Darth Wong wrote:Oh for fuck's sake, did you decide to totally ignore the bit about holy water and the fact that some of this bullshit has been officially approved? The Catholic Church has never been shy about claiming that physical artifacts in this world can actually have magical powers. They even have a process for certifying which ones are "authentic" and which ones aren't. I could spend all evening trying to dig up numbers for visitors to all of these holy places, but every goddamned Catholic church in the world has this "holy water" bullshit, and when the hierarchy has actually approved some of these crazy-ass claims about "healing miracles" associated with inanimate objects such as weeping statues, you really don't have a leg to stand on with your claim that Catholicism is somehow immune to this.
I think it's too bad that you never felt the inclination to actually look up numbers for the "common" attendance at saintly things. I would have been interested to see them.
No matter.
Regarding holy water: it specifically recalls Baptism, which is a coming of the holy spirit on a person (or some such thing), which in turn is essentially God. Thus I don't see that the existence of holy water is much of an argument regarding polytheism.
For the rest of "these crazy-ass claims", from the Catechism:
"The religious sense of the Christian people has always found expression in various forms of piety surrounding the Church's sacramental life,
such as the veneration of relics, visits to sanctuaries, pilgrimages, processions, the stations of the cross, religious dances, the rosary, medals, etc.
These expressions of piety extend the liturgical life of the Church, but do not replace it. They 'should be so drawn up that they harmonize with the liturgical seasons, accord with the sacred liturgy, are
in some way derived from it and lead the people to it, since in fact the liturgy by its very nature is far superior to any of them.'"
I am not going to claim that the Catechism and the practice of the Catholic faith are identical, but I think it's fair to assume unless demonstrated otherwise. It's all to draw people to God, apparently. I'm not necessarily for the practice, but I don't see that in and of itself it's an argument for polytheism.
If people think that a statue can heal disease, it fits every definition of a pagan god, does it not?
Yes, I'd agree with that. The trouble lies in the claim that the people believe that the
statue itself is responsible for the healing, as opposed to God's attention being fixed on that area (or whatever other explanation you choose to invent). Unless the people believe that the statue itself is responsible for the healing, then it's not really an issue.
How often do Catholics say devotions to the Virgin Mary?
I don't know. I don't do it. I'm not going to do your research for you.
It really seems to me like you're just stalling for time, since you had previously posted an argument against this very line of reasoning by saying that the act of making devotions to something doesn't necessarily mean you think it's a deity anyway. So by posting this now, you're posting criteria to which you already have a ready-made rebuttal, should I answer it.
This gets into issues of semantics that don't interest me. For the purposes of the discussion, consider my previous rebuttal void. Suppose that, say, a pilgrimage to a holy site (or whatever) is demonstration of polytheism.
I tried that argument already, by mentioning Satan and the angels. Howedar answered by mumbling something about changing the parameters of the discussion.
Again I thought I was being clear; I guess I wasn't. I consider that argument to be de facto proof that Christianity, in all its forms, is polytheistic (albeit to a small degree). I said that it would be a more interesting discussion to rephrase things because
I considered the discussion about the technical polytheism of Christianity to have been won by the affirmative side.
