Oliver

I thought it might even go back further. To the warrior/hunter eating the heart of his enemy/kill to take in his enemies/kills strengths or nature.

The Holy Eucharist is taught to be the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ (this doctrine is referred to as transubstantiation). The actual transformation of bread and wine occurs at the priest's words, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood." At that point, the accidents of bread and wine remain, i.e., it would appear to all senses that these continue to exist, while the substance has been entirely altered, a position succinctly summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas's hymn, "Adoro Te Devote"

It is one of the Seven Sacraments, referred to as the Blessed Sacrament, and consequently bestows grace upon the recipient and removes venial sin.

Eat the heart of a lion. Be a lion. Return to the tribe as the lion with in the tribe. A valuable hunter. A brave warrior.

King Richard the Lion heart.

We may pretend to be above such notions, and argue the finer points of meaning or intent but, it's hard to deny the associations with our past. I am willing to accept my beginnings as well as my present with out any feeling of shame or superiority.

I have been in such situations as a man and a warrior that eating my enemies heart could have been a possibility. That I didn't was more to my life experience and custom nothing more.

Well, aqvarivs, we obviously disagree on what is humour, what ridicule (and sarcasm), what offensive language, and what a rational debate about the topic or merits of Sells' article. So if you want to continue on this level - looking for feedbacks for your frustration with (Catholic) religious symbols - you will have to stick to people who share your understanding of these terms. Sorry for having got involved.

Roman Catholic please George. Lets not defame a church now in our huff of impotence. Proper names please. And George you haven't got involved. You pounced on my posts to illustrate your personal bias and ill humour but, stayed from engaging in conversation. I have kept my humour and reiterated my (provocative) thought.

I too am sorry for the manner in which you have chosen to engage here on online opinion. However I'm not about to take any abuse. Snide, childish, ill tempered or otherwise.

lyrics from Nina Simone's Sinner Man

Oh, sinner man, where you gonna run to all on that day?
Run to the sun, "Sun won't you hide me all on that day?"
Lord says, "Sinner man, the sun'll be a freezin' all on that day!"
Run, run, "Lord won't you hide me all on that day?"
Lord says "Sinner man, you should've been a praying all on that day."

Peter in his article says "I am reminded of how useful imaginary numbers are in mathematics. Everyone knows that there can be no such number as the root of minus one. But this gives rise to the idea of imaginary numbers that are very useful. Could it be that the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ is similar? While we all know that the event is impossible, we must cling to the concept in order to save our theology from distortion."

I just love this quote because we as humans have a propensity for this kind of mindset. Whilst some may say the root of minus one is a useful imaginary number wouldn't it be better described as a fictional expression because it cannot be a number and nor can it be imagined as such. Perhaps its usefulness and use will only point out what cannot be. A better use of imagination and certainly not being strictly utilitarian, is to apply this faculty to what can be possible rather than what will always be a fiction. Mathematician, George, may like to assist.

I'm sure its possible to similarly regard the idea of nothingness as just that, an idea. We would then see that no part of the universe could be devoid of matter with the best idea that nonexistence is impossible and indeed that we live in an infinite universe.

If the idea of nothingness is a fiction then its use in such a cosmological system as the "big bang" theory describes, is also a fiction or even better, a delusion. i.e. When you look at the vast expanse of endless galaxies how can anyone believe that it all came from NOTHING even if you want to believe that there is such a real idea as nothingness?

Keiran,
Let me repeat: There is nothing imaginary about imaginary numbers, there is nothing irrational about irrational numbers, and zero as a number as good as any other number (and not a Devil's invention as they thought in the Middle Ages). More precisely, all of mathematics is "imaginary" in the sense that it is a mental construction. Not only complex numbers, which a high school students learns to grasp, but e.g. also the number three is a mental construction (unlike what our senses experience as three particular apples), an abstraction which a small child has to learn to grasp. However, these mental constructions are "unreasonably effective" (Eugene Wigner) in the sense that they can be used to construct mathematical models for cognitive purposes -- not to confuse with mathematical models for practical purposes as used e.g. by engineers -- as essential (quantifiable) constituents of physical theories describing (material) reality. Their effectiveness lies in their ability to make experimentally verifiable predictions.

Religion, more precisely its rationalised backbone called theology in our western tradition, gives rise to religious models of a Reality that transcends material reality. Of course, this does not make sense if you do not accept a Reality transcending the material one (that in principle can be modelled by mathematics without any prior religious faith). There are many such models, even within one religious tradition (e.g. within Christianity). (ctd)

(cintinued)
However, there are two differences:

(1) Predictions in the case of religious models are not experimentally verifiable (unless you are a mystic or believe in a verification in after-life).

(2) The contemporary model of an atom supersedes the model of an atom as a tiny planetary system, and this in turn supersedes the model of an atom as a tiny ball. This case of clear ordering -- from the more naive to the more sophisticated that is closer to truth (whatever that means) -- accepted, at least implicitly, by all scientists, you do not have with religious models. All religious people believe in the existence of some Transcendental reality (and the mystics think they have a direct "sensual" access to it) but they differ in believing which model comes closest to this Reality.

This is where Faith -- and psychological/cultural adherence to a particular tradition --enters into the equation.