It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I was responding to you speaking of the Eucharist as cannibalism. It is not, the Eucharist is supernatural. After the priest's words of consecration, bread and wine become Our Lord even though you do NOT see a change in the bread and wine.
God wants you to believe, it is truly Him now. That is what Our Lord means in John 6, the "spirit and life"
verse. Do not think with human understanding, go higher, think and believe spiritually, supernaturally.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by colbe
I was responding to you speaking of the Eucharist as cannibalism. It is not, the Eucharist is supernatural. After the priest's words of consecration, bread and wine become Our Lord even though you do NOT see a change in the bread and wine.
So if, AFTER an ordained priest's consecration of the bread and wine, that bread and wine were to be tested...it would reveal itself to possess the same properties as flesh and blood? And even if it did not, it is symbolically utilized as though such were the case. This is the principle of cannibalism, just as putting up a poster of President Obama and unloading a semiautomatic on it is the principle of violent rejection.
In the Eucharist—a supernatural transformation—a substantial change occurs WITHOUT accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is this disjunction from the natural laws of physics which causes many to stumble (see John 6:60-69). See chart below.
Indeed, transubstantiation is difficult for the natural mind (especially with its modern excessively skeptical bent) to grasp and clearly requires a great deal of faith
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by colbe
In the Eucharist—a supernatural transformation—a substantial change occurs WITHOUT accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is this disjunction from the natural laws of physics which causes many to stumble (see John 6:60-69). See chart below.
You are contradicting yourself all over the place here. No, the bread and wine does not change - "the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration" - , but their "essence and substance cease to exist". Through transubstantiation, they actually do change. They are still bread and wine, but they are also the "true and actual body and blood of Christ".
So either Jesus was made of bread and wine, or bread and wine transforms into actual flesh and blood. You can't have it both ways. And it appears you are doing your xxx to keep it both ways because you know you're on a slippery slope here.
Indeed, transubstantiation is difficult for the natural mind (especially with its modern excessively skeptical bent) to grasp and clearly requires a great deal of faith
"...requires a great deal of faith". I can understand why.edit on 8-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
Dear brother,
You are correct, it "requires a great deal of faith." Ask God to help you believe. He will give you the grace.
How beautiful, the humility of God, to come to us this way. I think you understand now. The "appearance", the bread and wine "continue after the consecration but their essence and substance...through transubstantiation, they actually do change."
Except, the underlined is not right, we see the bread and wine but it is no longer bread and wine but totally Our Lord. The Eucharist is supernatural. Take another step toward God and believe in the Eucharist.
Revelation all fits, Satan wishes to destroy the faith. His man, the anti-Christ will attempt to abolish the most Holy Eucharist. This is the "abomination of Desolation" prophesied in Daniel. AfterInfinity, why would the anti-Christ do this do this if the most Holy Eucharist is not true?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by colbe
God is holy, He did not teach you how to mockVHB. The Eucharist is higher, supernatural, it comes from God, it is God Himself. Don't think in a human way of understanding concerning the Eucharist.
If the nature of the Eucharist cannot be questioned by the human mind, then how is it that it can be known as truth by the human mind? That which cannot be questioned is that which cannot be ascertained.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by colbe
Dear brother,
You are correct, it "requires a great deal of faith." Ask God to help you believe. He will give you the grace.
Perhaps this is where we differ in our standards, but I refuse to believe in something simply because it corroborates a system of emotional security I have become attached to, particularly when it defies the very reality I am familiar with and know has been substantiated in numerous ways.
How beautiful, the humility of God, to come to us this way. I think you understand now. The "appearance", the bread and wine "continue after the consecration but their essence and substance...through transubstantiation, they actually do change."
Allow me to make myself clear on this point. After the consecration of bread and wine by an ordained priest, if the chemicular composition and condition of the bread and wine remains unchanged, then its fundamental properties remain unchanged as well. The only transformation that can even be recognized in such a situation is the one that takes place in our mind, where we acknowledge the ritualistic significance in imbibing the flesh and blood of our deity - or in this instance, that deity's avatar. Anymore literal than that, and it borders on delusion.
Except, the underlined is not right, we see the bread and wine but it is no longer bread and wine but totally Our Lord. The Eucharist is supernatural. Take another step toward God and believe in the Eucharist.
I cannot. To do so would be to ignore every scientific principle that dominates the reality I know to be true. To just say, "Hey, it's supernatural. That means we can ignore what science tells us and just play make believe." This, to me, is an idiotic mechanism that oppresses intellectual development, undermining any and all practices of critical thinking by encouraging participants to ignore the facts in favor of what they want to believe.
Revelation all fits, Satan wishes to destroy the faith. His man, the anti-Christ will attempt to abolish the most Holy Eucharist. This is the "abomination of Desolation" prophesied in Daniel. AfterInfinity, why would the anti-Christ do this do this if the most Holy Eucharist is not true?
If this is the kind of intellectual understanding I can expect from faith, then I'm with Satan on this one. In response to your question: the same reason we abolished slavery. It is a morally corrupt practice that encourages the degradation of our fellow man. In the same vein, the Eucharist is a corrupt practice that encourages aversion to scientific methodology that would otherwise give us a true and verifiable understanding of our reality. Just as we no longer make a practice of sacrificing virgins to the gods, so the Eucharist is two steps shy of being obsolete and downright foolish. If you choose to represent your devotion by such a display, then that is your prerogative.
But don't insult the realm of critical investigation by implying that the Eucharist is in any way sanctioned by even the smallest modicum of logic.edit on 8-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
Why can't you keep my post together? Now I have to reply separately to your multiple separated comments, who has time. I have told others on the forum and they ignore except jigger acknowledged.
I'll comment on one. I would never put my faith in Science. Science has been proved to be wrong many times. It is hollow. I thought I was helping you understand that God can do anything. He is the source of all science and intelligence, of everything! Put your faith in Him, give Him your heart dear AI.
p.s. I'll give you one example, Science said the "pill" was good. It has destroyed the family, causes men to
be sterile (got into the water system) and the "pill" cause cancer in women. It is an abortifacient! God said be
fruitful and multiply. Children are a blessing. It is God who decides life not us. One of the inventors of the "pill"
fifty years after its invention, condemns the "pill."
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing
And as per the usual, you make no sense at all.
You have to look at the words, the sentence structure, punctuation, verbs and the human behind the thoughtform.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing
You have to look at the words, the sentence structure, punctuation, verbs and the human behind the thoughtform.
See, that last part there is the kind of crap that throws people off.edit on 9-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing
You have to look at the words, the sentence structure, punctuation, verbs and the human behind the thoughtform.
See, that last part there is the kind of crap that throws people off.edit on 9-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
You mean the HUMANBEING behind it?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by akushla99
Stuff like what you just posted. It's amazing how someone with so much to say can be so incoherent.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing
You mean the HUMANBEING behind it?
Your logic processes feel so ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) that it's like you jump track after track after track, following no discernible pattern and making references that have no pertinence to the subject. Your train of thought is a train wreck.
afterinfinity
Stuff like what you just posted. It's amazing how someone with so much to say can be so incoherent.
akushla99[i/]
Then you may have basic problems in understanding words...which would bring into question what you could understand from just one paperfolded (origamied) book...perhaps you should learn to become more 'multi-lingual', and discriminatory in interpretation?!...and I can't help you do this...
Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Originally posted by akushla99
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by akushla99
afterinfinity
Stuff like what you just posted. It's amazing how someone with so much to say can be so incoherent.
akushla99[i/]
Then you may have basic problems in understanding words...which would bring into question what you could understand from just one paperfolded (origamied) book...perhaps you should learn to become more 'multi-lingual', and discriminatory in interpretation?!...and I can't help you do this...
Someone told me today it is called stuffing 4 separate ideas into one sentence to get to a truth. (if aware of what is happening) onion reference as well as origami, ROTE disemblage knowledge, whereby with most sentences only one or two ideas are at most are confered. He calls it a ballet of thoughtform dance, and understands it completely, NOT having to understand the mechanism as that is the LEAST IMPORTANT.edit on 9-5-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Originally posted by akushla99
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by akushla99
afterinfinity
Stuff like what you just posted. It's amazing how someone with so much to say can be so incoherent.
akushla99[i/]
Then you may have basic problems in understanding words...which would bring into question what you could understand from just one paperfolded (origamied) book...perhaps you should learn to become more 'multi-lingual', and discriminatory in interpretation?!...and I can't help you do this...
Someone told me today it is called stuffing 4 separate ideas into one sentence to get to a truth. (if aware of what is happening) onion reference as well as origami, ROTE disemblage knowledge, whereby with most sentences only one or two ideas are at most are confered. He calls it a ballet of thoughtform dance, and understands it completely, NOT having to understand the mechanism as that is the LEAST IMPORTANT.
But, there are some that are more drawn to the 'individual movement'...there's a propensity (that's easy to see) to fold that paper into smaller and smaller pieces and muffle within the folds they create...maybe the muffling they hear, is them 'on the inside'?! ADD is a funny...mmm...accusation to throw at someone..Å99