Yeah, the latin doctrine of transubstantiation is quite close to the EO doctrine of Metousiosis. The Eastern and Western Church are not that different. They were the result of the first schism, which was mostly over political issues, and the role the pope wanted to have over all the churches, which the East opposed.Ooh. How embarrassing. Do you believe in transubstantiation? — Sapientia
Yeah, the latin doctrine of transubstantiation is quite close to the EO doctrine of Metousiosis. The Eastern and Western Church are not that different. They were the result of the first schism, which was mostly over political issues, and the role the pope wanted to have over all the churches, which the East opposed. — Agustino
Exactly, so why are you looking for it?Obviously it doesn't claim that there will be biological evidence. — Sapientia
If it's miraculous (ie mystical), why do you expect to find a biological change in the composition of the wine and bread? If there was such a biological change, then it wouldn't be mystical at all. The Eucharist is mystical in nature - Christ is mystically present in the bread and wine, not in terms of the atoms that compose it. As you say, it still has the appearance, physically, of bread and wine.Obviously it doesn't claim that there will be biological evidence. The rest seems fine, and Google backs it up. Transubstantiation is the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine. — Sapientia
Exactly, so why are you looking for it? — Agustino
If it's miraculous (ie mystical), why do you expect to find a biological change in the composition of the wine and bread? If there was such a biological change, then it wouldn't be mystical at all. The Eucharist is mystical in nature - Christ is mystically present in the bread and wine, not in terms of the atoms that compose it. — Agustino
Why do you expect to see that if it were true? :sI'm not. I said that that's what I'd expect to see if it were true. I don't base my expectations on what is absent from an old work of fiction. I base my expectations on what I know about science. — Sapientia
That's another discussion, but you cannot expect transubstantiation to meet your standards of evidence because the doctrine itself makes it explicitly clear that it doesn't. So you can disbelieve transubstantiation because you don't believe in mystical possibilities or miracles, BUT you cannot disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine.Obviously I don't believe in miracles or faux mysteries. I'm curious why you do. That's how our conversation began, but now you're making it about me. — Sapientia
Why do you expect to see that if it were true? — Agustino
When the doctrine itself says that the wine and the bread retain the appearance of wine and bread, how can you possibly expect that appearance to be changed so that you'd find that it is biologically blood and not wine, and biologically flesh and not bread? — Agustino
That's another discussion, but you cannot expect transubstantiation to meet your standards of evidence because the doctrine itself makes it explicitly clear that it doesn't. — Agustino
So you can disbelieve transubstantiation because you don't believe in mystical possibilities or miracles, BUT you cannot disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine. — Agustino
It's not about believing it at this point, it's about judging a doctrine by the claims that it makes. If a doctrine claims that X is false, you cannot judge the doctrine as false because X isn't true, obviously. That's a basic logical fallacy.But why do you believe that? Because it's what the doctrine says? — Sapientia
I wouldn't believe that because firstly I don't understand what it means, so I can't believe it. But I certainly don't disbelieve it because I don't see the fig having the appearance of a flying octopus, obviously.What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a fig, if it is eaten in a special ceremony? Would you believe that? — Sapientia
Empty assertion.Yes I can, because the doctrine itself, if taken literally, is full of rubbish. — Sapientia
One is a logical fallacy, but I see you like logical fallacies :PI can do both. — Sapientia
Why do you expect to see that if it were true? — Agustino
You can disbelieve it, but not for the reason you gave, namely that there is no biological evidence in the wine and bread that they are the body and blood of Christ - since that's not what the doctrine claims in the first place.I don't believe otherwise, so if that's what the doctrine entails, then I don't believe that the doctrine is true. — Sapientia
It's not about believing it at this point, it's about judging a doctrine by the claims that it makes. If a doctrine claims that X is false, you cannot judge the doctrine as false because X is true, obviously. That's a basic logical fallacy. — Agustino
I wouldn't believe that because firstly I don't understand what it means, so I can't believe it. — Agustino
But I certainly don't disbelieve it because I don't see the fig having the appearance of a flying octopus, obviously. — Agustino
Empty assertion. — Agustino
One is a logical fallacy, but I see you like logical fallacies. — Agustino
It means what it says. — Sapientia
In what sense does the fig transform into a flying octopus if it keeps the physical appearance of a fig? You might say in a mystical sense. Well then, I will ask what is a flying octopus in a mystical sense?What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a fig — Sapientia
There is evidence. Mystical experience.If you were reasonable, you'd disbelieve it because there is no evidence, besides hearsay, that it has ever happened, or, really, that it ever could happen. — Sapientia
:B >:ONo it's not. Have you read the doctrine? Or, rather, is it just that you do not want it to be full of rubbish, because you don't want to believe in rubbish? Sorry, but it is what it is. — Sapientia
So if I tell you that there are no flying pigs, do you disbelieve because there are no flying pigs? :BI disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine — Sapientia
Yes, if they had the appearance of the body and blood of Christ sure. But that's not what the doctrine claims. — Agustino
You can disbelieve it, but not for the reason you gave, namely that there is no biological evidence in the wine and bread that they are the body and blood of Christ - since that's not what the doctrine claims in the first place. — Agustino
So you should clarify your question. Your first question wasn't that. It was telling me how I should disbelieve the doctrine based on what it never claimed. That was indeed missing the point. So now if you rephrase your question on to the right subject, why I personally believe, I may be able to answer it.That's missing the point. You can't rightly answer my question of why you believe what the doctrine claims by saying that that's what the doctrine claims. — Sapientia
In what sense does the fig transform into a flying octopus if it keeps the physical appearance of a fig? You might say in a mystical sense. Well then, I will ask what is a flying octopus in a mystical sense?
I can tell you what the blood and body of Christ are in a mystical sense, I can tell you the significance of that. But not of the flying octopus. So I disbelieve the latter because I don't understand what it means.
I'm a humble boy, unlike the arrogant owl, who admits to not understanding some things, you see. — Agustino
There is evidence. Mystical experience. — Agustino
So if I tell you that there are no flying pigs, do you disbelieve because there are no flying pigs? — Agustino
So you should clarify your question. Your first question wasn't that. It was telling me how I should disbelieve the doctrine based on what it never claimed. That was indeed missing the point. So now if you rephrase your question on to the right subject, why I personally believe, I may be able to answer it. — Agustino
Yeah, mystical experiences are real, people experience them, you know :BI'm talking about real evidence. — Sapientia
Right good. So we settled that your first assumption that you can disbelieve transubstantiation because there is no physical evidence is silly.I believe that there are no flying pigs based on the evidence, or the lack thereof. — Sapientia
To leave a scientific trail or change its original appearance would be to do precisely what the doctrine claims it doesn't do. So you cannot falsify something in this manner. You have to falsify based on the predictions it does make. I outlined before how something can MYSTICALLY - I have no clue what you mean by literarily - change while maintaining its appearance.What I want to know is how you think the one can literally change into the other, whilst keeping its original appearance, and leaving no scientific trail of evidence. — Sapientia
That wasn't my answer. My answer was why should I expect a scientific basis for believing in the doctrine? You're asking a stupid question, like me asking why are you still beating your wife? You have to think about what kind of questions you're asking and what presuppositions they make. So please, do some work here if you want to get somewhere to understand those issues on a deeper level."What is it that you find convincing about something so ridiculous, fantastical, and without scientific basis? Or is it just irrational faith?".
"The doctrine says so", isn't a real answer. — Sapientia
Yeah, mystical experiences are real, people experience them, you know — Agustino
Hope you enjoy your lunch.Anyway, I'm going out now to meet a friend for lunch. See you later. — Sapientia
No, of course it doesn't. But you cannot outright reject the testimony of many millions of people without reason. So until some reasons are provided (ex. mystical experiences only appear to be mystical, but are in reality x y z physical process caused by m n b playing itself out), I'm free to reject that claim outright.Merely because one claims their experience is mystical doesn't mean that experience is in fact mystical. — Buxtebuddha
Yeah, mystical experiences are real, people experience them, you know. — Agustino
Right good. So we settled that your first assumption that you can disbelieve transubstantiation because there is no physical evidence is silly. — Agustino
To leave a scientific trail or change its original appearance would be to do precisely what the doctrine claims it doesn't do. So you cannot falsify something in this manner. You have to falsify based on the predictions it does make. I outlined before how something can MYSTICALLY - I have no clue what you mean by literarily - change while maintaining its appearance. — Agustino
Let me give you an example that second grade Mike will be able to understand. You're not feeling sexually excited and you look at an attractive girl, but you're not interested in her. After some time you get sexually excited, start feeling horny (sorry but I do have to speak at this level it seems to be understood) and you look at the same girl, who appears the same, and is physically the same, and suddenly you are attracted to her. She means something different to you than she did before. That's a transubstantiation - something maintains the same appearance, but changes its inner significance and meaning. It's not that hard to understand, but I really feel I have to speak at those mundane and philistine levels to make myself understood here. Many of the threads in the forums are also starting to become annoying because everyone speaks so vaguely and incoherently about things, which is part of the reason why I've been participating less in some threads. — Agustino
That wasn't my answer. My answer was why should I expect a scientific basis for believing in the doctrine? — Agustino
You're asking a stupid question, like me asking why are you still beating your wife? You have to think about what kind of questions you're asking and what presuppositions they make. So please, do some work here if you want to get somewhere to understand those issues on a deeper level. — Agustino
Make some effort to follow attentively the thread of the discussion, and don't strawman. I'm not avoiding answering you, I'm questioning the presuppositions that you make when trying to question me. If you don't put the work in, then you're wasting my time, and I'm currently busy, so it gets tiring to respond and repeat the same things over and over again. — Agustino
Yeah me too, I wasn't talking about dreamland.I'm talking about the real world. — Sapientia
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.There's no evidence, besides hearsay, that that has ever happened, so it is perfectly reasonable to question why you think that it happens. — Sapientia
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.Yeah, that's not an example of transubstantiation. That's just feeling horny over some girl. That's an ordinary, common place occurrence, which can be explained. That's not an extraordinary and inexplicable event which would defy all current scientific knowledge. The two aren't comparable. — Sapientia
:s - the doctrine doesn't contradict any scientific predictions, so why is it the doctrine vs science? :sBecause science has proven itself to be considerably more reliable. Why shouldn't you have confidence in science over your doctrine? — Sapientia
Yeah me too. I have confidence in science when dealing with physical & quantifiable matters.I have confidence in science because it has a great track record. — Sapientia
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.Its predictions have turned out correct, or have at least been of use and set us on the right track, ever adding to our knowledge about the world. — Sapientia
Were we discussing the Bible? That's news to me.No, I think that it's you who is failing to get it. For example, a prominent failure on your part is your reoccurring error of mistaking my focus on external errors (something that the Bible gets wrong about the external world) to be about internal errors (something that contradicts the Bible's own message). I have tried to clarify this for you, but based on your replies, it seems that you still aren't getting it. You just keep repeating that the doctrine says this and does not say that, as if that matters. — Sapientia
I'm talking about the real world. — Sapientia
The experiences described are more than just "funny feelings". — Agustino
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.