Evidence for God from Science

Kerux wrote:{clip} ... The passages quoted [John 6:50-57] are obviously, on their face, refering to spiritual or symbolic bread, flesh, wine, etc.

And that is what I am referring to as well - spiritual substance; substance that is spiritually discerned.

I have given my position in my first post, essentially that I remain "agnostic" on transubstantiation.

However, I understand the RC reasoning and do acknowledge the Last Supper as a sacrament, a spiritual mystery, due to something I sense (spiritually discern) that is very important about it. I see there is room for interpretation (metaphors being something more than metaphors in a literary sense due to a spiritual component) and Protestants will believe one thing, Catholics another, and I am happy enough with the idea of varying layers of belief according to faith.

Kerux, I do not disagree with you at all that objective reality is not objectively changed by thinking it is something else.
I think my previous post has been misread.

What I am questioning is how one can always be certain of objective reality where there is the possibility of a spiritual component involved, and that some things do require an exercise of faith to deepen one's understanding of its nature.

It may be that our physical senses aid us to perceive only a certain part of reality, and one day we stop seeing "but a poor reflection as in a mirror".
As we are told in 1 Corinthians 13:12 "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

The chicken wing might go some way towards satisfying one's physical hunger, but it would not touch a spiritual hunger in the same way that partaking in Holy Communion does for many believers.
Humour is fine in the right place but also be careful in making fun that you do not mock something you may not fully understand.

Humour is fine in the right place but also be careful in making fun that you do not mock something you may not fully understand.

That wasn't mocking and I think humor goes a long way to putting people at ease, and is often a great way to make a point, which humor often does. That is why a humorous comment or joke is so funny - it accentuates the absurd or extreme or the obvious.

Kerux wrote: That wasn't mocking and I think humor goes a long way to putting people at ease, and is often a great way to make a point, which humor often does. That is why a humorous comment or joke is so funny - it accentuates the absurd or extreme or the obvious.

I accept that you were not mocking if that was not your intention.
I do know that this subject can be a very sensitive one for some people. On another forum someone (an Anglican Catholic Bishop) was very upset by the joking around the nature of the Eucharist as, believing in transubstantiation, he found that to be quite offensive.

I'm just so aware of what I don't know, especially due to the limitation of our physical senses when it comes to detecting and understanding the spiritual.

I do know that this subject can be a very sensitive one for some people. On another forum someone (an Anglican Catholic Bishop) was very upset by the joking around the nature of the Eucharist as, believing in transubstantiation, he found that to be quite offensive.

Too bad. If he is secure in his belief - and strong in the Lord - he wouldn't get offended and might just laugh at the "joking around." One view is right and the rest are dross. Maybe he needs to change his view.

God has a great sense of humor.

Kerux wrote:The passages quoted are obviously, on their face, refering to spiritual or symbolic bread, flesh, wine, etc.

Surely, you don't think Jesus Christ said we would eat of his flesh like we would a chicken wing?

Jesus also said

Joh 15:5

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Surely, you don't think Jesus Christ was saying he was a physical vine? If so, are you a branch?

Christ also said

Joh 10:11

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Are you a sheep?

Hi Kerux,

Why don't you read the link below and tell me where you disagree with its scriptural reference and interpretation, particularly with regard to the literal meaning of 'this is my flesh'. I know it's a long read but I promise you it's well worth it. By the way, it's written (actually transcribed, it sort of reads like a lecture) by Scott Hahn, a former Protestant apologetic who converted to catholicism.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/a ... p0092.html

In Christ,

Byblos.

Will do. Thanks.

Let's start with the Inroduction:

Introduction

We're going to be focusing on the very center of the faith this morning, and I feel so woefully inadequate because there is just so much to say about the Blessed Sacrament. It's a sacrament and it's a sacrifice in which Our Lord Jesus Christ not only establishes a covenant, but really, is the covenant. And the sacrament contains our Lord Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity; but it's also an offering. So in the Eucharist Our Lord Jesus Christ body and blood, soul and divinity is offered to the Father continually in an unbloody manner. Then, finally, it's not just contained. It's not just offered but it's received. All three of those elements are crucial to understanding how the Eucharist is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. And when it's received, we call that Holy Communion. All three of those belong together. They are inseparable. They are critical.

Too bad. If he is secure in his belief - and strong in the Lord - he wouldn't get offended and might just laugh at the "joking around." One view is right and the rest are dross. Maybe he needs to change his view.

Don't try to justify it, Kerux, we may be able to take it lightly but there may be some Christians reading what we write that are deeply offended. I don't know about you but I don't want to cause anyone to stumble because of my horseplay. That is very dangerous territory.

Well, under those conditions, I'm going to pass.

Kerux wrote:Will do. Thanks.

Let's start with the Inroduction:

Introduction

We're going to be focusing on the very center of the faith this morning, and I feel so woefully inadequate because there is just so much to say about the Blessed Sacrament. It's a sacrament and it's a sacrifice in which Our Lord Jesus Christ not only establishes a covenant, but really, is the covenant. And the sacrament contains our Lord Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity; but it's also an offering. So in the Eucharist Our Lord Jesus Christ body and blood, soul and divinity is offered to the Father continually in an unbloody manner. Then, finally, it's not just contained. It's not just offered but it's received. All three of those elements are crucial to understanding how the Eucharist is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. And when it's received, we call that Holy Communion. All three of those belong together. They are inseparable. They are critical.

Okie dokie, thanks so much for all the insight. Now I know exactly how you feel. It can't be all that difficult, let's see:

It is either:
- You read the introduction and liked it, or not, or
- You read the whole article and agreed with it, or not, or
- From the introduction you thought it was just beneath you to respond to such utter nonsense (in which case it's a little disingenuous of you to make jokes re the subject when you know nothing about it), or
- For some reason you're rebelling against your parents for dragging you to Sunday mass and making you spit out the eucharist on the ground, in which case may I suggest extensive therapy. or etc. etc.

Now that's all pure conjecture on my part but then again, the field was left wide open (unless of course, you're still reading the article, in which case, dismiss and carry on ).

Now I know exactly how you feel.

Now that's all pure conjecture on my part

Yep, sure is. Once again, a misuderstanding and speculation about what I'm thinking or feeling.

I was replying to the previous post:

"but there may be some Christians reading what we write that are deeply offended."

If some professing Christians are offended by the truth, I'm sorry. I don't wish to offend, but if the truth offends, what does that have to do with me?

I like to joke around. Alot of people like the humor. If I have to worry about offending someone on this board everytime I post, then I'll post less and perhaps not at all.

For some reason you're rebelling against your parents for dragging you to Sunday mass

Parents didn't drag me anywhere. I went alone. I walked, uphill, two miles through snow with cardboard in the soles of my shoes to be there, without breakast. That's why I went forward, I thought everyone was getting a snack.

If some professing Christians are offended by the truth, I'm sorry. I don't wish to offend, but if the truth offends, what does that have to do with me?

It has everything to do with you, Kerux. If the message offends we can't help that, but if it is delivered in a sarcastic manner full of disregard for a brother or sister in Christs feelings then it is a big problem. I'll admit, I'm not perfect in this area either, but there is a way to get your point across without offending. It's called speaking the truth in love.

You can pass on this advice too if you want, but think about this, how has your present delivery been working for you?

but if it is delivered in a sarcastic manner full of disregard for a brother or sister in Christs feelings then it is a big problem.

Agreed.

Kerux wrote: If some professing Christians are offended by the truth, I'm sorry. I don't wish to offend, but if the truth offends, what does that have to do with me?

Correction: ... the truth according to Kerux.

Perhaps now the answer to your question "what does that have to do with me?" is more obvious.

So, truth is unknowable?

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

According to what you apparently think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, (according to your thinking or should we say According to Judah?) we can only know some truth, not most truth and especially not all the truth?

Is that what you think?

Not at all ... but is your understanding of it infallible?