Active Users:483 Time:15/09/2026 12:37:48 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 1078 Views
To my knowledge, baptism does not stem from the Resurrection. - 10/06/2011 11:01:17 AM 847 Views
What I meant - 10/06/2011 11:03:08 AM 664 Views
I don't follow. - 10/06/2011 11:08:07 AM 652 Views
Re: I don't follow. - 10/06/2011 11:10:40 AM 737 Views
I don't keep up with RC theology much. - 10/06/2011 11:15:52 AM 666 Views
Re: I don't keep up with RC theology much. - 10/06/2011 11:17:53 AM 620 Views
You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 11:50:53 AM 694 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 11:52:27 AM 605 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 11:55:01 AM 673 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 11:58:36 AM 640 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:16:46 PM 822 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:19:16 PM 635 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:25:08 PM 872 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:26:30 PM 846 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:28:45 PM 653 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:29:43 PM 671 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:33:01 PM 526 Views
Re: You haven't necessarily developed a wrong impression. - 10/06/2011 12:34:36 PM 614 Views
I took a holy dip into the Ganges - 10/06/2011 11:48:26 AM 742 Views
Re: I took a holy dip into the Ganges - 10/06/2011 11:54:17 AM 817 Views
He dances and dips in The Ganges- Very Nice. *NM* - 11/06/2011 02:15:41 AM 281 Views
Three dips - that's the ceremony. - 11/06/2011 02:35:43 AM 609 Views
Early Christians and Jews were obsessed with purity - 10/06/2011 12:56:58 PM 768 Views
Oh, I know about the historical/academic/anthropological reason - 10/06/2011 01:04:43 PM 706 Views
I misunderstood, lets try again - 10/06/2011 01:44:43 PM 801 Views
Huh. *NM* - 10/06/2011 02:06:58 PM 334 Views
A first responce - 10/06/2011 02:09:32 PM 860 Views
Re: A first responce - 10/06/2011 02:15:07 PM 817 Views
Re: A first responce - 10/06/2011 02:19:25 PM 741 Views
Do you want a theological answer or a historical one? - 10/06/2011 03:16:44 PM 853 Views
The theological. I already had a fairly good idea of the historical - 10/06/2011 03:18:51 PM 689 Views
My favorite fact about baptism is that is REQUIRES water... but it can be ANY water - 10/06/2011 04:31:12 PM 757 Views
That is absurd. - 10/06/2011 08:37:13 PM 850 Views
It is absurd - 10/06/2011 08:56:19 PM 698 Views
When your post is eviscerated, resorting to "HURR RELIGION IS DUMB" isn't a winning move. - 10/06/2011 10:00:39 PM 777 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 639 Views
The point is that it's a symbol. - 11/06/2011 04:45:19 AM 648 Views
I have no problem with water as a symbol - 11/06/2011 04:59:52 AM 715 Views
You are totally missing the point. - 11/06/2011 02:46:08 PM 805 Views
Which again, is something that sounds nice and spiritual, but doesn't actually make any sense - 11/06/2011 03:46:51 PM 777 Views
your problem is you're trying to apply objective logic to religion - 11/06/2011 04:13:01 PM 1029 Views
I'm not, exactly. Religion has internal logic. For example, certain things are "unclean" - 11/06/2011 04:40:33 PM 666 Views
Beliefs about holy water are internally logical. - 11/06/2011 07:36:08 PM 714 Views
Shrug. It was on topic. - 11/06/2011 08:06:16 PM 983 Views
Baptism is almost, if not entirely, symbolic. - 11/06/2011 10:23:02 AM 860 Views
Re: Baptism is almost, if not entirely, symbolic. - 11/06/2011 11:51:22 AM 839 Views
I never thought of it in that way, that is why I like this site *NM* - 12/06/2011 04:26:40 PM 320 Views
Because we are all nuts in our own special ways? *NM* - 12/06/2011 04:36:03 PM 276 Views

Reply to Message