psychoslice
Veteran Member
Surely you don't believe that, that's taking symbolism way too far.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ask a Catholic
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
It was never viewed as mere symbolism. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Bishop of Antioch who died in 107 AD, successor of Peter as Bishop of Antioch and personal student of St. John the Evangelist, said the following about an early splinter group:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur deathin the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again." -Source
St. Ignatius' words were later confirmed by St. Polycarp of Smyrna, another student of St. John's.
If you believe that only the physical is real, then of course it wouldn't make sense, and no explanation I give you will seem logical. That's fine. The Romans have an explanation for this using Aristotelian philosophy, though I myself as a Byzantine am not very partial to it. But, if it helps you get the idea, here goes:
Pretty much, according to Aristotle, every thing that exists has two properties: The essence, or the fundamental, underlying reality of what makes that thing what it is; and the accidents, or the properties of that thing that we can see, hear, taste, touch and smell. These two are separate properties, and any change to the accidents doesn't change the essence.
Now, the Romans believe that, when the Eucharist is consecrated, the essence of the bread and wine is replaced with that of the Body and Blood of Christ, but the accidents (AKA physical properties) of the bread and wine remain as they are--drinking too much of the Blood will still get you a little wobbly on your feet (as I have seen happen with a deacon whose job it was to consume the leftovers of the Eucharist after the Liturgy was done), and if you have a gluten allergy, you are just given the "wine" (but really the Blood) and not the "bread" (but really the Body). Yet though it still appears to be just bread and wine, it is, in fact, the Body and Blood of Christ.
As for what we Byzantines say about it? Glory to God, it's a mystery, and that's all there is to it--the Eucharist truly becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. How, we cannot say.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes its one reason I gave up religion.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Doesn't mean its true just because they said. don't believe everything you hear.
I guess that is the difference between believers and non-believers. We each exercise faith in a belief system for which we have no proof that the other accepts. For believers no proof is necessary, but for the non-believer, no proof is enough.
You seem to fob off the designs in nature as if they just happen naturally as a matter of random chance. But when I see deliberate design, I know there is a designer. That is just common logic. The fact that the designer doesn't fit in with what you choose to believe means very little. It doesn't make him go away just because you say he isn't there.
In the science of bio-mimetics, humans copy designs in nature to invent useful things. If humans need to copy something in order to design a new and useful thing, why does the thing copied need to be designed, but the original doesn't?
If the designer appeared one day right in front of your nose and introduced himself as God, would you believe him any more than people in the first century believed Jesus?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
This is what people are asking Catholics. A lot of us (well, I know since I was Catholic) that the Eucharist is the real blood/body of Jesus however, I "also" know that when I hold his body, I am holding what makes communion possible the " 'bread' of Life".
So its okay to say "No the Eucharist is not the literal Jesus and, we, as Catholics know he is real in the Eucharist".
Basically, you are saying "Im not crazy. Im holding accidents and by communion "and" concecration they are Jesus".
I see literal and real the same. Catholics dont in regards to the Eucharist. That is a important distinction when describing what you are "actually" holding (bread) and what is real (body of Christ).
Bread of Life is Jesus
Its okay to say you are holding bread because saying that says you are holding Jesus.
Takes out confusion.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
A video with an "agenda" masquerading as "science" is not evidence but is propaganda, which is also in this case is nothing short of pure nonsense.
Secondly, you show that you really haven't a clue how the evolutionary process actually works, which counters what the geneticists have long understood.
Thirdly, Darwin died well over a century ago, and we know so much more than he ever did. It's like taking Freud, pointing out some of his mistakes, and then claiming that we don't know much of anything about human psychology.
And finally, you still lied about reading the article originally whereas even the first sentence would clearly tell you that you were entirely, 100% wrong. You can do all the song & dance you may try, but your disingenuous approach on this was and is truly pathetic. Over and over again, I've run across so many of those who misrepresent scientific "evidence', thus lying in the name of "God". The Discovery Institute is one of the worst offenders, such as we saw with the Dover (Pa.) Trial, whereas all but one of their "witnesses" ran for the hills, undoubtedly because of the fear of getting indicted for perjury.
I might agree if you'd said: The church does more to indoctrinate people than any other institution on the face of the Earth.
I would agree that there are times when the church provides education that is beneficial. But whenever the church supports "education" that is dependent on scripture, I'd say it's a disservice.
So Pope, how about when the church "helps" people, you do it out of true charity, and not from the perspective of evangelism?
metis, I asked you to address the points raised in the video...I didn't ask you to shoot the messenger. I have no idea who the guy is or what religious denomination he represents, but I agree with what he said regarding the impossibility of slow evolution being responsible for all the life forms we see on this planet. If there was a slow process, then intermediate species should be found everywhere. Why can't science produce them without stretching the truth themselves? Their literature and promotional videos are full of assumptions couched in language like "might have" or "could have" or "this leads us to the conclusion that..." None of this is the language of fact...it is pure supposition with little solid evidence to support it.
Can you refute his points or not? Can you stop protesting long enough to just answer the questions he raises? Tell us how he is wrong. Tell us how evolutionary science is any less guilty of issuing propaganda to promote their own agenda.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
So defects in the design mean ...?
PackJason
I make up facts.
Afeared of what? The truth? Never.
OK, here's one....lets start at the beginning....
The basic unit of living things is the cell, and the basic material that makes up a cell is protein. Evolutionists acknowledge that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is about 1 in 10113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. In other words, it could take 10113 chances for the event to occur once. But any event that has one chance in 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
However, far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life to occur. For a cell to maintain its functions, some 2,000 different proteins are needed. What, then, is the probability of all of these happening at random? It is estimated that it is 1 in 1040,000, or 1 followed by 40,000 zeros! Are you willing to rest your faith on such an outrageously remote probability?
Your explanation please?
Well, putting aside that this question is almost entirely nonsensical, where are you getting these numbers? And please tell me you understand that evolution =/= abiogenesis.
After reading this a few times now, I'm not sure if there's even an actual question regarding evolution asked.
PackJason
I make up facts.
If there was a slow process, then intermediate species should be found everywhere.
There are. Just do your research.
What's extra remarkable is that a rabbit (as an example) fossil has never been found in the same strata layer as a T-Rex fossil. Wanna guess why?
What defects did you have in mind?
Don't tell me......rabbits evolved from T-Rex's.....?
Or perhaps elephants evolved from small furry critters that science has now determined through speculation er sorry, research to be the common ancestor of both man and elephants...and even whales?
Let me share this link and see if you can pickup on the subtle language which puts an "extrapolation" into the definition of a newly discovered "fact".
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/common-ancestor-of-all-mammals-revealed
I will highlight just a few words and phrases that might not be obvious....
Common ancestor of all mammals revealed
A tiny, furry-tailed creature is the most complete picture yet as to what the ancestor of mice, elephants, lions,
tigers, bears, whales, bats and humans once looked like, researchers say.
These new findings also suggest this forerunner of most mammals appeared shortly after the catastrophe that ended the age of dinosaurs, scientists added.
The study was so thorough that the team, made up of 23 scientists from around the world, was able to speculate on the appearance of this hypothetical ancestor inside and out, from its brain and inner ear bones to its ovaries and even what its sperm may have looked like (it sported a head and tail like modern-day sperm cells do)......
"Discovering the tree of life is like piecing together a crime scene — it is a story that happened in the past that you can't repeat," O'Leary said. "Just like with a crime scene, the new tools of DNA add important information, but so do other physical clues like a body or, in the scientific realm, fossils and anatomy. Combining all the evidence produces the most informed reconstruction of a past event."......
From all this data from living and extinct mammals, the scientists extrapolated the appearance of the most recent common ancestor of all placental mammals.
"We have all these placentals alive today, from elephants to shrews, from things that fly to things that swim," Spaulding said. "What could the common ancestor of these things that are so different possibly look like?....
The scientists then worked with an artist to illustrate this ancestor. In addition to a furry tail, the researchers suggest the four-legged creature likely ate insects, weighed from 6 grams (about the weight of some shrews) up to 245 grams — less than half a pound — and was more adapted for general scampering than built for more specialized forms of movement, such as swinging from trees. Also, its cerebral cortex — the part of the brain linked to higher mental processes — was probably convoluted, folds linked with greater brain activity, the researchers found.
Their research also suggested placental mammals appeared after the end of the age of dinosaurs, with the original ancestor developing about 200,000 to 400,000 years after the event.
"This is about 36 million years later than the prediction based on purely genetic data,"
Those few extracts point out language that is hardly the terms one would use to describe facts. An "extrapolation is by the dictionary's definition....
"to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.
Statistics. to estimate (the value of a variable) outside the tabulated or observed range."
Synonyms include....
Is this real science...or science fiction? That furry little 'rat' is the common ancestor of "mice, elephants, lions,
tigers, bears, whales, bats and humans" ? Really?......And you think intelligent design is far fetched?
PackJason
I make up facts.
Don't tell me......rabbits evolved from T-Rex's.....?
Or perhaps elephants evolved from small furry critters that science has now determined through speculation er sorry, research to be the common ancestor of both man and elephants...and even whales?
Let me share this link and see if you can pickup on the subtle language which puts an "extrapolation" into the definition of a newly discovered "fact".
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/common-ancestor-of-all-mammals-revealed
I will highlight just a few words and phrases that might not be obvious....
Common ancestor of all mammals revealed
A tiny, furry-tailed creature is the most complete picture yet as to what the ancestor of mice, elephants, lions,
tigers, bears, whales, bats and humans once looked like, researchers say.
These new findings also suggest this forerunner of most mammals appeared shortly after the catastrophe that ended the age of dinosaurs, scientists added.
The study was so thorough that the team, made up of 23 scientists from around the world, was able to speculate on the appearance of this hypothetical ancestor inside and out, from its brain and inner ear bones to its ovaries and even what its sperm may have looked like (it sported a head and tail like modern-day sperm cells do)......
"Discovering the tree of life is like piecing together a crime scene — it is a story that happened in the past that you can't repeat," O'Leary said. "Just like with a crime scene, the new tools of DNA add important information, but so do other physical clues like a body or, in the scientific realm, fossils and anatomy. Combining all the evidence produces the most informed reconstruction of a past event."......
From all this data from living and extinct mammals, the scientists extrapolated the appearance of the most recent common ancestor of all placental mammals.
"We have all these placentals alive today, from elephants to shrews, from things that fly to things that swim," Spaulding said. "What could the common ancestor of these things that are so different possibly look like?....
The scientists then worked with an artist to illustrate this ancestor. In addition to a furry tail, the researchers suggest the four-legged creature likely ate insects, weighed from 6 grams (about the weight of some shrews) up to 245 grams — less than half a pound — and was more adapted for general scampering than built for more specialized forms of movement, such as swinging from trees. Also, its cerebral cortex — the part of the brain linked to higher mental processes — was probably convoluted, folds linked with greater brain activity, the researchers found.
Their research also suggested placental mammals appeared after the end of the age of dinosaurs, with the original ancestor developing about 200,000 to 400,000 years after the event.
"This is about 36 million years later than the prediction based on purely genetic data,"
Those few extracts point out language that is hardly the terms one would use to describe facts. An "extrapolation is by the dictionary's definition....
"to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.
Statistics. to estimate (the value of a variable) outside the tabulated or observed range."
Synonyms include....
Is this real science...or science fiction? That furry little 'rat' is the common ancestor of "mice, elephants, lions,
tigers, bears, whales, bats and humans" ? Really?......And you think intelligent design is far fetched?
What about this don't you understand?
PackJason
I make up facts.
No, rabbits didn't evolve from the T-Rex. The only living animals who are descendants of dinosaurs are birds.
Yes, if you trace back far enough, all living mammals has a common ancestor which evidence dictates was a small furry critter like the one in the article.
Yes, whales, dolphins, seals, and porpoises all evolved from prior land mammals. In the case of whales and dolphins, they have vestigial rear leg bones that no longer serve a purpose.
Yes, you have to do some extrapolation in the same way, but only on a larger scale as say, investigating a crime scene.
Intelligent design isn't far-fetched, it's just flat out wrong and no evidence supports it.
Yes, if you trace back far enough, all living mammals has a common ancestor which evidence dictates was a small furry critter like the one in the article.
Yes, whales, dolphins, seals, and porpoises all evolved from prior land mammals. In the case of whales and dolphins, they have vestigial rear leg bones that no longer serve a purpose.
Yes, you have to do some extrapolation in the same way, but only on a larger scale as say, investigating a crime scene.
Intelligent design isn't far-fetched, it's just flat out wrong and no evidence supports it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Again, to repeat, all life forms are "intermediate species", including you and I. Evolution never stops unless the species goes extinct.metis, I asked you to address the points raised in the video...I didn't ask you to shoot the messenger. I have no idea who the guy is or what religious denomination he represents, but I agree with what he said regarding the impossibility of slow evolution being responsible for all the life forms we see on this planet. If there was a slow process, then intermediate species should be found everywhere. Why can't science produce them without stretching the truth themselves? Their literature and promotional videos are full of assumptions couched in language like "might have" or "could have" or "this leads us to the conclusion that..." None of this is the language of fact...it is pure supposition with little solid evidence to support it.
Can you refute his points or not? Can you stop protesting long enough to just answer the questions he raises? Tell us how he is wrong. Tell us how evolutionary science is any less guilty of issuing propaganda to promote their own agenda.
As far as the video is concerned, to go through it and deal with what he says point-by-point would be extremely time consuming and would only likely be met with just more nonsense. I used to collect anti-evolutionary books and pamphlets, until the Great Flood destroyed them (in my basement). It's the same old recycled nonsense put out by people who have a dishonest pseudo-science agenda that I have been seeing for over 50 years now. Do I really want to go through this all over again? If I thought for one minute that you had an objective approach, I probably would have, but I've seen enough of your posts to know that isn't your approach at all.
IOW, I'll stick with science, and you can stick with pseudo-science-- with the latter, been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, burned the sucker long ago.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Again, this is just a fine example of the nonsense I mentioned in my last post, so thanks for the confirmation.Don't tell me......rabbits evolved from T-Rex's.....?
Or perhaps elephants evolved from small furry critters that science has now determined through speculation er sorry, research to be the common ancestor of both man and elephants...and even whales?
Let me share this link and see if you can pickup on the subtle language which puts an "extrapolation" into the definition of a newly discovered "fact".
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/common-ancestor-of-all-mammals-revealed
I will highlight just a few words and phrases that might not be obvious....
Common ancestor of all mammals revealed
A tiny, furry-tailed creature is the most complete picture yet as to what the ancestor of mice, elephants, lions,
tigers, bears, whales, bats and humans once looked like, researchers say.
These new findings also suggest this forerunner of most mammals appeared shortly after the catastrophe that ended the age of dinosaurs, scientists added.
The study was so thorough that the team, made up of 23 scientists from around the world, was able to speculate on the appearance of this hypothetical ancestor inside and out, from its brain and inner ear bones to its ovaries and even what its sperm may have looked like (it sported a head and tail like modern-day sperm cells do)......
"Discovering the tree of life is like piecing together a crime scene — it is a story that happened in the past that you can't repeat," O'Leary said. "Just like with a crime scene, the new tools of DNA add important information, but so do other physical clues like a body or, in the scientific realm, fossils and anatomy. Combining all the evidence produces the most informed reconstruction of a past event."......
From all this data from living and extinct mammals, the scientists extrapolated the appearance of the most recent common ancestor of all placental mammals.
"We have all these placentals alive today, from elephants to shrews, from things that fly to things that swim," Spaulding said. "What could the common ancestor of these things that are so different possibly look like?....
The scientists then worked with an artist to illustrate this ancestor. In addition to a furry tail, the researchers suggest the four-legged creature likely ate insects, weighed from 6 grams (about the weight of some shrews) up to 245 grams — less than half a pound — and was more adapted for general scampering than built for more specialized forms of movement, such as swinging from trees. Also, its cerebral cortex — the part of the brain linked to higher mental processes — was probably convoluted, folds linked with greater brain activity, the researchers found.
Their research also suggested placental mammals appeared after the end of the age of dinosaurs, with the original ancestor developing about 200,000 to 400,000 years after the event.
"This is about 36 million years later than the prediction based on purely genetic data,"
Those few extracts point out language that is hardly the terms one would use to describe facts. An "extrapolation is by the dictionary's definition....
"to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.
Statistics. to estimate (the value of a variable) outside the tabulated or observed range."
Synonyms include....
Is this real science...or science fiction? That furry little 'rat' is the common ancestor of "mice, elephants, lions,
tigers, bears, whales, bats and humans" ? Really?......And you think intelligent design is far fetched?
It's quite obvious that you believe these researchers are either ignorant, dishonest, or both. Meanwhile, you in turn swallow a set of beliefs put forth roughly 3000 years ago by subjective people you never met nor know much of anything about.
Not only is your post above terrible science, it's also terrible theology to boot. Most theologians now realize that the source of the creation accounts comes from a rather lengthy Babylonian epic written roughly a thousand years before Genesis was written. What my people back then did was to take parts from that, with one of those parts being the Babylonian creation account, rework it, put in our own set of morals and values and, voila!, Genesis 1:1+ and 2:4+.
All cultures do this, btw. Look up the history of Santa Claus, for example.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Birth defects: missing brains, holes in the heart, etc. I would count even "normal" things that are badly designed, like the male urethra system (the prostate can enlarge and block access, endangering their lives). Such things make sense if nature uses a trial and error approach, but not if a perfect designer is responsible.