folded purificator or with the thumb, which in turn is rubbed over the chalice to loosen any particles that may have adhered. If necessary, especially in hot and humid climes, the fingers may also be purified with water.

The ciborium may be purified by hand in the same manner. But because of the large number of small particles in this vessel, it is often necessary to purify it directly with water. In this case, water is placed in the ciborium, gently swished to absorb all the particles and this water is then poured directly into the chalice. Extra chalices are likewise purified with water.

The minister then consumes the water containing the particles and should not pour it into the sacrarium.

The minister then dries the ciboria and the chalice or chalices with a purificator.

When this process is completed, and only then, may the sacred vessels be washed with other elements such as soap. This is usually unnecessary and should not be done on a daily basis except, perhaps, when many people partake of the same chalice. Excess washing can cause expensive damage to the metal parts of the chalice. ZE05020822

http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur66.htm




Which makes it clearer.

So basically, it isn't drinking the washing up water exactly, or ablutions , but making sure the crumbs are consumed by swishing water about and drinking it , before washing up!





Julie
Rose

The Boyg wrote:
Depends on whether you find knowing the details of religious rituals interesting, I suppose.  


I've never really come into contact with Roman Catholic services to notice.

Once or twice, weddings,  funerals, that sort of thing, but rarely.

I have set out a table for communion in the C of E, and I know the colours of the tablecloth changes, but I never had to drink the water the cup was washed in..... At least I don't think I was meant to!

Either that, or they forgot to tell me  

I can't remember what happened  to the left over wine!

I do remember someone pointing out it wasn't meant to be tipped down the sink!

To be honest, as a steward, I didn't have a clue!

I did manage to do the prayer bit with the vicar before hand, but was just as likely to pick the wrong coloured tablecloth!

It was different!



Julie
The Boyg

Rose wrote:
but I never had to drink the water the cup was washed in


I don't know why you're referring to "the water the cup was washed in" as if the information that you quoted previously related to a vessel being fully immersed.
genghiscant

Quote:
Continuing with GIRM, No. 163: "Upon returning to the altar, the priest collects (and consumes) any fragments that may remain."

The term "fragment" would seem to refer to larger parts easily taken up by the fingers and not to the tiny particles that remain upon the paten and in the ciborium.

"Then, standing at the altar or at the credence table, he purifies the paten or ciborium over the chalice then purifies the chalice..." This is usually done by placing the paten over the chalice at an angle so that the tiny fragments fall into it. If necessary, this process may be helped by moving the particles with the corner of a folded purificator or with the thumb, which in turn is rubbed over the chalice to loosen any particles that may have adhered. If necessary, especially in hot and humid climes, the fingers may also be purified with water.

The ciborium may be purified by hand in the same manner. But because of the large number of small particles in this vessel, it is often necessary to purify it directly with water. In this case, water is placed in the ciborium, gently swished to absorb all the particles and this water is then poured directly into the chalice. Extra chalices are likewise purified with water.

The minister then consumes the water containing the particles and should not pour it into the sacrarium.

The minister then dries the ciboria and the chalice or chalices with a purificator.

When this process is completed, and only then, may the sacred vessels be washed with other elements such as soap. This is usually unnecessary and should not be done on a daily basis except, perhaps, when many people partake of the same chalice. Excess washing can cause expensive damage to the metal parts of the chalice. ZE05020822

http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur66.htm


And then they all skip around it waving red handkerchiefs, to denote the blood of Christ, whilst all singing hallelujah!

There are few things more absurd than religious ritual. It could've come straight out of Monty Python.

Quote:
Excess washing can cause expensive damage to the metal parts of the chalice.


This doesn't matter as they can get the poor suckers in the congregation to buy a new one.
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
And then they all skip around it waving red handkerchiefs, to denote the blood of Christ, whilst all singing hallelujah!


No they don't. You're just making shit up.  
Rose

The Boyg wrote:
Rose wrote:
but I never had to drink the water the cup was washed in


I don't know why you're referring to "the water the cup was washed in" as if the information that you quoted previously related to a vessel being fully immersed.


Ok, I don't remember anyone dealing with the crumbs and leftovers by swishing the remainder of them in water and drinking them.

It just made me think, because sometimes CofE and Roman Catholic traditions can be very similar and I washed up those things sometimes myself.

Julie
JMC

Rose wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Rose wrote:
but I never had to drink the water the cup was washed in


I don't know why you're referring to "the water the cup was washed in" as if the information that you quoted previously related to a vessel being fully immersed.


Ok, I don't remember anyone dealing with the crumbs and leftovers by swishing the remainder of them in water and drinking them.

It just made me think, because sometimes CofE and Roman Catholic traditions can be very similar and I washed up those things sometimes myself.

Julie


Probably the difference is in how most CofE see the sacrament compared to Catholics. If the bread and wine is actually the Body and Blood of Christ then you would not wash the chalice by dunking it in water, which is then allowed to go down the drain: you would use water to wash out the inside of the chalice and then consume all trace of Body and Blood contained in the water, so none was left inside the cup.

If it is just a symbol, even one reverently carried out, such care after the event is not as important.
genghiscant

Quote:
If the bread and wine is actually the Body and Blood of Christ then you would not wash the chalice by dunking it in water, which is then allowed to go down the drain: you would use water to wash out the inside of the chalice and then consume all trace of Body and Blood contained in the water, so none was left inside the cup.


JMC

Hello Ghengis,

Your signature makes an interesting point. I suppose if you think it's true, then it applies to yourself and your own viewpoint as well?
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
And then they all skip around it waving red handkerchiefs, to denote the blood of Christ, whilst all singing hallelujah!


No they don't. You're just making shit up.  


Well, the authors of the Bible started it.
genghiscant

JMC wrote:
Hello Ghengis,

Your signature makes an interesting point. I suppose if you think it's true, then it applies to yourself and your own viewpoint as well?


Not so. My family were never religious, but I went through the usual school religious stuff & never really gave it much thought. I was never either pro or anti religion. Then one day whilst attending a family christening & listening to the vicar saying his speel, it suddenly occured to me that I don't believe any of this stuff, & the rest, as they say, is history.
JMC

genghiscant wrote:
JMC wrote:
Hello Ghengis,

Your signature makes an interesting point. I suppose if you think it's true, then it applies to yourself and your own viewpoint as well?


Not so. My family were never religious, but I went through the usual school religious stuff & never really gave it much thought. I was never either pro or anti religion. Then one day whilst attending a family christening & listening to the vicar saying his speel, it suddenly occured to me that I don't believe any of this stuff, & the rest, as they say, is history.


So when you say/quote:

Quote:
People look at the possibilities, choose the one that most appeals to them, and then work backwards to justify the position.


You are not "people"? Surely if the statement in your signature holds any truth, your own viewpoint has to be included too. Your description above about your upbringing does not show that you haven't just chosen the possibility that most appealed to you.
genghiscant

JMC wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
JMC wrote:
Hello Ghengis,

Your signature makes an interesting point. I suppose if you think it's true, then it applies to yourself and your own viewpoint as well?


Not so. My family were never religious, but I went through the usual school religious stuff & never really gave it much thought. I was never either pro or anti religion. Then one day whilst attending a family christening & listening to the vicar saying his speel, it suddenly occured to me that I don't believe any of this stuff, & the rest, as they say, is history.


So when you say/quote:

Quote:
People look at the possibilities, choose the one that most appeals to them, and then work backwards to justify the position.


You are not "people"? Surely if the statement in your signature holds any truth, your own viewpoint has to be included too. Your description above about your upbringing does not show that you haven't just chosen the possibility that most appealed to you.


Perhaps, I don't know. Anyway, it's not important.
JMC

genghiscant wrote:
JMC wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
JMC wrote:
Hello Ghengis,

Your signature makes an interesting point. I suppose if you think it's true, then it applies to yourself and your own viewpoint as well?


Not so. My family were never religious, but I went through the usual school religious stuff & never really gave it much thought. I was never either pro or anti religion. Then one day whilst attending a family christening & listening to the vicar saying his speel, it suddenly occured to me that I don't believe any of this stuff, & the rest, as they say, is history.


So when you say/quote:

Quote:
People look at the possibilities, choose the one that most appeals to them, and then work backwards to justify the position.


You are not "people"? Surely if the statement in your signature holds any truth, your own viewpoint has to be included too. Your description above about your upbringing does not show that you haven't just chosen the possibility that most appealed to you.


Perhaps, I don't know. Anyway, it's not important.


That depends on whether you see a "worked back" justification as a valid form of argument. If not, then everyone's arguments - including your own - are not valid. Any criticisms of another viewpoint can easily be seen as an extension of invented justifications for one's own belief.
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
And then they all skip around it waving red handkerchiefs, to denote the blood of Christ, whilst all singing hallelujah!

No they don't. You're just making shit up.  

Well, the authors of the Bible started it.


And, even if that were true, you think that justifies you telling lies?
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
And then they all skip around it waving red handkerchiefs, to denote the blood of Christ, whilst all singing hallelujah!

No they don't. You're just making shit up.  

Well, the authors of the Bible started it.


And, even if that were true, you think that justifies you telling lies?


I think you need a "sense of humour" transplant.
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
And then they all skip around it waving red handkerchiefs, to denote the blood of Christ, whilst all singing hallelujah!

No they don't. You're just making shit up.  

Well, the authors of the Bible started it.


And, even if that were true, you think that justifies you telling lies?


I think you need a "sense of humour" transplant.


Would that justify you telling lies?
Ketty

JMC wrote:
Probably the difference is in how most CofE see the sacrament compared to Catholics. If the bread and wine is actually the Body and Blood of Christ then you would not wash the chalice by dunking it in water, which is then allowed to go down the drain: you would use water to wash out the inside of the chalice and then consume all trace of Body and Blood contained in the water, so none was left inside the cup.

If it is just a symbol, even one reverently carried out, such care after the event is not as important.


Re CofE, it depending upon how 'high' the particular church the priest will consume the remaining wafer and wine; the drops and crumbs will be buried in consecrated ground.
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
And then they all skip around it waving red handkerchiefs, to denote the blood of Christ, whilst all singing hallelujah!

No they don't. You're just making shit up.  

Well, the authors of the Bible started it.


And, even if that were true, you think that justifies you telling lies?


I think you need a "sense of humour" transplant.


Would that justify you telling lies?


It was a joke. A parody of the absurdity of religious ritual. If you're saying that jokes have to be true then I think you're going to be in a minority. On the other hand, if you're suggesting that the bible is a joke also, then our respective philosophies aren't that far apart after all.
JMC

Ketty wrote:
JMC wrote:
Probably the difference is in how most CofE see the sacrament compared to Catholics. If the bread and wine is actually the Body and Blood of Christ then you would not wash the chalice by dunking it in water, which is then allowed to go down the drain: you would use water to wash out the inside of the chalice and then consume all trace of Body and Blood contained in the water, so none was left inside the cup.

If it is just a symbol, even one reverently carried out, such care after the event is not as important.


Re CofE, it depending upon how 'high' the particular church the priest will consume the remaining wafer and wine; the drops and crumbs will be buried in consecrated ground.


Yes, I thought that maybe the higher Anglican churches might hold a belief closer to the RCs. I said most because I think that high churches are in a minority among the Anglican community, though I'm open to correction on that.
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
It was a joke.


Well, unless your target audience is fourteen year old schoolboys, I suggest your routine needs a lot more work.
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
It was a joke.


Well, unless your target audience is fourteen year old schoolboys, I suggest your routine needs a lot more work.


As I'm not a comedian, I don't have a routine.

I bet you're an absolute riot at a party!
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
It was a joke.


Well, unless your target audience is fourteen year old schoolboys, I suggest your routine needs a lot more work.


I'm not a comedian


Ain't that the truth!  

Too busy hod carrying, eh?
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
It was a joke.


Well, unless your target audience is fourteen year old schoolboys, I suggest your routine needs a lot more work.


I'm not a comedian


Ain't that the truth!  

Too busy hod carrying, eh?


Careful, your ignorance is showing.
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
Careful, your ignorance is showing.


Irony. Well done. That's a brave step up from your previous attempt at sarcasm.
Powwow

floo,
And I'm sure you have told your children how much you hate their Bible.
gone

deleted
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
It's all just God-speak for bullshit, Bernie!



Seriously? You think the fact that the Catholic church used to think in Aristotelean terms is just bullshit?

What I am hearing here is "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up".

Just to clarify, I am not here expecting anyone to start believing in transubstantiation. I am just trying to clarify what it is we actually believe.

I wonder whether anyone here (Len, Shaker..?) can genuinely explain to me why they think my reference to Aristotle is bullshit? I honestly don't get it.

I am sure you know that in Aristotle "substance" means something different to what it is commonly used to moean today. When we say "substance" these days, we are usually referring to what Aristotle would have called "matter".

I realise it would be more amusing for you, and easier to pisstake, if we believed that the bread and wine turned into flesh and blood in matter, so that they would no longer apear to be bread and wine is viewed under a microscope, for example. But in fact we don't believe that.

Now, you are quite free to say that what I believ is bullshit, of course. But I genuinely don't understand why you call it bullshit when I am merely trying to explain what it is I believe. Do you think I am lying about what I believe?

I expect shit-headed and uninformed responses from genghiscant, of course - but I am surprised at you Shaker.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
I am sure you know that in Aristotle "substance" means something different to what it is commonly used to moean today. When we say "substance" these days, we are usually referring to what Aristotle would have called "matter".

That's simple enough on its own terms: but of course, equally you know that when it comes to transubstantiation the nub of the issue is not Aristotle's use of the word "substance" to mean "matter" (as concepts go rather more elusive nowadays, given the state of play of contemporary physics, than in Aristotle's day or even in Aquinas's day) but the distinction drawn between "substance" and "accident" (or rather "species") in Catholic dogma - that while the accidents remain unchanged, the "substance", the inherent breadness, the breaditude of bread as it were, all bread, magically becomes something else.

Quote:
I realise it would be more amusing for you, and easier to pisstake, if we believed that the bread and wine turned into flesh and blood in matter, so that they would no longer apear to be bread and wine is viewed under a microscope, for example. But in fact we don't believe that.

Indeed. One of the most common and most egregious mistakes I've seen made when trying to criticise Christianity generally and Catholicism particularly is the belief that transubstantiation entails a belief that a small round wafer and a sip of, let's face it, fairly low-rent red wine "literally" becomes flesh and blood. I cringe every time I see it, and goodness knows I've seen it too many times over the years.

Now. If my understanding is correct - it may not be, and I'm always open to correction - what Catholic dogma (Thomistic philosophy, which itself harks back to Aristotelianism) expects the faithful Catholic to believe is that while the visible, touchable, tastable, sniffable appearance of the bread and wine remains exactly the same to empirical observation in every way, micro- or macroscopically, there's some inherent, innate Ur-breadness of bread, some Platonic Form of bread, which magically changes into the flesh and blood of a minor Jewish rabble-rouser who may have lived in the middle east two thousand years ago.

I'm pretty certain that that's what Len was referring to as bullshit   So, very far from it being a case of "Don't confuse me with facts," Len is probably thinking, as am I, that nobody has deigned to present any yet. We're not exactly in the realm of facts here, are we? I know that Keats defined negative capability as being that state without any irritable reaching after fact and reason, but constituted as I am, I don't go in for that a very great deal.

If theistic religions generally weren't prey to this sort of ham-handed and bone-headed literalism (think creationism - not that Catholics are inherently YECS: I'm saying that creationism is another manifestation of the kind of thing I'm talking about) this kind of thing would never arise in the first place. If Jesus points to bread and wine and says "This is my body and my blood: eat and drink these and do it in remembrance of me and the things I've said," and that's taken to be, as any sane adult would take it, a symbolic reference to Jesus and his message, a useful aide memoire with common and easily-to-hand simple, everyday things, we wouldn't have had two thousand years wherein a considerable ocean of ink and unfortunately also a lot of blood spilt over whether it's a metaphor or literally true. The ink I don't mind, but the blood, I do.

It's a sad and curious feature of humanity that the very same species which anthropologists tell us is Homo symbolicus - the uniquely symbolic species able to understand metaphor, simile and analogy; the one creature (as far as we know) capable of abstract thought, futurity and complex language - can be so obdurately literal-minded sometimes.
genghiscant

Quote:
If theistic religions generally weren't prey to this sort of ham-handed and shit-headed literalism (think creationism), this kind of thing would never arise in the first place.

(Apologies to Shaker)
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
It's all just God-speak for bullshit, Bernie!



Seriously? You think the fact that the Catholic church used to think in Aristotelean terms is just bullshit?

What I am hearing here is "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up".

Just to clarify, I am not here expecting anyone to start believing in transubstantiation. I am just trying to clarify what it is we actually believe.

I wonder whether anyone here (Len, Shaker..?) can genuinely explain to me why they think my reference to Aristotle is bullshit? I honestly don't get it.

I am sure you know that in Aristotle "substance" means something different to what it is commonly used to moean today. When we say "substance" these days, we are usually referring to what Aristotle would have called "matter".

I realise it would be more amusing for you, and easier to pisstake, if we believed that the bread and wine turned into flesh and blood in matter, so that they would no longer apear to be bread and wine is viewed under a microscope, for example. But in fact we don't believe that.

Now, you are quite free to say that what I believ is bullshit, of course. But I genuinely don't understand why you call it bullshit when I am merely trying to explain what it is I believe. Do you think I am lying about what I believe?

I expect shit-headed and uninformed responses from genghiscant, of course - but I am surprised at you Shaker.


What I think is bullshit is the belief that somehow the bread and wine of the Eucharist is somehow magically transformed into flesh and blood without it undergoing any physical change.
JMC

Leonard James wrote:

What I think is bullshit is the belief that somehow the bread and wine of the Eucharist is somehow magically transformed into flesh and blood without it undergoing any physical change.


That's because you expect any claim about the nature of things to be backed up by hard, physical evidence. Like a claim to having steered "gullible" people on forums away from religious belief and towards unbelief in God.  I mean, such a claim without any physical evidence to back it up? Well, you've already supplied your own label for what such a claim could be called  

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum