SOME PEOPLE belive in GOD but not in RELIGION...

[bluedes]

If we truly understand the meaning of what's happening bro, would the flavor of the host really matter? I mean, if we believe that it is really Jesus whom we are receiving during Holy Communion, would it matter that he is not flavored?

I read this article yesterday about Transubstantiation and I learned that the wafer actually has to be of a particular kind. It has to be made of wheat and the wine has to be grape wine. This is because presumably the bread that Jesus used at the Last Supper was made of wheat and the wine was made from grape fruit.

I see.. I have never heard of that explanation.. it makes sense why they preserve the form and substance.. as homage to the last supper.. thanks for this explanation bro.

Yes it's a religious doctrine bro and we believe it to be true. And belief need not be blind. Belief can be reasonable.

yes of course.. belief without substantial reason is blind.. i think einstein commented about this before. in a similar analogy, faith without good deeds is dead.

Yes, they were just ordinary people, but why should we think that they should know anything about Chemistry or any of the sciences? One writer once said that the genre of the Gospels is that of ancient biography. It's clearly not a sort of Science textbook. In the first place, there's no reason why they should know anything at all about Chemistry or any of the sciences.

yes, i can see your point clearly.. they could not provide any "scientific" proof that "God became flesh in Jesus".. i'm not arguing that they should provide one, because i am also aware that they are not scientists even. they were shepherds (or most of them) and ordinary people.. bottomline is though that if you take the statement literally "God became flesh in Jesus", its really difficult (if not impossible) to prove that. which still falls back that it is a belief--which is a doctrine of Christians. that was my point earlier.. because if it was truly proven without doubt that "God became flesh in Jesus", then there would be no point in having other kinds of religions (muslims, jews, etc), they would all subscribe to Christianity without a doubt..

The Church bro never claimed that you can actually see the host and the wine transform into Christ's body and blood in the laboratory. Philosophers distinguish between a thing's substance and a thing's "accidents" or outward properties/ attributes. During consecration at the Mass, the host's substance changes but not its "accidents". The host becomes Christ's body and the wine becomes Christ's blood but the outward properties remain, so they still look, feel, smell, and taste like bread and wine, but in essence they have become Christ's body and blood, and in addition, his soul and divinity, for as Catholic theologians would say, his divinity is inseparable from his humanity because he is God made man.

can u define the boundaries of your use of the phrase "in essence".. that's what i brought up earlier, what kind of substance are you referring to.. if we limit our discussion to physical substance, the host is still flour, the wine is still grape juice.. it will not turn into flesh with human cells, or blood with human blood cells. but if you talk of a different kind of substance, like for example spiritual substance, or intellectual substance.. i have no qualms against that. to each his own belief na na..

im not arguing whether a chair is a table or a chair is a chair.. im pointing out that no matter what you call it, its still made of wood (or metal or whatever it is originally made of)

I guess all these will sound fantastic if you don't believe in God.

personally bro, whether i believe in God or not is irrelevant. I find this universe fantastic already.. look at nature around you, it is very fascinating how it all behaves and operates.. every moment for me is a learning experience..

as for the validity of the NT, i cannot dispute that.. first of all, i am not a professional bible scholar. and second, i have my respects for the NT, because I personally like to read the life of Jesus Christ. He has many teachings that are very good and applies a lot in my experiences also.

[handsoff241]

^i thought i already gave the link for transubstantiation...

[bluedes]

^i thought i already gave the link for transubstantiation...

sorry, i must have missed it..

[josephdc]

I see.. I have never heard of that explanation.. it makes sense why they preserve the form and substance.. as homage to the last supper.. thanks for this explanation bro.

No probs bro...

yes, i can see your point clearly.. they could not provide any "scientific" proof that "God became flesh in Jesus".. i'm not arguing that they should provide one, because i am also aware that they are not scientists even. they were shepherds (or most of them) and ordinary people.. bottomline is though that if you take the statement literally "God became flesh in Jesus", its really difficult (if not impossible) to prove that. which still falls back that it is a belief--which is a doctrine of Christians. that was my point earlier.. because if it was truly proven without doubt that "God became flesh in Jesus", then there would be no point in having other kinds of religions (muslims, jews, etc), they would all subscribe to Christianity without a doubt..

Yes bro, Transubstantiation can't be proven scientifically. The basis for the belief would be the Scriptures (Specifically the sixth chapter of John) and the teachings of the Church.

can u define the boundaries of your use of the phrase "in essence".. that's what i brought up earlier, what kind of substance are you referring to.. if we limit our discussion to physical substance, the host is still flour, the wine is still grape juice.. it will not turn into flesh with human cells, or blood with human blood cells. but if you talk of a different kind of substance, like for example spiritual substance, or intellectual substance.. i have no qualms against that. to each his own belief na na..

im not arguing whether a chair is a table or a chair is a chair.. im pointing out that no matter what you call it, its still made of wood (or metal or whatever it is originally made of).

Like I said bro, it's not a physical kind of substance. The way Catholic theologians and some philosophers understand it, it's a "spiritual" kind of substance. That's why I distinguished it from "accidents" or the appearances or physical properties of the host.

personally bro, whether i believe in God or not is irrelevant. I find this universe fantastic already.. look at nature around you, it is very fascinating how it all behaves and operates.. every moment for me is a learning experience..

Yes bro. The physical world is fantastic indeed and truly beautiful...

as for the validity of the NT, i cannot dispute that.. first of all, i am not a professional bible scholar. and second, i have my respects for the NT, because I personally like to read the life of Jesus Christ. He has many teachings that are very good and applies a lot in my experiences also.

That's great bro. Pareha pud ta.

[handsoff241]

ok na mo bluedes and joseph?

[nikxz unÖ]

How about the future of religion?

I think religion will be digging itself to a corner, sticking it fingers in it's ears yelling dobido bido bido, la la la.. As we know more about the universe.

Religion, it will be a lot like a past.

[handsoff241]

Talking about your past?

[nikxz unÖ]

Nope, I was talking bout the future of religion.

[sizz-lorr]

How about the future of religion?

I think religion will be digging itself to a corner, sticking it fingers in it's ears yelling dobido bido bido, la la la.. As we know more about the universe.

Religion, it will be a lot like a past.

somebody did say "SCIENCE is a record of dead religions."

[handsoff241]

Nope, I was talking bout the future of religion.

i'd bet my soul for that.