6 ms·

> No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tran

by vacri 9y ago

> No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation Plenty of people have believed it historically. Scroll down to the Catholic section and you'll see some of the mental gymnastics I talked about to claim it in modern times. Protestants don't believe in literal transubstantiation; I'd say they probably trust their taste-buds more, but then again, compare Protestant/Anglo-German food against Catholic/Franco-Italo-Spanish food :) > "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps" I don't personally see a difference between these terms - they both mean claiming to have an answer for something that is unanswerable. If you have an answer for which the only proof is basically "just trust me", then it's not much of an answer. Russell's Teapot is a pretty clear example of this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Gupie 9y ago
Where in the link does it say that people thought there is a physical change as opposed to a spiritual one, "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ." There is a big difference between something that cannot have an answer and a "gap". We currently do not understand consciousness, which leaves a gap for religions to postulate about souls. But it is very likely that in the future science will be able to answer to question of how consciousnesses arises in the brain. It is not an unanswerable question.
- vacri 9y ago
  ... the very first paragraph after the table of contents? If you check out the Middle Ages section, it shows that the theological debate that it wasn't physical alteration started... at a date that is closer to us than the birth of jesus. Check out Stercoranism [1] as well (which contributed to the above debate), whose whole basis is that the doctrine of physical change must lead towards normal digestive processes happening, and wondering if this turns the eucharist into, literally, holy shit. At the end of that article is a bit of modern apologia stating that christ probably leaves as soon as the cracker hits your stomach ('but nobody knows precisely when'[2]). :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stercoranism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stercoranism [2] god does, after all, move in mysterious ways...
  - Gupie 9y ago
    I cannot find where any of your links say that there was a believe in a literal change, i.e. a change to observable properties.
    - vacri 9y ago
      Well, here you offer a prime example of the power of religion: you are being wilfully ignorant because you don't want something to be a certain way. You won't be satisfied unless the actual word 'literal' appears? It appears in the first paragraph of the Stercoranism link, and again in the second paragraph. "the 9th century Carolingian theologian Paschasius Radbertus... wrote an influential tract around 832 upholding the literal interpretation of Christ in the Eucharist". He supported the literal change, but said that the holy bits dissolved before becoming poo.
      - Gupie 9y ago
        Like Trump you are accusing other people of your own failings. Willfully misinterpreting my position to try to win an argument that you have already lost.
        vacri 9y ago
        Mate, you've contributed nothing to this conversation but "nuh-uh!". I've given you references AND pointed you to the parts of those references that you claim you can't find, even when the stuff you claim is missing is right there in the first paragraph. I've even ended up quoting a relevant bit for you so you don't need to even click a link. So take your claim that I'm the vacuous naysayer here who just blindly declares victory, and shove it up your arse.
        sctb 9y ago
        We've asked you many times not to violate the guidelines like this, so we've banned the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by vacri 9y ago

Gupie 9y ago

Where in the link does it say that people thought there is a physical change as opposed to a spiritual one, "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ." There is a big difference between something that cannot have an answer and a "gap". We currently do not understand consciousness, which leaves a gap for religions to postulate about souls. But it is very likely that in the future science will be able to answer to question of how consciousnesses arises in the brain. It is not an unanswerable question.

vacri 9y ago
... the very first paragraph after the table of contents? If you check out the Middle Ages section, it shows that the theological debate that it wasn't physical alteration started... at a date that is closer to us than the birth of jesus. Check out Stercoranism [1] as well (which contributed to the above debate), whose whole basis is that the doctrine of physical change must lead towards normal digestive processes happening, and wondering if this turns the eucharist into, literally, holy shit. At the end of that article is a bit of modern apologia stating that christ probably leaves as soon as the cracker hits your stomach ('but nobody knows precisely when'[2]). :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stercoranism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stercoranism [2] god does, after all, move in mysterious ways...
- Gupie 9y ago
  I cannot find where any of your links say that there was a believe in a literal change, i.e. a change to observable properties.
  - vacri 9y ago
    Well, here you offer a prime example of the power of religion: you are being wilfully ignorant because you don't want something to be a certain way. You won't be satisfied unless the actual word 'literal' appears? It appears in the first paragraph of the Stercoranism link, and again in the second paragraph. "the 9th century Carolingian theologian Paschasius Radbertus... wrote an influential tract around 832 upholding the literal interpretation of Christ in the Eucharist". He supported the literal change, but said that the holy bits dissolved before becoming poo.
    - Gupie 9y ago
      Like Trump you are accusing other people of your own failings. Willfully misinterpreting my position to try to win an argument that you have already lost.
      - vacri 9y ago
        Mate, you've contributed nothing to this conversation but "nuh-uh!". I've given you references AND pointed you to the parts of those references that you claim you can't find, even when the stuff you claim is missing is right there in the first paragraph. I've even ended up quoting a relevant bit for you so you don't need to even click a link. So take your claim that I'm the vacuous naysayer here who just blindly declares victory, and shove it up your arse.
        sctb 9y ago
        We've asked you many times not to violate the guidelines like this, so we've banned the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html