Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Neil de Grasse Tyson presentation about intelligent design [View all]edhopper
(33,576 posts)47. So this:
At the same time both our churches affirm that in the Eucharist the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Doesn't mean that the Eucharist actually changes into the blood and body of Christ, even though they say it "truly" becomes the blood and body of Christ? They seem to be saying it's magic and physical laws don't apply, but they also don't say it is symbolic or just spiritual with no physical occurrence taking place. Are they intentionally being confusing to avoid a definitive answer.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It is quality material, hopefully anyone who hasnt already watched it will give it a go
AtheistCrusader
May 2014
#4
Thats in A/A. If I misunderstood your "here" to mean this group, then I apologize.
cbayer
May 2014
#11
From an article in the Guardian concerning Tyson and The Discovery Institute (creationism group)
djean111
May 2014
#6
I'm confused. Shouldn't we be working to find common cause with these people?
Warren Stupidity
May 2014
#13
the omnipotent diety has just put all that "physical evidence' there to confuse you.
Warren Stupidity
May 2014
#15
yes I need to understand why this obvious bullshit is suitable for ridicule but not other obvious
Warren Stupidity
May 2014
#17
Since you ostensibly view life through a microscope that is an unsurprising reaction.
rug
May 2014
#42
No, it's not a "definition that cannot be defined", it's a definition that complicated.
Fortinbras Armstrong
May 2014
#50
No, we're prepared to smear at Transubstantiation because it makes no sense
skepticscott
May 2014
#51
If you accept Aristotle, which, AS I SAID, was philosophically acceptable in the 13th century
Fortinbras Armstrong
May 2014
#57
So, if we simply discard everything we've learned about the universe in the last 800 years...
trotsky
May 2014
#53