Quick Question on the Eucharist

[Phage0070]

All I can say is, WOW!
Awesome example

Except that it only defines “essence” as a mental concept. The “broken” clock is still a clock if observed by someone who doesn’t know it is broken. For instance, lets consider a clock which has had its innards trashed yet the outside facade remains intact. Unknowing bystanders will likely still consider it to be a clock and use it as such, the only difference being that it is only “correct” twice a day. “Correct” is again subjective, as the importance of the clock lies solely in that agrees with the vast majority of all other clocks. Are we to conclude that Catholic dogma is only important so far as all Catholics agree on something?

Furthermore we can have different systems of keeping time; a clock in the Eastern Time Zone does not give the correct time in Central. Are we to suppose that the clock only has an essence when considered from certain locations? If we decide to observe “daylight saving time” does the clock gain or lose the “essence” of a clock?

promethius has simply conflated “use” or “conception” with “essence”. The broken clock gains the essence of a paperweight simply because promethius begins to consider and use it that way. Presumably a cardboard box would gain the “essence” of a seat if promethius began sitting upon it, and lose it once he stopped. Such examples reveal how tawdry promethius’s view of the Eucharist is; the Eucharist gains the essence of Jesus’s body simply because people start considering it to be so. No explanation is offered for conflicting viewpoints, such as someone else continuing to use the “broken” clock to tell time. What is it’s essence then?

Either promethius believes how he considers or uses something to fundamentally alter reality or the clever explanation offered was shallow to the point of irrelevance. Either option isn’t particularly encouraging.

 

[jmcrae]

Wait, even if we grant that Adam broke the universe… why could he do that? Humans cannot levitate themselves, they cannot manipulate things at a distance purely with their minds, we cannot travel faster than the speed of light; there are numerous limitations placed upon humans which don’t impede our free will.

You have obviously not made a study of the LIves of the Saints. There are many holy men and women who were able to break the boundaries of time, space, and the physical laws - St. Pio, for example, who was able to be in two places at the same time - St. Joseph of Cupertino, known as “the flying Saint.”

So why exactly would God arbitrarily disallow my regrowing an arm lost to a freak accident yet allow the first human ever to break the entire universe for all time?

Maybe you just need to become more holy …

How is that not a design flaw of ridiculous proportions?

Is it a flaw, or a feature? What kind of life would we have, if God were micromanaging every aspect of it, without allowing for accidents and free will? Keep in mind, death is neither the end, nor the worst possible thing that could ever happen to you.

 

[Cruxis117]

So what you are saying is that they weren’t created good enough to stay good, right?

No, it’s that they were made good, but made a choice. In the very same way that parents will work hard to raise their children right, and were good parents, but the child becomes a drug user, etc. This actually isn’t that hard to believe, if you ever read the book Crank, by Ellen Hopkins, it speaks of a girl who had good parents (Mom/Step-dad) and was a straight-A, intelligent girl who then became a meth user. It’s not about being created “good enough”. It’s simply that they chose to disobey God.

 

[Phage0070]

You have obviously not made a study of the LIves of the Saints. There are many holy men and women who were able to break the boundaries of time, space, and the physical laws - St. Pio, for example, who was able to be in two places at the same time - St. Joseph of Cupertino, known as “the flying Saint.”

Glossing over the other problems with that, the presumption is that all of those saints were only capable of those feats due to an extension of God’s power. They didn’t do it on their own, under their own capacity.

So your examples appear to simply be a snide attempt to be contrary rather than address the point; why would God let the first human wreck the entire universe for everyone else? Especially if he would necessarily be directly complicit?

Maybe you just need to become more holy …

I am sure if I became more like God I would destroy more things. That is kind of his thing isn’t it?

Is it a flaw, or a feature? What kind of life would we have, if God were micromanaging every aspect of it, without allowing for accidents and free will? Keep in mind, death is neither the end, nor the worst possible thing that could ever happen to you.

Do you work for Microsoft? “Feature not a flaw” is directly from their playbook.

On a more serious note your suggestion that all of the suffering in the world as well as a theorized infinity of torture after death serves to make life “more interesting” is frankly sickening. It is only because you think you are playfully bandying about irrelevant points of dogma in the comfort of your own home rather than actually believing such drivel that I don’t use stronger language to describe such disrespect.

 

[Phage0070]

No, it’s that they were made good, but made a choice. In the very same way that parents will work hard to raise their children right, and were good parents, but the child becomes a drug user, etc. This actually isn’t that hard to believe, if you ever read the book Crank, by Ellen Hopkins, it speaks of a girl who had good parents (Mom/Step-dad) and was a straight-A, intelligent girl who then became a meth user. It’s not about being created “good enough”. It’s simply that they chose to disobey God.

So I take it you aren’t a fan of good parenting being integral to a person’s development?

But again your point is irrelevant, since every person anyone can prove existed is according to Catholic dogma predisposed toward sinfulness. This isn’t a free choice, it is a choice with coercion. So how do you explain that?

 

[Cruxis117]

So I take it you aren’t a fan of good parenting being integral to a person’s development?

No, I am, but I’m making a clear point, that it doesn’t matter if you have good parenting, you can still have a bad apple fall off the tree. Though yes, the environment in which a person interacts matters, but it’s clear that in this example, it wasn’t the fault of the parent, only the fault of the youth.

But again your point is irrelevant, since every person anyone can prove existed is according to Catholic dogma predisposed toward sinfulness. This isn’t a free choice, it is a choice with coercion. So how do you explain that?

Though there is “coercion”, it is still free in the sense that there are two options. You can make the choice to abort or not abort, etc. People have a free will, which was truly free before the fall, in which all of humanity (save Jesus and Mary) were touched by original sin. There is a free will, albeit it is a damaged free will that shows us that we must fight against our sin and come to Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

Glossing over the other problems with that, the presumption is that all of those saints were only capable of those feats due to an extension of God’s power. They didn’t do it on their own, under their own capacity.

So your examples appear to simply be a snide attempt to be contrary rather than address the point; why would God let the first human wreck the entire universe for everyone else? Especially if he would necessarily be directly complicit?

God “let” him do so by giving him free will, rather than making him a puppet on a string. A puppet on a string can neither give nor receive love, but a free person can. God created us free (and thus, able to sin, even to the point of wrecking the Universe) because He loves us and wants us to be able to experience that love. Nothing else is that important to Him.

I am sure if I became more like God I would destroy more things. That is kind of his thing isn’t it?

Not really, no.

 

[Phage0070]

…but it’s clear that in this example, it wasn’t the fault of the parent, only the fault of the youth.

No, I really don’t think that is clear at all. This should be obvious by this point, and simply stating otherwise doesn’t make it so.

Though there is “coercion”, it is still free in the sense that there are two options.

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Choices made of one’s free will are directly contrasted with choices made while coerced. This isn’t comparing “apples to oranges”, it is comparing “apples to not-apples”. If you are having trouble understanding this, consider what we are talking about when we say “free will”. Free of what? Coercion.

If there being two options is what you wish to convey then the word you are looking for is “binary” not “free”.

 

[Phage0070]

God created us free (and thus, able to sin, even to the point of wrecking the Universe) because He loves us and wants us to be able to experience that love. Nothing else is that important to Him.

Except of course eternal torture if we don’t love and serve him unquestioningly, and he seems to be a bit picky about his ego. If truly nothing else is that important then surely he would let people who don’t know about, care about, or even actively dislike him experience that love anyway. Instead it seems that he actually does care about his miniscule creations respecting him more than them experiencing his love.

Not really, no.

Ever heard of the phrase “Acts of God”? Does that generally bring to mind something which is constructive or destructive?

 

[Cruxis117]

No, I really don’t think that is clear at all. This should be obvious by this point, and simply stating otherwise doesn’t make it so.

Simply stating that it’s not clear doesn’t make it so either.

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Choices made of one’s free will are directly contrasted with choices made while coerced. This isn’t comparing “apples to oranges”, it is comparing “apples to not-apples”. If you are having trouble understanding this, consider what we are talking about when we say “free will”. Free of what? Coercion.

If there being two options is what you wish to convey then the word you are looking for is “binary” not “free”.

We use the word free simply because it is more commonly used and is more relevant to the discussion, though it may be a bit of a misnomer. Nevertheless, the human will is essentially free, there is the ability to make a choice. Though yes, I agree that it is not entirely free (thus, damaged by sin) it still retains it’s essential quality.

 

[jmcrae]

Except of course eternal torture if we don’t love and serve him unquestioningly, and he seems to be a bit picky about his ego.

I hear you. “Who is this God person, anyway, who thinks He is so great?”

(Seriously - I don’t think God needs to be humble. He is, after all, God.)

Instead it seems that he actually does care about his miniscule creations respecting him more than them experiencing his love.

I have never seen where someone loved a person whom they did not also respect. Without respect, we don’t have love - maybe, a pleasant sensation in the groin area, or a flutter of the heart - but not love in the sense that God wants us to have both for Him and for each other.

 

[Phage0070]

(Seriously - I don’t think God needs to be humble. He is, after all, God.)

And God so greatly values the admiration of pitiful humans why exactly? Enough that he is willing to torture them eternally, or rain down hellfire? Even if you consider that trivial to him, then how about the pain and suffering inflicted on his own followers by demanding holy wars of genocide? The Christian god is a jealous god.

I have never seen where someone loved a person whom they did not also respect. Without respect, we don’t have love - maybe, a pleasant sensation in the groin area, or a flutter of the heart - but not love in the sense that God wants us to have both for Him and for each other.

Too bad God can’t respect a difference of opinion.

Or personal freedom.

Or sexual preference.

Or the right not to be enslaved.

Or the right to marry whom one wishes.

Or… well, I can’t really think of any aspect in which the Christian god respects humans. Perhaps you could point out what you are possibly talking about?

 

[Cruxis117]

And God so greatly values the admiration of pitiful humans why exactly? Enough that he is willing to torture them eternally, or rain down hellfire? Even if you consider that trivial to him, then how about the pain and suffering inflicted on his own followers by demanding holy wars of genocide? The Christian god is a jealous god.

And rightly so! For he is our Father, and he desires us for himself. He values the admiration of pitiful humans because he is Love. He truly is beyond our understanding, and we don’t need to worry about the “why”. What matters is that he does. This is far more important than anything else. It’s not God who is torturing them, it is us. When we sin and die, and are truly separated from God, then the true pains of being without Him are realized. This is simply what hell is. No more love, only pain, which we ourselves have chosen. Those people are humans, and humans are prone to sin. Even when they understand a more righteous goal, sin can use this to blur our sense of righteousness.

Too bad God can’t respect a difference of opinion.

When it goes beyond who He is and what He has shown us to be righteous, then yes. I have no cares for the opinions of those in this world, for they are fleeting and unreliable. Give me the rock, the Lord who never changes and doesn’t just give opinion, but gives us truth.

Or personal freedom.

To do what, exactly? To sin wildly? He does respect our freedom, and shows us this in letting us sin and take ourselves to Hell. “Personal freedom” is simply a phrase to mean “do whatever I want, whatever feels right, and to not have accountability.”

Or sexual preference.

Sexual preference is a joke. The Lord instituted marriage between one Man and one Woman for a reason. It’s a sacred covenant, and “sexual preference” is simply a way of profaning what is made sacred by God.

Or the right not to be enslaved.

I’ll assume you’ve never read the Bible. Check out the book Exodus. Many African-American preachers during the Civil Rights Movement knew that Exodus, in which the Israelites were slaves to Egypt, was similar to their predicament and knew the truth, that God made us free.

Or the right to marry whom one wishes.

I’ll assume this relates to the illusion of “sexual preference.” Again, you can look above for my answer.

Or… well, I can’t really think of any aspect in which the Christian god respects humans. Perhaps you could point out what you are possibly talking about?

I’m pretty sure that the point is where God the Father, out of his own love and mercy, became, took the likeness of one of us in order to show us that He loved us. By dying the way he did, by living the way He did, Jesus the Lord showed us that our God is one of solidarity, who knows our struggles and who has freed us from sin. This goes beyond any of these weak, worldly pursuits which truly are incomparable to what Jesus did and does and will do for us.

 

[jmcrae]

And God so greatly values the admiration of pitiful humans why exactly? Enough that he is willing to torture them eternally, or rain down hellfire?

Hell is the Devil’s domain - not God’s. If there is torment in Hell, it is the Devil who deals it out. God permits this, but He does not actually do it.

Too bad God can’t respect a difference of opinion.

You realize that God can only believe and teach whatever is true, right? So, to have a “difference of opinion” with God is - uh - to be wrong.

Or the right to marry whom one wishes.

In India, there was a ten year old girl who wanted to marry her dog. The Indian government allowed this to happen, so now we have this little girl, married to her dog. (The news article I read made no mention of how they mean to support each other - I suppose they must be living with the girl’s parents.)

This is where we come to, when we say that anyone who wants to can marry whomever (or whatever) they want. Maybe you approve of this; I don’t know. I do think, though, that the girl is going to want to divorce her dog and marry a human being some day - meaning that she will have to admit to herself and to the world that getting married to her dog was a bad idea.

 

[Phage0070]

He truly is beyond our understanding, and we don’t need to worry about the “why”.

That is pathetic. That is shameful. That is everything that is wrong with religion.

Give me the rock, the Lord who never changes and doesn’t just give opinion, but gives us truth.

You… really don’t know how the Bible was made, do you? It was made by committee. A human committee picking and choosing which stories and morals to include and which to exclude.

To do what, exactly? To sin wildly?

“Sin” being defined as what? Whatever is contrary to God’s will? We are supposed to have free will and your argument against us exercising that free will is the terrible circumstance of us doing something which happens to be against what God wants.

So God doesn’t like it. SO WHAT?

Sexual preference is a joke.

I suppose free will is a joke to you as well.

I’ll assume you’ve never read the Bible. Check out the book Exodus. Many African-American preachers during the Civil Rights Movement knew that Exodus, in which the Israelites were slaves to Egypt, was similar to their predicament and knew the truth, that God made us free.

“And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves.” Leviticus 25:44-46

Game, set, match. Africans in America were fair game for permanent enslavement as per the law set out by God himself.

I’ll assume this relates to the illusion of “sexual preference.” Again, you can look above for my answer.

Actually I was aiming more toward the rules concerning rapists paying a fee to the father of the victim and purchasing the daughter as a wife, but I didn’t really expect you to address these point-by-point anyway.

I’m pretty sure that the point is where God the Father, out of his own love and mercy, became, took the likeness of one of us in order to show us that He loved us. By dying the way he did, by living the way He did, Jesus the Lord showed us that our God is one of solidarity, who knows our struggles and who has freed us from sin.

Except that he didn’t really. He didn’t have the predisposition to sin that the rest of humans have. He had a direct line to God (himself?) that nobody else could match. He had special powers and extra insight into the world beyond what he had learned through experience like we humans. And finally he didn’t really stay dead, which sort of cuts the importance out of the matter. If dying only meant a 3 day nap then I doubt many people would be nearly as concerned about it.

So he put on human-clothes and pranced around acting superior until his father decided to mock-kill him to ease a temper he really should have just been able to control like an adult.

 

[Phage0070]

Hell is the Devil’s domain - not God’s. If there is torment in Hell, it is the Devil who deals it out. God permits this, but He does not actually do it.

I suppose you don’t agree that things only exist by God’s constant willing of them to exist then? And “permitting but not actually doing” is a pathetic excuse. As Spiderman’s father said “With great power comes great responsibility.”

As I say, with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.

You realize that God can only believe and teach whatever is true, right? So, to have a “difference of opinion” with God is - uh - to be wrong.

“And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,” 2 Thessalonians 2:11

“Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ The LORD said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the LORD said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ Therefore look! The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the LORD has declared disaster against you.”” 1 Kings 22:21-23

Unless you are going to argue that the Godfather ordering a hit isn’t responsible for murder then I think I have made my point, hmm?

In India, there was a ten year old girl who wanted to marry her dog. The Indian government allowed this to happen, so now we have this little girl, married to her dog. (The news article I read made no mention of how they mean to support each other - I suppose they must be living with the girl’s parents.)

You know a single person should be quite capable of funding the upkeep of a pet dog… that is of course if it weren’t for the deplorable social system which renders women unable to hold profitable employment and are generally treated as property. Guess which part the Bible supports?

Also, you know why she was probably wanting to marry the dog? Probably so she could exclude herself from arranged marriage (or raped and then claimed as a wife) long enough to obtain an education which would provide her an exit from the country’s social structure. Once she was officially married, even if to a dog, then she wasn’t “fair game” for a man to waylay her on the way to school, sexually assault her, and then pay a fee to the father for his new bride.

But then I bet you didn’t know that was the practice did you?

meaning that she will have to admit to herself and to the world that getting married to her dog was a bad idea.

No, it was a great idea. You just didn’t have the faintest idea why.