Saturday, April 7, 2012

Holy Saturday

As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb. 
The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate.  “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day.

Our parish priest said it best at our passion play on Good Friday: the Easter Triduum is the time we turn ashes into beauty.

On Holy Saturday we wait, prayerfully.


  1. Michael,

    Your choice of an illustration is unfortunate. Didn't you read Ed Feser's blogpost on the soul in which he noted that the depiction of angels with wings is childish?

    Also, you're confused regarding your dogma. Jesus wasn't resurrected after three days. He was supposedly resurrected on the third day, a period of being dead of around 36 hours.

    1. [Didn't you read Ed Feser's blogpost on the soul in which he noted that the depiction of angels with wings is childish?]

      Depicting immaterial things in canvas has always been a challenge.

      I'm sure you think paintings are also ridiculous because real things are three dimensional, not two dimensional.

      Your insights are deep.

    2. Michael,

      Unlike you, I understand neuroscience. I know that the brain takes a very imperfect perception of the external world presented to it by the senses and then creates a 3-dimensional illusion of reality. The retina is in two dimensions (like a painting). The brain has no problem converting a two dimensional image into a three dimensional construct.

      By the way, what made you think I was disputing the effectiveness of paintings? I was questioning your choice of an illustration of the Tomb, after Ed Feser's had labeled the depiction of angels with wings as being childish in the blogpost you had so lauded.

    3. Bach,

      "Unlike you, I understand neuroscience."

      Unlike doctor Egnor you BELIEVE in the Neuroscience as certain, sure, and resolved.
      This is notably counter-intuitive to your belief in nothing (nihilism).
      But there it is.
      You see this science as a confirmation of faith - force to guide you, he sees it as a tool for healing people.
      You both understand what the word 'neuroscience' means, but you see the subject very differently. Perhaps that is why Dr Egnor is a surgeon?

      The Doctor, actually working in the field, understands that medical science is an ever changing, ever growing, often reformed body of knowledge.
      You seem to think it is complete. At least enough so that you can 'know' this or that.
      Consider, Bach: What you 'know' today could well be the butt of jokes in 50 years.

      A clear example of this is when you state:
      " I know [my emph] that the brain takes a very imperfect perception of the external world presented to it by the senses and then creates a 3-dimensional illusion of reality."

      No you don't.
      You presume/assume that is the case based on research using the models of current science. Even if we give you your model, ALL this conjecture and theory is, once more, based on the VERY senses you seek to define. The recursive loop of positivism is once again present.
      Your illusion of illusion is (dare I say it?) an illusion.
      There is a sane way out of this infinite loop. An escape from the regression to the infinite.
      Cause and effect.
      But, as I am sure you are aware, one cause leads to another and soon enough to first and final causes.
      These are the things one CAN truly know, but that you refuse to.

    4. ...depiction of angels with wings is childish.

      That reminds me of this:

      And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
      Matthew 18:3

    5. @bach:

      [Unlike you, I understand neuroscience.]

      What was your medical specialty? I thought you were a general pathologist.

    6. Michael,

      Actually, anatomical pathologist, not general pathologist (which includes clinical biochemistry, microbiology and haematology).

      By neuroscience, I mean the field of knowledge that uses evidence to produce a picture of reality, and makes the perfectly reasonable statement that the mind is a product of the brain, and if you affect the brain you will alter the mind.

      Whereas, you adopt a bizarre philosophical argument that assumes that the mind and brain are separate.

      I don't feel constrained to commenting only on fields I specialized in. If I discuss the science of something (cosmology, AGW, evolution, etc) I discuss the science, not whether it supports my worldview that there's no personal god who created the universe, takes an intense personal interest in humans and gets very angry when they misbehave.

    7. So, in other words, you have no particular expertise in neuroscience.

      I have no objection to your expression of your opinions on any topic. But you don't get to claim some kind of special expertise unless you actually have that expertise.

      If you have a point to make, provide a good argument for it.

      Just like the rest of us.