I believe the doctrine because my own understanding and study of religion, combined with understanding of human anthropology and my own experiences (mystical or otherwise) reveal that (1) Christianity is unique amongst the world's religions, (2) mystical experiences of the kind the doctrine speaks about do happen to people, (3) the meaning of the doctrine is transparent, clear and understandable, and (4) transubstantiation fits into the larger scheme of things predicated by other things I know.
So those are my personal reasons for believing. And there probably are more. Now I don't doubt that you'll have further arguments with each one of those, since you are set to try to disprove what I say, not to consider it. That's okay, but realise that I do have reasons for believing it, even if you don't share them. — Agustino
Yep, some of them no doubt are.The masses you appeal to are simply wrong. — Sapientia
Some of them aren't intelligent, others are extremely intelligent. There are both kinds of people. Or do you mean to suggest that only stupid people have mystical experiences or claim to have had them?They aren't intelligent enough to make sense of these experiences, or they're in denial, so they jump to conclusions and believe what they want to believe. — Sapientia
The doctrine assumes that what is real, indeed what is most real, is not the physical world. Trying to make sense of it while assuming some version of materialism, as you apparently hold to, is definitionally impossible. — Thorongil
Yeah me too, I wasn't talking about dreamland. — Agustino
What would you expect to happen if the doctrine was true? You must know what predictions the doctrine makes to judge if they do or do not happen.
And please don't tell me some idiotic thing like I expect a literal change. No - I want you to tell me exactly what you would expect. If it's a literal change, you have to tell me, for example, I expect that in the wine there will be found blood, or something of that sort. — Agustino
Yes, by analogy they certainly are comparable. You said you were mystified how something can remain physically the same and yet literarily change. I just gave you an example - a common one as you say - where that happens. So then you're not really so mystified about how something can remain the same physically and yet literarily change. — Agustino
The doctrine doesn't contradict any scientific predictions, so why is it the doctrine vs science? :s — Agustino
Yeah me too. I have confidence in science when dealing with physical & quantifiable matters. — Agustino
Its predictions have turned out correctly indeed. But only in a limited domain. And that's the domain which studies the behaviour of physical matter, where things can be studied quantitatively. So if we're dealing with a domain where we need a qualitative study, and not a quantitative one (such as spirituality), then science is of little use. The same way that a hammer is great for hittin' the nails, but crap for cutting the tree. You are being entirely irrational and laughable if you're telling me I should use science in a spiritual matter because science has great results in an entirely different domain. — Agustino
Were we discussing the Bible? That's news to me. — Agustino
So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way — ProbablyTrue
Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. — ProbablyTrue
not in a scientific way — Thorongil
By "the text" I suppose you mean the Bible. It may be disputable, but I think the New Testament affirms the doctrine. And early Christians did believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All Christians believe it is symbolic, by the way, but those who believe in the real presence don't think it's merely symbolic. — Thorongil
In fact, the Tertullian quote affirms it quite strongly. — Thorongil
Ok. The burden of proof still rests on the believer, and fuzzy feelings don't count as proof. — ProbablyTrue
I provided quotes of very early Christian leaders denying the physical presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. You care you cite some of the early Christians you speak of? I could cite many more to make my case. — ProbablyTrue
Are you suggesting that Jesus ate and drank himself with his disciples? — ProbablyTrue
You do not understand the theological implications here. This is Tertullian affirming that God was flesh, not that the bread became God's literal flesh and blood. — ProbablyTrue
Makes sense to me. You're just quote mining without respect of context. — Thorongil
Yeah, mystical experiences are real, people experience them, you know — Agustino
Could've fooled me! You were talking about the mystical transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of a man who died around 2000 years ago. That is the stuff of dreams and myths, not reality. You'd have to be blind not to see that. — Sapientia
I didn't ask you to entertain the idea. I simply asked you to tell what you expect to happen if the doctrine is true? That's much like asking you what would you expect to happen if Newton's theory of gravitation is true? Can you answer one question? Then you should be able to answer the other too. So stop trembling, shaking, and deflecting, and answer the darn question in clear and no uncertain terms.No, that's a deflection. I don't expect miracles. Why should I humour you and entertain the idea? I expect results based on facts, not on wild imagination. — Sapientia
Yes, actually, if you put it that way, in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable.And you're wrong that there would be no physical change. We're constantly changing physically from one moment to the next. This is covered by science, e.g. physiology and particle physics. Is this supposed transubstantiation that is thought to occur after receiving the Eucharist likewise covered by science? — Sapientia
That's only your own faith.No, because it's just a myth, taken up on faith. It's not falsifiable and is therefore unscientific. — Sapientia
No, it's not. The doctrine makes no physical predictions, so it simply has nothing to do with science.The doctrine is unscientific. That's why it's the doctrine vs. science. — Sapientia
Sure, that's exactly why I gave you 4 or so different reasons for believing it.Just because science cannot apply, you don't need to recklessly abandon critical thinking. — Sapientia
Ghosts and celestial teapots are supposed to physically appear, to be observed around in the physical world. They are not qualitative phenomena, but quantitative ones. So how is there an analogy between transubstantiation and ghosts / celestial pots?If you don't believe in ghosts or celestial teapots, then why transubstantiation? Why the double standard? Why the special pleading? — Sapientia
>:O >:O >:O - it's funny how you think you're not letting your guard down.You are embracing such nonsense with open arms, whilst I am not letting my guard down. — Sapientia
Yeah, a nonresponse to a nonquestion. If you can't be sufficiently accurate and specific in the questions that you ask, you'll keep asking a lot of bad questions. Then you'll be like yeah yeah yeah, replace this with that, or whatever, doesn't matter >:OOkay, then simply swap "The Bible" for whatever doctrine you were referring to. That's a nonresponse. — Sapientia
Mystical experiences can be verified scientifically. As can "funny feelings".So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way, but because it's religious doctrine, we should give it some credence? That seems absurd. — ProbablyTrue
Apart from the Protestant bit, the other bits are false. Transubstantiation is NOT a physical change, so it's much closer to a symbolic change, absolutely. That's what Orthodox and Catholics have meant from the very beginning. It is aimed at reproducing the effect of Christ's sacrifice, which was the divinization of the flesh (hence of bread and wine).Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. Protestants also do not believe in transubstantiation. — ProbablyTrue
Unhistorical.No Catholic has ever experienced transubstantiation. — Akanthinos
Yep it is. Just not physically.For a Catholic it isn't symbolic either (according to the Cathechism anyway). The substance of the flesh and blood of Christ is truly there, and there is truly nothing left of the bread and wine except for everything that makes us feel about it that it is bread and wine. — Akanthinos
materialism — Thorongil
materialists — Noble Dust
If I may interject, this is the reason why you fail to understand transubstantiation. The doctrine assumes that what is real, indeed what is most real, is not the physical world. Trying to make sense of it while assuming some version of materialism, as you apparently hold to, is definitionally impossible. Trying to understand any idea on your own terms is a recipe for failure. You need to either defeat its presuppositions or demonstrate your own in order to advance the charge of incoherence.
I realize that that's a big task, but it is a necessary one. — Thorongil
That's no argument against the charges Thorongil has brought to you. — Noble Dust
He brought up the problem of transubstantiation within the context of materialism. Can you explain in detail your position, as a materialist? — Noble Dust
Transubstantiation is NOT a physical change, so it's much closer to a symbolic change, absolutely. That's what Orthodox and Catholics have meant from the very beginning. It is aimed at reproducing the effect of Christ's sacrifice, which was the divinization of the flesh (hence of bread and wine). — Agustino
Mystical experiences can be verified scientifically. — Agustino
Expound? Maybe expand.Can you expound on this? — ProbablyTrue
Expound? Maybe expand. — Agustino
I made the claim because I was confident that you were from other discussions and claims that you've made. I'd rather hear you describe your views than assume them. If you're interested. But this is the shoutbox, after all. Common curtesy isn't really the norm... — Noble Dust
Yep, I was never arguing that only Christians have mystical experiences.I'm sure they'd find the same things in the minds of Muslims or Mormons. — ProbablyTrue
What thoughts would you expect? I think the Eucharist is amply prefigured in the Bible.Any thoughts on the actual quotations from the Bible or do you want to stick with early church leaders? — ProbablyTrue
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" — John 6:51-56
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.