1833 - "A discourse against transubstantiation", by J. Tillotson, the Archbishop of Canterbury, available on Google Books.
What is an infidelator like me to make of these arguments?
What is an infidelator like me to make of these arguments?
...every man hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false, as he hath that the Christian Religion is true.and
...the main evidence of the Christian Doctrine...is miracles { To Tillotson, miracles are supernatural effects that are evident to the senses. Transubstantiation is not evident to the senses, so even if it happens supernaturally, it is not a miracle. }Tillotson had two main headings in his arguments against transubstantiation. The first heading is doctrinal - what is the scriptural and the historical support for this idea? The second is about the objections to this idea. The very first of the arguments in the second heading is that transubstantiation invites scorn and ridicule on the Christian Religion. What do the above two quoted arguments do?
Logging you in...
dwc · 577 weeks ago
The funny thing is that Hindu morons have taken over these theological debates within Christianity, and repackage them as defenses for some or another thing.
macgupta 81p · 577 weeks ago
dwc · 577 weeks ago
1. A, T and M are superstitious: modern atheist
2. A and T are supersitious, but M is not: Tillotson and other Protestans
3. A is superstitious, T and M are not: Catholics
4. A, T and M are not superstious, or pepole are just indifferent to them: heathens
5. A is superstitious, T and M may not be superstious at all: Western agnostic
The remaining three possibilities are not entertained by any westerner of whatever breed. What can make of this? This is the theorem we can enterain then: if A is not superstitious, T or M can't be superstitious. This tells us a story: if you perch all practices on the ladder, the pratices of heathens fall at the bottom.
ttt · 576 weeks ago