It's fun LARPing as cultural Christians but you guys don't actually believe that wine turns into blood and such, right?

>I can trasform water in whatever the fuck I want man
whenever i wonder why anybody would make claims like this about themselves, i just think of this guy
>youtube.com/watch?v=ACAX6Jqjgpw
helps me remember that some people can't tell when they're making shit up

it doesn't seem to be blood to the senses, but the *metaphysical* substance (in the Platonic sense) is changed

noumenon vs phenomenon is a pretty established concept in philosophy, brainlet

there are no real christians on Veeky Forums.....its evil and sinful

Well of course, you can see that the wine is not blood, it's a spiritual thing you damned tit

On the contrary, Christians are called to be in the world (just not *of* the world)

>cultural Christians
Is there anything more cancerous?

u wot m8

nu atheists

I can appreciate literary allusions and metaphors, but no, I don't believe water turned to wine or blood or whatever. There's just no evidence besides The Bible claiming it to be a miracle of Christ.
That said, I'm still a devout Christian, in my own way. I have my own theological theory on how the metaphysical world works, and I think that a lot of the Abrahamic religions are so similar because they espouse almost the same teachings, and sprang from the same area. Christianity in particular, with its tenets of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit I can easily translate into a metaphor:

The Father - the one divine benevolent consciousness that is the universe

The Son - man, confined in his mortal body, striving to avoid sin (which can translate to misery)

The Holy Spirit - The soul and the link between The Son and The Father, a metaphysical 'fabric' if you will.

That's how I see it at least. In my eyes, we're pretty much just conduits for the universe to experience itself and Christianity ties into that very well, however centuries of religious fundamentalist dogma has robbed it of its ability to be open to interpretation, so I don't voice my views.

With all that said, I will still say that none of us alive today can either confirm nor deny that Christ did in fact preform these miracles.

Cultural Christian are no different. They don't understand or believe their communities' beliefs, and are an active drain on their own society. Their faith only goes as far as it benefits their fragile sense of identity.

I see what you did there

>I don't believe any of it
>I'm still devout

the esoteric import of the rite of transubstantiation is that things are not truly as they seem. it is only through god that the manipulation of the noumenal world is possible. for those with insufficient faith, such knowledge is dangerous and a path to hubris.

the bread and wine cannot just be "signs" that "represent" the body and blood. it is not a metaphor. because if it is a metaphor, then what makes all of language not just a metaphor? "intentionality" was given as the answer to attribute meaning to the signs, but unless taken as axiomatic no further justification can be given. what makes one not "intend" to talk about noumenally unknowable black boxes labelled various names except one's own solipsistic insistence that they really don't mean it? it is no coincidence that the "linguistic turn" was only possible once the dead corpse of god could be trodden on. but language is meaningless unless it has been imbued with meaning by god.

knowledge of noumenal manipulation and the origin meaning is key to making god real again. in other terms, meme magic.

To me it's just a way of saying, "I'm an atheist, but at the end of the day would prefer Christianity to Islam or whatever other oriental despotic religion we're plagued with next."

Yeah I believe. I think there's some good historical evidence for some of the miracles Jesus performed, especially when it comes to the resurrection. It's not enough to convert anything that's intent on being a doubter but Jesus actually resurrecting is the best explanation for a few things. Namely the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus to hundreds of people, including people charged with prosecuting Christians, and the resulting fervor those appearances inspired. One example would be Paul. He was a radically anti-Christian prosecutor and after Jesus appeared to him he became a radical Christian and was eventually martyred. The alternative theories for these things really fall short. It's hard to think of a reason why Paul would do that unless he was being honest about seeing Jesus.

Of course I have other reasons for being a theist and a Christian but that's a big one. A Christian life is not an easy one so I wouldn't do it if I didn't sincerely believe.

I've never understood why people find it so difficult to believe a non-religious person could agree in totality with Christian morality and philosophy.

There are problems with that statement, but I would tolerate them if they didn't pretend like they were Christians when they clearly are not and just using the faith to stroke their own ego. It's disrespectful to the religion they pretend to worship, the people who actually follow the religion, and through their obnoxiousness they drive others from the religion who otherwise would be saved. It ultimately stems from every feeling - selfishness, greed, etc. - that Christ spoke out against.

What about people like myself who cannot believe in it? Like I simply can't even.

I believe you agree with Christian morality but what's the point? The only moral teaching that's truly unique to Christianity is the command to love your neighbor. This command means nothing unless Jesus was who he said he was, and if Jesus is a liar there's no point in being a Christian.

ask and it shall be given to you. have you tried asking? or is your pride too much that you'd rather work your way up to god yourself?

Then you must reconcile Christian beliefs with your current beliefs, if you wish to participate as a Christian. Do some more reading, not just Christian writing but spiritual writing from all the world's faiths.

Secular institutes have largely failed to provide a cohesive system of morality that doesn't collapse under relativity, If people don't believe there isn't some divine punishment for their immoral behaviour they degenerate into hedonists.

Simply they believe Christianity produces the best results.

To start you shouldn't probably forget this idea you can't believe. This indicates a closed mind, that you're unwilling to give Christianity a fair hearing. It's already a done deal. There's no real need for further consideration.

If you ever change your mind Answering Atheism by Trent Horn might be a good place to start. It deals with a lot of the classical theistic arguments.

(OP)
Given the paradoxes of existence and consciousness, believing in miracles and the transcendent is no more absurd than any other worldview, especially one such as reductionist materialism.

>live action role playing
>on the internet

I have asked, but there wasn't a reply.

But Christianity created modern society which then degenerated into hedonism. Islam didn't degenerate, it's still here strong and healthy seemingly able to swallow Christianity just by being next to it.

>With all that said, I will still say that none of us alive today can either confirm nor deny that Christ did in fact preform these miracles.

wow its almost like I addressed your point I knew someone was going to try and make

There is just a void I suppose where my soul should be. Honestly I feel this way. Maybe I've damaged my brain somehow and cannot believe in something that so many tell me is very obviously real.

>If people don't believe there isn't some divine punishment for their immoral behaviour they degenerate into hedonists.

Even today as a Christian I don't care about any sort of divine punishment. It's not what motivated me throughout the day. I don't try to act good because of heaven or hell, that's child's morality. I try to act good because I recognize that there's an objective moral standard, that because some actions are better than others this implies that there's an abstract perfect way that we could act, and I want to meet that standard. This is what's lost when a society becomes secular. They lose this idea that we ought to act a certain way.

that's to be expected. it's like trying to get a peek of the thing you're supposed to know while you still don't know it. of course you can't get a meaningful peek of it, because if you could, then you would know it already. of course, wanting to know is the first step otherwise you'll never start.

Islam hasn't degenerated?

Ur a heretic m8

It sustains and perpetuates itself just fine.

Culturally Islam is descended into barbarism.

>Even today as a Christian I don't care about any sort of divine punishment.

you probably should at least realize that metaphysics exist

>I don't try to act good because of heaven or hell, that's child's morality.

> I try to act good because I recognize that there's an objective moral standard, that because some actions are better than others this implies that there's an abstract perfect way that we could act, and I want to meet that standard.

you went on to describe exactly what the morality of being good for the sake of fearing god is, he intends things to be the best they can be, but he is righteous

>substance = noumenon
>accident = appearance
back to the books, kid!

If you don't believe in both the messianicity and divinity of Jesus, you aren't a Christian even in a minimal sense.

Irrelevant, it descends now and will ascend later then descend back down and so on. What matters is it keeps growing.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP

notice how all the responses to your claim about a phenomenon denies the existence of that phenomenon? this is the Christian mind at work

What does metaphysics have to do with anything? I was describing what motivated me, or more specifically what doesn't motivate me, not what I believe actually exists. I'm not a child that needs the threat of punishment in order to act good. Christian morality is a little more complex than that so it's not useful or accurate to describe it that way.

>you guys don't actually believe that wine turns into blood and such, right?
Of course it doesn't. It never did. When Jesus demonstrated the communion, he was being metaphoric.
But if you're getting that mixed up with the part where he turned water into wine, then yes he also did that. That's why it's called a miraculous sign.

What phenomenon are you talking about?

user's incapacity for belief, of course

Smooth walks from young man across the street while the sun shines with moderate ferocity onto the big city without a name - yet. There the group of man walk and sing songs of love and revenge. They are idolizers of male violence and some of them have read the Iliad with great joy. Others are appreciators of the fine arts. Thir eyes are googly and stand out in intimidating ways. One would never excepect such a group to harmonize but this is what happened. 2 songs were sang and it all worked out. This was until it started raining very heavily. While the Man of Agon and Bloodshed growled in great joy the fine art-fans were wimpering and complaining aboiut getting a cold. Here a rift appeared and both sides were alienated. Only one man could unite them, maybe you know who but possibly not. It was jazzy Jesus smoking a pipe with tabacco in it . He rang his phone ironically and said: Yup it's me Jesus, yeah no issue, gonna do that yesterday - because i'm the son of god." and smirked into the round. Jesus said: This is no good that you would be separated by rain. Man with desire for combat and killingz the others are frail as fuck and overly sensitive. This is why the feel the cold more heavier than you do and are afraid for their health. While it sounds whimpersish and kind of lame-assy you should nt forget that this vulnerability and sensitivity is what makes them so good at being influenced by pieces of art or reality or nature or whatever. More gets through to them, their skin must be soft and kind of like e membran...." The man of strong will nodded with understanding and some felt ashamed. Then jesus talked to the whimpass loser poets and said: And you, you feel angry and jealous at the strong and brave, but you should not forget that through their exercise they carry many a burden on themself, that this superior physicality and resistance-level is based on hard and painful work and that they sacrifice many things for it. So why would you be jealous." The poets and watchers of paintings were far from convinced and walked away. Jesus was hurt but instead of showing it he just smiled, though the smile was a bit too static a bit too floundrish and convinced only himself and not even that (since he was the son of god). The athletes and fans of martial prose and lyrics surrounded him and hugged him and said: Jesus, we appreciate you very much. So don't be down. Jesus wept and said:Wow guys this is so nice. I feel s ogood now. And the embrace grew very intimate. There were soft moans when suddenly an ugly ass woman appeared and screamed ENOUGH IS ENOUGH YOU GOD DAMN STINKING BASTERDS MAN MAN MAN. What about Woman she said, now with a soft tone, feigning the necessity to cry and to be comforted. Jesus smirked, now back in form and assured of himself and told the woman: Why would i help you now since you behave like such a bitch in front of my friends. Just because itake care of some uys now doesn't mean i have any issues with woman. In fact i'm bisexu

That's a learned thing that must be worked at if you wish to be a Christian. It is like an incapacity to ride a bike, or the incapacity to tie one's shoes. That doesn't mean that the person can never tie his shoes or ride a bike. If you work at it, it can be done. If you put no effort into it you cannot.

DON'T YOU KNOW THAT MOST HUMAN BEINGS ARE CONSTITUTIVELY DAMNED?!

I mean, if you let it sit around long enough, it will probably become like blood in terms of microbial growth.

you did it again, you can't even entertain the thought

Well yeah, if somebody claims they can never believe something then logically it means that they're not open to changing their mind. If I am completely unwilling to believe that 2+2=4 then no amount of explanation or teaching from you could ever change my mind. There wouldn't even be any point in trying because I've already decided the issue. 2+2 will never equal 4. I'm incapable of believing it will equal 4.

It's entirely up to me to open my mind to the possibility that 2+2-4 before anyone could ever teach me.

If you insist that you cannot believe, then you cannot be a Christian. The original post was an user that wanted to be a Christian but couldn't believe. Belief in Christ as the Lord and Savior is one of the bare minimums requirements of joining the faith.

>if somebody claims they can never believe something then logically it means that they're not open to changing their mind
that's not how logic works

you did it again -- I am talking about someone that cannot believe, not someone that only insists they can't

Explain.

1. If somebody claims they can never change their mind in regards to a specific belief
2. They're not open to changing their mind in regards to that belief

"That's pride and vanity talking, not leadership" -Deuteronomy 3:16

define belief

Show me how you get from "somebody claims they can never change their mind in regards to a specific belief" to "they're not open to changing their mind in regards to that belief" without any deductive gaps.

If the step is merely "self-evident," you haven't used logic.

suck a dick, pedant

so you just take your point of view to be axiomatically correct, got it

yeah i don't know about this whole religion deal guys. It seems to me to be a big feign, a grander ruse of great potential to fool and delude. First of: Why all this bullshit. If there was god why is he so inefficient and obsessed with great gestures. I just can't buy it. Listen, two days ago i visited Lake Mao in southern Michigan and there i met a little girl, very cute, very nice, and she was all alone and i said: Hey there sweetheart what are you doing here and she responded with glitter in her eyes and teeth in her mouth: Well sir i'm just walking through the sand around this area, being busy with being a child and having some serious geniine fun at the moment. Why do you ask?" From the way she talked i figured she was 4 years old. I shouted loudly: Noothing particular i just saw you here alone and thought maye you lost your parents or something, or maybe you were running away i don't know. I guess it was stupid to ask sorry." I felt really embarrassed and walked backwards saying "oh oh" my figure moved away from the girl and i was saying constantly stuff like "god damn it no" or "np... no... no.." while doing pantomime hand movements . After a couple of kilometres i felt freed and sat down next do a dwarf with a long beard on his face. The hair was crude and not white and the beard looked nice. It fit the personality of the dwarf i would find out. It was longish and the dwarf spoke in long sentences. It aaaalll lined up. We talked about Sand and Planes but soon ran out of topics. The dwarf had this habit of walking around me in circles while staring autistically at the ground. I didn't say anything but i was thinking: My god, how lame, how terribly lame that you need to sublimate all of your shit. The dwarf was kind of succesful since he managed to get his revenge. Revenge for what would be a suitable question but this is a long story. I will make it short: 3 years ago we met on a shipyard in North Europe. The city was named. I was eating donots when suddeny a thin piece of paper flew across the sky and made saltos and whirlpools and also shot at terrorist bases in bushes and also it fell asleep once snoring loudly in the middle of a sidewalk and people were saying then, their hearts black and their minds castrated, they said: LooHow disrespectful or my god why or what did he mean by this. Indeed it was a fair question, what did this paper plane mean by this and when i asked this it tunred out it was just a letter that was folded into a paper plane and contained the secrets of the entire Illuminati lodge. I felt disappointed and threw it into the sea but what i did not realize to my utomost shame and loss of honour was that this dwarf was swimming ht he sea and the paper plane i threw hit him so heavily in the eye that the guy lost it. I was a bit cowardly i must admit , i simply ran away. But ALL OF THIS IS NOT THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE. I just wanted to say this whole Win and Bread story is bonkers and illegal and devoid of any deeper s

>so you just take your point of view to be axiomatically correct, got it
You have yet to prove your claim that an "inability to believe" is anything other than stubbornness. You're only argument is that it is true because you said so.

The conclusion follows from the premise. You're supposed to be teaching me logic here. It's a conditional statement: IF somebody is unwilling to change their belief in regards to a specific belief THEN they're not open to changing their position on that belief. You said this isn't how logic works and I'd like you to explain. I don't believe you can because for some reason you believe that assumption can't be made with logic which is ridiculous.

Actually I shouldn't even be responding to you because I know this is going to get real stupid real quick.

I am not trying to prove anything. I'm pointing out that you take inability to believe to be an impossibility with no argumentative or evidentiary support, and can't help yourself from skewing it as stubbornness.

It was a hyperbole, you mega autist.

>If the step is merely "self-evident," you haven't used logic.

Is that right? I guess we can't assume that tomorrow is going to exist or that the past is real anymore.

Why should I believe the conditional is true? Why can't someone make that claim while being open? The argument isn't sound unless the conditional is true.

If you think the conditional is just a priori true, I can tell you that it doesn't look that way to me. Why can't someone make that claim but be incorrect and actually be open to changing their mind (shown, perhaps, by their eventually actually changing their mind). Why can't the claim be correct and nevertheless they are open to changing their mind -- whatever that amounts to -- but are actually incapable of ever making the change that they are open to?

someone could be unwilling to change their belief that the stock market wouldn't crash, and yet if it crashed, they'd have to face the belief that it did. that's why i asked you to define your terms. what do you mean by "willing" or "belief"? you're interpreting it from the outset as a "logical incapacity to change one's mind" which is not psychologically possible.

a contingent truth is not the kind that logic can prove
also read Hume

Well for one, that's what the poster said. But the beauty of logic is that don't actually have to believe the conditional is actually true for a statement to be logical. If the conclusion is true, then the conclusion follows. IF is important. You have no no clue how logic works and you act like you know something.

You're talking to a couple different people so I have no idea what you're talking about. This is so not that important and you're treating it like its academic paper. I'm not saying he's actually totally incapable of changing his mind, this is stupid.

I didn't say logic could prove it. I'm saying you have to make assumptions at some level to make logic work.

Logic is ultimately founded on what we cannot prove. Get used to it, kiddo.

That's what I'm saying. How do you read what I wrote and not get this? I've had enough of this place.

yes, I believe.

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirite and life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Yes, read Dick's The Three Stigmata.

if the conclusion isn't true then the logic may be valid but it won't be sound so it's fucking useless for our purposes. it's like you just learned about syllogisms and try to btfo anyone with logic 101 while ignoring that someone in good faith won't throw around empty valid logical forms because they want to talk about god.

>he used the world "believe" again
lol
tell me what you think "believe" means

*if the premises aren't true

Truth isn't rational. Reason is a tool, and nothing more.

fpbp

Counterpoint: pic related.

>So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

I literally LARPed my way to Church 2 weeks ago because I can't cope with death. I am atheist to the core. I am weak.

Sort yourself out.