Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

Max Power1 · 04-01-2012 7:03pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

There is one difference

Millions if not billions of children are brainwashed at a young age to believe that "the totally invisible rabbit appeared"(to continue the analogy)

That brings this right back on topic. Remove the brainwashing that is young baptism/indoctrination and let children decide what religion ,if any, is the most credible to them.

Theres a reason that the religious fanatics are against this. They know that - given a few generations of "Free thought children" their fairy tale will die a (long overdue imo) death.

recedite · 05-01-2012 12:37am

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.

Pffft... Late Roman Empire.... a mere wannabee

The original and the best creator sun god was Ra.
OK, so the carrying handle on the cross seems a bit clunky nowadays, after we have had the crusader sword handle cross and the ultralight necklace mounted cross, but still....

Galvasean · 05-01-2012 12:45am

Dades wrote: »

What's a metaphysical property?

Something very vague and hard to define - the perfect companion for someone who is losing an argument badly and needs to blow smoke to distract their opponents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

The Quadratic Equation · 05-01-2012 1:23am

Regardless if you're atheist or theist, 'substance' and 'metaphysical' are defined terms in philosophy.

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-01-2012 10:14am

Yes and "arse" and "Biscuits" are also well known words. That does not mean when you put them together as "Arse Biscuits" that people automatically know what you mean.

Similarly as was asked in the previous page people know what the words "metaphysical" and "property" mean but when you talk about a metaphysical property.... as was pointed out.... all google gives back is results about crystals.

So I am afraid simply pointing out that the words you are using are INDIVIDUALLY well defined in philosophy does not mean that the way you are using them together makes any sense whatsoever.

Max Power1 · 05-01-2012 12:40pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes and "arse" and "Biscuits" are also well known words. That does not mean when you put them together as "Arse Biscuits" that people automatically know what you mean.

Similarly as was asked in the previous page people know what the words "metaphysical" and "property" mean but when you talk about a metaphysical property.... as was pointed out.... all google gives back is results about crystals.

So I am afraid simply pointing out that the words you are using are INDIVIDUALLY well defined in philosophy does not mean that the way you are using them together makes any sense whatsoever.

Lads - he is religious. He will believe anything is true without any sort of proof. Reasoning with such people is like arguing with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level of idiocy, and then they will win as they have more experience

.

Taking the catholic religious belief, we should all believe that we are inbred as fcuk, as we all descended directly from Adam and Eve!!

robindch · 05-01-2012 12:42pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Regardless if you're atheist or theist, 'substance' and 'metaphysical' are defined terms in philosophy.

Yes, but in the absence of hard, clear definitions of any of these terms that give rise to unambiguous statements of fact concerning whatever one's talking about, it's unfortunately possible to debate endlessly how exactly, for example, Aristotle's ideas of "substance" and "accident" actually map to the hard reality of physical objects.

And that's exactly the problem with makey-uppey stuff like this. Perhaps Aristotle and his intellectual grandchildren in the Vatican believe that the substance of a physical object is fully independent of its physical reality (as you appear to believe), in which case you must also believe that our senses are entirely useless in determining anything reliable about the nature of anything physical - a cross, for example, could be a satanic symbol dressed up to look like a cross. Or, perhaps the substance of a physical object is not independent of its physical reality, as the church must believe, since the transformation from the substance of the physical reality of bread to the substance of the physical reality of human meat (reflecting the physical humanity of Jesus) is, otherwise, meaningless.

So yes, you could argue, at least initially, that the transformation is non-physical and probably stay within the limits of Aristotle's makey-uppey nonsense. However, the philosophical, intellectual and religious implications of declaring reality unrelated to substance, and that accidents must therefore make up everything we are, see, do and experience, are amusing, but dire, especially for religion.

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-01-2012 1:03pm

Max Power1 wrote: »

Lads - he is religious. He will believe anything is true without any sort of proof. Reasoning with such people is like arguing with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level of idiocy, and then they will win as they have more experience

Certainly one way of looking at it, and a possibly valid one. I tend to look at it slightly differently though. When you look at the sheer inanity of posters like him, or the sheer dishonesty and desperation in posters like philologos, it seems to me that one of the best things we can do in the battle against religion is not argue against it per se.... but to just keep people like that talking.... as much and as often as possible.

Some of them do more for our cause than we could ever do for ourselves and I see genuine utility in keeping them doing it. I have met people who were not turned off religion or the idea of god by argument or reason, but by looking at people who they were meant to be peers of and saying "nu uh, that is not for me".

Dades · 05-01-2012 1:09pm

Max Power1 - your last post was a thinly veiled insult. If you're not going to address the post, don't address the poster instead.

Max Power1 · 05-01-2012 1:38pm

Dades wrote: »

Max Power1 - your last post was a thinly veiled insult. If you're not going to address the post, don't address the poster instead.

Im not disagreeing with the moderation, and accept the warning. However to say that I didnt address the post is incorrect. See the two highlighted parts where I stated a point in direct opposition to the religious poster and then substantiated said opinion with a correct example.

Again - not an attempt to disagree with your moderation and I fully accept the warning given.

Max Power1 wrote: »

Lads - he is religious. He will believe anything is true without any sort of proof. Reasoning with such people is like arguing with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level of idiocy, and then they will win as they have more experience .

Taking the catholic religious belief, we should all believe that we are inbred as fcuk, as we all descended directly from Adam and Eve!!

Galvasean · 05-01-2012 3:01pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes and "arse" and "Biscuits" are also well known words. That does not mean when you put them together as "Arse Biscuits" that people automatically know what you mean.

Actually that makes more sense than what tQE was talking about. It's an obvious Father Ted reference.
When you google it this pops up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzgT-fg01vY

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-01-2012 5:00pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually that makes more sense than what tQE was talking about. It's an obvious Father Ted reference.
When you google it this pops up:

Interesting memological fact.... I picked the phrase solely for its comedy value and actually had no idea where or when I had heard it before or what it means. I just know I have heard it. The fact I did not even know what it means added to its usefulness to example the point I was trying to make.

Nice to now know where the reference got into my brain from. Ta.

Dades · 05-01-2012 5:10pm

Max Power1 wrote: »

Im not disagreeing with the moderation, and accept the warning. However to say that I didnt address the post is incorrect. See the two highlighted parts where I stated a point in direct opposition to the religious poster and then substantiated said opinion with a correct example.

From where I'm sitting it looks like you addressed your own ad hominem within your own post, and addressed nothing to do with substance/metaphysics/philosophy which was the existing line of questioning.

I suggest you move on.

The Quadratic Equation · 05-01-2012 11:54pm

Dades wrote: »

Max Power1 - your last post was a thinly veiled insult. If you're not going to address the post, don't address the poster instead.

It's alright Dades, I'm very used to it.

Max Power1 · 06-01-2012 12:06am

Dades wrote: »

From where I'm sitting it looks like you addressed your own ad hominem within your own post, and addressed nothing to do with substance/metaphysics/philosophy which was the existing line of questioning.

I suggest you move on.

I will not move on, my chemical properties remain the same. But I will meta-physically move on

The Quadratic Equation · 06-01-2012 12:12am

robindch wrote: »

Yes, but in the absence of hard, clear definitions of any of these terms that give rise to unambiguous statements of fact concerning whatever one's talking about, it's unfortunately possible to debate endlessly how exactly, for example, Aristotle's ideas of "substance" and "accident" actually map to the hard reality of physical objects.

And that's exactly the problem with makey-uppey stuff like this. Perhaps Aristotle and his intellectual grandchildren in the Vatican believe that the substance of a physical object is fully independent of its physical reality (as you appear to believe), in which case you must also believe that our senses are entirely useless in determining anything reliable about the nature of anything physical - a cross, for example, could be a satanic symbol dressed up to look like a cross. Or, perhaps the substance of a physical object is not independent of its physical reality, as the church must believe, since the transformation from the substance of the physical reality of bread to the substance of the physical reality of human meat (reflecting the physical humanity of Jesus) is, otherwise, meaningless.

So yes, you could argue, at least initially, that the transformation is non-physical and probably stay within the limits of Aristotle's makey-uppey nonsense. However, the philosophical, intellectual and religious implications of declaring reality unrelated to substance, and that accidents must therefore make up everything we are, see, do and experience, are amusing, but dire, especially for religion.

Except Aristotle can't transubstantiate anything, only the power of Christ can, as he explained in John 6

I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus 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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just 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. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Many Disciples Desert Jesus

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

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the SpiritURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26321e"][COLOR=#0066cc]e[/COLOR][/URL and life. 64 Yet 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. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

MrPudding · 06-01-2012 9:19am

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Except Aristotle can't transubstantiate anything, only the power of Christ can, as he explained in John 6

[/SIZE]

Ah ok. See we thought you were just talking crap. Why did you not mention you had biblical authority? That makes all the difference. No, wait... It makes no difference. Still talking crap.

MrP

Delirium · 06-01-2012 9:53am

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Except Aristotle can't transubstantiate anything, only the power of Christ can, as he explained in John 6

And it only changes in away that can't be verified by anyone, even the person who did the transubstantiation whether that be Christ or the local priest.

Newaglish · 06-01-2012 11:14am

So, you know this whole water-into-wine thing. Did they change the physical properties of the water into actual wine? Or did they change the metaphysical properties? So it was still physically water? Does metaphysical wine get you drunk?

As an aside, I've been substituting every use of the word metaphysical in my head with the word make-believe. It reads much more clearly but means exactly the same thing.

robindch · 06-01-2012 11:35am

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Aristotle can't transubstantiate anything, only the power of Christ can

I didn't say that Aristotle could change the substance of something. On the contrary, I implied that Aristotle invented, or propagated, this useless "substance/accident" way of thinking about reality; a silly scheme which the Vatican still uses.

If -- as you believe -- a change in the substance of an object does not alter the physical properties of an object, then you have to explain away a range of more serious contradictions and epistemological problems.

That's the problem with (a) makey-uppey stuff and (b) applying logic to religion.

Max Power1 · 06-01-2012 1:38pm

Newaglish wrote: »

As an aside, I've been substituting every use of the word metaphysical in my head with the word make-believe. It reads much more clearly but means exactly the same thing.

QFT.

Me too

.

It seems to be a "pseudo-logical" word, concocted to sound intelligent and give logical and scientific credibility to a completely ridiculous fairytale.

Does the easter bunny metaphysically exist?

The Quadratic Equation · 06-01-2012 7:41pm

robindch wrote: »

On the contrary, I implied that Aristotle invented, or propagated, this useless "substance/accident" way of thinking about reality; a silly scheme which the Vatican still uses.

As I explained, whether your an atheist or theist, the terms metaphysical, substance, accident are standard terms in Philosophy.

robindch · 06-01-2012 10:46pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

As I explained, whether your an atheist or theist, the terms metaphysical, substance, accident are standard terms in Philosophy.

Indeed they are, and I understand them well. And they're cracking material, in a distracted way, for pub conversations, senior-table wrangling and other dinner-party windups, undergrad history-of-philosophy essays, theology, two-millennium-old low-to-mid-range intellectual gags and similar topics.

However, while they describe the world of ideas with a certain cock-eyed economy, they do not describe or map to the real world. And even the dustiest, densest, tenured theologue will accept that.

For whatever personal reasons, you want transubstantiation to be a non-physical transformation and that's certainly consistent with some readings of Aristotle's metaphysics (at the risk of introducing greater theological problems elsewhere). The Vatican generally maintains that transubstantiation is a physical transformation, and that's consistent with Aristotle too too (with fewer downstream problems).

If you're sure that it's not a physical transformation, then I suggest you contact the Vatican and let them know your findings. I'd hate to think that the Polish lads whom Galvasean mentioned above, were in possession of a bona-fide heresy and therefore likely, if you believe such things, to be on their way to an eternity in hellfire. Those good folks again are here:

http://m2.tbo.com/content/2011/oct/02/021630/polish-catholics-see-miracle-in-communion-wafer/news-offbeat/

The Quadratic Equation · 07-01-2012 3:17pm

robindch wrote: »

Indeed they are, and I understand them well. And they're cracking material, in a distracted way, for pub conversations, senior-table wrangling and other dinner-party windups, undergrad history-of-philosophy essays, theology, two-millennium-old low-to-mid-range intellectual gags and similar topics.

However, while they describe the world of ideas with a certain cock-eyed economy, they do not describe or map to the real world. And even the dustiest, densest, tenured theologue will accept that.

For whatever personal reasons, you want transubstantiation to be a non-physical transformation and that's certainly consistent with some readings of Aristotle's metaphysics (at the risk of introducing greater theological problems elsewhere). The Vatican generally maintains that transubstantiation is a physical transformation, and that's consistent with Aristotle too too (with fewer downstream problems).

If you're sure that it's not a physical transformation, then I suggest you contact the Vatican and let them know your findings.

I'll make it easy for you, rather than trying more strawmen, I'm sure you can show us where Church doctrine claims the physical properties of the Eucharist are different to the physical properies of Bread and Wine ?

ShooterSF · 07-01-2012 3:24pm

Newaglish wrote: »

Does metaphysical wine get you drunk?

Does metaphysical blood get you drunk?

recedite · 07-01-2012 5:24pm

robindch wrote: »

Those good folks again are here:

http://m2.tbo.com/content/2011/oct/02/021630/polish-catholics-see-miracle-in-communion-wafer/news-offbeat/

That happened to me once when I sneezed on my sandwich, at the time I was recovering from a cold. I carried on eating it; no metaphsical problems to report afterwards luckily.

One branch of metaphysics is;
Natural Theology
The study of a God or Gods; involves many topics, including among others the nature of religion and the world, existence of the divine, questions about Creation, and the numerous religious or spiritual issues that concern humankind in general.
(from wiki) Says it all really. An archaic form of philosophy, employed when little information was available; metaphysics is the science of "groping around in the dark".

Galvasean · 08-01-2012 5:51am

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I'll make it easy for you, rather than trying more strawmen, I'm sure you can show us where Church doctrine claims the physical properties of the Eucharist are different to the physical properies of Bread and Wine ?

Third time I've posted this link in direct response to you on this very thread:
http://m2.tbo.com/content/2011/oct/02/021630/polish-catholics-see-miracle-in-communion-wafer/news-offbeat/
Third time I'll be ignored?

The Quadratic Equation · 09-01-2012 1:19am

Galvasean wrote: »

Third time I've posted this link in direct response to you on this very thread:
http://m2.tbo.com/content/2011/oct/02/021630/polish-catholics-see-miracle-in-communion-wafer/news-offbeat/
Third time I'll be ignored?

Third time to be an irrelevant strawman to the doctrine of Transubstantiation ? = yes, and to save your time and mine, I usually ignore any irelevant posts, empty strawmen or ad hominem posts.

The story you quote is an example of an alleged miracle, as yet unapproved by the church, where in addition to normal Transubstantiation, it is alleged the physical 'accidents' are also those of flesh and blood. Even if it were an approved miracle where the physical 'accidents' were also those of flesh and blood , the relevant question remains, i.e. where does Church doctrine claim the physical properties of the Eucharist are different to the physical properies of Bread and Wine ?

robindch · 09-01-2012 12:00pm

Sheesh, what's it with threads going in circles these days?!

Bus77II · 09-01-2012 2:24pm

eoin5 wrote: »

I bet the school is going to end up in the middle on this one too. What will the dad think of morning prayers and religious instruction classes etc..

Lol, that's right. It's the school I feel sorry for. I wasn't baptised by water and the things I remember was being left back in the classroom occasionally while the rest went to mass or sometimes it would be forgotten and I would tag-along like a spy. Nothing big was made out of it, in school, nor at home and I half-enjoyed the mystery I held to the others in the class.

What a ****ty thing to do to bring officialdom into this. I hope the child grows up with a bigger mouth than than his/her parents and the Judge.

Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

Comments