kwigibo

Catholicism isn't a social club? i'll have to tell my mum that apparently there are theological benefits in going to church.

Huginn

"Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest castle in these islands."
-Monty Python and the Holy Grail


As meaningless as that sentence?

Ted Hoffman

Amos I love the word too. But it was an attempt at being sarcastic. I'm glad you didnt take offense.

Jamie_L
I read the thread where you were debating with Albert. And the conclusion (You agreed to disagree). You debated well. But Albert is as slippery as an eel. I hope this topic won't end in the same way.

Helen Thanks for the quote. I had almost forgotten such nice quotes can come from the bible.

Huggin Nice to meet you. That was very apropos.

Jobar I am Sorry you feel I have confused you with Albert. I have not. I know you adhere to clarity of meaning and realistic debate.
I dont know much about QM but I would really appreciate it if you could explain the "false analogy" you are referring to. I am awed by the brilliance of Erwin Schroedinger, but saying he and other respected figures agreed with you doesn't lend any strength to the argument you plan to bring forth. I am really interested in knowing about this atheistic pantheism that you ascribe to.
Shakespeare referred to the phenomenon of love, which he couldnt "grasp" with his poetic words as "a madness most descreet". When one goes deep into QM, I wouldn't be surprised if one reached a point where one can call the "mechanics" God. The human mind has been known to do that. I have heard people mention something about wave-particle duality or something like that. I would really appreciate it if you enlightened me on what what it refers to. You can put it here or start a new thread. Either way, I am cool. Since it has come up in this thread, I believe it will be Ok it we just swing it in. I am a believer in educative threads.

Are you claiming that eastern Philosophy is not varied but is just one?

And now to Albert
I train people in computer programming. C++, ASP, DHTML,VB, Java, Java Script, SQL, XML etc.
There is time to laugh merrily and there is time to tackle issues rigorously. One must choose each time judiciously.
So yes a SOH would be in order. At some point in time. Especially at this time that we are getting acquainted cyber-style. We could even discuss the weather and eat some cornbread.
Forgive me for my hope that you are serious outweighs my belief.
I have detected sophistry now and then in your posts, but not always.
I thought it was in the evasively obfuscating spirit of Jesus like: "Are you the King of the Jews?". And Jesus answered "So you have said".
Ok, so you believe its sinful. I dont remember seeing sophistry under the Ten Commandments though. Perhaps you have supplemented them with a few of your own?
Salvific? *checks up quickly at dictionary.com* Oh I see. I love new words and I'd encourage you not to pull any punches as far as new words are concerned.
Language can be used in many ways. Hiding the truth though,(or hiding from the truth for that matter) is not a preserve of the magicians.
I am really glad that you have said this because my fear was that you'd throw dictionary definitions out the window and suggest we climb on the philosophical magic carpet and leave mundane, simplistic word meanings earth-bound as we soar to the abstract world of "everything".
Thank you.
I am delighted that you find it refreshing.

I am glad you agree. Impersonal discussions leave too much room for manoeuvre people pick viewpoints and dispose of them when the time is right etc..
jaliet: ***outraged*** They will?
My GF is a catholic and believe me, I know what you are talking about. Last time I opened the bible, Genesis 1:1 by the way, she said "I dont want to talk about it!". So believe me Albert, I know what you are talking about.
But even then, thats making a hasty generalization and we should avoid making such claims when this discussion gets serious.
By why be a "traditional" Catholic? I believe its polemical to strive to draw a distinction between a Catholic and a "Traditional Catholic". That is not how Catholics are classified. Why be a Catholic at all? Why chain yourself to a group you do not identify with? Why not just leave the group instead of adding the label "Traditional"? You plan to create a new denomination called "Traditional Catholics"?
Albert, people who practice catholicism are called Catholics AFAIK, you already labelled them dreary, unmotivated, theologically illiterate. Now suddenly you change the word from Catholics to Catholicism.
How do you call people who ascribe to the tenets of catholicism? Arent they called Catholics?

I understand that on his deathbed Karl Marx retorted "I am not a Marxist!" because people had twisted his idea of Marxism to what he did not agree with.
Is Marx's case similar to yours in some way? I mean, you didnt start Catholicism. You can abandon it and the world wont even notice.

I was a catholic for 7 years. I remember during the eve of ash wednesdays in High School, the "father" (catholic priest) used to tell us to write all our sins on paper. Then we burnt them. The ashes were then prayed for then and on the Ash wednesday, he'd draw crosses on our foreheads using the ashes.
Frankly, I felt the excersise was a sham and a hoax. Too many times I felt the rituals were a charade.
I got sick of some chap wearing garish purple robes and clutching some shining 6-foot cross sprinkling water on me. I hated the idea of a human being debasing him/herself before another human being in the name of confession.
Personally, those rituals, and the same, same year-long "masses" that I heard to the point of total recall, the near idol-worship use of the rosary and crosses made me sick. And thats why I abandoned catholicism. Every time I was in church, I felt like I was in the theatre of the absurd: the "father" drinking lots of wine with the sacrament while we mortals ate the so called sacrament without even a sip of the wine etc etc.

The only thing I liked were the mostly poignant songs.

Tell me what Catholicism is. Not your version: The official version.
Then tell me what a Catholic is.
Then Tell me what a traditional Catholic is.

*shakes head* I simply am astounded that you can say this. I had this illusion that you held some Buddhist concepts. Tao-like, you know, a question comes, you answer it. Because you are both the question and the answer.
You are so wary. How so Albert?
How so?. Suddenly, you dont even want to "open your mouth". Your behaviour has confounded me. I thought you would deluge me with pious philosophy (which I was later to subject to Logic's scapel - according to "the plan" but alas, here we are nuttering about Cathilocism)

Maybe thats because it doesnt make sense. Why shouldnt a simple explanation suffice? You think I am simpleminded?

Whatever Albert, I just need the answer. Whether in bits and pieces or in bulk. Making your reasons sound stupendously complex doesn't help much. Just stop twitching and let it go sir. You have twitched enough.
Just stop being mealymouthed and answer the question please this topic relies on your answering the question I asked at the top of this page.
If we were in court, I would have objected: "Objection your honour witness non-responsive" or even worse, "hostile witness your honour"
Everything is information? We must consider the measure of entropy in what you intend to refer to as everything. Information? I would rather we refer to messages rather than information. There is data, and there is gibberish, and there is information. I don't believe everything is information.
I take it that when you say everything is information you actually mean everything contains information?
Then later you may please expalin what you call your "cathedral" I have a feeling its not made of bricks.
Why give such an example Albert? You cannot use an unexplained thing to explain something else that needs explanation Albert. Its like digging one hole to stop another. Its a logical fallacy.

I agree that "the artificial distinction between material and immaterial is bridged by information". But please explain what you mean by bridged. Because I believe the material as a concept and the immaterial as a concepts can be both existing in my mind because of info. But there is a need to define immaterial if you are not talking about concepts. Because I need info on that.

Are you talking about concepts or are you talking about objects when You use the terms immaterial and material?
What are you talking about Albert? Expresses information to who? Happens where?
Everything is a broad word Albert, please tell me what you are referring to.
Who thinks sloppily Albert? We? me and you? Everyone?
Who is the middleman ?
What is the thing?
We can do anything Albert, so long as its rational and Logical. For a start, there are no things without thing-ness.
Its like removing the colour-ness out of colour. There is no need to drop the natural out of the supernatural because we already have both super and natural as words with precise meanings.
If you have a new concept, I can give you the leeway to call it Ciprianiness or something, so long as you define it clearly.
Sophistry leans heavily on ambiguity and I hope you are comitted to clear communication.

Aliet the simple African

*now how is that for a signature?*

In retrospect Albert, I am really disappointed that you thought what can be trained in Kenya must be either a gnat, a lion or Elephant. I held such a high image of you. Its plumetting fast.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

HelenM

If you don't mind me asking, jaliet, what happened the last time she did talk about it with you? I guess it didn't go so well from her point of view...

love
Helen

Albert Cipriani

Dear Huginn,
You claim that the following sentence is meaningless:


To symbolize the language: where X is the material and Y is the non-material, if X is informationally relatable to Y, why call Y non-X? Why not refer to them in terms of the only term that relates them to each other, information. So where X is the material and Y is the non-material and Z is the information, X = Z and Y = Z.

My beef is with the concept of the immaterial. Firstly, because you cannot logically refer to something as what it is not, i.e., not-material. Secondly, because the immaterial and the material are both code words for informational since no one knows of either unless one obtains information about either.

Ergo, as in algebra where like terms cancel, we can loose "material" from any equation regarding the material and the immaterial. Their common denominator of information is all that exists. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

SteveD

Originally posted by HelenSL:
I would guess that she probably has never read the bible and is unfamiliar with most of what is in it. Catholics learn all that they need to know from (as Albert puts it) the infallible teaching of the Church. For a Catholic there is really no need to actually read the bible. Further, I don't see how pointing out problems with what the bible says would matter to a Catholic. It is what the Church teaches that is important.

I was raised as a Catholic for the first 17 years of my life and only now, at age 45, am I reading the bible for the first time.

Steve

Huginn

You have not defined certain terms, upon which, you are relying. Please explain what you mean by material and non-material. What do you mean by 'informationally relatable'? What do you mean when you use the term 'information'?

I'm not being deliberately difficult. I am interested in understanding what you are trying to explain. Help me to understand. I will understand if you do not wish to (though I will be disappointed).

Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SteveD:
[QB]Originally posted by HelenSL:

Good for you Steve. Now is the right time for you.

Ted Hoffman

Well, she thought she understood the bible more than me. She went through the catechism classes and so on. We were discussing the bible and errors in it and the misconceptions christians have etc. You know when you tell a christian that "Yahweh loved to dwell in thick darkness", and you tell them Yahweh loved being known as a "man of war" and they go "What??!!!", and they challenge you to open the bible and show them?, well, something like that happened and I opened a few verses for her and demonstrated all the ugly stuff contained in that book.
Then she was quiet (I believe at the time cognitive dissonance was chewing away all her faith).
Then after I let it sink in, I told her "You havent heard nothing yet, lets see what we have in Genesis...".
She then said she doesn't want to talk about it.
And that was it. I let it go, I didn't want to take away her dreams and hopes. She holds this idea of respecting peoples beliefs and uses it well, so her beliefs are safe from me.

In fact the bible I used that day was one she'd bought me as a gift (xstians cant help proselytizing now can they?).
She doesn't buy me "Everyday with Jesus" by Sewlyn Hughes anymore. In fact I dont see her reading "Daily Bread" anymore. There was a time she ensured I got a copy of "Daily Bread" every year. I read them copiuosly and took notes - critiques would describe what I was doing. There was even C.S. Lewis' mere Christianity that almost had me believing in God. We even used to go for bible study together. I gave myself the chance to see whether there truly was any sense in what christians do, but well...here I am.

She never used to miss going to church. Nowadays, she doesn't feel guilty about missing mass anymore.

But she knows not to risk being soundly thumped by opening the bible to me. It has never come up again.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

[quote]Originally posted by Amos:
<strong>What? Helen, is this Steve as in Steve?