The presence is real. That is to say, it is ontological and objective. — Michael
In so teaching the Church rejects the view that faith is the instrument that brings about Christ’s presence in the sacrament. — Michael
It would be fact if God existed, and if God did so, but God doesn't, so God can't. — Sapientia
And incredible comment. You must be joking, and yet obviously you're not.
Stating that something is the cold hard truth does not make it so. You merely repeat, again and again, "I am right, I am right, I am right", claiming to be speaking the truth (as if we thought you were arguing for something you did not believe), while your views are disputed by several people. — jamalrob
I didn't respond to it because it was a silly point, and since you know I'm an intelligent person, you must know my answer: obviously you could be arrogant and right. I happen to think you are. But that's irrelevant to the point unenlightened was making. — jamalrob
And what, pray tell, does arrogance have to do with who is right and who is wrong? That's what really matters. — Sapientia
You tell me, since you applauded its use as the cold hard truth. — unenlightened
So the cold hard truth is an ad hom pontification? — unenlightened
In my roundabout way, I am disagreeing with you that what you quoted is cold, hard or true. Rather it is heated, wet, and false. It also fails utterly to even address the question because the whole thing is an ad hom. — unenlightened
Not me! If we can't get the details of who brought up what agreed, details are going to be beyond us. — unenlightened
I'm happy to let the whole post alone as a somewhat unpleasant irrelevance. It was only your endorsement of it that provoked me to respond to it at all. — unenlightened
Agreement, not endorsement. And what I was agreeing with was more than that one minor detail which we've been unduly focussing on. — Sapientia
endorsement
ɪnˈdɔːsm(ə)nt,ɛnˈdɔːsm(ə)nt/Submit
noun
1.
the action of endorsing someone or something.
"the issue of full independence received overwhelming endorsement"
synonyms: support, backing, approval, seal of approval, agreement, acceptance, recommendation, advocacy, championship, patronage; affirmation, confirmation, authorization, authentication, ratification, sanction, warrant, validation, licence; rubber stamp; informalthe nod, the thumbs up, the OK
"the proposal received their overwhelming endorsement".
Let's spend a few pages wondering whether you agreed or endorsed, and whether one can declare an agreement that does not constitute an endorsement. Or perhaps not. I think I'll leave you to imagine that, and all the other details we might go into. — unenlightened
it would of course be in your interest to make it appear as though I support it more than I do, — Sapientia
No it wouldn't, because I am not a Catholic and do not believe in transubstantiation. — unenlightened
You agree with what you quoted, you support it (your word) to the extent of claiming its truth, but you neither applaud nor endorse it. Fine. — unenlightened
But let's all stop talking about endorsement, in a discussion about transubstantiation, for goodness sake. I mean, really? A single word? — unenlightened
We seem to be going in circles. — unenlightened
I'll let you have the last word. — unenlightened
If one accepts Essentialism - that every object has a metaphysical 'essence' which is what it really 'is', and which is only accidentally and unreliably associated with its sensible properties. — andrewk
Here's my question then: Is there any more to it than that? — andrewk
If by process philosophy you have in mind the sort of thing proposed by Whitehead, then that would be my approach. Was it him or somebody else that said an object is just a slow event?Consider, as I said earlier in the thread, that one could adopt the premise of process philosophy, and deny the need for substance altogether. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, we need to turn to something mystical. 'Principle' sounds a bit too concrete for me - as if a 'mystical principle' might be an oxymoron. I would think that we just turn towards (contemplate, meditate upon) 'the fundamental incomprehensibility of the universe', which is a lovely phrase I picked up from a fictional philosophical book written by the Abbé something-or-other, that was being read by the heroine Flora Poste in 'Cold Comfort Farm'.we'll just end up turning to some other mystical principle — Metaphysician Undercover
A similar (seemingly, to me) approach that comes from a very different heritage is that of Nagarjuna, who makes intricate quadrilemmic arguments that the notion of substance is incoherent. I don't agree with his arguments, finding them logically flawed, although I agree with his conclusion. — andrewk
So it seems to make sense to proceed on the basis that the stability will continue, while the more philosophical will bear in mind that the stability could cease at any instant. — andrewk
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? — Agustino
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. — Agustino
You have an erroneous notion of what a miracle is. Walking on water is not against the laws of nature. It may just be that all of a sudden, all the particles of the water find that their velocity is directed to the surface, and so I am maintained floating above it. Now that probability is very very very very super tiny. But it's still there. — Agustino
Coming to the example with the girl, why isn't it supernatural? You know of a certain law of nature that dictates that the girl will suddenly start meaning something different to you? Not really. So the only reason why it's not supernatural, is because it's become a habit as old Hume says - you're used to it. — Agustino
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? — Agustino
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. — Agustino
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. — Agustino
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. — Agustino
Do you feel that real knowledge is achievable? Do you think anybody has achieved it? Perhaps some might say that Lao Tzu, Jesus of Nazareth, the Buddha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith or Zoroaster achieved it, although I feel that Enlightenment - impossible to pin down as it is - sounds very different in concept to knowledge.So if we want real knowledge we need to approach this issue. — Metaphysician Undercover
This discussion was created with comments split from The Shoutbox — Michael
I read though 20-odd pages and individually selected the appropriate ones (ignoring any joke comments that only belong in the shoutbox). Took some time. — Michael
The problem is that transubstantiation is no different than any other faith based belief, where followers just accept the impossible as a tenant of their faith. — Hanover
My point is that I don't agree that the path to enlightenment is paved with being open to the legitimacy of all other beliefs, but more often the opposite: rejecting nonsense and moving on. So , coming to the party with no preconceived notions about the legitimacy of the Church, these beliefs strike me as no more or less valid than a faith based system I could create on the spot. — Hanover
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.