You’re implying that the expected lab result assuming transubstantiation would be different from the expected lab result assuming no transubstantiation. It’s simply not falsifiable in that way. This is completely in line with the doctrine of transubstantiation, as articulated since St Augustine’s time.
Or was that Aquinas? Either way, long-standing doctrine.
It is not falsifiable in *any * way. That should tell you something about it.
Of course, by “take money from the poor” you mean, “accept willing donations”. But whatever. You think the most charitable organization in the world should be more charitable. Actually, you’re probably right! God knows we can all do better.
Is there some kind of penalty suggested if you do not tithe when you can? Is there some ethical principle that says that the pope can not have a better lifestyle than the people contributing to support his church?
Referring to the Blessed Sacrament as a “cracker” is highly offensive.
It starts as a cracker, or it could. I don’t see any difference after the ritual. If round white wafer is more acceptable, then OK, but I think a cracker can be used, and it is not slight for me to call it the same thing after. I don’t see a difference just because a man in odd dress mutters a few words over it.
If there is a difference between before and after, simply show it to me.
That’s part of A’s schtick. He knows pefectly well that it’s offensive. It’s kind of like a toddler throwing a fit to get attention. The best thing you can do is ignore it.
I know, it’s not easy. Welcome to the thread!
Not just some schtick, though it kind of is that, too. I said earlier that I like to take things to their extreme edge, so let’s take the cracker there.
A ‘Ritz’ cracker.
If you were the priest, and the only thing available as a ‘eucharist’ was a box of Ritz[sup]tm[/sup] crackers, would you skip the eucharist part of the ceremony, or use the Ritz[sup]tm[/sup] crackers because it doesn’t matter what you start with?
Isn’t the manufactured round wafer with the symbols pressed in it (the standard when I went to mass) just a sign of our abundant resources? I say any old cracker will do.
Even if you don’t like me calling it a cracker after the words are muttered, it doesn’t change the fact that all I see is a Ritz[sup]tm[/sup] cracker before, and after.
If you want me to see more, put more there to see.
If he had any genuine interest for discussion, he would be respectful. I wouldn’t waste any more time on him. Thanks for the welcome, but I won’t be staying.
Bye, thanks for stopping by to criticize.
definitely not its just that you forgot to paste the part right after I wrote that.
If argument from popularity doesn’t work on you, then why do you keep using it as an argument?
there is a book with historical evidence that goes along with it like Pilot crucifying Jesus etc. whether that truly happened I cannot prove it to you and I don’t really care to either but it holds more ground than your Unicorn and Leprechaun which everybody I know at least accepts it as a Myth.
The existence of a teacher named Mr. J. Christ is not what is being questioned. It is the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god who impregnates a virgin, is himself born, then arranges to have some people hang him on a stick until he pretends to die, then rises up to rule heaven.
That is what I find ridiculous.
My point being that the theory of him existing is much bigger from personal to historical. I am not saying I can prove it once again but if you were to take the story of a leprechaun and compare it to Christ, Christ has more ground to stand on thats all I said. Therefore I say the possibility is there for Jesus, why should I say there is No way he existed no way. That type of thinking means your shutting yourself down to possibilities and moving forward.
Are you referring to this Mr. J. Christ as a regular person, or the miracle-working all-powerful god?
I’m afraid it’s probably boxed up right now, but maybe I can dig it up.
Please yourself, my friend.
we learned anything from the past.