877
Names
(lemmy.ca)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
877 points (97.2% liked)
Programmer Humor
32730 readers
143 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Where does it say otherwise? It very clearly says over and over that the substance becomes the body and blood of christ. It also says the appearance and outward characteristics stay the same, but the substance literally changes somehow in an undetectable way.
Also, I'm not writting a damn paper. I don't need academic sources to post something online. Wikipedia is the best resource to share information with people. That's the whole point. Here's another. Meanwhile you are here with no sources at all. Say what you will about Wikipedia, but it's a better source than your ass. If you want more or different information then you can search for it yourself. Those should give you all the search terms you need and I hope you can figure it out.
In your Wikipedia article that the Bread and Wine maintained the characteristics of bread and wine on the outside, but were in essence the body and blood of christ.
Yes, the essence of it changes, but it's somehow undetectable. It becomes his body and blood, but you can tell using your senses. Yeah, it doesn't really make sense and language doesn't seem to work well to describe it, because it's insane. That's the dogma of the Catholic church though. It also isn't the most crazy thing you're expected to believe. If this is an issue for anyone, they probably shouldn't believe in the religion at all.
Honestly I think you're overthinking it, it's symbolically becomes the blood and body of christ, and this does stuff for you spiritually because Jesus. That is a sad thing about Reddit atheism, they overanalyze things until they stop making sense. Even when these things are as simple as they appear to be on surface.
What I want everyone to keep in mind is that everything sounds stupid if you over analyze and oversimplify to the proper extent.
I'm not the one overanalyzing. I'm just taking their word for it.
["Something happened at that last meal that Jesus celebrated with his disciples, something that had never happened before: Ordinary bread and wine were transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. I’m sure the disciples didn’t fully understand what had just happened, nor what would happen when they went on to celebrate “Last Suppers” with the early Christian community.
Yet they believed and had faith in the Lord’s words, even though they didn’t fully understand them.
For Catholics today, not much has changed. We believe that at every Mass, bread and wine become Jesus — his body, blood, soul and divinity — even though we can’t fully understand how it happens. The miracle of the Eucharist is a mystery, something that human reason and intelligence can never fully grasp."](https://nwcatholic.org/voices/cal-christiansen/how-can-i-explain-transubstantiation)
"In the previous chapter the apostle wrote, “The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:16). His words are clear. The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ’s actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, “This is my Body,” meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so."
"The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation states that the bread and wine, at the moment of consecration during Holy Mass, actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The change, however, is not detectable by the senses. This has led some Christians to question whether it is true. In order to understand what the doctrine of transubstantiation teaches, and why so many arguments against it are misleading, we need to understand the philosophy behind the doctrine."
I know it's easier to just say it's a metaphor or whatever, but this is what the dogma of the church is. You don't need to agree with it, but that doesn't change it. Most Christians don't believe this, but the Catholic church does. However, whenever anyone does anything that appears stupid, it's easier to just say "you didn't get it, it was a joke" or whatever. "Trump didn't actually tell people to drink bleach, it was a joke." Its a more convenient thing to think instead of having believed in something that has such rediculous beliefs.
Except a lot of the problems with Atheist debunking of the bibble. You keep mistaking allegory for literal.
The Catholic Church claims it becomes the blood of Christ internally, spiritually, but remains the same externally or physically.
You can cite whatever verses you want but that doesn't change the fact that the claim you are bashing is not the one being made.
You are holding up a strawman and insisting that he's real for but want of a brain. Methinks you project your desires onto him.
I'm not pointing out something that can be debunked. I'm pointing out that it's crazy spellcasting stuff. The dogma is that it becomes that thing, just that it's undetectable to us. It's untestable, so obviously I'm not claiming anything about debunking. I'm saying it's crazy. If a modern person outside of a religion said those things we'd institutionalized them.
Non sequitur, irrelevant to conversation
What? You can't just say things and make it the case. It absolutely follows. It's literally the whole point of what I was discussing. Talking about debunkers was the non-sequitur. It did not follow from discussing how crazy the claim is to talk about other people trying to debunk totally unrelated things.
You're just saying names of logical fallacies seemingly without any understanding of what they mean and when they apply, hoping others will fall for it. There wasn't a strawman before, and I didn't make a non-sequitur statement.
What you said had nothing to do with the conversation thus a nonsensical derailment of the converstion, and you are propping up a strawman. I keep pointing out they don't believe it physically turns into blood and flesh and you keep going "But what if they did?"
No, they believe it fundamentally changes into the body and blood. It's a nonsense meanining of the language from a measurable reasonable view of the universe, but they mean it does become that thing, but it's undetectable so it can't be tested. I don't know what you're arguing about. You either misunderstand what I'm saying, what they're saying (which I've barely said anything, just copied what they say), or you're just arguing for the sake of it.
The believe it actually becomes his body and blood. It literally becomes that, undetectably. It's in a sense that is unmeasurable and undetectable, so that it can't be debunked and can't really be questioned beyond questioning the pretext of it happening. They do believe it literally is the body and blood of christ though. There's no strawman there. I could construct one if I wanted to, but it's totally unnecessary, because the real thing is absurd enough. It's not my fault that the mystical language doesn't gel with a realistic, scientific, physical understanding of our language.
I was responding to what you said about debunkers earlier, so it was not an non-sequitur. It was directly responding to your comment, although bringing that up was a non-sequitur. It had no relevance.