Superfluous differences?

[wittgenstein]

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.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

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.

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.

 

[wittgenstein]

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.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

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]

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

Depends. Is that person an Orthodox or Catholic Christian? If so, then they are to hold that the Eucharist is the True Presence of Christ.

(By the way, since I see that you self-identify as ‘Unitarian’, I thought I might ask you what “actually blood” means to you. That might get us a bit off-topic, but since you’ve brought the question up, it might be beneficial for you to know what Catholics mean when they say that the bread & wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ…)

If that wine is actually blood (to me) is superfluous. What is in one’s heart is what matters.

OK, I’ll play devil’s advocate: what is it, in the heart, that matters, in this example?

However, it has zero spiritual implications. And that is the only thing I care about.

Hmm… there are zero spiritual implications to whether Christ really meant what he said, when he said “this is my body; this is my blood”…?

 

[Allegra]

When people argue over body positions during the Eucharist, what they are really arguing over is respect for the Eucharist. (In such a argument, we are assuming both parties agree that it IS the blood of Christ.) Respect for the Eucharist isn’t a superflorous issue, however, I think people make the mistake in assuming that bodily position directly corrolates to love and respect for all people and that their prefered gesture is universally seen as being more respectful. The same goes for music, clothes, shoes, hair-dos, hats, and any other item people nitpick at each other. What is seen as irreverent by some is not seen as irreverent by all simply because some people don’t place such an overwhelming importance on appearance, music, etc as others do.

However, I can’t agree that all differences in theology are superfluous. If a person loves God, they have to seek the truth. If they argue that there is no truth and they can believe whatever they like, then they don’t really love God, they love the false God their own pride intellect has created and is probably a manifestation of their own ego. If you really love someone, you are changed by that love. Your behavior will change. Your dreams will change. If you create a God to love that fits in perfect with your own behaviors and dreams, then you are loving a being that exists only in your own mind. (And that’s kinda silly.)

Now, it is certainly possible in a world that is so full of untruths that a person can honestly be seeking Truth, but accidently go down the wrong path. If they truly love God and do their best to follow His Truth, then God will create a way to bring them to salvation.

 

[Lochias]

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

Depends on a lot of things, but the point that comes to mind for me is: Has that person exhausted every means of determining the truth so as to correctly form his conscience, or did he just sluff it off with a “eh, don’t believe it, not bothered about learning more”? Could he truly be said to be completely innocent on the matter if he did?

If that wine is actually blood (to me) is superfluous. What is in one’s heart is what matters

.

The Nazis did a lot of things according to what they believed in their hearts, too. Pictures of the doctors and authorities at those camps show them laughing, joking, enjoying ice cream together, when they weren’t performing hideous experiments on their captives or murdering them outright.

Should we have just left them alone, because it’s “what’s in their heart that mattered”? Who are you to tell them that they were wrong, if you believe that everything’s subjective?

Perhaps that wine is blood. For me personaly, I do not care.

Have you bothered to actually research why Catholics believe what we believe, or are you just sluffing it off?

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.

The fact that you’re comparing the Eucharist to Christ’s sandal size leads me to believe you’ve got some studying to do, if you want to approach this topic from any reasonable viewpoint.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

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

Yes. According to John 6, one cannot get into Heaven without eating the flesh of the Son of Man.

If that wine is actually blood (to me) is superfluous. What is in one’s heart is what matters.

Jesus disagrees with you. Since God is The Judge, I should think that you should take His advice, and not your own.

Perhaps that wine is blood. For me personaly, I do not care.

Since Salvation depends on it (John 6:53-54), I think one should care about the teaching of Christ.

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.

I think that the spiritual implications of John 6:48-66 are quite clear, yet there are many who disagree. There is a definite need for discussion of the subject to clear up the errant teachings of all.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

Whether or not Jesus is really present in the Eucharistic species – is superfluous? Just what is not superfluous? How can the difference between actually receiving the Lord into our very bodies or just eating a piece of bread and thinking of Him fondly not have spiritual implications?

We get into dangerous territory very quickly when we follow this line of thinking. We inevitably make ourselves arbiter of what is and is not superfluous rather than trusting what Jesus and the Church teach on the matter.

 

[wittgenstein]

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!!!

 

[JRKH]

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

One can love “God” and not be a Christian. If one is a Christian than they seek to follow Jesus Christ and since Jesus said that it is his blood then yes - one who rejects this is in danger of damnation.

If that wine is actually blood (to me) is superfluous.

You find it superfluous, Catholics do not. That is why it is a Dogma because Christ says that if we do not eat his body and drink his blood we have no life in us and St Paul tells us that if we eat and drink without discerning the true nature of the body and blood, that we eat and drink “judgement” (condemnation) on ourselves.
These are strong words, given to us by the Holy Spirit of God, and if one wishes to be called “Christian” they need to take them very seriously.

What is in one’s heart is what matters.

I agree with this - and I also agree that there are many things that we argue over that truly ARE secondary. However - Dogmatic declarations are not among these.

Perhaps that wine is blood. For me personaly, I do not care.

Well I see you listed as Unitarian. I’m not really familiar with the tenets of Unitarianism…
Do you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God who died and rose for our salvation?

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 that there are indeed things that are endlessly argued about that are either secondary - or have no real answer. Among these I class things like predestination and the relationship of faith and works.
The bottom line is that we are to believe and we are to act on that belief. Likewise whether God has predestined us, we cannot know on this side of the veil. So arguing about it is purely academic.
What is important are the things that effect our daily walk in faith - How we live out the two great commandments.

Peace
James

 

[wittgenstein]

2 Corinthians 3:6!

 

[Lochias]

I think you guys are confusing (conflating) the signifier with the signified. Similarily, the signifier “food” should not be confused with actual food.

You’re going to have to explain statements like these a little better if you want actual dialogue.

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!!!

…non-sequitor much?

 

[Lochias]

2 Corinthians 3:6!

One sentence of the Bible tells us little of worth by itself. Taken within the entire context of the Bible, and within Jesus’s death and resurrection, that verse does not mean what you think it means.

 

[wittgenstein]

What was Christ’s reaction when he was “caught” healing on the sabbath?
See Mark 2:23-28!

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

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!!!

Actually, I think what is wrong is that you probably opened up Semiotics for Beginners and were so impressed that you are breaking every sign into signifier and signified. This point is wrong, the sign is the signifier and the signified.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 13,
Peter Mayer was not a non sequiter. When one sees reality in literal terms (signifiers) one does not see the miricles that surround one.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 16
OK, all you got are ad hominums (insults)
Did you know that ad hominums are not only rude but logical fallacies?
For example,

1. Manson is a liar.
   2.Manson said that 1+1=2
2. Therefore 1+1 does not =2
   Obviously a non sequiter, and obviously an invalid argument.
   Ummmm, basic logic 101 here, attack the argument not the person.
   Hmmmmm,so you disagree with my definition of signifier and signified?

 

[Lochias]

Response to post 13,
Peter Mayer was not a non sequiter. When one sees reality in literal terms (signifiers) one does not see the miricles that surround one.

See post 16. You apparently don’t understand the terms you’re using.

 

[wittgenstein]

OK, Alberti,
So signifier and signified are the same thing? ummmmm ,so why are they seperated in every book about semiotics?
Your attempt at introducing straw men failed. I never mentioned “signs”!