Active Users:1138 Time:14/11/2024 06:07:02 AM
your problem is you're trying to apply objective logic to religion LadyLorraine Send a noteboard - 11/06/2011 04:13:01 PM
of course holy water isn't a single lick different than the water it was before it was blessed. It's even less different than homeopathic water, which isn't detectably different either (but at least has some ground to stand on compared to holy water, which hasn't had any physical process applied to it at all).

But it's not ABOUT THAT. It is entirely psychological. It's placebo. It's feel-good.

Yes, scientifically and logically, it is just "magic water". Practically speaking, normal water could easily take the place of "holy water". From a nonspiritual realistic standpoint, the whole deal is totally inane. But that's really not the point.

The point is that people's belief that the blessing of the water brings them closer to their deity and increases their inner purity, which gives them a measure of psychological comfort. In their mind, the blessing adds a new physical property that improves the water. It is illogical. It is blind belief and self-deception. If it helps people get through their life, then whatever, who cares. As long as no one is being hurt, why does it matter whether holy water is ACTUALLY any better?

Additionally, if you think back into history, it could be that holy water WAS "better". In earlier centuries, Holy water coming from a clean, running water source would be HEAPS more healthy than many of the usual water sources. I don't really know, but it would not surprise me if the beliefs around holy water did not stem from similar health histories as dietary laws.
Still Empress of the Poofy Purple Pillow Pile Palace!!
Continued Love of my Aussie <3
This message last edited by LadyLorraine on 11/06/2011 at 04:15:14 PM
Reply to message
A question on baptism - 10/06/2011 09:21:44 AM 900 Views
To my knowledge, baptism does not stem from the Resurrection. - 10/06/2011 11:01:17 AM 655 Views
What I meant - 10/06/2011 11:03:08 AM 498 Views
I don't follow. - 10/06/2011 11:08:07 AM 470 Views
Re: I don't follow. - 10/06/2011 11:10:40 AM 559 Views
I don't keep up with RC theology much. - 10/06/2011 11:15:52 AM 453 Views
Re: I don't keep up with RC theology much. - 10/06/2011 11:17:53 AM 456 Views
You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 11:50:53 AM 488 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 11:52:27 AM 438 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 11:55:01 AM 490 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 11:58:36 AM 465 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:16:46 PM 606 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:19:16 PM 464 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:25:08 PM 667 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:26:30 PM 665 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:28:45 PM 472 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:29:43 PM 500 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:33:01 PM 366 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:34:36 PM 432 Views
I took a holy dip into the Ganges - 10/06/2011 11:48:26 AM 560 Views
Re: I took a holy dip into the Ganges - 10/06/2011 11:54:17 AM 620 Views
He dances and dips in The Ganges- Very Nice. *NM* - 11/06/2011 02:15:41 AM 208 Views
Three dips - that's the ceremony. - 11/06/2011 02:35:43 AM 426 Views
Early Christians and Jews were obsessed with purity - 10/06/2011 12:56:58 PM 595 Views
Oh, I know about the historical/academic/anthropological reason - 10/06/2011 01:04:43 PM 534 Views
I misunderstood, lets try again - 10/06/2011 01:44:43 PM 610 Views
Huh. *NM* - 10/06/2011 02:06:58 PM 252 Views
A first responce - 10/06/2011 02:09:32 PM 658 Views
Re: A first responce - 10/06/2011 02:15:07 PM 630 Views
Re: A first responce - 10/06/2011 02:19:25 PM 561 Views
Do you want a theological answer or a historical one? - 10/06/2011 03:16:44 PM 628 Views
The theological. I already had a fairly good idea of the historical - 10/06/2011 03:18:51 PM 500 Views
My favorite fact about baptism is that is REQUIRES water... but it can be ANY water - 10/06/2011 04:31:12 PM 593 Views
That is absurd. - 10/06/2011 08:37:13 PM 687 Views
It is absurd - 10/06/2011 08:56:19 PM 499 Views
When your post is eviscerated, resorting to "HURR RELIGION IS DUMB" isn't a winning move. - 10/06/2011 10:00:39 PM 617 Views
Psh.You can dress it up with spiritualism and semantics, but the concept boils down to "magic water" - 11/06/2011 03:56:03 AM 442 Views
The point is that it's a symbol. - 11/06/2011 04:45:19 AM 470 Views
I have no problem with water as a symbol - 11/06/2011 04:59:52 AM 541 Views
You are totally missing the point. - 11/06/2011 02:46:08 PM 622 Views
Which again, is something that sounds nice and spiritual, but doesn't actually make any sense - 11/06/2011 03:46:51 PM 588 Views
your problem is you're trying to apply objective logic to religion - 11/06/2011 04:13:01 PM 843 Views
I'm not, exactly. Religion has internal logic. For example, certain things are "unclean" - 11/06/2011 04:40:33 PM 487 Views
Beliefs about holy water are internally logical. - 11/06/2011 07:36:08 PM 529 Views
Shrug. It was on topic. - 11/06/2011 08:06:16 PM 810 Views
Baptism is almost, if not entirely, symbolic. - 11/06/2011 10:23:02 AM 649 Views
Re: Baptism is almost, if not entirely, symbolic. - 11/06/2011 11:51:22 AM 658 Views
I never thought of it in that way, that is why I like this site *NM* - 12/06/2011 04:26:40 PM 229 Views
Because we are all nuts in our own special ways? *NM* - 12/06/2011 04:36:03 PM 199 Views

Reply to Message