That is correct. That also cannot be disproven.
Emperically, yes. Supernaturally and with faith, no.
This is not an answer. Iâm asking your personal binary belief. Happy to continue discussing if I get an answer.
But that is my belief. There are laws in the universe. Then there is a supernatural intervention that can do as it pleases.
We know the function of the brain is to produce our sense of self. We can literally change that self with surgery and drugs to test this. Where faith comes in is that somehow this âselfâ (which is part of this universe) is preserved beyond the death and total breakdown of the very organ that is responsible for it. That is no less supernatural than transubstantiation. It no less defies the laws of the universe.
The laws of the universe give wafer and wine the characteristics we recognize with our senses. Unless somehow that same power above can make a thing be something else while maintaining its previous qualities as far as our senses are concerned (senses which are simply interpretations of the self producing organ.
If a supernatural precesence can do as it pleases, there are no laws of the universe. Those are opposite views.
I mean, why call it God if it is incapable of interceding and bending the laws of our universe?
Well, then there is no afterlife. The laws of this universe dictate that the function of an organ ceases with its death.
That is your answer to the below question?
I believe in the laws of the universe. But I also believe in an author that can supersede those laws. Which would be necessary not only for transubstantiation but also for the continuation of the self after brain death. Both are equally âkooky.â It takes faith in the SUPERNATURAL.
Itâs a funny quirk of Catholicism, and I would guess most Catholicâs donât actually believe it, but I may be wrong. The thread was to ask a Catholic believer questions, I figured the lowest hanging fruit were a good place to start.
I think it depends on what youâre trying to get at. To me, it establishes a basis of how well thought out the beliefs are of whoever is arguing for that belief system. @Sloth is saying it is faith that something isnât what it appears to be due to supernatural forces, which is the only way to really make the case. @KneeDragger_79 is trying to prove that words can physically change an object from bread into flesh and we can notice those changes. The difference in those approaches, to me, is very telling.
As I fundamentally believe these 2 things cannot exist at once within an argument, it seems weâve already reached an impasse. Have a good one.
1 Like
You are right SkyzykS! The Church has some very evil serpents (they can be anyone from the ordained to the laity) in the Church. As such I donât donate to just any Church for the whole year, except for Christmas. I then donate my yearly tithe during the Christmas Mass, all of that money goes to that specific parish of where I donate. Otherwise a part of the money goes to the parish AND the diocese. If I lived where the Church was riddled by scandal that would make me really nervous about donating money.
Also please remember that these rapists saw an opening in the Church decades ago, to have nearly unfettered access to young boys or young adult males. This is a homosexual problem in the Church. Until bishops honestly look at the reason, the problem is likely to continue.
1 Like
I provide evidence of what you doubt and your response is . . . .wait for it . . . . you laugh out loud. When shown some evidence of the literal transformation of the Eucharist, it simply isnât good enough.
The tissue/story isnât âmade upâ because the laboratory was given no details about the tissue. Would any evidence actually convince you? I seriously doubt it.
If the blessed Eucharist is literally stressed heart tissue, what more could you want?
That "someone" literally existed (lots of evidence) and He performed many miracles that cannot be explained, He fulfilled every prophecy of the Jewish faith (a big group two-thousand years ago) and His followers even performed miracles. He claimed to be "the Son of GOD." Zero evidence proving he was NOT, in fact the evidence shows many things that cannot be explained. This Man is literally the Son of GOD and if He says ". . . ." then I have to believe Him, even if I donât understand ". . . ."
Thought experiment; would anything change your mind?
Itâs really not that peculiar of a quirk. The writings of the early church fathers are replete with anathemas on those who deny that the elements are the flesh and blood of Christ. The only real quirk is the Aristotelian metaphysics which were linguistically adapted (not fully adapted) by Aquinas. If you were to just ask if the elements are the very body and blood of Christ, most Christians would agree. This would include, aside from Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and a lot of Anglicans and Methodists.
Yes, I laughed at what you consider evidence when trying to argue something so basic.
Actually, the bar is quite low, prove it has changed in any way. For example, when I asked how do you know that a piece of bread is different than one that hasnât been transformed. A good comparison would be steak (âfleshâ for this thought experiment) vs. bread. You could talk about the taste, the texture, the chemical structure, how it is digested by your body, the calorie densityâŠetc. There are a lot of different ways to prove that a flesh protein is not a piece of bread. What would not convince me, is a fringe website and a story from a bishop.
It literally isnât, thatâs the point. Itâs a piece of bread and a glass of wine.
1 Like
I was referring to those that passed down his teachings. The ones that could have claimed Jesus said many things, of which you would have no way to verify.
Sure. But it would need to be based in reality, not faith
Any Christian faith other than Catholics and her branches, doubt this one particular teaching. They all claim to believe Christ, yet they limit the power of GOD.
What exactly determines the very exact moment the human heart begins to beat?