| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Katt" |
| Date: |
06 Oct 2005 10:24:56 AM |
| Object: |
Re: A question on the Eucherist |
<eswrite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128533109.234669.310480@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Does the Body and Blood of Christ being eliminated through the bowels
become Holy *****?
Or when does the Incarnation become the Excretion. Do the little fewmets
have haloes like the saints?
Yup. No hostility to religion here whatsoever. No agenda to discredit
religion either. Please, move along. Nothing to see here.
Whereas to *grown-ups* immune to the idiotic fantastications of ancient
religious delusion, the OP's questions are perfectly reasonable - the kind
of questions, in fact, that science poses all the time in all kinds of
areas. Stop demanding that 'religion' be made a special preserve in which
its own nutjob pseudo-logic goes unquestioned, and quit trying to insulate
'religion' from intelligence and enquiry: it doesn't help the world, and it
makes you look like an anti-rational *****.
Katt.
.
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: A question on the Eucherist |
06 Oct 2005 06:40:35 PM |
|
|
<Piggybacking, couldn't find the original, sorry>
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Or when does the Incarnation become the Excretion. Do the little fewmets
have haloes like the saints?
Woo-hoo!!! Fewmets! Haven't heard fewmets mentioned since the last
time I read _The Once and Future King_!
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A question on the Eucherist |
06 Oct 2005 06:27:49 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <katt@g.com> wrote in message
news:clb1f.10256$4Q.4422@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
<eswrite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128533109.234669.310480@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Does the Body and Blood of Christ being eliminated through the bowels
become Holy *****?
Or when does the Incarnation become the Excretion. Do the little fewmets
have haloes like the saints?
Yup. No hostility to religion here whatsoever. No agenda to discredit
religion either. Please, move along. Nothing to see here.
Whereas to *grown-ups* immune to the idiotic fantastications of ancient
religious delusion, the OP's questions are perfectly reasonable - the kind
of questions, in fact, that science poses all the time in all kinds of
areas. Stop demanding that 'religion' be made a special preserve in which
its own nutjob pseudo-logic goes unquestioned, and quit trying to insulate
'religion' from intelligence and enquiry: it doesn't help the world, and
it makes you look like an anti-rational *****.
Thank you...I was thinking the same thing!
.
|
|
|
| User: "news" |
|
| Title: Re: A question on the Eucherist |
08 Oct 2005 04:16:13 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:I6WdnWBokd5oL9jeRVn-hQ@giganews.com:
"Katt" <katt@g.com> wrote in message
news:clb1f.10256$4Q.4422@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
<eswrite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128533109.234669.310480@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Does the Body and Blood of Christ being eliminated through the
bowels become Holy *****?
Or when does the Incarnation become the Excretion. Do the little
fewmets have haloes like the saints?
Yup. No hostility to religion here whatsoever. No agenda to
discredit religion either. Please, move along. Nothing to see here.
Whereas to *grown-ups* immune to the idiotic fantastications of
ancient religious delusion, the OP's questions are perfectly
reasonable - the kind of questions, in fact, that science poses all
the time in all kinds of areas. Stop demanding that 'religion' be
made a special preserve in which its own nutjob pseudo-logic goes
unquestioned, and quit trying to insulate 'religion' from
intelligence and enquiry: it doesn't help the world, and it makes you
look like an anti-rational *****.
Thank you...I was thinking the same thing!
Religion is great as long as you learn to expect nothing from god.
--
As for the pastor, after four days of listening to science experts
dismantling the case for intelligent design, he was unimpressed.
"They're babblers," said the pastor, the Rev. Jim Grove, who leads a 40-
member independent Baptist church outside of Dover. "The more Ph.D.'s you
get, it seems like the further away from God you get." (NY Times, 10-2-
05)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: A question on the Eucherist |
07 Oct 2005 08:51:06 AM |
|
|
I didn't see the first post, but I will jump in anyway.
The doctrine of transubstantiation is based on a neo-Platonic (ie very pagan)
doctrine. According to this doctrine, everything has two possible states of
being: form and substance. An object's form gives the physical characteristics
such as taste and appearance. An object's substance gives the spiritual
characteristics, such as virtue and moral strength.
As the word "transubstantiation" indicates, the magical transformation from
stale bread and sour wine in to the Body and Blood is a change in substance,
not form. That is to say, the change is a spiritual one, not a physical one. It
was argued -- and settled -- long ago that just as the form is still bread and
wine, the body duly turns it in to the form of ***** and *****. The substance of
the elements, on the other hand, is "used up" when it is "consumed in faith,"
which seems to mean that one's spirit digests God's substance in the same way
the body digests the bread's form. Whether that leads to substantial ***** and
***** is a question that has not been answered to my knowledge. How -- or
whether -- that substantial waste material is eliminated is another interesting
question. If it isn't... well, that would explain a lot.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: A question on the Eucherist |
07 Oct 2005 11:37:57 AM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:43467D4A.76589E68@serv.net...
I didn't see the first post, but I will jump in anyway.
The doctrine of transubstantiation is based on a neo-Platonic (ie very
pagan)
doctrine. According to this doctrine, everything has two possible states
of
being: form and substance. An object's form gives the physical
characteristics
such as taste and appearance. An object's substance gives the spiritual
characteristics, such as virtue and moral strength.
As the word "transubstantiation" indicates, the magical transformation
from
stale bread and sour wine in to the Body and Blood is a change in
substance,
not form. That is to say, the change is a spiritual one, not a physical
one. It
was argued -- and settled -- long ago that just as the form is still bread
and
wine, the body duly turns it in to the form of ***** and *****. The
substance of
the elements, on the other hand, is "used up" when it is "consumed in
faith,"
which seems to mean that one's spirit digests God's substance in the same
way
the body digests the bread's form. Whether that leads to substantial *****
and
***** is a question that has not been answered to my knowledge. How -- or
whether -- that substantial waste material is eliminated is another
interesting
question. If it isn't... well, that would explain a lot.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
After being requested to write "I will not say "*****" in class"
about 1000 times due at 5 PM after detention that same day,
The Jesuits at Regis High School answered the "*****" question
as something like
"as soon as it is swallowed, it loses enough ( but not all) of the
Properties of the Sacred Species to cancel the Transubstantiated portion to
regular substance."
According to Canon Law, if you remove it from your mouth, it is still
Consecrated and you incur automatic Excommunication (Latae Sentiens) as a
consequence.
As to other speculations of "Enough" there is a concept called the
"Parvity of Matter" which depends on the curcumstances and intent of the
user.
For example, if you intentionally eat 100 mg of Ham on on a Prohibited Day
this would be below the Parvity of Matter .
But you could Still commit a Mortal Sin if You didn't Know that.
I think that this Neo-Scholastic approach is a lot more fun than Robert
Anton's Whateverism ">)
RJ Pease
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: A question on the Eucherist |
07 Oct 2005 11:51:55 AM |
|
|
"Bob Pease" <robertjp@popebobby2.youknow.net> said:
<...>
According to Canon Law, if you remove it from your mouth, it is still
Consecrated and you incur automatic Excommunication (Latae Sentiens) as a
consequence.
As to other speculations of "Enough" there is a concept called the
"Parvity of Matter" which depends on the curcumstances and intent of the
user.
For example, if you intentionally eat 100 mg of Ham on on a Prohibited Day
this would be below the Parvity of Matter .
But you could Still commit a Mortal Sin if You didn't Know that.
<...
The lower limit of transgression of ham is 100 mg? Shouldn't that be
proportioned to your own body weight?, as, say, 1 mg/kg? ;-)
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: A question on the Eucherist |
07 Oct 2005 08:38:54 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nl9dk1dpqkl0tpo74rbrlkstqtbdsu1138@4ax.com...
"Bob Pease" <robertjp@popebobby2.youknow.net> said:
<...>
According to Canon Law, if you remove it from your mouth, it is still
Consecrated and you incur automatic Excommunication (Latae Sentiens) as
a
consequence.
As to other speculations of "Enough" there is a concept called the
"Parvity of Matter" which depends on the curcumstances and intent of the
user.
For example, if you intentionally eat 100 mg of Ham on on a Prohibited
Day
this would be below the Parvity of Matter .
But you could Still commit a Mortal Sin if You didn't Know that.
<...
The lower limit of transgression of ham is 100 mg? Shouldn't that be
proportioned to your own body weight?, as, say, 1 mg/kg? ;-)
--- Jim07D5
I think it would have to be a matter of guessing what was enough to give
you a "Good taste of"
If this were a matter of Confession frequently, a Catholic would be told to
leave it the hell alone of just chomp away on a big ham sandwich.
basically it's a matter of how much PLEASURE you have given up by
abstaining.
A good formula for the Liturgical Division of Parvity Standards would be
SQ = PQ/TRF
Sin Quotient = Pleasure Quotient/TRF
The PQ and TRF could be established under Laborotory conditions, and would
be more accurate than the Commonly applied IQ tests.
Many of the extremely acccurate tests on Tickle.com would do very nicely.
RJ Pease
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: A question on the Eucherist |
08 Oct 2005 10:27:40 AM |
|
|
"Bob Pease" <robertjp@popebobby2.youknow.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nl9dk1dpqkl0tpo74rbrlkstqtbdsu1138@4ax.com...
"Bob Pease" <robertjp@popebobby2.youknow.net> said:
<...>
According to Canon Law, if you remove it from your mouth, it is still
Consecrated and you incur automatic Excommunication (Latae Sentiens) as
a
consequence.
As to other speculations of "Enough" there is a concept called the
"Parvity of Matter" which depends on the curcumstances and intent of the
user.
For example, if you intentionally eat 100 mg of Ham on on a Prohibited
Day
this would be below the Parvity of Matter .
But you could Still commit a Mortal Sin if You didn't Know that.
<...
The lower limit of transgression of ham is 100 mg? Shouldn't that be
proportioned to your own body weight?, as, say, 1 mg/kg? ;-)
--- Jim07D5
I think it would have to be a matter of guessing what was enough to give
you a "Good taste of"
If this were a matter of Confession frequently, a Catholic would be told to
leave it the hell alone of just chomp away on a big ham sandwich.
basically it's a matter of how much PLEASURE you have given up by
abstaining.
A good formula for the Liturgical Division of Parvity Standards would be
SQ = PQ/TRF
Sin Quotient = Pleasure Quotient/TRF
The PQ and TRF could be established under Laborotory conditions, and would
be more accurate than the Commonly applied IQ tests.
Many of the extremely acccurate tests on Tickle.com would do very nicely.
Good points. ;-) And of course for many catholics the amount of
pleasure derived by doing something is directly proportional to how
much their parish priest or catholic school teacher railed against
doing it.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: A question on the Eucherist |
30 Oct 2005 01:11:16 PM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
<eswrite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128533109.234669.310480@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Does the Body and Blood of Christ being eliminated through the bowels
become Holy *****?
Or when does the Incarnation become the Excretion. Do the little fewmets
have haloes like the saints?
Yup. No hostility to religion here whatsoever. No agenda to discredit
religion either. Please, move along. Nothing to see here.
Whereas to *grown-ups* immune to the idiotic fantastications of ancient
religious delusion,
As am I
the OP's questions are perfectly reasonable - the kind
of questions, in fact, that science poses all the time in all kinds of
areas.
Rubbish. Theology poses this kind of question - science doesn't even
recognise the issue. Kolker was hardly posing the question in a spirit of
honest inquiry.
He didn't post to alt.atheist, but to talk.origins alone; which suggests he
was simply trying to take the rise out of the various Catholics in this
september froup.
Stop demanding that 'religion' be made a special preserve in which
its own nutjob pseudo-logic goes unquestioned, and quit trying to insulate
'religion' from intelligence and enquiry: it doesn't help the world, and
it makes you look like an anti-rational *****.
As opposed to the irrational ***** that Kolker demonstrates himself to be
with every such post.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
