Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

The Quadratic Equation · 03-01-2012 5:38pm

robindch wrote: »

That'll be Sol Invictus you're thinking of. Was familiar with halos and had a birthday on the 25th of December, so the confusion is understandable.

Name a day of the year that does not have a pagan god associated with it. Halo's merely signify light.

That'll be the Christ myth strawman theory your thinking of, that all reputable historians reject.

From leading Roman and Greek Classicist and Professor of history Michael Grant :

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars. In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus.

The Mad Hatter · 03-01-2012 5:56pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Name a day of the year that does not have a pagan god associated with it. Halo's merely signify light.

That'll be the Christ myth strawman theory your thinking of, that all reputable historians reject.

From leading Roman and Greek Classicist and Professor of history Michael Grant :

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars. In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus.

You're dancing from argument to argument like they're hot coals. Who's arguing here that Christ didn't exist?

robindch · 03-01-2012 5:56pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

That'll be the Christ myth strawman theory your thinking of [...]

No, that'll be the origin of the christian halo and the general Sun-motif I'm thinking of. Have a read of Cyprian (3rd Century) and Chrysostom (4th Century) and the celebration of Natalis Invicti:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

"no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus."

Sheesh, did I say that Jesus didn't exist? :rolleyes:

Nah, Jesus the man almost certainly existed and probably more or less when the gospels said he did. He almost certainly wasn't what the gospels claim he was, and he almost certainly didn't do what the gospels claim he did.

What is certain is that christianity used with wild abandon many of the doctrines and habits of other philosophies, religions and polities. To the extent that almost none of it is original. As one would expect.

Max Power1 · 03-01-2012 6:07pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Then logically you should have no bother proving that instead of just claiming it.

Thats just it though. Logic is not subjective.

Similar to the fact that one can logically deduce that one fat man cannot travel the globe in 12-24 hours, one can also deduce that there is no fairies/magic/transubstantiation/"overlord"/ teapot on the rings of saturn/etc etc

Lets take the simple Roman catholic myth of transubstantiation. Logic would show that a substance cannot magically alter its chemical properties and become another substance. However to be a catholic one must believe that water and wine can change into blood at the mass.

A lack of logic, a lack of critical thought and suspension of disbelief are clearly needed.

Galvasean · 03-01-2012 6:23pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

As claimed by a sun whorshipping freemason no less.

Yes, dismiss him because THAT is crazy...

MrPudding · 03-01-2012 6:23pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You're dancing from argument to argument like they're hot coals. Who's arguing here that Christ didn't exist?

This has been pointed out to him a few times. Expect it to be ignored.

MrP

The Quadratic Equation · 03-01-2012 6:51pm

robindch wrote: »

No, that'll be the origin of the christian halo and the general Sun-motif I'm thinking of.

No the origin of the Christian halo is Christianity, as for halo's in general the origin is much older than you claim, they've been used separately in different cultures for millennia, from Egypt to the Far east.

The Quadratic Equation · 03-01-2012 6:54pm

Max Power1 wrote: »

Logic would show that a substance cannot magically alter its chemical properties and become another substance.

Indeed, but logic would dictate that you actually knew the subject your're talking about. Transubstantiation is a metaphysical change, not a physical one.

Galvasean · 03-01-2012 6:56pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No the origin of the Christian halo is Christianity, as for halo's in general the origin is much older than you claim, they've been used separately in different cultures for millennia, from Egypt to the Far east.

Serious question: What makes the Christian halo different from those that came before it?

Galvasean · 03-01-2012 6:57pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Indeed, but logic would dictate that you actually knew the subject your're talking about. Transubstantiation is a metaphysical change, not a physical one.

It would appear many Catholics don't know about this distinction either. you might want to inform them.

robindch · 03-01-2012 7:30pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No the origin of the Christian halo is Christianity,

And when did I claim that any christian-specific usage of the halo wasn't specific to christian usage?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

as for halo's in general the origin is much older than you claim

And when did I claim that halos originated with Sol Invictus or other contemporary cults?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Indeed, but logic would dictate that you actually knew the subject your're talking about.

Logic doesn't dictate any such thing, though the rules of debate, as well as general practice in this forum, certainly do.

That aside, there is a delicious irony in you misinterpreting a series of fairly simple points, while choosing to give out about other people being misinformed, while being uninformed yourself

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Transubstantiation is a metaphysical change, not a physical one.

You might find the following two articles useful, as they document catholic belief concerning transubstantiation:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

coffee_cake · 03-01-2012 7:33pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

As claimed by a sun whorshipping freemason no less.

as claimed by a zombie worshiping death cultist no less

:rolleyes:

The Quadratic Equation · 03-01-2012 7:45pm

robindch wrote: »

You might find the following two articles useful, as they document catholic belief concerning transubstantiation:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Nice strawmen attempt, but I would say its your uninformed readers would find them more useful, seeing as they confirm it's a metaphysical change, not a physical one.

The Quadratic Equation · 03-01-2012 7:46pm

bluewolf wrote: »

as claimed by a zombie worshiping death cultist no less

:rolleyes:

I'm a thiest not an atheist (i.e. the living dead)

robindch · 03-01-2012 7:54pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I would say its your uninformed readers would find them more useful, seeing as they confirm it's a metaphysical change, not a physical one.

What exact bit of "At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that [...] become Christ's Body and Blood." is the one that indicates that the bread and wine are not transformed into Christs body and blood?

Corkfeen · 03-01-2012 8:00pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Serious question: What makes the Christian halo different from those that came before it?

It's got extra "superficial glitter" ...

The Quadratic Equation · 03-01-2012 8:17pm

robindch wrote: »

What exact bit of "At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that [...] become Christ's Body and Blood." is the one that indicates that the bread and wine are not transformed into Christs body and blood?

Hint 1 : look up the difference between physical and metaphysical, then find the bit that claims it's a physical (or chemical) change, as claimed by the poster.

Hint 2 : you won't find that bit.

Delirium · 03-01-2012 8:37pm

so how does anyone know if the incantation has worked if it can't be proven?

The spell could be wrong for centuries and you wouldn't be getting the benefit of the magic wafers!

Max Power1 · 03-01-2012 9:25pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Hint 1 : look up the difference between physical and metaphysical, then find the bit that claims it's a physical (or chemical) change, as claimed by the poster.

Hint 2 : you won't find that bit.

Hint one
You are referring to protestantism.

In the Roman Catholic religion (which I referred to by name) Transubstantiation is a "dogma" (or a "prerequisite" - for us non-nutjobs)

Jeez, if you're gonna believe in cloak and dagger magic at least get your "fachts" straight!

Sarky · 03-01-2012 9:30pm

Quaddie, you're clearly bitter about something, despite protestations to the contrary. What's up?

longhalloween · 03-01-2012 9:33pm

But if the child dies s/he will not be allowed into heaven?!

Delirium · 03-01-2012 9:37pm

Not according to the man with the magic hat (Unless they've changed their position again).

The Quadratic Equation · 03-01-2012 11:54pm

Max Power1 wrote: »

Hint one
You are referring to protestantism.

In the Roman Catholic religion (which I referred to by name) Transubstantiation is a "dogma" (or a "prerequisite" - for us non-nutjobs)

Jeez, if you're gonna believe in cloak and dagger magic at least get your "fachts" straight!

You claimed that the physical (chemical) properties change, they don't, again it's a metaphysical change not a physical one, this is the RC dogma. Rather than attempting another strawman diversion, can you quote the official RC dogma that claims the actual physical properties change (as you claimed) as well as the metaphysical ones ?

robindch · 04-01-2012 12:51am

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

look up the difference between physical and metaphysical [...]

And you look up the difference between "catholics" (believe it's a physical change, see the Vatican's rules above) and "protestants" (believe it's a metaphysical change).

No problem, glad to be of help!

robindch · 04-01-2012 1:02am

^^^ FYI, the dogma was formally declared, I believe, by the Council of Trent, in the 1500's:

Council of Trent wrote:

Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.

The Quadratic Equation · 04-01-2012 1:42am

Please look up the term 'substance' with reference to Metaphysics.
Transubstantiation, the metaphysical property (the substance) change, bread and wine becomes body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, all the physical properties that were present when it was bread and wine remain the same. i.e. Catholics believe it is our Lord and no longer bread and wine, but the host will have the physical properties (accidents) of bread and wine.
(Ask your pal Nozzwhatever, who thought he could prove with physical experiments that Transubstantiation did not take place)
Consubstantiation, the metaphysical property (the substance) is shared between bread, wine, body, blood, soul, divinity, the physical properties that were present when it was merely bread and wine remain the same. i.e. some Prodestant denominations believe it is both our Lord and Bread and Wine. Most Prodestant denominations believe in neither transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

Galvasean · 04-01-2012 3:10am

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Please look up the term 'substance' with reference to Metaphysics.
Transubstantiation, the metaphysical property (the substance) change, bread and wine becomes body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, all the physical properties that were present when it was bread and wine remain the same. i.e. Catholics believe it is our Lord and no longer bread and wine, but the host will have the physical properties (accidents) of bread and wine.

If that is the case then why is it that a bunch of Catholics recently tried to show the world that their communion wafer did indeed take on the physical attributes of muscle tissue?
http://m2.tbo.com/content/2011/oct/02/021630/polish-catholics-see-miracle-in-communion-wafer/news-offbeat/

Max Power1 · 04-01-2012 9:23am

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Please look up the term 'substance' with reference to Metaphysics.
Transubstantiation, the metaphysical property (the substance) change, bread and wine becomes body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, all the physical properties that were present when it was bread and wine remain the same. i.e. Catholics believe it is our Lord and no longer bread and wine, but the host will have the physical properties (accidents) of bread and wine.
(Ask your pal Nozzwhatever, who thought he could prove with physical experiments that Transubstantiation did not take place)
Consubstantiation, the metaphysical property (the substance) is shared between bread, wine, body, blood, soul, divinity, the physical properties that were present when it was merely bread and wine remain the same. i.e. some Prodestant denominations believe it is both our Lord and Bread and Wine. Most Prodestant denominations believe in neither transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

Firstly. For someone with your clear belief in the magical fairies, you should know that its spelt "Protestant" not "Prodestant"

Secondly - "Catholics believe it is our Lord and no longer bread and wine" This implies a change in physical properties. See the dogma as quoted by robindch earlier in this thread.

The rest of your post is a mixture of BS and dangerous misinformation. Clearly caused by blind belief of a fairytale.

Dades · 04-01-2012 3:48pm

What's a metaphysical property?

When I put it into Google all I get is websites for 'crystals'. That can't be a good thing.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-01-2012 4:41pm

Is it just a method of claiming there is a change when there is no change at all. As I said in my last post the claim being made by Quad is like a Magician showing you an empty hat before AND after a trick, the only difference being he is claiming he made a totally invisible rabbit appear in the hat in the interim.

No one would be impressed by such a magic "trick" as it would be clear the magician is talking nonsense. But when you move the exact same claim into the realm of crackers on an altar somehow we are meant to start taking it seriously? Yet there is literally nothing to differentiate between the claims.

Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

Comments