Looking for a good christian church

[Guest Guest]

Here is my belief ... God has given us all free will. If he was to present himself in some manner that would leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to His existence, I believe that we would still have the option of accepting Him or not.

 

The Church doctrine of Transubstantiation holds that Jesus if present in the Holy Eucharist ... Jesus is the second person of the Trinity ... The Trinity is one God of three distinct persons ... Beyond that I can only say that I believe it and accept it through Faith ... I can't explain it any more than that ... so my point in bringing this up is that even though I believe totally in the existence of God unfortunately I occasionally reject Him in varying degrees through my sins, brought about through my use of Free Will ... Mea Maxima Culpa.

 

The free will angle is just the way to explain why God appears to be absent and indifferent to people's suffering and pain while appearing to reward with good fortune the actions of brutal DELETED. We theorize that there's a divine reason that beautiful two year old girl developed brain cancer and that we just don't understand the master scheme by which people are allowed to perpetrate incalculable horror while good and just people suffer through repeated tragedies. If you think about it, the free will explanation is probably the only way to lubricate the interface between religious doctrine and reality.

 

I remember as an altar boy ripping open the plastic bags filled with Eucharistic wafers. We'd dump them into a basket and sometimes they spilled out onto the floor. Then we'd take one of the bottles of wine from the stack of cardboard boxes, unscrew the cap and pour some into a little pitcher. Then we'd pretend twenty minutes later that Jesus had jumped into the wafers and replaced the cheap screw top wine with blood.

[Rick Shaw]

I happen to agree with The Philosopher. Christians only make themselves look bad when they try to institute their beliefs on others. This is the main problem with Christianity today. A good Christian is supposed to allow others to believe what they want but according to the Bible are supposed to share their faith with them, and not shove it down their throats. In this world there are many that have not been brought up in the church and they only believe in themselves. Also, they put their faith in scientists who can't even decide when life actually begins, claim we have evolved from apes, and explain that we are here only because of an accident called the "big bang."

 

 

@

[Uncle Geo]

The free will angle is just the way to explain why God appears to be absent and indifferent to people's suffering and pain while appearing to reward with good fortune the actions of brutal DELETED. We theorize that there's a divine reason that beautiful two year old girl developed brain cancer and that we just don't understand the master scheme by which people are allowed to perpetrate incalculable horror while good and just people suffer through repeated tragedies. If you think about it, the free will explanation is probably the only way to lubricate the interface between religious doctrine and reality.

 

I remember as an altar boy ripping open the plastic bags filled with Eucharistic wafers. We'd dump them into a basket and sometimes they spilled out onto the floor. Then we'd take one of the bottles of wine from the stack of cardboard boxes, unscrew the cap and pour some into a little pitcher. Then we'd pretend twenty minutes later that Jesus had jumped into the wafers and replaced the cheap screw top wine with blood.

 

I don't think that "the free will angle" has much to do with tragedies or the other unfortunate instances that you cite ...

 

What I find interesting about your post is that you seem to have based your life's spiritual path on the antics of your adolescent behavior.

 

I hope that you can accept that I'm not trying to be mean by saying that, but I wonder if you have made choices consciously as an adult and with a thorough investigation of the subject.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

I don't think that "the free will angle" has much to do with tragedies or the other unfortunate instances that you cite ...

 

What I find interesting about your post is that you seem to have based your life's spiritual path on the antics of your adolescent behavior.

 

I hope that you can accept that I'm not trying to be mean by saying that, but I wonder if you have made choices consciously as an adult and with a thorough investigation of the subject.

 

Ahh, the old "belittle the reasoning" retort which implies that one's choice was hasty or unwise. It's quite the opposite. I was raised in a very religious household and finally came away from the faith due to the overwhelming contradictions between reality and doctrine. This is a very hard thing to do and for most religious people is unthinkable. It's easier for most people to continue standing by convoluted and tortured explanations in an attempt to maintain the plausability of the comforting tales with which one was raised. It's not much different from the extensive ego protections which a delusional patient uses in order to maintain the integrity of their own unrealistic perceptions. Both will selectively ignore things which don't fit into their viewpoint and focus upon minor events which prove to them that they are a genius or the beneficiary on some occasion of divine assistance. I would say that for religeous people the act of replacing unthinking and comforting doctrines with a reasoned view based upon all of reality and history is one of the hardest things they can go through.

 

BTW, it's not adolescent behavior and wasn't antics. The wafers really do come in big plastic bags like a package of rice crispies. They are then dumped into containers for the server(s) for distribution. The ceremony trans-substantiates those bland little wafers into little bits of Jesus flesh. Tell me that isn't the craziest thing you've ever heard.

 

 

@

[Uncle Geo]

Ahh, the old "belittle the reasoning" retort which implies that one's choice was hasty or unwise. It's quite the opposite. I was raised in a very religious household and finally came away from the faith due to the overwhelming contradictions between reality and doctrine. This is a very hard thing to do and for most religious people is unthinkable. It's easier for most people to continue standing by convoluted and tortured explanations in an attempt to maintain the plausability of the comforting tales with which one was raised. It's not much different from the extensive ego protections which a delusional patient uses in order to maintain the integrity of their own unrealistic perceptions. Both will selectively ignore things which don't fit into their viewpoint and focus upon minor events which prove to them that they are a genius or the beneficiary on some occasion of divine assistance. I would say that for religeous people the act of replacing unthinking and comforting doctrines with a reasoned view based upon all of reality and history is one of the hardest things they can go through.

 

BTW, it's not adolescent behavior and wasn't antics. The wafers really do come in big plastic bags like a package of rice crispies. They are then dumped into containers for the server(s) for distribution. The ceremony trans-substantiates those bland little wafers into little bits of Jesus flesh. Tell me that isn't the craziest thing you've ever heard.

 

 

@

 

Sorry if I came across as belittling your statement ... I assure you that was not my purpose. Nowhere did I challenge your belief by calling it "the craziest thing you ever heard" ... which I think might qualify as belittling ... don't you think?

 

I can understand that you can't accept the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation, many don't. Unless you accept the words that Jesus said, reported in the Gospels, at the Last Supper ... "Take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY ... you won't be able to accept that the hosts, after being consecrated by the priest, are actually the body of Christ ... BTW, not just "little bits of Jesus' flesh".

 

If you actually studied the Faith before making a decision to leave it you might have taken a different path.

 

If you did look into it and then decided that you couldn't believe ... Well, that's just an example of Free Will in action... and that's just what I was saying in my post.

 

 

@

[Jon]

Uncle Geo, can we be objective here? If we were to take the wafers and wine that have been consecrated by a Priest and subject them to DNA analysis, what do you think we would find? Would we find DNA sequences that are characteristic of Mammalian flesh and blood genome, perhaps Human? Or would we find only DNA sequences that match control samples taken from actual grapes, and from Durham Wheat? Bear in mind that DNA technology has advanced by now to a level that we can even tell which variety of grapes and which strain of wheat are being examined, often even the location in which they were raised. 

 

What do you think we would find?

 

And if we ran the tests hundreds of times and found every time that the consecrated Host remains plain ol' Wine & Wheat, then what does that say for the Freewill that 'God gave us' to expose something bogus in 'His Word'?

[Uncle Geo]

Uncle Geo, can we be objective here? If we were to take the wafers and wine that have been consecrated by a Priest and subject them to DNA analysis, what do you think we would find? Would we find DNA sequences that are characteristic of Mammalian flesh and blood genome, perhaps Human? Or would we find only DNA sequences that match control samples taken from actual grapes, and from Durham Wheat? Bear in mind that DNA technology has advanced by now to a level that we can even tell which variety of grapes and which strain of wheat are being examined, often even the location in which they were raised.

 

What do you think we would find?

 

And if we ran the tests hundreds of times and found every time that the consecrated Host remains plain ol' Wine & Wheat, then what does that say for the Freewill that 'God gave us' to expose something bogus in 'His Word'?

 

Jon ... Recently a professor from some university managed to get hold of a consecrated Host. He stabbed it and waited for blood to issue ... nothing. I think that there have been many tests ... not sure if they were DNA ... and they came up plain bread and wine.

 

As you've said in the past ... what more can you expect? That's what they were looking for to support their positions ... Well, here's a little something to support mine ... and of course it's something I was looking for.

 

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

I think that it only takes one positive test against a multitude of negative tests to prove that it's possible ... What do you think?

 

Bread and wine ... Flesh and Blood ... it's a matter of Faith. I really don't care if scientists tried testing a million times and still came up with wheat and grapes ... I believe in the Real Presence under the form of bread and wine.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

The idea of free will goes along with the existence of tragedy and miracle. If one looks objectively at what happens to people then either the deity is indifferent to our circumstances or is powerless to alter them. Both run counter to Christian dogma. The only way to explain why things operate as they do while under the control of a beneficent and all powerful deity is to theorize that the world was intentionally created as a free play zone in which people get hurt and do evil in order to serve a higher purpose. Letting bad people perpetrate serial rape or gencide of one's enemies or to allow the innocent young to die of purely biological ailments seems a bit callous given all the other ways in which one might test the worthiness of a human soul. This seemingly callous indifference is tempered by the idea that the deity sometimes answers your prayers by letting you win at scratch off lotto, providing a neighbor who helps you fix your flat tire when its raining or letting you recover from the illness which bankrupts your family. It's therefore not surprising that this is how the world is said to operate.

 

The real genius in 'faith' is getting people to ignore all the stuff that doesn't work or make sense.

 

 

@

[Jon]

Jon ... Recently a professor from some university managed to get hold of a consecrated Host. He stabbed it and waited for blood to issue ... nothing. I think that there have been many tests ... not sure if they were DNA ... and they came up plain bread and wine.

 

As you've said in the past ... what more can you expect? That's what they were looking for to support their positions ... Well, here's a little something to support mine ... and of course it's something I was looking for.

 

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

I think that it only takes one positive test against a multitude of negative tests to prove that it's possible ... What do you think?

 

Bread and wine ... Flesh and Blood ... it's a matter of Faith. I really don't care if scientists tried testing a million times and still came up with wheat and grapes ... I believe in the Real Presence under the form of bread and wine.

Uncle Geo, I had rather hoped you would come up with something new. We (collectively) covered this same anecdote in detail in July last year: http://bcvoice.com/forums/index.php?showto...st&p=114886

http://bcvoice.com/forums/index.php?showto...mp;#entry124546

 

On the basis that you say 'transubstantiation' needs only to be proven once ...

I think that it only takes one positive test against a multitude of negative tests to prove that it's possible ... What do you think?

...I have to agree with a general principle outlined by a previous 'guest' who wrote:

 

Both will selectively ignore things which don't fit into their viewpoint and focus upon minor events which prove to them that they are a genius or the beneficiary on some occasion of divine assistance.

 

Uncle Geo, you seem to emphasize the literal interpretation of Christ's words here:

 

Unless you accept the words that Jesus said, reported in the Gospels, at the Last Supper ... "Take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY ... you won't be able to accept that the hosts, after being consecrated by the priest, are actually the body of Christ

Yet here you seem to allow for a more symbolic "under the form" interpretation.  

 

I really don't care if scientists tried testing a million times and still came up with wheat and grapes ... I believe in the Real Presence under the form of bread and wine.

Even within yourself as a true believer there seems to be scope for conflicting levels of belief. 

[Guest Guest]

Good grief Jon ... It was only a story offered in hope that the poster would take a minute and look about him and see the wonders that exist in this world and universe ... and hopefully see the work of a loving God.

 

I mean, even if he is an Atheist he might agree with you as to the existence of a "First Cause ... Higher Power".

 

(Prayer ... Please God, don't let this escalate back into a discussion on whether of not You exist ... Forgive us for beating that poor dead horse again and again.)

 

On the contrary, many atheists do look around and see the wonders that exist in this world.

 

I would also add that many religious people tend to attribute things they don't understand to God. They simply turn their mind off and say God did it. Where is the wonder in that?

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

I think that it only takes one positive test against a multitude of negative tests to prove that it's possible ... What do you think?

 

Do you actually want to base your belief upon one reported 9th c. miracle as investigated by 16 c. clergy? You do know that they were finding miracles, relics and Saints left and right back then, don't you? If you added up all the authentic pieces of some of the Catholic Saints still working to collect tourists and donations for the churches which house them you'd end up with about 3 sets of bones for each.

 

 

@

[Uncle Geo]

Do you actually want to base your belief upon one reported 9th c. miracle as investigated by 16 c. clergy? You do know that they were finding miracles, relics and Saints left and right back then, don't you? If you added up all the authentic pieces of some of the Catholic Saints still working to collect tourists and donations for the churches which house them you'd end up with about 3 sets of bones for each.

 

 

@

 

You couldn't quite make it through the article, could you?

 

The last I knew the 1970's and 80's were in the 20th century.

 

 

 

[Uncle Geo]

Uncle Geo, I had rather hoped you would come up with something new. We (collectively) covered this same anecdote in detail in July last year: http://bcvoice.com/forums/index.php?showto...st&p=114886

http://bcvoice.com/forums/index.php?showto...mp;#entry124546

 

I'm sure you did ... but the fact remains that the professors found what they found and nothing has proven them wrong. It's easy to snidely dismiss their finding ... which is what you seemed to do at the time. I hate to use that word, "snidely", but that's the way it came across to me ... Let's not dwell on that though, let's consider what was found and the fact that it has never been refuted.

 

On the basis that you say 'transubstantiation' needs only to be proven once ... ...I have to agree with a general principle outlined by a previous 'guest' who wrote:

 

You didn't answer my question ... If something is proven, even once, doesn't it cast a cloud on any prior negative tests? I disagree with the previous guest contentions.

 

 

 

Uncle Geo, you seem to emphasize the literal interpretation of Christ's words here:

 

Yes, I do ...

 

 

Yet here you seem to allow for a more symbolic "under the form" interpretation.

 

It wasn't meant to come across like that ... Sorry.

I don't think that "under the form" connotes any suggestion of "symbolic" when the Doctrine is understood.

 

 

Even within yourself as a true believer there seems to be scope for conflicting levels of belief.

 

Jon you are quite wrong in this matter ... and since we seem to be unable to talk the same language in matters of Faith you will continue to be mistaken if you try to define any level of my belief.

 

One of these days You must teach me how to make the several quote boxes that you and AFC use so effectively.

[Jon]

You didn't answer my question ... If something is proven, even once, doesn't it cast a cloud on any prior negative tests? I disagree with the previous guest contentions.

Sorry Uncle Geo, I didn't mean to neglect your question.

 

If something is 'proven once' yet 'disproven many times', then any self-respecting examiner or examining body has to look at the weight of evidence. To use your terminology those many negative tests may instead "cast a cloud" on something that is only proven once, and furthermore "cast a cloud" on what constitutes its 'proof'. That is certainly the case at Law, and also in Science. On that basis many negative tests raise serious doubts about the one finding that all the other findings contradict. It casts a cloud upon the quality of evidence that it had relied upon, compared with the quality of evidence for all the other findings. To apportion credibility in any other way is not only irrational but may also be intellectually dishonest.

 

In the alleged Transubstantiation case, in my second link above I went on to re-emphasize some 14 unacceptable variables. Any one of them alone could consign an investigation to the waste basket. 14 of them only seal that fate even more, condemning the isolated anecdote irredeemably in any field other than one of rusted-on zealotry.

 

Was I snide? Don't apologize. I probably was. I'm often snide, often rhetorical, often both, and often neither. It's a matter of 'context'. You know me well enough by now. 

 

One of these days You must teach me how to make the several quote boxes that you and AFC use so effectively.

Do you mean nested quotes? Let me know and I'll see if I can explain it coherently. Alternatively, find an example that you mean, and click on the Quote button to see how the other poster had organized it.

 

If you mean sequential quotes then just highlight the passage you want to Quote and hit the "Wrap in Quote tags" icon above your edit window. Set up a test somewhere and experiment. Once you've done it a couple of times it becomes easy like anything else that you teach yourself.

[Uncle Geo]

On the contrary, many atheists do look around and see the wonders that exist in this world.

 

I would also add that many religious people tend to attribute things they don't understand to God. They simply turn their mind off and say God did it. Where is the wonder in that?

 

And to what do those "many atheists" attribute those "wonders"?

 

You know ... Scientists tell us that the universe is at least 15 Billion years old ... an unimaginable number that I doubt any human brain can comprehend. And according to other scientists, humans have existed for 3 or 4 Million years ... a mere pittance in the frame of things ... but some humans hold the egotistical belief that it's not necessary to attribute any of the happenings of the last 15 Billion years to any form of a Higher Power or First Cause ... that they can explain it through what they consider "reason" and serendipity.

 

In the light of ongoing scientific discoveries which seem to indicate that we don't even know the questions, the arrogance of the embryonic human race is amazing ... and utterly frustrating.

[Jon]

Ah yes Uncle Geo, but Human arrogance was really 15 Billion years in the making. It has a formidable pedigree! 

[Uncle Geo]

Sorry Uncle Geo, I didn't mean to neglect your question.

 

If something is 'proven once' yet 'disproven many times', then any self-respecting examiner or examining body has to look at the weight of evidence. To use your terminology those many negative tests may instead "cast a cloud" on something that is only proven once, and furthermore "cast a cloud" on what constitutes its 'proof'. That is certainly the case at Law, and also in Science. On that basis many negative tests raise serious doubts about the one finding that all the other findings contradict. It casts a cloud upon the quality of evidence that it had relied upon, compared with the quality of evidence for all the other findings. To apportion credibility in any other way is not only irrational but may also be intellectually dishonest.

 

In the alleged Transubstantiation case, in my second link above I went on to re-emphasize some 14 unacceptable variables. Any one of them alone could consign an investigation to the waste basket. 14 of them only seal that fate even more, condemning the isolated anecdote irredeemably in any field other than one of rusted-on zealotry.

 

Was I snide? Don't apologize. I probably was. I'm often snide, often rhetorical, often both, and often neither. It's a matter of 'context'. You know me well enough by now.

 

Jon, will you not agree that if I was able to prove something over and over and you were able to prove the opposite once your claim would be that the possibility exists that I was mistaken, based on your finding?

 

Trusting to memory ... acknowledged as occasionally flawed ... I don't accept your second link as proof of anything refuting what was discovered by the eminent professors.

 

Additionally, the manner in which you dismissed their character and professional conduct was well beyond objectivity.

[Jon]

Jon, will you not agree that if I was able to prove something over and over and you were able to prove the opposite once your claim would be that the possibility exists that I was mistaken, based on your finding?

Sure, but without human intervention the world of reality pivots upon probability rather than possibility. 

 

And even then the possibility of the Laws Of Physics contradicting themselves (as in 'transubstantiation') rates at 50% of zero.  

 

Trusting to memory ... acknowledged as occasionally flawed ... I don't accept your second link as proof of anything refuting what was discovered by the eminent professors.

It all hinges on whether you are willing to 'join the dots'. You seem unwilling to do that. In that case perhaps we can add a 15th variable ... your acceptance/non-acceptance of the foregoing 14 variables. 

 

Additionally, the manner in which you dismissed their character and professional conduct was well beyond objectivity.

Uncle Geo I had expected better of you than to fret over style at the expense of substance. I haven't seen you do that with my usual sparring partner. I suggest you revisit both links I provided and get an appreciation of the history of that discussion before you presume to judge my tone on that occasion. All the trademark sidestepping I was encountering had earned neither my respect nor restraint. Also, like a lot of people get I cynical whenever I see agenda-driven propaganda (like that of the Italian Professors) posturing as scholarly endeavor. We can go back to that second-linked thread and pursue it further if you like. Probably better there than here.   

 

BTW, I've sold that Bridge many times over!

[Guest Guest]

And to what do those "many atheists" attribute those "wonders"?

 

You know ... Scientists tell us that the universe is at least 15 Billion years old ... an unimaginable number that I doubt any human brain can comprehend. And according to other scientists, humans have existed for 3 or 4 Million years ... a mere pittance in the frame of things ... but some humans hold the egotistical belief that it's not necessary to attribute any of the happenings of the last 15 Billion years to any form of a Higher Power or First Cause ... that they can explain it through what they consider "reason" and serendipity.

 

In the light of ongoing scientific discoveries which seem to indicate that we don't even know the questions, the arrogance of the embryonic human race is amazing ... and utterly frustrating.

 

The fallacy you are trying to present is just because science doesn't have all the answers (yet), your answer must therefore be correct. I'll be the first to admit that science doesn't have all the answers, but what it has uncovered so far is more credible than any God "hypothesis."

 

It wasn't that long ago, your CC was telling us something quite different about the universe and how man appeared on Earth. If it wasn't for science challenging the CC's beliefs and disproving them, we'd STILL believe in a geocentric universe and the Creation. I just don't see how religion helped uncover the wonder of the universe as we know it today. In fact, a strong case canbe made that religion stifled scientific inquiry.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

In fact, a strong case canbe made that religion stifled scientific inquiry.

 

Galileo was not 100% correct in his THEORIES. Mocking the Pope, the very person he was trying to persuade, couldn't possibly get him any brownie points, either.

 

[Guest Guest]

Jon ... Recently a professor from some university managed to get hold of a consecrated Host. He stabbed it and waited for blood to issue ... nothing. I think that there have been many tests ... not sure if they were DNA ... and they came up plain bread and wine.

 

As you've said in the past ... what more can you expect? That's what they were looking for to support their positions ... Well, here's a little something to support mine ... and of course it's something I was looking for.

 

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

I think that it only takes one positive test against a multitude of negative tests to prove that it's possible ... What do you think?

 

Bread and wine ... Flesh and Blood ... it's a matter of Faith. I really don't care if scientists tried testing a million times and still came up with wheat and grapes ... I believe in the Real Presence under the form of bread and wine.

 

 

@

 

Some of the scientific findings are questionable.

 

The one big flaw in this is: other than the monks claim, what concrete proof is there that the items were once bread and wine? How do we know Transubstantiation took place?

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Galileo was not 100% correct in his THEORIES. Mocking the Pope, the very person he was trying to persuade, couldn't possibly get him any brownie points, either.

 

 

But, he was much closer to the Truth than the CC. Let's face it, in those days discovering that the Earth revolves around the Sun was a major breakthrough. Let's say Galileo was only 50% correct in his theories, then that would make the CC <1% correct in their "theory."

 

 

 

Further, the very idea that he had to persuade a cleric is proof enough that the CC stifled scientific progress.

[Guest Guest]

But, he was much closer to the Truth than the CC. Let's face it, in those days discovering that the Earth revolves around the Sun was a major breakthrough. Let's say Galileo was only 50% correct in his theories, then that would make the CC <1% correct in their "theory."

 

 

 

Further, the very idea that he had to persuade a cleric is proof enough that the CC stifled scientific progress.

 

 

Considering the fact that Galileo could not prove his theories at the time and at the same time demanding CHANGE in the Church? Now we know later one he was only partially correct?

 

Galileo went to the Church demanding change with no proof. The CC did not go to him.......

[Jon]

Considering the fact that Galileo could not prove his theories at the time and at the same time demanding CHANGE in the Church? Now we know later one he was only partially correct? 

 

Galileo went to the Church demanding change with no proof. The CC did not go to him.......

 

AFC, it's done & dusted already. The CC was more concerned about challenge to its authority than about anything even remotely approaching Truth.  

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Considering the fact that Galileo could not prove his theories at the time and at the same time demanding CHANGE in the Church? Now we know later one he was only partially correct?

 

 

He was able to disprove geocentrism... the official position of the CC... Just because the CC was slow to accept this doesn't make it any less so.

 

Galileo went to the Church demanding change with no proof. The CC did not go to him.......

 

I agree that the CC has been a thorn in the side of progress.