Transubstantiation 'miracle' shenanigans

[Pyrrho]

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.
...

The transubstantiation nonsense is limited to select groups of Christians, including Catholics,* but most protestants regard it as symbolic.  However, it gets more complicated than that, with some having contradictory (or otherwise nonsensical) views:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

From talking with Christians, most of the ones I have encountered have no idea that anyone believes the Eucharist ceremony is anything other than symbolic, but obviously the people who I have encountered may not be representative of Christians generally.

______________
*Many individual "Catholics" (by which I mean, people who call themselves "Catholic"), of course, do not believe in official church doctrine, or in other words, do not believe in Catholicism and are Catholic in the lists kept by the Catholic church, but otherwise are Catholic in name only.  Strangely, many people are members of churches with which they disagree.  Someone who agrees with many of the basic ideas of Catholicism, but disagrees with parts of it, is more properly called a "protestant."


It makes me a bit tempted to start saying to people, "I am a Christian, but I don't believe in hell, heaven, any afterlife at all, nor do I believe in Jesus or God, but I am a Christian alright."

[Longhorn]

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.  

Whether you care for it doesn't change the fact that chemistry is the best tool for describing substances and what happens to them we have. And it doesn't support this idea of transubstantiation. The properties of the substance were not changed. That means no chemical reaction occurred and it is still the same substance. The literal changing of cracker and wine into flesh and blood is unsupportable. The best you can do is a metaphor.

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?

But he did let them happen, didn't he? 21 major religions and 44,000 denominations of the supposed 'right' one is the best an omnipotent god can do? He must not give a fuck, then. If I had so many people I allegedly loved spreading lies about me, I'd clear up the confusion. Wouldn't you?

And that 'common core' doesn't stop the denominations from disagreeing on sorta important things, like the purgatory, satan, and hell, to name a few.

Oh, and one more thing... even if we consider the schisms to be irrelevant, it's still 2 billion. Out of 7, Randy. That's 28%. Looks like an F to me.

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

Sure. I hope you can do better than myths of resurrection and circular reasoning.

[Pyrrho]

...

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?
...

According to the Bible, he did willfully confuse people about such things.  Here is Jesus on the subject; the "he" in verse 11 is Jesus, which you can tell if you look earlier in the book (since you are Catholic, I am giving it to you in the Douay-Rheims 1899 version):

Mark 4:

11 And he said to them: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand: lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.


So Jesus wants people to be confused and go to hell, according to the book of Mark.

[Randy Carson]

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.
...

The transubstantiation nonsense is limited to select groups of Christians, including Catholics,* but most protestants regard it as symbolic.  However, it gets more complicated than that, with some having contradictory (or otherwise nonsensical) views:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

From talking with Christians, most of the ones I have encountered have no idea that anyone believes the Eucharist ceremony is anything other than symbolic, but obviously the people who I have encountered may not be representative of Christians generally.

______________
*Many individual "Catholics" (by which I mean, people who call themselves "Catholic"), of course, do not believe in official church doctrine, or in other words, do not believe in Catholicism and are Catholic in the lists kept by the Catholic church, but otherwise are Catholic in name only.  Strangely, many people are members of churches with which they disagree.  Someone who agrees with many of the basic ideas of Catholicism, but disagrees with parts of it, is more properly called a "protestant."


It makes me a bit tempted to start saying to people, "I am a Christian, but I don't believe in hell, heaven, any afterlife at all, nor do I believe in Jesus or God, but I am a Christian alright."

You have hit upon an important point. 

Today, there is a spectrum of believe regarding the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist with 1.2 Billion Catholics and 300+ Million Orthodox holding the traditional view that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist. Some Protestants (Lutherans and a few Anglicans notably) would also hold this view. This is, by far, the majority opinion.

Since the Reformation (ca. 1517), a smaller number of Christians have rejected this, but the symbolic interpretation must be viewed as a theological novelty which was not the position found in scripture nor in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Needless to say, however, attempts are made to justify the denial of the Real Presence based upon both scripture and snippets of the ECF's.

You also highlighted the phenomenon of the "Cafeteria Christians" who pick and choose what they will and won't believe while claiming to be fully orthodox in their theology. With Catholicism and atheism on two different ends of the spectrum, there is quite a range of belief or disbelief in between.

---

...




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?
...

According to the Bible, he did willfully confuse people about such things.  Here is Jesus on the subject; the "he" in verse 11 is Jesus, which you can tell if you look earlier in the book (since you are Catholic, I am giving it to you in the Douay-Rheims 1899 version):

Mark 4:

11 And he said to them: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand: lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.


So Jesus wants people to be confused and go to hell, according to the book of Mark.

Thank you for the Douay-Rheims. However, Catholics are perfectly comfortable with modern translations such as the RSV-CE, the NAB or even the NIV in a pinch (despite its obvious confessional biases).

In the the passage you referenced, Jesus is actually paraphrasing Is. 6:9-10 wherein the prophet Isaiah was preaching judgment against a persistently obstinate and stubborn people. Since that is not the subject of the OP, I won't go further on this point, but I will remind you that proof-texting like this fails when it does not take into account ALL that God has spoken on a particular case. Consequently, I need to remind you that Jesus also said:

    John 3:14
    Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

As you can see, MY proof-text (along with rest of the NT) suggests that Jesus wants any and all to be saved through faith in Him. 

[Faith No More]

So, the wafer turned into flesh right in front of him? What part was it? A butt cheek?

[robvalue]

It does turn into Jesus bits, but only very briefly. Record it, and play it back at super slow speed. If you can't see it happen, you're not playing it slowly enough.

[Cyberman]

Last time I had one I ended up with a toenail. It could have been in there when it was made though.

[Pyrrho]

Regarding chemistry and this subject:  The doctrine of transubstantiation predates modern chemistry.  In fact, I seem to recall some resistance to modern chemistry by the Catholic church precisely because of the doctrine of transubstantiation.  Now, they seem content with nonsensical pronouncements about it, instead of denying chemistry.

[vorlon13]

If Jesus had malaria, wouldn't transubstantiation be dangerous ?? He may have been immune being the son of god, but the trypanosomes might still be roaming his blood fluid looking for a better host organism.

[Randy Carson]

Regarding chemistry and this subject:  The doctrine of transubstantiation predates modern chemistry.  In fact, I seem to recall some resistance to modern chemistry by the Catholic church precisely because of the doctrine of transubstantiation.  Now, they seem content with nonsensical pronouncements about it, instead of denying chemistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cat...scientists