The Transsubstantiation Of The Eucharist Host
Offline Some things are not only counter-intuitive, they are outright counter-real and counter-sane.
I spent 10 years of my life working in theatre, so I know a thing or two about how to deliberately create an illusion in order to invoke a specific state of emotionality in the audience. A well executed production like that can pretty much "design" the emotional response of their audience - which they will do with a variety of tricks and treats, both mental and physical in nature.
But none of that is possible if the audience is fighting it. They need to sit down, relax, and suspend their disbelief.
Compare with going to the movies: What's the point if not to get carried away by the show? Nobody in their right mind would go and see films like for instance Star Wars if they were going to sit and judge the narrative all the way because it's not possible, not probable, not realistic... It's not supposed to be realistic, you fucknut. It is a fantasy tale that takes you on a ride through a series of emotions. There's a reason why they call Hollywood "The Dream Factory". Watching a movie is like going on a mental journey where you have little or no control, like a dream.
If someone in theatre claimed that in doing Romeo and Juliet they were creating a stage show with the intent of taking the audience through an emotional journey by creating a series of images that anybody can identify with, they would be absolutely correct. If however they claimed that the actual Romeo and the actual Juliet were magically manifested in an actual slice of the actual Verona back in ye aulde days, we would probably think that they were either crazy or some sort of enthusiastic genius working with very strong metaphors.
Because you wouldn't find any audience willing to suspend their disbelief to that actual level.
Enter the Christian ritual of the Eucharist.
How come there are people who believe that the actual flesh and blood of their deity is actually manifested, in physical form, in this bizarre ritual of symbolic cannibalism? (And BTW, how symbolic is the act of cannibalism if you really and truly believe that you are actually devouring human flesh and blood?) You just have to stand in awe of the power that these charlatans wield over their auidence's emotional state. Then you have to - seriously - question the sanity of each and every one of those fucking nutters who are on their knees being a part of this abomination.
I am awfully sorry, but anyone who for any reason is playing along with this idiocy has forfeited their right to be taken seriously as rational human beings in any context whatsoever. They simply cannot be trusted. Just like some psychotic and unpredictably violent mo-fo can have clear moments of absolute rationality and normal conduct towards other people, so can the ritual cannibals appear as sane in more lucid moments. Except they aren't. Nor are they innocent in being insane, such as can be said for someone that's clinically psychotic due to illness. No, they have chosen this shit.
They have chosen to suspend their disbelief beyond the point of sanity.
How and why can that ever be an admireable thing? I find it disgusting.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
- Login to post comments
it's all about the power of ritual, liminal zones, fetishism, the close proximity between the sacred (mystical union with god) and the taboo (cannibalism). it's a hard-wired part of human nature. carl jung, mircea eliade, jonathan v. smith, james frazer, jessi l. weston, jon d. levenson, raphael patai, and countless other scholars have written about it. hell, even nietzsche in the birth of tragedy advocated the usefulness of a new, heavily ritualized and dramatized religion, drawing from classical motifs, in order to temporarily lift man out of his dread of the meaninglessness of life and death. umberto eco in foucault's pendulum does an excellent job of treating with ritual and the suspension of rationality, without either defending or condemning it.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
also, in all fairness, let's remind ourselves that there are many denominations of christianity which do not believe in transubstantiation, and even outright condemn it as heresy. from the last supper narratives in the gospels, and also the one paul provides, it's perfectly arguable that jesus was speaking metaphorically.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Well, I'm not in agreement with just saying " It's fake, I don't believe" If we're atheists then we have proofs for it. Furthermore what we affirm is fake must have bases in order to explain its fallacy. So, which are the scientificis proofs we atheist have to debunk the transubstantiation? It's well-known catholic church uses lots of "scientists" to argue their beliefs are completely real, and for we the atheist those are just plots against the people who lacks of knowledge. I want to know much better our arguments against the catholic church in this issue. Thanks
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
This is more a matter of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
There is no evidence whatever that anything changes about the crackers. They do not appear to change in any physically detectable way.
It can only make sense in a purely symbolic way.
Therefore, unless they can show some evidence aside from pure naked assertion, we are justified in treating their claim as either pure metaphor or nonsense.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Yeah, it is logical to understand this catholic cults through metaphors -most of their doctrines are that- but should we consider their scientific explanations for this "transubstantiation" as pseudo-science? I know this link is sponsored by a religious group, but I trust in your sckeptical spirit.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
What concerns to me about all this, it could be a fraud due no scientists nowadays can take a sample of the host kept in that church. But I'd like to know your opinion.
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
Sorry, I didn't check the link, I was thinking of the standard Eucharist thing with the crackers and wine.
From what I have read and heard, that Lanciano thing has never been allowed to be rigorously tested by independent scientists, which in itself is suspicious.
If I have time, I could dig up the references I found when this came up a few years ago.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Crackers and wine! hahaha! Very good!
Ok, I'll be checking the discussion to see your post soon.
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
The transubstantiation was one aspect of the faith that I was unfortunately born into that always puzzled me. They would tell me it was literal in one breath and not literal in another breath. The idea of the Eucharist, like so many other articles of faith, are filled with inherent contradictions. Odd how the god belief requires so many inherent self-contradictions that most of the adherents can not see.
However, I am glad that this got brought up. Unless I am searching in the wrong places through google, it seems fairly difficult to find information to refute the so-called "miracles" of Fatima, Lourdes and a couple of other things that have brought the Catholic Church a heavy profit.
I have a Catholic family member that took a "pilgrimage" to Lourdes and even they were shocked by the mass commercialization of the church . People selling crucifixes, rosaries and capsules of holy water on every corner. (Much like the medieval practices of the church, selling pieces of the original cross of Christ or some saint's bones)
As a former Catholic, I remember that some of these "miracles" were not required aspects of faith for the congregations. BUT, I have had many Catholics try to throw those "miracles" at me in arguments of proof for the existence of divinity. (I generally use the line of "Show me the healing waters of Lourdes healing an amputee on camera and I'll believe it," in response).
But I know that there are bound to be some good refutations for these claims of "healing water" and sightings of the virgin mary by "thousands".
I tried googling Lourdes with different terms and did not seem to get very satisfying results.
There again, I have tried to point out the fact that only a small fraction of the people that visit Lourdes are ever healed but the fact that their are one or two "miracle" cases, seems to give it enough credence that they think it is real.
Anyone know of good sources to debunk these "miracles" ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
You are completely right. This kind of "miracles" and mysterious visions are built in order to create "christian tourism" what is giving a lot of profit to the local churches and the Vatican.
I was formed as catholic as you were, actually I studied during 12 years in a catholic private school. Nonetheless there was a religion teacher that explained to us this places are just for "encourage the faith of the believers" He assured us with proofs that the miracle of Fatima actually wasn't approved by the Vatican due to the political context within it. I knew about another religion professor he used to said even catholics were free to believe or not in that kind of situations.
So, what we can conclude is everything is a plot and we cannot believe in liers.
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge