Educate Yourself thread

Elipe

Kingfisher
What is the Catholic and Orthodox position on home churches? That is, a congregation that meets in someone's private housing or even, if the need arose, catacombs. Is it not written that where two or three gather in the name of Jesus Christ, that He will be present?
 

Psalm27

Woodpecker
Gold Member
If you want people to become educated on any topic, don't tell them to watch videos, tell them to read books. Entertainment is not education - and no matter how many facts and how much information a video contains, it is still, and can only ever be, entertainment.
Information can be disseminated in text, audio and/or video format. Personally I enjoy video and audio more than text format. As for reading materials, I would recommend the KJV Bible.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Information can be disseminated in text, audio and/or video format. Personally I enjoy video and audio more than text format. As for reading materials, I would recommend the KJV Bible.

Yes, it can, but not in the same way. Or would you say that strictly oral cultures are the same as written cultures? They are not, obviously, because different mediums have different implications and biases. The same for a culture (like the industrial one, our own), which is focused on the audiovisual. If you need studies they are easy to find, and they all reach the same conclusion: watching a video is a passive activity, it dulls the mind, you are not learning, really, you are being entertained. Audiovisual does not lend itself to examination, thought or even retaining of information.

Besides this there is another problem with 'documentaries' (which purport to be substitutes for books): the combination of music and video is very powerful and a good filmmaker can manipulate anyone to believe anything. And this is because the medium lends itself to this. You're not supposed to pause a documentary to think about what was just presented, the same way you pause your reading. You don't underline important points. You don't make notes. You don't revisit specific passages.

The faculties engaged in reading a book, in arguing with the text, cannot be compared with the passive acceptance that the audiovisual mix lends itself to. A book is exposition, which is sequential and rational, and what it requires of the reader is not only attention, but dialogue with the meaning. Audiovisual does neither of these. The combination of images and music engages you emotionally, even when words are being spoken they are not the driver, and your attention is divided three ways and there is no need for rational sequential language because the disconnectedness of the words can be masked by the music and the images - which is exactly what happens in documentaries.

Audiovisual presentation can only be informative entertainment at best. If you want to learn something deeply, you have to read (and write about what you have read). This is why schools are churning out people ever more incapable of keeping a coherent discourse - they are now completely entranced by audiovisual mediums. No one reads or writes anymore (other than tweets, of course).
 
Quite noticeable here and educational. I see something, it has shown itself, there is no doubt. As a forum for Christian men, everyone seems to respect each others view and choice of church, Protestants, Baptists, Orthodox, all seem to get along well, There is one that throughout the forum does not wish to get along, the Catholic. Why is this? Why must they continuously insist that they alone are the ONE TRUE FAITH/CHURCH? Are they in truth all that I have ever been told? The anti-christ, the whore of babyon, the pagan scourge of mankind? Unless you bow down and subject yourself to the man who has usurped Christ's throne and titles you are not a real Christian. Why can everyone else just get along and respect each other but the Catholic cannot?

I know that this is not all Catholics since I have known many but I have often wondered my whole life why the Catholic church was hated. I wonder no more. Thank you all for the education, I will forever be wary of my head, or even of the stake, since it is still on the books that we are all heretics in the eyes of the Catholic church.

It is very shameful.
 

Psalm27

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Yes, it can, but not in the same way. Or would you say that strictly oral cultures are the same as written cultures? They are not, obviously, because different mediums have different implications and biases. The same for a culture (like the industrial one, our own), which is focused on the audiovisual. If you need studies they are easy to find, and they all reach the same conclusion: watching a video is a passive activity, it dulls the mind, you are not learning, really, you are being entertained. Audiovisual does not lend itself to examination, thought or even retaining of information.

Besides this there is another problem with 'documentaries' (which purport to be substitutes for books): the combination of music and video is very powerful and a good filmmaker can manipulate anyone to believe anything. And this is because the medium lends itself to this. You're not supposed to pause a documentary to think about what was just presented, the same way you pause your reading. You don't underline important points. You don't make notes. You don't revisit specific passages.

The faculties engaged in reading a book, in arguing with the text, cannot be compared with the passive acceptance that the audiovisual mix lends itself to. A book is exposition, which is sequential and rational, and what it requires of the reader is not only attention, but dialogue with the meaning. Audiovisual does neither of these. The combination of images and music engages you emotionally, even when words are being spoken they are not the driver, and your attention is divided three ways and there is no need for rational sequential language because the disconnectedness of the words can be masked by the music and the images - which is exactly what happens in documentaries.

Audiovisual presentation can only be informative entertainment at best. If you want to learn something deeply, you have to read (and write about what you have read). This is why schools are churning out people ever more incapable of keeping a coherent discourse - they are now completely entranced by audiovisual mediums. No one reads or writes anymore (other than tweets, of course).
You make some good points I have to admit. But even the written word can be deceptive. In my country, Finland, reading is very popular. Finns tend to be high IQ, scored high in PISA tests and read a lot of books. Still, this country leans far to the left, they voted in the first leftist feminist government in the last elections. A well read high IQ population doesn't guarantee good results. In fact if they read much leftist literature, the results can be quite horrific.

I have learned a lot from the audiovisual medium. With digital technology and sites like YouTube, you can easily rewind and rewatch different parts of a video, and make notes. Even the Bible was mostly spread through word of mouth before the printing press arrived in the 1400s. I would say the audiovisual medium has improved, and it can serve as a good source of information. That said I should read more, no argument there.
 

Psalm27

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Pre-tribulation rapture (dispensationalism) is a false doctrine


The pre-tribulation rapture was popularized also through the Scofield Reference Bible. Many Christians will be fooled due to this, when the rapture doesn't come yet the tribulation and great deception begins.

Avoid modern Bible translations, they promote the New World Order agenda


Many modern Bible translations attempt to reduce the divinity of Jesus Christ, who is the true Son of God come in the flesh. Stick with the King James Bible.
For some reason the following videos were privated on the original channel, but I found reuploaded copies here:

Pre-tribulation rapture (dispensationalism) is a false doctrine

Avoid modern Bible translations, they promote the New World Order agenda
 

ilostabet

Pelican
You make some good points I have to admit. But even the written word can be deceptive. In my country, Finland, reading is very popular. Finns tend to be high IQ, scored high in PISA tests and read a lot of books. Still, this country leans far to the left, they voted in the first leftist feminist government in the last elections. A well read high IQ population doesn't guarantee good results. In fact if they read much leftist literature, the results can be quite horrific.

I have learned a lot from the audiovisual medium. With digital technology and sites like YouTube, you can easily rewind and rewatch different parts of a video, and make notes. Even the Bible was mostly spread through word of mouth before the printing press arrived in the 1400s. I would say the audiovisual medium has improved, and it can serve as a good source of information. That said I should read more, no argument there.


Look, I don't want to be rude, but I believe the topic of education is too important to just leave it at that. We even seem to agree that the industrial system is ultimately incompatible with the Christian life, and that is a pretty fringe belief even here, so clearly we have deep values that we share. But your reply is precisely the kind of non-sequitur argumentation that documentary-watching promotes in people's minds.

Of course the written word can be deceptive, that has nothing to do with what I was arguing, nor that reading makes people vote right wing or be smart. But it's not just that it can be deceptive, it can be of a non-instructional nature completely. I doubt that most people in Finland, even being avid readers, are reading Lewis Mumford or Jacques Ellul (to name people who explored the topic of the industrial system which we are both interested in and opposed to). Most likely they are reading Dan Brown or JK Rowling.

If all you read is bad fiction (or even good fiction), obviously it's not going to do a lot for you other than entertain - that is what it is meant to do, ultimately, just like hollywood movies. But we were specifically talking about learning, so we should exclude both fictional books and fictional movies from the discussion. But this is hard to do, and it kind of makes sense to confuse them. Why? Because video is really only good for story telling, it can only be narrative. So whereas a book can entertain, a video can not educate. You can learn something from a documentary, just as you can learn something from a fictional book. But it is not the same as an expositional and systematic written treatment of a topic. Not in the least. This is precisely one of the problems of our age: we can no longer understand that education is not necessarily entertaining, nor should it be. And consequently we now confuse entertainment and education.

Another problem in your argument was conflating lecture and documentary, as if they are the same thing. You wrote, as if to justify this, that 'the Bible was spread through word of mouth'. Well, first, yes and no. The Gospels were written down, but yes, it was also spread orally. Its passages were committed to memory by many people (before the advent of the printing press, and so much more of audiovisual, people could commit large amounts of words to memory - unlike now - after all that is what an oral culture is made of). But more importantly, word of mouth (lecture) is not the same at all as a documentary-type video, because learning isolated facts is not the same as learning what the rational implications of those facts are, and video presentation is not the same as rational discourse (I think it's pretty much its opposite). You can certainly learn from a documentary that the steam engine was invented in the 1st century AD, and that it was developed and applied fully for the first time in the 17th. But you can not rationally understand why, or explore the social, economic and political circumstances that led to both outcomes, unless you read and think about it. Documentaries always lend themselves to passive acceptance of facts; lecturing and, even more, expositional writing are supposed to make you think about what you are reading or listening to.

So while lectures can be "watched", they are mostly listened to, as your eyes are not engaged in moving pictures, neither are your ears distracted by musical accompaniment that drives your emotions to this or that conclusion, so that you are more receptive to certain points, or fail to examine rationally a certain proposition because sad violins make your heart melt. There is a reason why news shows always feature music, and especially when jumping from one story to another - they are musical bridges to compensate for the lack of a bridge of rational discourse. The two topics are unrelated, complete non-sequiturs, but your mind is tricked by the music into not even registering how pointless it is to hear about race riots and then the weather within the same 10 minutes. The same is true for documentaries.

Lastly regarding lectures: while they are certainly better from an educational point of view than documentaries, they are no substitute for books. Unlike books it's easy to divide your attention (how many people sit down to actually listen to a podcast or lecture? Instead, generally it accompanies some mundane task) - this I believe is because the audiovisual medium has destroyed our attention spans, so that no one can actually sit through a lecture anymore, 'turn off' their eyes and turn on their minds alone. Incidentally, and I find it equally as tragic, no one can just sit and listen to music anymore either. It's only ever 'background' noise for something else.

And the reason I am insisting on this is because almost if not all of the videos you shared to 'educate' people are documentary-type videos, they are not even lectures. So they are not education tools, but propaganda. It doesn't mean they are wrong, or that I don't agree with some or most of their propositions, but this is not what an education is. I think education is a serious business and severely lacking in our world - not schooling or information, but education. The fact most people cannot distinguish it from the other two is the exact proof that it is sorely missed.

There are many things that can, and should be, learned outside of books, or at least not through books alone - like how to chop wood or prepare a raised bad for gardening. But they can't properly be learned in documentary types of videos either. It has to be experiential. I say this because documentaries don't present themselves (or are not presented by other people) as substitutes for experiential learning, but instead as an alternative to books. And this is a very destructive idea.

And if this sounds elitist I'm sorry, but we have enough dumbing down and I don't think it does our side any good to be as dumbed down and uneducated as the general population. We should be elitist to a certain extent. Lack of hierarchy is one of our biggest problems - and audiovisual promotes precisely this lack of hierarchy. While you have to learn to read and increase in complexity as you learn, no one needs to learn how to watch documentaries, there are no remedial documentary watching classes and no learning curve between, say, Sesame Street or any of the videos you shared. Anyone who is willing to sit through hours of youtube videos but not willing to read at least one book on the subject is not really interested in educating himself, he just wants to be entertained and have, at most, a superficial understanding of the subject.
 
Last edited:

Psalm27

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Look, I don't want to be rude, but I believe the topic of education is too important to just leave it at that. We even seem to agree that the industrial system is ultimately incompatible with the Christian life, and that is a pretty fringe belief even here, so clearly we have deep values that we share. But your reply is precisely the kind of non-sequitur argumentation that documentary-watching promotes in people's minds.

Of course the written word can be deceptive, that has nothing to do with what I was arguing, nor that reading makes people vote right wing or be smart. But it's not just that it can be deceptive, it can be of a non-instructional nature completely. I doubt that most people in Finland, even being avid readers, are reading Lewis Mumford or Jacques Ellul (to name people who explored the topic of the industrial system which we are both interested in and opposed to). Most likely they are reading Dan Brown or JK Rowling.

If all you read is bad fiction (or even good fiction), obviously it's not going to do a lot for you other than entertain - that is what it is meant to do, ultimately, just like hollywood movies. But we were specifically talking about learning, so we should exclude both fictional books and fictional movies from the discussion. But this is hard to do, and it kind of makes sense to confuse them. Why? Because video is really only good for story telling, it can only be narrative. So whereas a book can entertain, a video can not educate. You can learn something from a documentary, just as you can learn something from a fictional book. But it is not the same as an expositional and systematic written treatment of a topic. Not in the least. This is precisely one of the problems of our age: we can no longer understand that education is not necessarily entertaining, nor should it be. And consequently we now confuse entertainment and education.

Another problem in your argument was conflating lecture and documentary, as if they are the same thing. You wrote, as if to justify this, that 'the Bible was spread through word of mouth'. Well, first, yes and no. The Gospels were written down, but yes, it was also spread orally. Its passages were committed to memory by many people (before the advent of the printing press, and so much more of audiovisual, people could commit large amounts of words to memory - unlike now - after all that is what an oral culture is made of). But more importantly, word of mouth (lecture) is not the same at all as a documentary-type video, because learning isolated facts is not the same as learning what the rational implications of those facts are, and video presentation is not the same as rational discourse (I think it's pretty much its opposite). You can certainly learn from a documentary that the steam engine was invented in the 1st century AD, and that it was developed and applied fully for the first time in the 17th. But you can not rationally understand why, or explore the social, economic and political circumstances that led to both outcomes, unless you read and think about it. Documentaries always lend themselves to passive acceptance of facts; lecturing and, even more, expositional writing are supposed to make you think about what you are reading or listening to.

So while lectures can be "watched", they are mostly listened to, as your eyes are not engaged in moving pictures, neither are your ears distracted by musical accompaniment that drives your emotions to this or that conclusion, so that you are more receptive to certain points, or fail to examine rationally a certain proposition because sad violins make your heart melt. There is a reason why news shows always feature music, and especially when jumping from one story to another - they are musical bridges to compensate for the lack of a bridge of rational discourse. The two topics are unrelated, complete non-sequiturs, but your mind is tricked by the music into not even registering how pointless it is to hear about race riots and then the weather within the same 10 minutes. The same is true for documentaries.

Lastly regarding lectures: while they are certainly better from an educational point of view than documentaries, they are no substitute for books. Unlike books it's easy to divide your attention (how many people sit down to actually listen to a podcast or lecture? Instead, generally it accompanies some mundane task) - this I believe is because the audiovisual medium has destroyed our attention spans, so that no one can actually sit through a lecture anymore, 'turn off' their eyes and turn on their minds alone. Incidentally, and I find it equally as tragic, no one can just sit and listen to music anymore either. It's only ever 'background' noise for something else.

And the reason I am insisting on this is because almost if not all of the videos you shared to 'educate' people are documentary-type videos, they are not even lectures. So they are not education tools, but propaganda. It doesn't mean they are wrong, or that I don't agree with some or most of their propositions, but this is not what an education is. I think education is a serious business and severely lacking in our world - not schooling or information, but education. The fact most people cannot distinguish it from the other two is the exact proof that it is sorely missed.

There are many things that can, and should be, learned outside of books, or at least not through books alone - like how to chop wood or prepare a raised bad for gardening. But they can't properly be learned in documentary types of videos either. It has to be experiential. I say this because documentaries don't present themselves (or are not presented by other people) as substitutes for experiential learning, but instead as an alternative to books. And this is a very destructive idea.

And if this sounds elitist I'm sorry, but we have enough dumbing down and I don't think it does our side any good to be as dumbed down and uneducated as the general population. We should be elitist to a certain extent. Lack of hierarchy is one of our biggest problems - and audiovisual promotes precisely this lack of hierarchy. While you have to learn to read and increase in complexity as you learn, no one needs to learn how to watch documentaries, there are no remedial documentary watching classes and no learning curve between, say, Sesame Street or any of the videos you shared. Anyone who is willing to sit through hours of youtube videos but not willing to read at least one book on the subject is not really interested in educating himself, he just wants to be entertained and have, at most, a superficial understanding of the subject.
Again, you make some good points but I have to disagree that videos cannot be educational. You just have to be mindful of emotional manipulation using music and what not, in documentaries in particular.

That said, why don't you contribute to the thread and recommend some good books to read regarding the subjects mentioned.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Again, you make some good points but I have to disagree that videos cannot be educational. You just have to be mindful of emotional manipulation using music and what not, in documentaries in particular.

That said, why don't you contribute to the thread and recommend some good books to read regarding the subjects mentioned.

Ok, here's some (most can be found online, or at least excerpts). These are the books that shaped my worldview.

Starting with Kaczynski since the first video is about his writings anyway:

- Technological Slavery (compilation - which, according to the author, contains the only correct version of his essay 'Industrial Society and Its Future', what he is most known for)

From Jacques Ellul:
- The Technological Society
- Propaganda
- The New Devils
- A Critique of the New Common Places
- The Meaning of the City
- Prayer and Modern Man
- The Presence of the Kingdom

From Neil Postman:
- Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Technopoly
- Teaching as a Conserving Activity
- The Disappearance of Childhood

Other authors:
- The Myth of the Machine - Vol 1 and 2 (Lewis Mumford)
- Rebels Against the Future (Kirkpatrick Sale)
- Orality and Literacy (Walter Ong)
- Orthodoxy (G. K. Chesterton)
- Mere Christianity (C. S. Lewis)
- Genesis, Creation and Early Man (Fr. Seraphim Rose)
- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Richard Milton)
- Human Action (Ludwig von Mises)
- Theory and History (Ludwig von Mises)
- Democracy: The God that Failed (Hans Hermann Hoppe)
- Capital (Marx)
- The Age of Faith (Will Durant)
- Giving Up the Gun (Noel Perrin)

Lastly, the 'apocryphal books' that were removed from protestant Bibles (so late that you can find KJV version of these books) and real apocrypha such as the Book of Enoch (early Hebrew) or the Book of Adam and Eve (early Christian). I would suggest the writings of the Church Fathers, but they are massive, I only started reading them fairly recently and haven't finished any if I'm being honest (a lot to process). But the commentary of the Orthodox Study Bible is based on them, so I suggest reading that commentary.

The problem with giving lists like this is that it doesn't fulfill any immediate thirst for information, which I suppose is what most people want. These books contain information, but more importantly they contain wisdom and they require effort to argue against them (that's why you'll find in the list both Marx and Mises, which are at opposite ends of economics - they both have valuable insights). It took me more than a decade to read all of this and some I have to revisit, because it is a lot to digest. Unlike documentaries, it doesn't have the 'fast food' appeal. Which is exactly why they are infinitely more valuable.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
There is a reason why news shows always feature music, and especially when jumping from one story to another - they are musical bridges to compensate for the lack of a bridge of rational discourse. The two topics are unrelated, complete non-sequiturs, but your mind is tricked by the music into not even registering how pointless it is to hear about race riots and then the weather within the same 10 minutes. The same is true for documentaries.

It's interesting to compare with how things would have happened in a normal conversation between two people who know each other. In such a situation, each interlocutor spontaneously adjusts to the other's train of thought. There may be changes of subject, but the change will happen in a natural way, and there will be for example short periods of silence.

In his texts on the Press, Hilaire Belloc had already noticed that in printed newspapers too much and too disconnected information is presented to the reader. It all works too unnaturally fast.

As it often happens, reality is pretty much the opposite of what propaganda claims - modern communication channels do not improve communication, in fact they often lower it, but they are excellent tools in a totalitarian surveillance state.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
It's interesting to compare with how things would have happened in a normal conversation between two people who know each other. In such a situation, each interlocutor spontaneously adjusts to the other's train of thought. There may be changes of subject, but the change will happen in a natural way, and there will be for example short periods of silence.

In his texts on the Press, Hilaire Belloc had already noticed that in printed newspapers too much and too disconnected information is presented to the reader. It all works too unnaturally fast.

As it often happens, reality is pretty much the opposite of what propaganda claims - modern communication channels do not improve communication, in fact they often lower it, but they are excellent tools in a totalitarian surveillance state.

Indeed. And incidentally, this reminded me that I forgot to add one book to the list from Belloc: The Servile State.
 

Psalm27

Woodpecker
Gold Member
This thread has a misleading title. You guys need to look up 'The God Delusion'.

There are other ways to clear your conscience that don't involve handing your life over to 'God'.
You need to look up the Atheist Delusion. Ilostabet is going to hate this but here are a few other videos that might be of interest.


 

Psalm27

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Ok, here's some (most can be found online, or at least excerpts). These are the books that shaped my worldview.

Starting with Kaczynski since the first video is about his writings anyway:

- Technological Slavery (compilation - which, according to the author, contains the only correct version of his essay 'Industrial Society and Its Future', what he is most known for)

From Jacques Ellul:
- The Technological Society
- Propaganda
- The New Devils
- A Critique of the New Common Places
- The Meaning of the City
- Prayer and Modern Man
- The Presence of the Kingdom

From Neil Postman:
- Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Technopoly
- Teaching as a Conserving Activity
- The Disappearance of Childhood

Other authors:
- The Myth of the Machine - Vol 1 and 2 (Lewis Mumford)
- Rebels Against the Future (Kirkpatrick Sale)
- Orality and Literacy (Walter Ong)
- Orthodoxy (G. K. Chesterton)
- Mere Christianity (C. S. Lewis)
- Genesis, Creation and Early Man (Fr. Seraphim Rose)
- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Richard Milton)
- Human Action (Ludwig von Mises)
- Theory and History (Ludwig von Mises)
- Democracy: The God that Failed (Hans Hermann Hoppe)
- Capital (Marx)
- The Age of Faith (Will Durant)
- Giving Up the Gun (Noel Perrin)

Lastly, the 'apocryphal books' that were removed from protestant Bibles (so late that you can find KJV version of these books) and real apocrypha such as the Book of Enoch (early Hebrew) or the Book of Adam and Eve (early Christian). I would suggest the writings of the Church Fathers, but they are massive, I only started reading them fairly recently and haven't finished any if I'm being honest (a lot to process). But the commentary of the Orthodox Study Bible is based on them, so I suggest reading that commentary.

The problem with giving lists like this is that it doesn't fulfill any immediate thirst for information, which I suppose is what most people want. These books contain information, but more importantly they contain wisdom and they require effort to argue against them (that's why you'll find in the list both Marx and Mises, which are at opposite ends of economics - they both have valuable insights). It took me more than a decade to read all of this and some I have to revisit, because it is a lot to digest. Unlike documentaries, it doesn't have the 'fast food' appeal. Which is exactly why they are infinitely more valuable.
Thanks for the recommendations! I am actually quite interested in the Book of Enoch.
 
What is the Catholic and Orthodox position on home churches? That is, a congregation that meets in someone's private housing or even, if the need arose, catacombs. Is it not written that where two or three gather in the name of Jesus Christ, that He will be present?

Orthodox call the family the "little church" and families pray together at home each morning and evening. And a lot of our parishes started out as home churches before they had enough money for a church building. And catacomb churches have been a part of our history from the very beginning, all the way up to modern persecutions like in the USSR.
 
Quite noticeable here and educational. I see something, it has shown itself, there is no doubt. As a forum for Christian men, everyone seems to respect each others view and choice of church, Protestants, Baptists, Orthodox, all seem to get along well, There is one that throughout the forum does not wish to get along, the Catholic.

A lot of our helpful contributors are Roman Catholic.

Why is this? Why must they continuously insist that they alone are the ONE TRUE FAITH/CHURCH?... I will forever be wary of my head, or even of the stake, since it is still on the books that we are all heretics in the eyes of the Catholic church.

Are you suggesting that it's a problem that the Roman Catholics think there is a true faith, and that we should instead assume various conflicting doctrines are all true? I think Roman Catholics teach certain things that are not correct, but their belief that objective truth exists would hardly go on that list.

On this forum, I've seen Christians denying the virgin birth, not to mention the smorgasbord of bad ideas that exist among Christians outside of the forum. To suggest that there is no true faith, or that if there is one there's no way to find it, doesn't exactly look like a sales pitch for Christianity.

Are they in truth all that I have ever been told? The anti-christ, the whore of babyon, the pagan scourge of mankind?

No, they are not.
 

ICXC

Sparrow
He is talking spiritually here. The flesh and blood of Jesus Christ is the Word of God, the Bible, the scriptures. Also you are not actually eating God's physical flesh and drinking His physical blood when consuming the Eucharist, it is a symbolic ritual in rememberance of Christ and what He did.

That is part of the pagan influences in the Catholic/Orthodox church. Pagans always need visible symbols (idols, statues etc) and need to do physical things. They don't have as much faith in that which is unseen.

Sigh ... there is so much evidence against what you are saying it's mind numbing. No, He's not talking 'spiritually', it's talking literally, it is the literal Word, it is literally His body, and His blood.

And yes I do communion almost every sunday. We eat unlevened bread and drink wine in rememberance of Christ, and yes I would say it does boost my faith to do so. Nothing wrong with it at all but I do not think I am literally consuming the physical flesh and blood of Christ.

You are correct here, YOU'RE not eatting eat His flesh because you clearly are NOT Catholic, and thus you are simply receiving a piece of bread from John Doe, whoever your 'pastor' is doesn't have the Holy Spirit; whoever he is is not in communion with the Catholic Church, thus anything you eat is not Christ anyways, so you are correct there, you definitly are not partaking of the Lord.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Lol, it's been almost a decade since I seriously saw anyone trot out Richard Dawkins as some sort of champion of rational thought. Dawkins might know his stuff when it comes to biology, but his ignorance of philosophy and religion is astounding.

Christian scholar William Lane Craig memorably invited him to a debate in Oxford in 2011, which Dawkins avoided because he knew he'd get his rear handed to him. Craig proceeded it give a lecture dismantling Dawkins' arguments against God, which you can watch below.

 
Top