Prayer -- split from Catholic rant

[Empty Hands]

So, getting back to the original question on the nature of the consecrated Host. I believe it is the Body of Christ. Either it is or it is not. But it remains either one or the other independent of scientific observation.

I agree with your entire argument here.

Where I took issue with your earlier statements was the comparison of the Host with other "unobservable" phenomena as support for your belief in the Host, or equating them somehow. I took it as "neither can be observed, one exists, therefore the other might exist." My issue with that is that they are fundamentally dissimilar. The properties of atoms that could not be observed 200 years ago (there were plenty of observable properties even then, we just didn't know what we were looking at) were still sitting there, doing their thing, waiting for the right technology to come along. However, the properties of the Host as they've been explained here can never be observed under any set of circumstances. This places them in fundamentally different categories, scientifically speaking. Theoretically, we can make observations and provide proof for "unobservable" physical things like atoms or emotions, while we never will be able to do so for the Host. Epistemologically speaking, one cannot be used to provide information about the other.

Nor can evidence ever be found, even in principle, to support your belief statement. Hence the reason why I have no trouble believing in atoms, but do have trouble believing in the Host or God or Heaven or anything else in that same category. If I were to receive the Paul or Abraham treatment tomorrow, I would of course become a believer in an instant.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree with your entire argument here.

Where I took issue with your earlier statements was the comparison of the Host with other "unobservable" phenomena as support for your belief in the Host, or equating them somehow. I took it as "neither can be observed, one exists, therefore the other might exist." My issue with that is that they are fundamentally dissimilar. The properties of atoms that could not be observed 200 years ago (there were plenty of observable properties even then, we just didn't know what we were looking at) were still sitting there, doing their thing, waiting for the right technology to come along. However, the properties of the Host as they've been explained here can never be observed under any set of circumstances. This places them in fundamentally different categories, scientifically speaking. Theoretically, we can make observations and provide proof for "unobservable" physical things like atoms or emotions, while we never will be able to do so for the Host. Epistemologically speaking, one cannot be used to provide information about the other.

Nor can evidence ever be found, even in principle, to support your belief statement. Hence the reason why I have no trouble believing in atoms, but do have trouble believing in the Host or God or Heaven or anything else in that same category. If I were to receive the Paul or Abraham treatment tomorrow, I would of course become a believer in an instant.

You are right, they are fundamentally different. I misunderstood your statements; I thought you were claiming that anything that existed could be observed. I understand now. I think we're on the same page.

 

[Empty Hands]

You are right, they are fundamentally different. I misunderstood your statements; I thought you were claiming that anything that existed could be observed. I understand now. I think we're on the same page.

I think so. Supernatural phenomena are an interesting case though. In principle, I do not rule it out, although I do not claim they exist either, since there is no evidence. However, in order to interact with our universe, any such phenomena would have to interact with our matter somehow. In principle, that should mean it can be measured. If God gives you feelings of wonder and peace in your mind or if poltergeists throw your dishes, then they are interacting with us somehow. In a sense, that kills the entire concept of supernatural - they would then become part of our world, interacting with it, although with different rules. Anyways, just spitballing.

If something is truly unobservable, then it might as well not exist (even if it does) because there is no set of conditions where you can disprove the null hypothesis, that of non-existence. There is literally no way to tell.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think so. Supernatural phenomena are an interesting case though. In principle, I do not rule it out, although I do not claim they exist either, since there is no evidence. However, in order to interact with our universe, any such phenomena would have to interact with our matter somehow. In principle, that should mean it can be measured. If God gives you feelings of wonder and peace in your mind or if poltergeists throw your dishes, then they are interacting with us somehow. In a sense, that kills the entire concept of supernatural - they would then become part of our world, interacting with it, although with different rules. Anyways, just spitballing.

If something is truly unobservable, then it might as well not exist (even if it does) because there is no set of conditions where you can disprove the null hypothesis, that of non-existence. There is literally no way to tell.

Sometimes I think that quantum mechanics are heading us in the same direction. Bell's Theorem has been tested and is true; spooky action at a distance violates locality, but relativity is also true. The only way we get past it at the moment is by stating that (for reasons we do not know) it is possible for two objects to communicate faster than the speed of light (instantly) but relativity is not violated because we don't know that they communicated with each other instantly until later. Yeah, if I understand it correctly, that's literally it; both systems contradict each other AND both have been tested, and the reason we accept the anomaly is to agree to ignore the difference that is not a difference until we notice it is a difference; which is unsatisfying at best. Action we cannot explain affecting the real universe, and we can only say it happens, not why. In fact, if we try to explain why, it breaks our proven models, which it can't do. Ooh.

Elder will probably jump in here and correct my understanding, but this is the best my layman's mind can follow about Bell's Theorem. By the way, my understanding of the test results is that it violates cause and effect because it appears that cause cannot be separated from effect; we simply don't know - can't know - which caused the other in the experiment itself. Whew!

For those unfamiliar with this issue, the point is that according to entanglement theory, once two things are correlated (entangled), they remain in communication with each other, no matter how distant they become from each other. And due to the law of conservation of energy, if one of the couplet changes states, the other must change states as well - at the same time. So the issue is this - if you separate the two particles by say a light year, and measure one of them, it will have a characteristic (spin) that is either up or down. It's entangled partner must have the opposite spin. OK so far? Now, measure the spin of particle 1. Quantum theory says it didn't have any actual spin until you measured it (yeah), but once you measured it, it collapsed into a given spin. The other must collapse into the opposite spin at the exact same moment; but how can it 'know' to do that without being able to communicate faster than the speed of light? The (unsatisfying) answer is that the observer of particle 2 doesn't know if he is the first to measure the particle's spin, thus being the cause of the collapse into a real state, or if he is measuring what the observer of particle 1 caused. Thus, he does not know if he is the cause or the effect until he communicates with the other observer - which can't happen faster than the speed of light (maybe by a radio communication). Thus, no violation of relativity exists not because communication didn't happen faster than the speed of light - it did - but because the humans observing it didn't know about it. Oh please.

 

[Empty Hands]

Sometimes I think that quantum mechanics are heading us in the same direction.

I know what you mean. How about how the act of observation decreases interference between electron beams? Or the interpretation of the two-slit experiment that quantum particles take all paths simultaneously?

Or that matter is simply an expression of energy?

Bizarre stuff.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye that sort of thing scrambles your sense of the reasonable true enough.

I have to say tho' that when I attempt to read the rationales for these theories (the maths is beyond me I am embarassed to admit) it does make me think that things get so 'complicated' because there is something we do not yet understand at work.

One day we will and the science will get less 'bizarre' as a result because the mechanisms for observed phenomena are better understood.

This is not to be taken to mean that I think that spiritualism is an acceptable alternative explanation - it is just that, to date, there are things we have not yet figured out and 'God' sprouts in the gaps.

Hopefully that will stop one day ... if we haven't been out-evolved by some other, cleverer, species.

 

[Empty Hands]

I have to say tho' that when I attempt to read the rationales for these theories (the maths is beyond me I am embarassed to admit) it does make me think that things get so 'complicated' because there is something we do not yet understand at work.

The problem is that our everyday experiences program us to think of the world working in a certain way. When you go outside that, either really tiny (QM) or really huge (cosmology), our programmed experiences almost force us to think in an incorrect way, and thus the truth is confusing. Why shouldn't observation interfere with the workings of subatomic particles? Why shouldn't electrons be both particles and waves, and take all possible paths to a destination until the waveform collapses upon observation? We only think so when we analogize electrons or other subatomic particles as tiny billiard balls, different from actual billiard balls only in size. But the subatomic world is completely different from anything in our experience, and thus thinking by analogy forces us into confusing and incorrect thinking patterns about the subatomic world.

Not that I understand it any better of course, I don't really understand it at all.

 

[Blade96]

:O

Me thinks my little question has created a thread

I think i might understand what the caterpillar/butterfly and holy communion is now. Its like the caterpillar changes into a butterfly, the whole substance, the whole being changes, people can see it. But in the church, the bread and wine is the opposite of that, it still looks and tastes and feels like bread but jesus being there is um...indirectly? you dont see it? am i close or no?

 

[yorkshirelad]

:O

Me thinks my little question has created a thread

I think i might understand what the caterpillar/butterfly and holy communion is now. Its like the caterpillar changes into a butterfly, the whole substance, the whole being changes, people can see it. But in the church, the bread and wine is the opposite of that, it still looks and tastes and feels like bread but jesus being there is um...indirectly? you dont see it? am i close or no?

No, you're not close! The bread stays bread...well it's really that sugar paper you get as a kid, without the sugar, and the wine stays...well it's not really wine, it's just maroon colored grape juice they pass off as wine.

 

[Carol]

No, you're not close! The bread stays bread...well it's really that sugar paper you get as a kid, without the sugar, and the wine stays...well it's not really wine, it's just maroon colored grape juice they pass off as wine.

Nah, we leave the grape juice for the Protestants... :lol2:

 

[Empty Hands]

Nah, we leave the grape juice for the Protestants... :lol2:

While we're on the subject of bizarre hypocrisy, let us consider the Protestants who on the one hand proclaim the inerrant text of the Bible and the perfect example of Jesus Christ, whose first miracle was to produce wine for a party, with the moral teaching that all alcohol consumption is immoral and un-Godly. They preach this to the extent that they won't even use wine for the Communion - the very rite based on Jesus drinking, yet again, wine. Yet they will use grape juice in a watered down aping of the use of wine, implicitly accepting wine as the proper drink to use.

These same believers in the inerrancy of the Bible also fulminate against homosexuality based on the laws of Leviticus, yet will wear comfy polyester/cotton blends and eat delicious shrimp. They will even defile one of the most important commandments, to honor the Sabbath, since the Sabbath is actually on a Saturday, not Sunday like they would have you believe. It's shocking.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

These same believers in the inerrancy of the Bible also fulminate against homosexuality based on the laws of Leviticus, yet will wear comfy polyester/cotton blends and eat delicious shrimp. They will even defile one of the most important commandments, to honor the Sabbath, since the Sabbath is actually on a Saturday, not Sunday like they would have you believe. It's shocking.

The word for Saturday in spanish is "sabado". I'm embarrassed that I just now thought of that. :duh:

 

[Carol]

The word for Saturday in spanish is "sabado". I'm embarrassed that I just now thought of that. :duh:

Read my mind!! I was just going to mention that.

 

[Rayban]

The naming of the days of the week are varied depending on their source but this should clear up any confusion.

http://www.pantheon.org/miscellaneous/origin_days.html

 

[Empty Hands]

The word for Saturday in spanish is "sabado". I'm embarrassed that I just now thought of that. :duh:

I knew that, but never thought to make the connection. Cool!

 

[girlbug2]

While we're on the subject of bizarre hypocrisy, let us consider the Protestants who on the one hand proclaim the inerrant text of the Bible and the perfect example of Jesus Christ, whose first miracle was to produce wine for a party, with the moral teaching that all alcohol consumption is immoral and un-Godly. They preach this to the extent that they won't even use wine for the Communion - the very rite based on Jesus drinking, yet again, wine. Yet they will use grape juice in a watered down aping of the use of wine, implicitly accepting wine as the proper drink to use.

I do believe this can be easily cleared up.

Not speaking for all protestant churches, but rather my own: we use grape juice because some people are recovering alcoholics who absolutely have to abstain or they will fall off the wagon. Shall they be denied communion? No, the right thing to do is for everybody to drink grape juice instead.

Once again, not trying to speak for protestant churches everywhere, but my church does not teach that all alcohol consumption is immoral and ungodly. We do believe that drunkenness is wrong, because it separates one from God, and makes one behave in ways that ruin their witness. Having a glass of wine with dinner for instance is not frowned upon nor encouraged, but left between the individual and God.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I do believe this can be easily cleared up.
Not speaking for all protestant churches, but rather my own: we use grape juice because some people are recovering alcoholics who absolutely have to abstain or they will fall off the wagon. Shall they be denied communion? No, the right thing to do is for everybody to drink grape juice instead.
.

But what about the people who are allergic to grapes?
Should all people switch to water because of the teensy minority who cannot -for one reason or another- drink the real stuff?

Recovering alcoholics are really a marginal percentage of people, just like the people who are allergic to grapes. Ok the latter are an even smaller percentage, but they're both really tiny.

 

[seasoned]

Politics and religion, the two major themes that wars and much hatred stem from. Interesting to gab about, but detrimental in the long run. In the big picture it is our heart that, will, be read, so guard that and the tongue, and let GOD handle the rest. I just thought I would interject a little common sense.

Seasoned said

Actually, religion and politics are the only things worth arguing about since they are so important. I hardly find debate about them detrimental, quite the opposite, really.

"Arguing about", I think not......... "detrimental" yes when "arguing about and debate about" are used in the same context.

If people think I'm an idolator who is putting my salvation in jeopardy because I love the Mother of God and pray to her I would hope they'd point that out to me and give me reasons why I am wrong. To do otherwise is to show that they don't care about my salvation.

Now your getting off the point of my post. "In the big picture it is our heart that, will, be read, so guard that and the tongue, and let GOD handle the rest".
You can pray to whoever you want to. I used the word GAB for a reason, nothing ever comes from gabbing or arguing over Politics and religion, because nothing gets acomplished.

(Of course, when they're done I'm going to explain to them exactly wy they are wrong and why, if they want to more perfectly follow Jesus' example they, too, should honor his mother.) Likewise, if people don't care enough about politics to argue about them we're going to be stuck with more of the same idiocy we already suffer. The last election cycle was a welcome blow against political indifference.

You added me to the top of your rant, but clearly are gabbing about others issues, that were not in my short post.

As for wars and hatred being the result of disagreements about religion and politics, only in the sense that wars and hatred are the result of human nature. Man is the greatest creation there is, capable of reaching great holiness. But he is fallen and is capable of anything. Likewise, religion and politics are two of the most important aspects of human life. They can, and have, been responsible for amazing accomplishments throughout history as well as horrible things such as the gulags and Stalin's purges. Chris

Yes, human nature. Which was one of my points in my little post, way above. Guard the heart and the tongue. Who can argue or debate about that.
Have a great day.

 

[Blade96]

No, you're not close! The bread stays bread...well it's really that sugar paper you get as a kid, without the sugar, and the wine stays...well it's not really wine, it's just maroon colored grape juice they pass off as wine.

well come on, I see it as staying bread too. and the wine stays....well as you said. I agree with you. My belief system is the same. But its nice to question and understand and learn how different people think. and why they believe what they do. Its called openminded ness...you should try it sometime, its nice

 

[Ken Morgan]

You can be open-minded and understand the who, what, why, when where, why and how of something and still fundamentally disagree with it. Being open minded does not mean you accept the opposing point of view as valid, it means you allowed yourself to look at their evidence and have considered it. How you choose to express your consideration of that evidence is now an opinion.

Religious and political discussions aren’t meant for those that are involved in the discussion, it’s meant for those who are sitting on the sidelines, nodding or shaking their heads at each point and counter point. Generally those involved in the discussions have their opinions so firmly entrenched that little will sway them.

As to this discussion? Whatever. Believe what you want, worship however you want, just do not ask me to pay for it, do not ask my government to pay for it, do not in anyway interfere in my life or the life of any other citizen, if you are going to say or do anything in the public forum, expect opposition and do not ask for special treatment to be free of outside criticism because you believe in X, Y or Z.