Why does Jimi ridicule kelly1 belief in transubstantiation

Zombrex

Apparently this question merits an entire thread in of itself separate to the original transubstantiation thread already going.

JimiTime wrote:

I'm calling to question what I see as one of the most ridiculous teachings of the RCC. You clearly say its not symbolic, it is the 'literal blood and body of Christ'. Maybe you could enlighten us? Is it alchaholic or not? If you are correct, then a priest could drink the wine he has blessed(which is no longer wine but blood), and no alchahol should be present. Also, to eat a member of ones own species in canabalism. You might not like the association, but if it is 'literally' flesh and blood then it is canabalism by definition. You can therefore suggest that canabalism is ok in certain circumstances, like this scenario, but you can't say its not cannabalism. Now how about answering the question instead of taking the moral highground, comparing me to those who put 'My' King and 'My' Lord to death.

JimiTime wrote:

Well I'm hoping I'll get something more than that. But alas, I can't see any answer coming apart from 'mystery' alright. 'Ladies and gents, I have before me a glass of wine, I have now transformed it into a glass of blood. Its amazing, but this blood still tastes like the wine. It also can make me drunk. It raises the alchahol levels in my body, and has the very same colour, consistency and properties as the original wine that was in the glass.' Very mysterious indeed. I remember asking my religion teacher this in school, and it was simply, 'we don't know, its the mystery of the blessed sacrament'. It confuses the head off me that folk believe it I mean seriously?? When he was in the upper room, why did he take bread and wine? Why not just saw off a finger and pass it around? Does that sound offensive? If it does, then why? what is the difference?

Wicknight wrote:

TBH the wine turning into the blood of Christ during mass is no more or less ridiculous than anything else in the religion, so I'm not sure why you would attack kelly over his belief in this specific supernatural claim.

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but what are you basing that assertion actually on? Scientific study? The natural laws of the universe?

All these things are routinely ignored by yourself when it comes to your own supernatural beliefs.

Are you saying that God cannot do this because it breaks natural laws? And if you are saying that, do you apply that same standard equally to everything you believe in?

So ... any answers?

JimiTime

Ok wicknight. Could you please cut out the one upmanship? I'll remain patient, if you wish to rephrase this question without sending out signals to everyone that you've been hard done by. We are both adults. Now just ask your original question which is and I quote:

wicknight wrote:

TBH the wine turning into the blood of Christ during mass is no more or less ridiculous than anything else in the religion, so I'm not sure why you would attack kelly over his belief in this specific supernatural claim. I'm pretty sure you believe equally wacky supernatural things are real and happened.

Now that was your question. so like i said in my original reply:

jimitime wrote:

Well, I can't answer such a vague claim. If you wish to raise the point. Open a thread and engage the Christians about the 'wacky supernatural things' that are the same as believing is transubstantiation. But for here, I'd rather keep it on the question of 'if its the blood of Christ, then it wont raise the alchahol in your blood'.

Now are you looking for an answer, or loking to score points.

JimiTime

Actually forget it wicknight. I'm finished with this nonsense. i have no respect for your manner of debate. You clearly just want to 'win' a point, rather than ask a question. I send thee to the ignore list! Be Gone.

And there was much celebration, and wine, with alchahol in it. Yayyyyy.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok wicknight. Could you please cut out the one upmanship? I'll remain patient, if you wish to rephrase this question without sending out signals to everyone that you've been hard done by. We are both adults.

I don't think I've been hard done by. I think getting me to open an entirely new thread was a pointless exercise in simply avoiding answer the fairly simple questions (which you still haven't answered).

But there you go, I've got lots of time. If I wasn't discussing a 2000 year old middle eastern religion with you I would probably just be drawling YouTube looking for soft core porn (FHM have a new YouTube portal). I'm rather amused by your flat refusal to respond sensibly to my original questions, but you aren't as attractive as Kelly Brook so this amusement will probably not my attention for long ...

JimiTime wrote: »

Now are you looking for an answer, or loking to score points.

I'm looking for an answer. Any chance I can get one?

... what are you basing that assertion actually on? Scientific study? The natural laws of the universe?

I thought it was a pretty straight forward question. I assume you don't want to answer because you know what is coming next, the inevitable "isn't that rather hypocritical" response from me

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually forget it wicknight. I'm finished with this nonsense. i have no respect for your manner of debate. You clearly just want to 'win' a point, rather than ask a question.

I want you to answer the question. Of course if you don't I don't really care.

The very fact that you have gone to such ridiculous extremes to avoid answer a fairly simple question highlights, as I said, my point.

You ridicule Kelly1's beliefs in transubstantiation because you don't believe in it, and as such find it ridiculous, despite the vast number of supernatural events that you do believe have taken place. The concept that Kelly1's beliefs that this can happen is no more or less ridiculous than what you believe in didn't appear to have registered.

I personally find that such positions are quite common with theists. You guys seem to have a very hard time attributing the critical attention to apply to others beliefs to your own beliefs. This goes back to the compartmentalization that us hell bound atheists are always going on about, the ability to shield one's own personal beliefs to the critical aspect of rationality that we apply to everything else in life. Dawkins discusses this in the God Delusion, using the example of the Church of England member rolling his eyes at the "nonsense" spiritual beliefs of a Pacific Island tribe, seemingly oblivious to the irony of one believer in supernatural religion ridiculing the beliefs of another supernatural religion..

I imagine some where in this rather long and drawn out exercise the hypocritical nature of calling one supernatural event ridiculous while accepting a rake of others, has actually dawned on you which is why you don't want to discuss this any more.

So, as Batman would say, my work here is done ....

Fanny Cradock

Tastelessly done

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think I've been hard done by. I think getting me to open an entirely new thread was a pointless exercise in simply avoiding answer the fairly simple questions (which you still haven't answered).

But there you go, I've got lots of time. If I wasn't discussing a 2000 year old middle eastern religion with you I would probably just be drawling YouTube looking for soft core porn (FHM have a new YouTube portal). I'm rather amused by your flat refusal to respond sensibly to my original questions, but you aren't as attractive as Kelly Brook so this amusement will probably not my attention for long ...



I'm looking for an answer. Any chance I can get one?

... what are you basing that assertion actually on? Scientific study? The natural laws of the universe?

I thought it was a pretty straight forward question. I assume you don't want to answer because you know what is coming next, the inevitable "isn't that rather hypocritical" response from me



I want you to answer the question. Of course if you don't I don't really care.

The very fact that you have gone to such ridiculous extremes to avoid answer a fairly simple question highlights, as I said, my point.

You ridicule Kelly1's beliefs in transubstantiation because you don't believe in it, and as such find it ridiculous, despite the vast number of supernatural events that you do believe have taken place. The concept that Kelly1's beliefs that this can happen is no more or less ridiculous than what you believe in didn't appear to have registered.

I personally find that such positions are quite common with theists. You guys seem to have a very hard time attributing the critical attention to apply to others beliefs to your own beliefs. This goes back to the compartmentalization that us hell bound atheists are always going on about, the ability to shield one's own personal beliefs to the critical aspect of rationality that we apply to everything else in life. Dawkins discusses this in the God Delusion, using the example of the Church of England member rolling his eyes at the "nonsense" spiritual beliefs of a Pacific Island tribe, seemingly oblivious to the irony of one believer in supernatural religion ridiculing the beliefs of another supernatural religion..

I imagine some where in this rather long and drawn out exercise the hypocritical nature of calling one supernatural event ridiculous while accepting a rake of others, has actually dawned on you which is why you don't want to discuss this any more.

So, as Batman would say, my work here is done ....

To put in my opinion here, before locking this thread.

The debate surrounding transubstatntion is an inhouse debate.

There is no question in anyones mind regarding the miracles perfermed by Christ, His resurrection and virgin birth. And I find it very offensive that you would poopoo these events as superstition and wacky when the historical evidence of such happenings are quite clear.

I also agree with jimitimes answer that the question is quite vague and that you wouldn't be happy with theresponse anyway.

Just my opinion.

Maybe I won't lock it.

robindch

Brian - I think that Wicknight's point is that it's a trifle hypocritical for Jimitime to rubbish somebody else's beliefs as preposterous and unsupported when Jimi's beliefs are, in Wicknight's opinion (and mine too), every bit as preposterous and unsupported.

And about the evidence, well, we've been over this many times and I at least am still waiting for somebody to provide any document at all (that isn't the bible) to give the slightest shred of evidence of anything whatsoever.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Brian - I think that Wicknight's point is that it's a trifle hypocritical for Jimitime to rubbish somebody else's beliefs as preposterous and unsupported when Jimi's beliefs are, in Wicknight's opinion (and mine too), every bit as preposterous and unsupported.

Tbh, Just to be clear, I don't have prolem with such a question. Its the presentation that is the problem.

As Brian stipulated, it is 'inhouse'. From a Christian perspective, I think it is unsupported and ridiculous. I actually answered it in the thread in question in the end in conversation with Kelly1. The answer was as follows, and remember it is a discussion between two Christians, so there is a certain amount of common ground. Like believing in Christ.

When Jesus performed signs, they were seen. when he turned water to wine, it smelt, looked and tasted like wine. When he walked on water, he walked on the surface of the water. when he raised up lazarus, Lazarus was dead and came to life. What the transubstantiation doctrine says, is that it is 'literally' jesus' blood and flesh at the blessing. Now, the big difference, is that it has the same properties as wine and bread after the blessing. All we have is someone saying, 'although it looks tastes, smells etc exactly like it was before, its really blood and flesh'. Add to this, that it means that Jesus wanted us to be canaballistic, and that he also said that he was 'the living bread', makes such an interpretation ridiculous IMO. So from an outsider, they may be 'all' wacky superstitious things, but from the inside, there is a distinct difference. Also, lets not forget, that the thread in question was about a priest who feared he'd be over the drink drive limit if he performed mass. I joked that surely there is nothing to fear if its blood he's drinking. Kelly1 was then engaged, and offended at my belittling of this belief. he didn't back away though, he stood up for himself, like he always does.

So in conclusion, i would say, that you can conclude I'm being a hypocrite, thats your perogative. But i would certainly not see it like that.

And about the evidence, well, we've been over this many times and I at least am still waiting for somebody to provide any document at all (that isn't the bible) to give the slightest shred of evidence of anything whatsoever.

It'll come one day. I'm afriad Faith will remain the crutch for my ignorant mind anyway.:)

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tastelessly done

I try :cool:

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There is no question in anyones mind regarding the miracles perfermed by Christ, His resurrection and virgin birth. And I find it very offensive that you would poopoo these events as superstition and wacky when the historical evidence of such happenings are quite clear.

Well that is the point.

It is not "quite clear" that any of the events you guys believe in even happened at all. You certainly believe they happened, I'm not doubting that at all. But that isn't the same thing.

But the very fact that you guys seem to have convinced yourselves that your particular supernatural beliefs are some how more rational and more supported than other supernatural beliefs, even very similar beliefs such as the RCC, is fascinating, and I must say a little disturbing.

I've notice a sharp increase in posts similar to Jimi's as in the last few months as the level of Catholic posters coming on to the forum to defend the teaching of the RCC has increased, teachings that most of the regular posters here don't seem to agree with.

What I find increasingly bizarre is the absolute lack of realization by a lot of the regular posters, including Jimi, that belief in the supernatural teachings of the RCC is no more or less irrational that belief in the supernatural elements of the Bible itself.

I must say I'm actually quite amazed at this fact, that these posters can be so totally unaware of the nature of their own belief in supernatural events, that they appear to believe that their beliefs make complete rational and logical sense, and are historically supported (which is utter nonsense), yet po-po the supernatural beliefs of others as being irrational and not supportive.

The form of arguments Jimi uses against Kelly1's belief in this matter are the same type of arguments that atheist/skeptics like myself apply to his supernatural beliefs, an process that Jimi, needless to say, doesn't seem to appreciate too much nor has much time for.

Its nonsense, and as I explained to Fanny my nonsense toleration level is particularly low this week.

So I suppose if this thread needs a theme, that is it.

robindch

Jimitime wrote:

It'll come one day. I'm afriad Faith will remain the crutch for my ignorant mind anyway.

I'm sorry to hear that you think your mind is ignorant! But if you follow a religion which tells you to believe that every human is a moral and intellectual wreck, then I can certainly imagine why you'd end up thinking this

More seriously, aren't you just chasing your tail if your only reason you believe something is because you have "faith" that it's true?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that you think your mind is ignorant! But if you follow a religion which tells you to believe that every human is a moral and intellectual wreck, then I can certainly imagine why you'd end up thinking this

More seriously, aren't you just chasing your tail if your only reason you believe something is because you have "faith" that it's true?

First of all i am a member of no religion. my faith is in God and his Son the Christ. Of course you can try pick at that fact, but it really makes no odd. I'm secure enough.

robindch

JimiTime wrote:

I'm secure enough.

I've no doubt you are but that's not my point. I'm saying that, in essence, you've said that you believe what you believe only because you believe it's true.

That's no different than trying to pick yourself up by your shoelaces. Do you see this?