If Jesus can turn water into wine, but wine is still mostly made of water, can Jesus apply his powers recursively and create more and more concentrated wine?

HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world – 526 points –
143

Water + Jesus = Wine

Wine + Jesus = Brandy

Brandy + Jesus = Twice-distilled Brandy? Cooking sherry? Idk

I choose to believe at this point, Jesus got so drunk he forgot to try it a third time.

Is this really the blood of Christ? Man that guy must have been wasted 24/7

He's 30 years old, still lived with his parents, and spent all day hanging out with his twelve dude bros in a time before XBox existed.

Of course he was fucking hammered all day.

Yes. The power to do literally anything would allow one to do this.

Can he create a stone that is not liftable and then proceed to lift it?

Unironically the question by witch many Christian faiths differ: does God needs abide to the rules of logic or not?

For the Roman Catholic, yes, for Calvinists and a bunch other (ok, many other but I'm not an expert), no.

Answer: whatever causes the person you're arguing with to throw their hands up and storm off more exasperated..

No, not really, it's mostly a matter of power.

The Church itself is rooted in the idea that there are autorities on matter of faith and they adopted the Platonical Agostinean idea that faith is empowered by reason. Reason being a valid tool means you have experts that reasoned a lot about religion and people that know less and needs to be taught, ultimately by the Pope.

The "other" side tends to reject authorities, and take the words of the bible as sobjected to personal interpretation or, to an extent, make it into some sort of magical object that the faithfull subjects itself to, without questions. Accepting the contradictions, the illogal parts, are what that kind of faith is about because to question (throught reasoning) God is a Sin.

Ah theologians. When we invented agriculture so that not everyone had to work on gathering food, this enabled some of us to specialize in advanced skills. But theology, wow. What a waste of time. Get those dudes out in the fields.

There's a reason the French beheaded the clergy alongside the nobility.

Back in the days they were just philosophers aka scientists.

“aka scientists?”

Not sure what that means.

Also known as scientists.

I can understand calling theologians philosophers but being a philosopher does not make you a scientist.

Nothing "makes" you anything. Questioning and exploring existence can look very different in different ages.

Calvanists the ones that say since god is all powerful there can be no free will/everything is decided don’t apply logic?

That's the one, funnily enough in a perverted twist, they tend to see wealth as a sign that God has picked them as favourites (graced them) and they storically gravitated toward seeing poor people as, well, sinners, even thought their principles state that anyone could be graced or not no matter the more evident aspects of life.

This isn't Calvinism. This is prosperity theology, which is it's own thing.

The easiest answer to this is yes, he could create a stone he couldn't lift. And then he could lift it anyway.

Actually the easiest answer is "no" because it doesn't require cognitive dissonance.

There's no cognitive dissonance in negating a false negative

What false negative? If he can lift it then he didn't create a stone he can't lift. Can he make one plus one equal anything other than two?

I interpreted this as "having the basic ability to take as actions would allow you to do this", which is also true, I can ferment wine and then gradually make it more concentrated

"And on the third day, there was a wedding in Cana. Jesus' mother was there. When the wine was drunk, Jesus' mother said to him, 'We're out of wine.' 'Bruh... That's a big yikes. But why do I care?', replied Jesus.

Jesus mother instructed the servants, 'you just do whatever he tells you no matter how stupid it sounds.' Jesus sighed and turned to the servants saying, ' Okay. You see those jars? Nope. Not that one. The big ones. Yeah. Those big ones over there. Go fill them up with water. All the way up. Then take some of the water and give it to the host."

The servants were more than a little skeptical but shrugged and did as they were told. When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had become wine. And the host exclaimed, "Damn! That is some good shit. Where did you get that from?" And the servants were amazed because they knew from where the wine came.

And the servants implored Jesus, 'Do it again! No, wait. Can you make something stronger this time?"

-- The Gospel According to [Skibidi] John

Is this that gen z bible paraphrase

Wine was originally an acronym for "Wine Is Not an Emulator", so I'd say it's a possibility.

I have a chatGPT idea... edit: yea you can make it loop forever lol

What was your prompt?

I asked it to write out the Wine acronym but for each time wine is written out you would need to express the acronym inside the acronym.

You can also ask it to repeat the letter A one million times. For reasons I don't understand, it will say "A A A..." for a while before hitting some sort of repetition limit and then it starts speaking gibberish.

Yes? He's literally God and created the world. Doing other things as well like multiplying loaves and rising from the dead. I think He could make wine more and more concentrated, lol

I've always found it amusing when people try to use logic to state that Jesus did this and this and it isn't logical or God isn't logical.

Who's saying God isn't logical?

Well, not to get into a theological debate here but there are many logical inconsistencies and paradoxes with religion in general.

Stuff like the "can God create a stone so large that he cannot lift it"; or just seeing all the suffering in the world and trying to justify why a benevolent, all seeing, all knowing, omnipotent being would allow kids to get cancer - either god is not capable to fix it or doesn't care, neither of which is a great outcome.

Just applying Occam's Razor in general makes religion pretty far fetched, especially the more hardline old testament you go: God creating the earth, Noah and the flood, etc. There is just a much simpler explanation to all of it.

I mean no offence to religious people in general, in fact I think religion can be very useful for some to find a purpose or belonging in their lives. I just find the cognitive dissonance of religion impossible to reconcile with reality.

I think the Problem of Evil actually makes sense when you consider eternity and infinity. The infinity that God is and Eternity that Heaven is, earthly sufferings really will be seen to be nothing. You probably don't worry about that exam anymore that you were studying for as a kid. As for the boulder thing, you may as well say maths is illogical as "can you make something greater than infinity" while infinity + 1 is equal to infinity.

As for Occam's razor- how does it explain the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? There's not really a simple explanation to why 2000 years ago, a lot of guys simultaneously told of the same dude who rose from the dead, then lived a life of suffering and no gain and end up dying because they wouldn't claim to be wrong. Along with hundreds of these early Christians turning into thousands. Something big did happen - we count our years by it. It's as if God actually did enter earth as a human.

Let me start with the calendar because I actually had to look up the history of calendars (which was super interesting). The first person to use A.D. was a monk called Dionysius who used it around 525. In the Roman empire years were counted by the year of the current reigning Consul. Dionysius wanted to avoid using the calendar based on Roman emperor Diocletian who widely persecuted christians. This new system was adopted by the church only.

Centering the calendar around nativity of Jesus was only adopted as an official calendar by Holy Roman emperor Charlemagne in around 1600, and the rest of the world changed over to it over time until around 1900.

So the people actually living in 1 A.D. had no idea they were living in the year of the lord.

As far as I know we only really know that Jesus was a real man in the Herodian Kingdom at the time and that he was in fact crucified around 33 A.D. (which would not have been called A.D. at the time). Weather we believe he was truly resurrected is more of a question of faith, relying on religious sources. So basically applying Occam's razor I would say that the resurrection was just part of the religious texts written by monks, not necessarily something that was 100% true.

In maths there are definitely larger and smaller infinities. Take for example the set of all natural numbers [1, 2, 3, ...]. This is an infinite set. Compare this to the set of rational numbers, these can be expressed as a fraction of two natural numbers [1/1, 1/2, 1/3, ...]. There is already an infinite amount of rational numbers between 1 and 2, making this an uncountably larger infinite set. All this being said, the boulder thing always sounded a bit weird to me but it does raise the question of what we mean by omnipotence, and can we accept the existance of such a being, all of this gets very philosophical. (the paradox has several proposed resolutions if you are interested btw, some more satisfying than others)

Which brings us back to the problem of evil. Let's say our lives on Earth are just a test to see if we are accepted in heaven. This explains why bad things happen as they are a test of faith. But this just raises more questions:

Why does it take God our entire lives to decide whether we are accepted? What about babies that die during birth or shortly after? How can they prove their faith?

Anyway, this got way too long. I'd like to reiterate that I think religion has very positive aspects: community, belonging, purpose, an answer to what happens after death.

But I'd also say that historically, religion (especially Christianity) was a tool to keep the masses docile and subdued, allowing the church to hold power over hundreds of years but also kept believers somewhat safe, at lest from their own community - commandments like do not kill, steal, or even Jewish customs of not eating specific types of meat. If they had to make up, or embellish things to keep it going, that was a price they were willing to pay.

Sorry for being pedantic, but the set of rational numbers has the same cardinality (size) as the set of natural numbers, so it’s not “uncountably larger” (in fact, it’s countable). You should’ve chosen the real numbers for your example, which are uncountable.

Very interesting and balanced response.

I think we choose to believe logic(maths,physics) based on some form of faith, it's more scientific and based on peer reviews but ultimately there are times when some of this logic starts to break down e.g when you start looking at quantum and all the interesting things that can happen in theoretical physics with multiverse theory.

As far fetched as it can seem, I don't think we can totally count out some form of mysticism or higher power. What I would say is that the current versions we have been given are all man made so by nature they have all been manipulated in some way e.g crusades or more currently, the conflict in the middle east.

Some people are afraid of the answer being as simple as "we don't actually know" so they find the closest thing they can stick with to give them purpose.

Why does it take God our entire lives to decide whether we are accepted? What about babies that die during birth or shortly after? How can they prove their faith?

Simple. Mercy. If we screwed up, then God would destroy us immediately. If God were to just stop evil happening on Earth, he'd have to kill everyone at the first moment that they sin. Either that or take away free will.

I would say that the resurrection was just part of the religious texts written by monks, not necessarily something that was 100% true.

Biblical scholars would disagree. The earliest text that we have that mentions the resurrection was written by AD 51.

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming.

Again, it's worth mentioning that immediate writings were VERY RARE then. The entire Gospel of Mark would have cost the same as a house for a scribe to copy. Which is why we don't have many writings from that time.

Sorry, but Biblical scholars' proof of the resurrection is from the Bible? You see how that's not convincing right?

God created sin and hell, it didn't need to do that. After three decades as a Christian, the best answer I could get to the question "Why did God make the universe and us in it?" was "so we could praise it for eternity in heaven." So it could have just created us in heaven already. Instead it created a whole universe of randomness and ever-increasing chaos, stuck us in it and said, "You better love me and follow these very specific, often inane and arbitrary rules, or I'll send you to this other place I made where all you feel is pain for eternity." The god of the Bible is an egomaniacal sadist and it's not worthy of your praise.

That's like saying our proof for Caesar is Caesar's writing. Now if I said Caesar's writings were true because he said so, that would be circular reasoning. But no, they are backed up by history. In the same way, the Bible can prove Christianity, but circular reasoning is when I try and use the Bible to prove itself because it says it's true. Although proof can lie within such as criteria of embarrassment, but mainly it's to how it relates to what else we know about that time, which is how it lines up. Unlike, for example, the book of mormon which is completely verifiably fake as it talks about systems in an ancient america which we know didn't exist

I'm taking that as tacit agreement that your god is an egomaniacal sadist but you don't mind cuz it's old, just fyi

But the moral code of the Bible is strict and unchangeable. Yet you yourself believe morality is relative. Why then are you content letting this being you admit has no capability for relativistic perspective judge our eternal souls based on said unchangeable moral code? Seems pretty illogical.

When did I say morality is relative?

I think the Problem of Evil actually makes sense when you consider eternity and infinity. The infinity that God is and Eternity that Heaven is, earthly sufferings really will be seen to be nothing. You probably don't worry about that exam anymore that you were studying for as a kid.

That's moral relativism to a T. The evil perpetrated by God on humans via unnecessary pain, disease, and death is relatively moral given the vastness of eternity. Basically you're saying it's ok for a god to create little playthings to torture because it lives a long time. I disagree.

Evil isn't perpetuated by God, though. Evil is perpetuated by us.

Perpetuate - "make something continue indefinitely"

So we perpetuate it, but who created it? Who made us with the ability to perpetuate evil? Who decided what is and isn't evil? Why do you only give god credit for the good stuff when you believe it made everything in the universe? You have to count the bad stuff too or it's not really god.

Yeah, don't worry about kids dying of cancer. They're irrelevant in the vastness that is god.

I wonder, tho. Which one do you mostly lean towards. Are kids dying to punish someone or are they dying to test the parents? Or is there a third, more important reason we mortals can't comprehend? Or is it just about having faith that it's his will?

I can go on a killing spree tomorrow and feel good about myself because that was god's will, right? He allowed it to happen, right?

We've either got free will in which case there's no "god's will" or, we don't actually have free will and everything is predetermined to happen anyway. Not sure which is more fucked up to believe.

No, because then the ATF will show up and shoot him.

Certainly any dogs nearby RIP

I mean, given that Jesús would not only be a brown hippie moonshiner, but also probably a damn Mexican furriner to boot, he'd be lucky if they didn't lay siege to the whole neighborhood, Waco-style.

In the Bible they wanted to kill him many times but he always slipped away. He wasn't arrested until he gave himself to the authorities. The ATF wouldn't catch him if he didn't want to be caught. But I'm sure they'd destroy lots of people, animals and property regardless.

Everyone's focused on whether Jesus can do it or not while completely forgetting regular people can do that

Just, remove the water, c'mon.

You need a distillery and a fair bit of knowledge what to do for that. Ethanol boils off faster than water, so if you just simmer it down, you get more wine flavor, but less alcohol (still enough to get you drunk, see christmas markets).

Eventually it would just become brandy.

If he uses 100% of his power it turns all the way back to grapes.

Jesus was way cool
Everybody liked Jesus
Everybody wanted to hang out with him
Anything he wanted to do, he did
He turned water into wine
And if he wanted to
He could have turned wheat into marijuana
Or sugar into cocaine
Or vitamin pills into amphetamines

He walked on the water
And swam on the land
He would tell these stories
And people would listen
He was really cool

If you were blind or lame
You just went to Jesus
And he would put his hands on you
And you would be healed
That's so cool

He could've played guitar better than Hendrix
He could've told the future
He could've baked the most delicious cake in the world
He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky
He could've danced better than Baryshnikov
Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of
Jesus was way cool

He told people to eat his body and drink his blood
That's so cool
Jesus was so cool
But then some people got jealous of how cool he was
So they killed him
But then he rose from the dead
He rose from the dead, danced around
Then went up to heaven
I mean, that's so cool
Jesus was way cool

No wonder there are so many Christians

1 more...

Jesus is said to be God, therefore he should be omnipotent and capable of literally anything we could comprehend as humans, or even more than that even.

Obviously it's all bullshit but yeah.

so does that mean Jesus could change semen to wine if he was giving a handy since semen is mostly water?

follow up question, would there still be semen in the wine if all he's changing is the water?

follow follow up question, how much money do you think one could make if they ejaculated wine instead of semen?

finally, do you think Jesus masturbates and ejaculates wine for a refreshing post-nut beverage?

First two, yup, if those are what he wants to happen. The others depend on the buyer and Jesus' mood that day.

I don't think so, the premise is that water can be converted to wine. Water here does not mean the chemical composition (ie h2o) but rather as a concept. So once water is converted the whole of it is refered to as "wine". If you were to separate it into components you can do so but they won't be called wine. Then you can use jesus to convert the water component again and repeat the process.

Another caveat, water is more than just h2o ie, what we usually refer to as "water" can contain many things like minerals, salt and even bacteria etc, in fact i doubt you can get pure h2o easily.

Then you can use jesus to convert the water component again and repeat the process.

I have a cheap knock off jesus from Alibaba and even he can turn wine into winier wine, if you tell him that it's just red water. Maybe you are using your jesus wrong?

Late one evening a boy and his father were accosted by a mugger. The traumatic moment unlocked some kind of latent power within the boy. Frantically he tried to intervene, skin touched skin, and the assailant's blood turned to wine, fatal. But not before the cretin dealt a terminal blow to the father. And that night that boy became the hero we all know, Jesus Christ.

If he indeed turned water into wine and made all things, why would he need to recurse as if he can't get it right the first time?

The question isn't why but if. Also how do we know that He didn't?

Probably, but he had to leave something for bored celibate monks to do. There are worse callings than to devote a lifetime to finding all manner of ways to fortify wines.

Is this a midas touch kinda thing? The human body is 60% water 🤔

There was a British superhero TV show called Misfits. One of the delinquents had the power to control milk, I.e. you drink milk and this guy could curdle it in your body and kill you.

Are we both thinking about 15% BAC murderin’ Jesus here?

That would have been a much better show if they didn't turn over the entire cast every series or so.

Why did he even bother to make the wine, he could just make everybody the perfect level of drunk without sobering up.

He wasn't that omnipotent, okay?

Only someone who is omniscient could know that.

Flying Squid is a god, confirmed.

Are you saying water made water into water with a bit of alcohol?

You just have to find another bodily fluid with the same color as the target alcohol.

Jesus told me it doesn't have to be alcohol. He once turned piss into Mtn Dew. I've only ever done the opposite.

Jesus can make port confirmed

Ruby port. Stomped with stigmata. Notes of berries, plums, Euphorbia milii, leather, plasma and iron. Strong finish.

Making water into wine was not something all that special, it used to basically be like a concentrate that you would then add to water to consume. Shoutout to the history of Rome podcast. So he could make more and more deluted wine with more water but it wouldn't become more concentrated.

Which podcast is that? You piqued my interest, but there seem to be a lot of podcasts about the history of Rome.

I think he ended up being Rasputin and invented vodka

I wonder what the azeotrope for magically created alcohol is.

"Water to wine" was a metaphor for sneaking it into the party.

It was a way to say that the love/companionship of Christ was all you needed. You had Jesus, so water was as good a drink as wine could ever be. Five loaves of bread and two fish split amongst 5,000 was enough to satisfy their hunger, because all they needed was a morsel with Christ by their side.

Pretty much, and for anyone wondering if God could create a rock he couldn't lift...

The answer is still yes, and he is then unable to lift the rock, but able to remove the limitation preventing him from lifting the rock at any time.

Kinda like how He let Himself be dead and then removed the limitation by rising again

Correct, he's God, he can do anyhting in any amount of time and we can perceive it however he chooses.