Transubstantiation 'miracle' shenanigans

[vorlon13]

We atheists know the transubstantiation into The Jesus fillet is bogus, but we are free (and I encourage all) to press the 40,000 stripes of christers to go as far as possible into the ludicrous zone in pathetic attempts at christian apologetics on the topic.

Maybe instead of Jesus blood and Jesus meat all the christers are really supping on the plarb gland secretions and tholob nodes of Xemu ?? How could they tell otherwise ?

[SteelCurtain]

If God says something, then it IS true whether you understand it or not.

So, the real issues are whether God exists and whether He said it.

If the answers to both of these questions are "yes", the rest is pretty straightforward.

Well, the answers to both questions are no. It's true because I said so.

[Randy Carson]

If God says something, then it IS true whether you understand it or not.

So, the real issues are whether God exists and whether He said it.

If the answers to both of these questions are "yes", the rest is pretty straightforward.

Well, the answers to both questions are no. It's true because I said so.

So, it seems kinda silly to be discussing transubstantiation if God doesn't exist.

BUT if there are folks - even atheists - who are actually interested in understanding what Catholics believe (and not a parody of that) then I think my post is a basic starting point.

[Longhorn]

So there is a chemical reaction - endergonic, apparently? I'd love to hear how it is induced - because the substance in question changes... except that it doesn't, in any way, because all its physical and chemical properties remain the same. IOW, bullshit. It's very basic chemistry,
Randy.

If God says something, then it IS true whether you understand it or not.

So, the real issues are whether God exists and whether He said it.

If the answers to both of these questions are "yes", the rest is pretty straightforward.

Just one, teeny problem with your premise, Randy. How do you know if god said something?

[dahrling]

Well, the answers to both questions are no. It's true because I said so.

So, it seems kinda silly to be discussing transubstantiation if God doesn't exist.

BUT if there are folks - even atheists - who are actually interested in understanding what Catholics believe (and not a parody of that) then I think my post is a basic starting point.

I think most people here know very well what Christians (in general) believe in, and that's why many of us are atheists.

[Randy Carson]

So there is a chemical reaction - endergonic, apparently? I'd love to hear how it is induced  - because the substance in question changes... except that it doesn't, in any way, because all its physical and chemical properties remain the same. IOW, bullshit. It's very basic chemistry,
Randy.

If God says something, then it IS true whether you understand it or not.

So, the real issues are whether God exists and whether He said it.

If the answers to both of these questions are "yes", the rest is pretty straightforward.

Just one, teeny problem with your premise, Randy. How do you know if god said something?

Chemistry major? Or chemical engineer? Impressive.

Let's put your intellect to work for a moment... 

If YOU were God, how would you make something that you wanted known known?

---

So, it seems kinda silly to be discussing transubstantiation if God doesn't exist.

BUT if there are folks - even atheists - who are actually interested in understanding what Catholics believe (and not a parody of that) then I think my post is a basic starting point.

I think most people here know very well what Christians (in general) believe in, and that's why many of us are atheists.

After many years of discussing Catholicism online, it is my opinion that not many people (Catholic or otherwise) really understand transubstantiation.

But if this forum is really that up on the subject, I look forward to many interesting threads on this and other topics of interest!

[dahrling]

So there is a chemical reaction - endergonic, apparently? I'd love to hear how it is induced  - because the substance in question changes... except that it doesn't, in any way, because all its physical and chemical properties remain the same. IOW, bullshit. It's very basic chemistry,
Randy.



Just one, teeny problem with your premise, Randy. How do you know if god said something?

Chemistry major? Or chemical engineer? Impressive.

Let's put your intellect to work for a moment... 

If YOU were God, how would you make something that you wanted known known?

  This is the first thing that came to my mind:

[Longhorn]

Chemistry major? Or chemical engineer? Impressive.

You must be jesting, sir. Neither. I'd be quite flattered, but it's high school level chemistry.

Let's put your intellect to work for a moment... 

If YOU were God, how would you make something that you wanted known known?

hmm... how about coming down myself and making it perfectly clear? And by that I mean, you know... not causing 44,000 schisms in my religion, not to mention the existence of other ones.

Now, let's put YOUR intellect to the test. What makes your favoured religious text so much more convincing than other religious text, which make the same claims and present the exact same evidence?

[robvalue]

God cannot lie then? That makes yet another way in which I'm more powerful than God. Why can't he, because he says so? He lies in his first story in his own book. He said they'd die the day they ate the fruit, they did not. The snake correctly identifies the lie.

Seems like people are using what God apparently said as evidence for what God does an awful lot. Suppose for a minute God could lie but wanted to get away with it. What do you think he would say, and how would we tell the difference? Are theists somehow able to detect deistic lies?

If I was God and I wanted to communicate with people, I would do so directly. I'd appear to them, or talk straight into their mind, or pause time while I summoned them into my dimension or whatever. What I wouldn't do is appear to a select tiny group of people, do a bunch of insane stuff including killing over 2.5 million people and impaling part of myself, make them write about it in a way that is indistinguishable from superstition and mythology, then go hide while the story gets screwed up over time and provide no way to validate any of what happened.

[Randy Carson]

You must be jesting, sir. Neither. I'd be quite flattered, but it's high school level chemistry.

Ah. It's been a long time since I took chemistry in high school OR college...never much cared for it as you can probably surmise.  

hmm... how about coming down myself and making it perfectly clear? And by that I mean, you know... not causing 44,000 schisms in my religion, not to mention the existence of other ones.

Given that there ARE 44,000 denominations who do teach a common core, I'd say that at least 2 billion people on the planet ARE reasonably clear, and have been for 2,000 years.

But God did not CAUSE the schisms, did He?

Now, let's put YOUR intellect to the test. What makes your favoured religious text so much more convincing than other religious text, which make the same claims and present the exact same evidence?

I'm glad you asked. I'll be starting a thread that will answer this very question later today. See ya there.