Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By your definition lobsters do not have blood, because their blood does not contain hemoglobin or red blood cells. Furthermore, you are describing the accidents of blood (with accidents being used here in the Aristotelian philosophical sense of such things as the color, size, shape, or placement of something) rather than the substance of blood (with substance here meaning the inner reality of something; that which makes it what it is regardless of external appearances.)
Suppose I took the painting known as the Mona Lisa, which was painted by Leonardo da Vinci. If I were able through scientific means to make fifty perfect copies of the original painting, each one showing the same image, being the same size, and shape, and weight, and appearance as the original, so that not even microscopic examination could tell the difference, I could still not say "each one of these is the Mona Lisa that was painted by Leonardo himself." Instead, the appearances would be deceiving. Meanwhile, if I took the original, and threw it in a tub of hot water so that the colors ran and the panel that it is painted on warped, and then disfigured the image further by scraping it, even though that painting no longer resembled what it had been, it would still be true to say "this is the Mona Lisa that was painted by Leonardo himself." The reason is that the substance, or reality, of a thing is not the same thing as the accidents, or external appearance of a thing.
Here is another example: it is 11:00 in the morning on Inauguration Day in 2009 in Washington, DC. If I ask "what does the President of the United States look like?", you would give me the description of George Bush. If I ask that question at 2:00 PM, however, you would give me the description of Barack Obama. How could the description change so much? Very simple: at noon, George Bush stopped being President. His appearance did not change in any way at that moment, but there was a change in the reality of George Bush: he had stopped being President. The reality of being President is not something that you can see or touch or measure, but everyone understands the concept.
In the same way, the inner reality of the elements of the Eucharist is not dictated by the accidents, which remain the accidents of bread and wine. This is not difficult to understand if you consider this: Jesus Christ is almighty God. If Almighty God is able to create an enire universe out of absolutely nothing, why would it be remotely difficult for Him to take the inner reality of something that already exists, and change it to the inner reality of something else? As a result, while the Eucharist may continue to look like bread and wine, Almighty God told us otherwise when He said "this is my body" rather than "this is a piece of bread with a spiritual significance", and if we trust Him, then we shall believe what He tells us regardless of what our physical eyes continue to see.
If I dye my hair, it is no longer just "my hair". It is now "my hair with dye molecules attached". So the appearance, the accidents and the substance are all changed.
But I am sure that I only see it that way because of my ignorance and low intellectual capacity.
Possibly.
So let's try this: your hair turns white overnight from the effort of trying to grasp metaphysical concepts. No dye is involved, but it looks entirely different from the way it looks today. Is it still your hair? Furthermore, whether it changed color or not, it would still be fractionally longer than it was today, and any measurement that you took of it then would be different from a measurement now. Is it still your hair?
Ah, the perils of actually having to think about something...
A look back shows that I am in good company as the target of GreenWhiteBlue's ad hominem attacks. He compared one poster to a "squawking parrot". He critiques another's use of punctuation, commenting that it is "something most people learn in elementary school". His replies to two other posters were apparently even more offensive, since they were deleted by the moderator. Overall, he seems to be exasparated by the stupidity of his fellow man. Kind of ironic given this is a Christianity forum.
A look back shows that I am in good company as the target of GreenWhiteBlue's ad hominem attacks.
I did not attack you, Leo. You were intentionally snotty to me, and I called you on it. That you don't want to admit that you were, in fact, snotty, does not mean you weren't.
Quote:
He compared one poster to a "squawking parrot".
Not so; the comment was not an ad hominem attack, but a general statement, and your use of quotation marks around that phrase is less than honest. What I actually said was "The problem with cutting and pasting other people's work without bothering to check the sources yourself means that all you end up doing is acting like a badly-trained parrot that squawks whatever errors it has been taught." Do you disagree with that statement? Or do you think that people have no responsibility to check the accuracy of what others have written before they share it with the world wide web?
Quote:
Overall, he seems to be exasparated by the stupidity of his fellow man. Kind of ironic given this is a Christianity forum.
Why is it "ironic"? As a Christian, you are commanded to love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your MIND. I see nothing that says "3 out of 4 is good enough."
I also note that in trying to attack my character, you still have not answered the question you were asked: namely, if your hair turns white over time, or if it grows longer, is it still your hair? Trying to get others to think poorly of me doesn't make the question go away, or mean that you now understand what "substances" and "accidents" are. If you find yourself unable to answer the question, and any understanding of the basic concepts of Thomistic ontology to be beyond your grasp, just say so.
Last edited by GreenWhiteBlue; 05-02-2014 at 06:36 PM..
I also note that in trying to attack my character, you still have not answered the question you were asked: namely, if your hair turns white over time, or if it grows longer, is it still your hair? Trying to get others to think poorly of me doesn't make the question go away, or mean that you now understand what "substances" and "accidents" are. If you find yourself unable to answer the question, and any understanding of the basic concepts of Thomistic ontology to be beyond your grasp, just say so.
Yes, I would still call it my hair. But I would say that the substance as well as the appearance has changed, from protein strands containing melanin to strands lacking melanin.
I suppose you might say that the melanin is an "accident" of the hair, not substance; that "my hair" has a substance - inner meaning - that is independent of what we perceive to be its pigment content. I suspect it is not so much my inability to understand, as my unwillingness to agree with, such concepts that has you bothered.
"Do this in remembrance of me " It was never meant to be a repetitive sacrifice since HIS sacrifice was
final. The Eucharist is another in a well intended series of misinterpreted events. Catholicism is the benchmark for replacement theology . I believe that a spirit of religiosity overwhelmed church fathers in their mindset aimed at adoration with no intention of perversion as time when on this spirit drove the church to manufacture more and more means (quasi-works) in an effort to have a relationship with God . The Eucharist feast would have been better served in teaching scripture at mass (a bible study) especially the nonsensical marching of grade school kids every morning to a mass without an once of nurturing coupled an equally nonsensical "latin " service for years until English was substituted Humans ...don't let them out and about they will alter anything.
Having been Catholic in the past, I can honestly say I never believed this. Ever.
I always knew that if I took the host and the wine to a lab and had them tested, no human DNA would be in there. I just can't believe something that isn't true. You can twist words and quote the Bible all you want, but I'll never belive somehing that contradicts science and reality. A priest can no more turn wine into blood than he can turn a piece of pizza into a squirrel.
But if people want to believe it, it's certainly of no consequence to me.
this is a very good response. There is no physical transformation..
From reading John 6 in context about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, it is clear Christ is not talking of a literal eating and drinking of His blood. The Jews that turned from Him at this point could not understand this. Jesus was purposefully being offensive in this comment. They walked no more with Him.
To eat and drink of His body and blood is clearly talking about partaking of fellowship with God through Him through His sacrificial death and atonement for our sin. Without faith in Christ we have no relationship with the Father as without faith it is impossible to please Him (book of Hebrews).
The passage is talking about a restored RELATIONSHIP with YHVH God through Christ. Through Faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice, on is set apart unto God through His Spirit making them righteous. Those that are of Christ's Body are "partakers". The word in the Greek is Koinonia. We are ONE in Christ because of Christ. Without the source of life GOD, one abides in death. No sin can be in God's presence. Those seen as "in Christ" clothed in His righteousness and can have fellowship with the source of life, God.
The Jews in John 6 did not believe on Jesus Christ and walked no more with Him. They did not trust in Him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
