When I responded about the issue with treating it as a matter of evidence, you insisted a claim to which evidence was supposedly relevant. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Catholics cannot expect it to happen empirically. — TheWillowOfDarkness
There is no separation between the empirical and how an empirical state appears to us. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The underlying question here is: what does it even mean for it to happen? Since it is not empirical, what is even at stake in transubstantiation? What would it mean for it to be true? What would an expectation it was true entail? What does it even mean to say its true or false?
These seem to be the questions you aren't asking and answering. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Even as you accept Agustino's account that its unfalsifiable (which I missed, being in one of many quote trees), you keep talking in terms of some contingent event which would be true or false by some sort of evidence-- such that we would have to have "faith" it was or was not so, due to evidence not arbiting either way. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Precisely because you don't see people rise from the dead from time to time, it shows that the Resurrection of Christ was a unique event in history. Indeed, it is the very axis of history. All of history separates in before and after Christ. — Agustino
You have created the idea of 3) when you are having difficulties articulating your beliefs probably because you yourself have not yet understood it well enough. — TimeLine
As for 4) and my intellectual rigidity, I am sorry that you feel that way and indeed we have different views, but my intention is not to demean your beliefs at all but rather to call out a concern I have that suggestions of some supernatural plane of existence simultaneously exists and is accessible somehow. If reality is shared - if everything is interconnected - and if only one person has a mystical experience, that is verification that mystical experiences themselves are individual and therefore pathological because such experiences are not real. — TimeLine
I still think that you, the other guy, and people who think like you lack the imagination to see that the way you see the world is just that, the way you see the world, not the way the world is. — T Clark
And yet, Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as:That's a different sort of faith. In religious contexts, faith is an absolute trust in a foundational belief that permits an entire worldview to develop. — Hanover
What I'm saying is that the subjective change in the wafer (and in the girl) is more real than the unchanged appearance (which is their physical composition, how they look empirically, etc.). It seems to me that our difference is over the fact that you take a "real and literal" change to necessitate a change in physical composition and appearance, as this is what "real and literal" means to you. That's fine, I just disagree that that's what "real and literal" means. I take the significance of the act to be the "real and literal" thing, which does change in the case of transubstantiation - while the physical appearance, look, feel, etc. are just appearances and not "real and literal".Your understanding of transubstantion is simply incorrect. Your analogy offers no change at all in the girl, but a change of opinion in guy. If all you're saying is that you feel differently about the wafer but the wafer is the same old wafer, you're not talking about transubstantiation. — Hanover
Well, Buddhism, after Christianity, is the religion I've studied the most, by far. The fact that you're giving me a citation from wikipedia means nothing. You have to understand the context and the precepts of Buddhism. Yes, there are versions of Buddhism where the Buddha is worshipped (more as a representation of perfection, than as the actual person), but salvation is still not achieved through worship, but through liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth by following the Noble Eightfold Path. Worshiping the Buddha may, however, improve one's karma.I admit that I don't know a lot about Buddhism. But I could only take what you say with no more than a pinch of salt. I'd have to look into it further myself. For a start, this is what Wikipedia opens with on Buddhism: — Sapientia
Wrong. I was looking for the difference that makes this bread and wine different from normal bread and wine, as the doctrine claims. Without this difference, the doctrine would be internally inconsistent, claiming that bread and wine is different in this case, when it really isn't. But you've already told me you don't have any internal criticism, so I hope you don't start running back with the goal posts now. We established that this difference must not physical. So what kind of difference must it be then?But here goes: under the baseless assumption that what the doctrine says about transubstantiation is literally true, and under the assumption that the doctrine states or implies that there would be no observable difference, then, upon examination of the contents, after the ceremony, and after ingestion, I would expect to see digested - or partially digested - bread and wine. — Sapientia
Yes I am aware of that. I just explained why you don't find this magical - you're used to it.That's not what I mean by magical, and I think that you know that, which would make this reply from you nothing more than sophistry. — Sapientia
Supernatural doesn't entail being against the laws of physics. Someone coming back from the dead is not against the laws of physics either. Time moving backwards is not against the laws of physics either (just extremely unlikely). So the laws of physics don't actually preclude any of these miracles to begin with.What you describe above is not supernatural, extraordinary, or miraculous. — Sapientia
Nope. Independent accounts of a phenomenon are not sufficient by themselves to establish it happens. In the case of Christ we have collective examples, with many people having seen the risen Christ all at once, and then being willing to die, all of them, for this belief. Are those peeps who claim to have seen a ghost willing to die for that?It is analogous, and I think that you're being disingenuous, because I think that you're well aware that a lot more than one or two people claim to have experienced a ghost. If you're not aware, then look it up. According to one source, one in five American adults say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost. — Sapientia
Yes, you can add mystical experience and metaphysics to that list. Anecdotal evidence BY ITSELF may be weak and insufficient. As may an appeal to the masses. But combined, all those form a solid case.You've cited testimony. In response, I've explained why anecdotal evidence is weak and insufficient. You've appealed to the masses. In response, I've identified that as an informal fallacy. Do you have anything else that I haven't already addressed? — Sapientia
That's the problem. — Sapientia
>:O
Again, that's the problem. — Sapientia
You don't seem to be understanding Christianity. The ethics are absolutely NOT the centre of it. Christianity claims precisely that man cannot save himself, so the ethics, by themselves, are useless. Commit them to the flames. What matters is Christ - it is only through faith in Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit that one may uphold the Law. Now seeking to maintain the Law, but taking out the central role of Christ is against the teachings of Christ.No, he wasn't. The ethics is what matters. Living by example is what matters. The metaphysics can, and should, be scrapped. That aspect of it should be treated as an interesting historical work, and nothing more. — Sapientia
Yeah, if you told me the story about the giant fire-breathing sea lion, I'd want to see some evidence for it, including testimony, and I'd also be interested in the significance of the event. If he just came to say hello, it's probably not very significant, even if it was a giant fire-breathing sea lion. I still cannot see any similarity between the solid testimony of the Bible across many different generations, the fulfillment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ, and ample historical evidence for the Resurrection, the unique significance of the event, etc. etc. and your little monster story.Have you considered that the reason why it is so unique is because it's made up? Like if I told you that 3000 years ago, a giant fire breathing sea lion sprung up from a volcano, said hello, then disappeared into thin air. That's even more unique! How much testimony would it take for you to count that as a historical event? No? What if it was a central part of your religion? You'd claim it as historical, then, wouldn't you? You'd say that you've had a mystical experience which confirms it. Instead of a follower of Christ, you'd be a follower of the Great Fire Breathing Sea Lion. — Sapientia
Let's not pretend the four Gospels are a historical record. They are narratives written by highly educated Greek Christians about uneducated (except Jesus) and illiterate Aramaic-speaking Jews, 35-70 years after the fact. They are full of discrepancies and contradictions, including the accounts of the resurrection. There are zero contemporary secular sources that affirm or even mention the event. — ProbablyTrue
I'm not Christian or religious in any conventional way. I have no vested interest in any specific issues being discussed here. What I am interested in is the metaphysical issue. My position has been stated and restated numerous times. I'd rather not do it again.
Patently means without doubt. Absurd means ridiculous. You think the idea of transubstantiation is ridiculous without any doubt. I disagree. — T Clark
As for 4) and my intellectual rigidity, I am sorry that you feel that way and indeed we have different views, but my intention is not to demean your beliefs at all but rather to call out a concern I have that suggestions of some supernatural plane of existence simultaneously exists and is accessible somehow. If reality is shared - if everything is interconnected - and if only one person has a mystical experience, that is verification that mystical experiences themselves are individual and therefore pathological because such experiences are not real. — TimeLine
I still cannot see any similarity between the solid testimony of the Bible across many different generations, — Agustino
the fulfillment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ,
and ample historical evidence for the Resurrection
the unique significance of the event.
You sure have an odd set of rules. It allows you to equate two distinct things, "X means Y". Isn't that no different from saying "bread means body"? I see no reason to believe your rules are any better than the rules of transubstantiation. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem with the rules of transubstantiation that we've been discussing is that they require a literal interpretation. Scrap that rule and you scrap the problem. But good luck with scrapping that rule. — Sapientia
As you said in your last post, meaning depends on rules, so if we scrap the rules, we scrap meaning, and this is a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover
If the Church wants to say, that this item is called the body of Christ, and this is the rule, then where's the problem? And because they call this item by that name, that is the name that the item has, and then that is the Church's rule. There is no problem here. The Church says this item is called "body of Christ", and so this item is the item called "body of Christ". — Metaphysician Undercover
The only problem is that for some people, such as yourself it seems, "body of Christ" means something different. So these people desire to disallow this rule, claiming that the thing referred to by the rules of the Church as the body of Christ is not actually the body of Christ, the body of Christ is something different. So the people who are creating a problem are the shit disturbers such as yourself, who are disputing this rule to say that this item is not the body of Christ. — Metaphysician Undercover
But I see no reason to dispute this rule, if "body of Christ" is what the Church wants to call this item, then let them call it that. Why would you insist that "body of Christ" ought to refer to something other than this? What would give you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" ought to refer to? — Metaphysician Undercover
I suggested that we scrap that rule. — Sapientia
The problem is that it's not simply wordplay, as you make out, like calling a cat "a fish". It's supposed to be taken literally, like thinking that a cat has gills. If it was merely wordplay, then I wouldn't have the same objection. — Sapientia
What I am disputing is that a literal interpretation is true, and that bread literally transforms into the body of Christ once the Eucharist has taken place. — Sapientia
What do you mean "let them call it that"? Firstly, it's not simply a matter of calling an item "body of Christ", as though it were just a name. Secondly, I couldn't stop them if I tried. I simply disagree with that interpretation for reasons that I've spoken about at length. — Sapientia
in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable — Agustino
A form of altered state of consciousness that is ineffable and involves gaining insight into the deeper nature of reality. — Agustino
As I said what do you think gives you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" refers to? I would think that there are many in the church who know far better than you, what this phase means. So your suggestion that this rule be scrapped is nothing but the actions of a rebellious shit disturber. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's what I said, it's not a matter of word play, it's very literal. As I said, it's an example of the power of the Word. I am Metaphysician Undercover by the very fact that this is what I am called. Those items are the body and blood of Christ by the very fact that this is what they are called. This is not word play, it's simple reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
When they take that object, which you call bread, and say that it will be called "body of Christ", then by the very fact that that's what it's called, "body of Christ", then that's what it is body of Christ, just like I'm MU by the very fact that that's what I'm called.
You only wish to cause trouble, saying that your name, "bread" is a better name for it then "body of Christ". — Metaphysician Undercover
You seem to misunderstand the power of the word. When there is an item which we call the table, then it is the table by the very fact that we call it the table. If we called it by some other name like the desk, then it would be that name, the desk. So when the Church calls a certain item "body of Christ", then it is body of Christ, because that's what they call it. Why do you dispute this, saying that according to your interpretation they ought not call it body of Christ? Do you believe that you have a superior interpretation of what "body of Christ" refers to then the leaders of the Church? — Metaphysician Undercover
Purely phenomenological experiences are not of something extra-self; qualia are parts of the world belonging to individual experiencers. Such self-externalization is like someone hallucinating pink flying elephants implying they're really out there, or me expecting you to get real life bruises from me slapping you in a dream. — jorndoe
I am sure that you're committing a fallacy of some kind. — Sapientia
We are talking about Christ here. That is a proper noun. You're just making shit up trying to support your unjustified claims. — Metaphysician Undercover
Let's make sure I understand correctly - in order to show that realism is wrong, I have to use methods developed based on the principles of realism. Is that right? — T Clark
You present an argument that the Church doesn't, namely that the Church is the creator of Christ and the determiner of what is the blood and body of Jesus. The Church has decided nothing, but would allege only to have reported the facts as they are. They don't get to decide, like they're the Supreme Court and it's their rules.I argue that they, being the leaders of the Church, and having knowledge about Christ, ought to be the ones to determine what is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore what ought to be called the body and blood of Christ. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why are the Catholics the ones who ought be given the authority to render the decree as to what it is. Are they more learned and knowledgable? — Hanover
For the record, I have no qualms about demeaning his beliefs, or the beliefs of anyone else here. If his beliefs are ridiculous, then ridicule is fine by me. Ridicule away! — Sapientia
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.