Superfluous differences?

[Peter_Plato]

Suppose someone loves God,but does not believe that that wine is actually blood. Is that person in danger of eternal damnation?

It might. Just as someone who ignores a sign that says “Steep Cliff” might consider it a small matter not to be considered important, to his/her peril. Jesus seems to have thought it most important.

*Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53)
*

If that wine is actually blood (to me) is superfluous. What is in one’s heart is what matters.
Perhaps that wine is blood. For me personaly, I do not care.
I agree that Christ’s sandal size has important sociological implications (was he short? How did that effect the impact of his message). However, it has zero spiritual implications. And that is the only thing I care about.

Except that pride has always been considered the most deadly of sins. So what matters is not that we decide for ourselves what is important or not, but that we ponder seriously what God considers important. It may be, in fact, a strategy on God’s part to nullify pride by making seemingly unimportant things key in importance so that we come to realize that what our pride-inflated wills might imagine to be crucial must be completely abandoned for the insignificant things that God has actually made so. It is, perhaps, the act of giving up our own determinations in humility that is more important than the content of the alternatives.

God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. (1 Corinthians 1:27-30)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Many Christians fight (I’m metaphorically speaking) each other’s dogmas. To me that is like arguing about,“should the Bible be printed in helvetica or arial font”
In other words,at least to me questions about ritual (should the blood of Christ be given to a person kneeling or standing) are superfluous.
One may prefer helvetica. One may prefer arial. It has nothing to do with God’s will. Its personal taste. There is nothing wrong with personal taste. I hate liver. Nothing wrong with that. However, I do not think that people that love liver are wrong.

I agree and I hate liver too. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Suppose someone loves God,but does not believe that that wine is actually blood. Is that person in danger of eternal damnation?
If that wine is actually blood (to me) is superfluous. What is in one’s heart is what matters.
Perhaps that wine is blood. For me personaly, I do not care.
I agree that Christ’s sandal size has important sociological implications (was he short? How did that effect the impact of his message). However, it has zero spiritual implications. And that is the only thing I care about.

Again, I agree except no one knows who will be saved and who will not. Though, since the Catholic faith is the only one that offers the full means of salvation, it makes sense to believe what the Catholic Church teaches - even about the Eucharist. You can read a copy on line here: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think you guys are confusing (conflating) the signifier with the signified. Similarily, the signifier “food” should not be confused with actual food.
Google,"Stroop color experiment ". It interests me that those that always identify the color with the word are statistically more depressed. They do not realize that they are surrounded by miricles. (Google,Peter Mayer Holy Now youtube) “with lyrics in captions” is the best version!!!

Don’t need Peter Mayer. The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a Miracle. As such it cannot be explained. St. Thomas has given a philosophical explanation of what takes place but no one can explain how it takes place. It is an act of God. We accept it on faith.
So it does no good to say we are being un-philosophical or un-scientific. Of course we are, we admit that. We live by Faith, but a Faith based on the fact that God does not lie and neither does the Church. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Response to post 34
Simple question,am I confused as to the difference between signifier and signified? If I am,please explain why I am confused.
Actually, I am getting bored. What next? Criticising my grammer? (I’m using a tablet).Oh dear, maybe my big fat fingers made me spell something incorrectly?. Yes, I know grammer and spelling are different catagories. YAWN

The problem is that you want us to move into a terminology we are unfamiliar with based on a philosophy or epistimology we are unfamiliar with. Why not just stick to " substance, " " accident, " " Person, " " human nature, " " species, " etc. ? These are terms used in the Dogmas of the Eucharist. So let’s just use those. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Response to post 19
Explain! So what are you saying (if anything) other then I’m right and you are wrong? Merely stateing your position is not an argument. You lack substance.
PS: I can join in with the ad hominum celebration but I am too logical and mature for such juvenile antics. Please, continue with your accusations (without substance). It only proves that I have taken the high ground and you wallow about in the low ground (swamps).

No one has used any " ad hominems, " though you keep saying we are. Would you mind quoting what you think was an " ad hominem? "

Linus

 

[wittgenstein]

To say that using the terms “signifier” and “signified” shows a misunderstanding of semiotics because “signifier” and “signified " are inseparable is like saying that when one uses the terms “mountain” and “valley " one doesn’t understand geology because they cannot be separated.
My point about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect is that since it shows that those who are depressed identify the color with the signifier more often than with the actual color, it shows that those that see the world as a collection of signifiers are less likely to experience reality directly and less likely to experience reality as a miracle. Mysticism is defined as experiencing the world directly without the intermediary of words.
“…the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.”
Gospel of Thomas
One should at least attempt to understand one’s opponent’s argument before labeling him with ad hominums. I did not get my understanding of semiotics from your book “semiotics for beginners.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

To say that using the terms “signifier” and “signified” shows a misunderstanding of semiotics because “signifier” and “signified " are inseparable is like saying that when one uses the terms “mountain” and “valley " one doesn’t understand geology because they cannot be separated.
My point about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect is that since it shows that those who are depressed identify the color with the signifier more often than with the actual color, it shows that those that see the world as a collection of signifiers are less likely to experience reality directly and less likely to experience reality as a miracle. Mysticism is defined as experiencing the world directly without the intermediary of words.
“…the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.”
Gospel of Thomas
One should at least attempt to understand one’s opponent’s argument before labeling him with ad hominums. I did not get my understanding of semiotics from your book “semiotics for beginners.”

This is ironic. For clarity, however: You are arguing that Catholics who do not accept that the Eucharist is merely a symbol but as the real body and blood of Jesus are less likely to experience reality as a miracle, but those who think the Eucharist is merely a symbol are, in this case, more likely to experience reality directly as a miracle?

Isn’t that precisely the opposite of your point about signified and signifier? Please explain your point if I have misrepresented it.

 

[rom422]

Surely arguing over bodily positions during the Mass can be superfluous, but dogmas are not superfluous, they are fundamental differences between the different branches of the Christian religion.

Take the Eucharist. Catholics and Orthodox believe that, through Transubstantiation (though the Orthodox do not use that word, preferring metaousiosis, which more-or-less means the same thing), the Bread & Wine become the Body & Blood of Christ Himself. We use the Last Supper (see Luke 22) combined with the events in John 6 to verify this Tradition. Protestants reject this teaching. This leads to a fundamental divide between Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants when it comes to following Christ and the Bible.

Exactly!

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

To say that using the terms “signifier” and “signified” shows a misunderstanding of semiotics because “signifier” and "signified " are inseparable is like saying that when one uses the terms “mountain” and "valley " one doesn’t understand geology because they cannot be separated.

This is a poor analogy. First, one can coherently discuss a valley as separate from a mountain, whereas a signifier and signified are to be discussed only in the context of a sign. Second, semiotics is not a philosophy, it is a subfield of linguistics (the study of language). Since this is a philosophic discussion on a philosophy forum, linguistics is irrelevant.

My point about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect is that since it shows that those who are depressed identify the color with the signifier more often than with the actual color, it shows that those that see the world as a collection of signifiers are less likely to experience reality directly and less likely to experience reality as a miracle. Mysticism is defined as experiencing the world directly without the intermediary of words.

The Stroop test showed that people took longer to name the color of a word if the word was a color different from the one written (i.e., purple required a response of ‘red’) than if they saw a block of the same color. The original test had nothing to do with depressed people, though modern uses of this test show a larger separation of response times for people with mental disorders.

As far as I know of it, the test does nothing to show anything about people’s perception of reality, only their comprehension of words and colors.

“…the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
Gospel of Thomas
One should at least attempt to understand one’s opponent’s argument before labeling him with ad hominums. I did not get my understanding of semiotics from your book “semiotics for beginners."

I understand your argument on the sign of food, what is wrong with your argument is that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand is whether differences between Christian religions are superfluous or not. You believe the differences to be superfluous, several posters have responded to the OP but you have, for the most part, chosen to ignore those responses and instead debate about your understanding of semiotics.

Frankly, I do not care where you got your information about semiotics, the fact remains that you are using that information in places where it is completely irrelevant. When discussing language, you can use it all you want, but here on a philosophy forum, it is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[wittgenstein]

“Mountains” and “valleys” can only be discussed in the context of geological landscape. The analogy holds.
Actually, tests on depressed clients showed that on average they identified the color with the signifier. Your explanation of the Stroop experiment was redundant and superflous. I imagine your explanation of the obvious was motivated by a desire to imply that I do not know what the Stroop experiment was. OK, maybe your explanation was just excessive and superflous verbiage. I imagine that now you will say that you also used nouns,and my use of the word "verbiage " is more evidence of my ignorance. But that would be too obvious, you think your ad hominums are subtle. They are not. I see them only as attempts to distract.
Perhaps if you had actually read my posts with the desire to understand them,you would not have dismissed them as irrelevant. *
Debating you is boring. All you offer is ad hominums and non-sequiters totally unrelated to my argument.

• I was attempting to show the root paradigm responsible for such an emphasis on the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. Why do you claim that I do not understand the difference between linguistics and philosophy. One can use evidence from linguistics to prove a philosophical point. Oh yeah, more irrelevant ad hominums.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is ironic. For clarity, however: You are arguing that Catholics who do not accept that the Eucharist is merely a symbol but as the real body and blood of Jesus are less likely to experience reality as a miracle, but those who think the Eucharist is merely a symbol are, in this case, more likely to experience reality directly as a miracle?

Isn’t that precisely the opposite of your point about signified and signifier? Please explain your point if I have misrepresented it.

I am still on the edge of my seat… Waiting…

Witt?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wittgenstein

What is in one’s heart is what matters.

There are some who say it matters not what be believe about Christ, so long as we love him in our hearts. This is, of course, a recipe for the disunity of Christians that Christ preached against when he said, "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” (John 17:20-21) It is surely not only what is in one’s heart that matters. Truth … or what is in one’s head, also matters. God wants both heart and head. Without both, we are missing half of what God wants us to have.

 

[yppop]

Leaving aside the conflation of the term ‘dogma’ with your main point, I wanted to mention that ‘ritual’ isn’t just a matter of ‘personal taste.’ In a very profound way, the things that we do with our bodies matter; they speak to who we are.

In the case of ritual, the rubrics (that is, the rules for the things that we do in liturgy – e.g., postures, gestures, etc) are more than personal taste: they’re a definition of the proper way to do things, if what we want to do is to celebrate the Liturgy of the Church. So, I’d say that it’s less a matter of ‘helvetica or arial’ and more a matter of ‘when your teacher says that you have to use MLA, then MLA becomes the normative standard.’

That being said, the question of posture is not one that boils down to “you must do THIS and not do THAT” – both postures, standing and kneeling, are acceptable within the rubrics of the Church. In this case, it generally is a matter of personal taste, but only because the rubrics allow both postures.

Gorgias
Just passing bye and thought you might be interested in this quote from Andre Dubus in A Father’s Story in “Times Are Never So Bad”

"Ritual allows those who can not will themselves out of the secular to perform the spiritual, as dancing allows the tongue-tied man a ceremony of love. -
Yppop

 

[Pugsly]

Many Christians fight (I’m metaphorically speaking) each other’s dogmas. To me that is like arguing about,“should the Bible be printed in helvetica or arial font”
In other words,at least to me questions about ritual (should the blood of Christ be given to a person kneeling or standing) are superfluous.
One may prefer helvetica. One may prefer arial. It has nothing to do with God’s will. Its personal taste. There is nothing wrong with personal taste. I hate liver. Nothing wrong with that. However, I do not think that people that love liver are wrong.

Amen ditto roger that

 

[wittgenstein]

The Stroop experiment is just one example of how the terms “signifier” and “signified” can be used separately. For example, the signifier “blue” (the pattern of ink) may be printed in green ink. The signifier can be different then what our culture believes it signifies. Similarly, one can write “Azul” rather then the English equivalent signifier “blue”.
Of course, you will make the facile point that by definition a signifier requires a signified. However, that ignores the obvious point that “signifier” and “signified” are used separately (and appropriately) in semiotics quite frequently.
For example, it is common to talk about “slippage of the signified under the signifier”
faculty.goucher.edu/eng215/slippage_of_the_signified_under_the_signifier.htm

 

[fred_conty]

wittgenstein, you said, in the OP,
"Many Christians fight (I’m metaphorically speaking) each other’s dogmas. To me that is like arguing about,“should the Bible be printed in helvetica or arial font”

But that is not superfluous. According to the dictionary it means “unnecessary, excessive”, and dogma means a doctrine, tenet, or belief which is a part of one’s faith. If we didn’t have dogmas, which defines what we believe, we wouldn’t have particular church.

So the Bible in different fonts may be superfluous, but dogmas belong to the core of the faith.

Would you restate that phrase for clearification.

Thank you.

 

[wittgenstein]

My wife was born in Flint Michigan. Suppose we found out that she was actually born in Traverse City Michigan. Would our love and/or relationship change in any significant way?
Similarly, a person’s love for God should not increase or decrease depending on if the Trinity is true or not.

 

[davidv]

My wife was born in Flint Michigan. Suppose we found out that she was actually born in Traverse City Michigan. Would our love and/or relationship change in any significant way?
Similarly, a person’s love for God should not increase or decrease depending on if the Trinity is true or not.

Only if the truth doesn’t matter.
God being a Trinity very much matters. If it not true, then Jesus is not likely God and love of God and our neighbor, based imitation of love expressed by the self sacrifice made by Jesus on the cross, would be built on a lie.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 48
You are misunderstanding my argument. I never said that if the Catholic EXPERIENCES it as blood (actually even if it is only wine and the person experiences it directly without the intermediary of signifiers,one will experience a miracle ) he is not experiencing a miracle. What I am saying is that believing the wine is blood is not the same thing as EXPERIENCING a miracle.
However,if the wine is blood or not is trivial compared to my central point. I am saying something far more radical. I am saying that anything experienced directly will be experienced as a miracle.
Hence,the relevance of Peter Mayer’s “Holy Now”!