Is not any inherent vice in man the planned obsolescence of god?

>implying i'm talking about fucking pynchon when i clearly mention gaddis' work
good job.

who the fuck is gaddis supposed to be nigga lmao

don't worry about it. i only talk about things with plebs, see your way out please, sir patrish.

>i pour a drop of this sanctified liquid into the ordinary vessel, will this ordinary water be rendered holy?

Yes. It's even called "the indestructible drop" in some Buddhist denominations.

hey demiurge guy, i always like your posts. well, that answer goes back to my initial question, if holy water is used as a baptismal fluid, and say i sip a drink of this holy water, would not my body be sanctified by this precious draught, to the point that it cleanses me of sin for eternity? also, i would imagine this water is infallible, why the hell does water get such special treatment?

Oh...I thought it was a figurative question.

in a way it is, in others, no, i'm curious about fallibility intrinsic in humanity, as well as the properties of sanctified objects in the physical realm, i find it curious that the one thing that separates us from being mere objects is the holy spirit, or the soul or what have you, which is a mystic stuff, breath of god himself, and yet we only attain fallibility after the process of gaining this soul. say the body is blessed and is given a soul, why would fallibility be introduced with a literal piece of the demiurge? does that not go against the potential infallibility of the object as blessed by the very power of this demiurge?

anyhow, off to bed, i must sleep for now.

I don't think that the great antagony can be understood in dimensional and temporal terms.

what an awful thread

It's kind of arbitrary but I'll give it a go. The blessing relates inimically to the vessel and only its contents. By pouring the water into any other body of water you are essentially returning it to a base state of being.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that all the water we're discussing has the exact same chemical make up or that any differences in chemical makeup are irrelevant to the point I'm making.

If I blessed some water and then poured a drop of it into, say, a dozen bottles of drinking water without telling anyone, then that blessing exists only for me and only so long as I care or remember. Somebody could come along and pick up one of those bottles and drink it. As far as they're concerned, it's just water. They feel no special attachment to it and therefor it's just water. This would follow even if I blessed the bottle of drinking water in question.

But if I, as before, poured my drops of blessed water into a dozen bottles of regular drink water in front of an audience and proclaimed that the blessing now applies to all the liquid, then, so long as the audience identifies me as an acceptable minister, that water is blessed so long as we care or remember.

This can be applied to essentially any body of water.

How much water is blessed when they do the blessing? Can you bless an entire lake, pond, ocean? What about water vapour?

You can bless as much as you want, so long as people respect your blessing and so long as your creed allows it. Hell, that first one is optional if you're alright with the blessing being personal.

so it's arbitrary in the sense that this is a subjective process in two ways, one in which the state of the water itself is dependant upon the knowledge of the processes that made this holy water holy, and in the sense that this whole conception of holy water is based upon your word. well in regards to that idea, i would consider it pointless to bless things if it were dependant upon any base sinner's perspective! if there is no intrinsic change in that of say, a saintly relic, or blessed water or salt, besides one that exists merely in the mind of those present or in the know, i would happily respond that this is not the holy water i'm looking for. it reeks of a sinister personal god of too little power beyond the sphere of the single mind, for instance, in the act of purifying say, a demonic presence, as long as the demon were to simply state that the water's blessing was irrelevant because there was a semantical disagreement on say, the book of John, any idea of holy water would be rendered absolutely useless! some blessing

i'm sorry you can't answer a simple philosophical question.

i an surprised that few see the relevance of both questions asked in conjunction, and the importance of the state of inherent vice extant within each of us and what that implies alongside the act of things being blessed or becoming sanctified, and the entrance of sin into its fleshly realm at the instance the blessable object of the body receives the soul placed there by god himself. anyhow i suppose it can't be helped.

i guess i will have to wonder at this alone, i am sorry for troubling anyone.

is it possible to bless semen?
or strawberry jam?

fucking idiot.

does adding a drop of milk to a pot of shit make it good to drink? or does adding a drop of shit to a pot of milk make it bad to drink?

>is not any inherent vice in man the planned obsolescence of god?

SO FUCKING RETARDED

no, it's fucking not.

>what in the fuck does this have to do with x, you faggot? you shitheads speak of philosophy often, is god not a philosophical subject?

not when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>/x/

>i don't understand the terms so it's retarded
>i refuse to have any substantive conversation in regards to OP's post and content myself to insulting them rather than keeping my fucking trap shut

thanks for your contributions.

no. you are objectively fucking retarded, and much less 'anything' to talk about, i don't think there's 'anyone' to talk to. yes, i DO refuse to have any substantive conversation with this dolt. i AM content, nay, motivated to insult his trashy illiterate ass, rather than hold my tongue and let this sort of wankery go undisturbed.

kill

you're

selve

go back to starbucks with your macintosh laptop or something.

i am actually OP, and i must say you're embarassing yourself. you should probably sit down and shut up. i have a simple question that ties into the sin of man, and to what lengths it applies, and whether human flaws can be avoided by consecration through holy relics, and you're just being a whiny prick.

OP is an expert master troll
and a faggot, of course

well i'm sorry you think either of these things. i really just want to know what people think of being inherently sinful because god made them that way. it's a simple question, really it is, and really why objects gain some superiority over man and his wallowing in sin, simply by being blessed, when man is in general made from the same stuff as the blessed materials. as i said, the idea that we only become mired in sin when the holy spirit enters us seems to insinuate that the true house of sin is the soul itself, as though humanity is some sort of process through which a soul is purified and returned to the lord. does the lord not have the power to purge his own parts of this sin? is the damage of lucifer such that it would cause such a process to be necessary?

no, you should delete your fucking thread before you make yourself look like any more of an illiterate simpleton.

your question is STUPID. it's not clever. it's not thought provoking. your explanations are retarded. your IQ is most likely under 100. nothing you have said makes sense. you're slapping words together that you think have some relation, but you don't even know what the words you're using mean.

you don't know what the words you are using actually mean. let that sink in. most of your typing is gibberish, a quick step away from schizophrenic word salad.

go back to the fucking paranormal board where your kind is the norm.

>>/x/

okay then, i'll excuse you while you shit your pants, you vile fool.

you can't turn this back around on me. the damage is already done. you've already said shit that is so retarded that if i threatened to show it to your social circle i could probably extort over a hundred dollars from you. just stop fucking posting for about five to ten years while you mature. in fact, you don't need to be using the internet whatsoever. so stop. stop logging on to the internet, and find other things to do with your time. i don't care that you made these posts 'half ironically' so that you could claim 'but i was being insincere!' when you got called out on your garbage shitposting. your insincerity combined with you idiocy make me sick. get off the internet or fucking kill yourself, i don't care which but do one or the other.

i'm quite sincere. the source of sin and how to truly purge it from myself is quite important to me.
you're being nothing but a jester showing his ass, i'm not applauding you or even chuckling. i pity you, really. please just leave me alone and leave my thread for someone who might have some interest in this topic. from this point what you say shall be ignored if it doesn't adhere to the topic at hand. good day.

shut the fuck up you worthless homosexual. you're not sincere. you don't know what sin is. you don't know what purging it from yourself would mean. nobody has any interest because there is no topic, because you're not even making sense. you probably don't know what a fucking topic even is. i doubt you know what the word adhere means.

kill yourself, you fucking scum.

in relation to the topic, can a book be blessed? can a book also exist independent of its author's sinful intent? can literature contain only sin, and be blessed and remain so despite its content?

Holy water doesn't exist

>>/x/

A U T I S M

why do you say that?

Again, yes, if your creed allows it and people will respect your authority to do so. The religious fetishisation of male sex organs was common practice in a number of pagan societies. It really wouldn't be all that much of a stretch for them to pless their spunk.

As for the Jam, is that any more outlandish than blessing a piece of wafer as the body of Christ?

If I ejaculate in the ocean does the ocean become pregnant

i feel your answers are a subjective copout. it turns the question from being legitimate to "it is whatever you want to be, that surely should satisfy!" it doesn't, it's not helpful to render any religious question or ritual into a meaningless act.

I would argue that there is no other way to answer the questions raised. Unless you want to talk out of your ass, that is.

Faith is, unsurprisingly, about belief. If you truly believe the item before you is sacred or blessed then there is very little in the world that will change your mind. But if you don't believe, then it holds no value beyond it's physical/historic value.

For example, you don't need to think the spear of Christ is actually the real deal, or that any of what is described in the new gospel relating to that spear actually happened, to value it. It is an item that has been used to win wars and shape empires. In that regard it is fascinating.

But even that knowledge only creates extra value if it is known. If you have no knowledge of what it represents then its just an arrangement of gold, copper and iron, perhaps more valuable as a piece of art than for it's material value.

So it's all well and good to say that religious acts have intrinsic meaning. But that meaning only holds so long as it is understood. Just look at the destruction of any religion in the past. Did the conquistadors treat Aztec relics with sacred importance? No of course they didn't. They just saw gold, or precious gems, or a doo-dad to be traded back in Spain.

you write like a schizoid
literally just google 'Original Sin'