You’re mistaken. You
the existence of a single black swan disproves the hypothesis that there are no black swans.
Oh I see I see. Ok my mistake for using “Everyone”. Lets change it to MANY. Does that sound good for you?
Let me readjust my point, your video is one instance. In that video, you see 100 people kneel. There would be another 100+ people who passed by confused. Another 100+ people who went out and said whats that idiot doing with a wafer. So to look at your video and say “oooh look at all these people who knelt” misses the point of how many didn’t kneel.
Do you think it right in the first place to go and kneel like that? What if I put on a brown robe, went to the middle with a piece of wafer and did the same thing? The people who would come and kneel will be committing idolatry.
Just spend an ounce of thought neutrally on this matter. If you were walking down the street in your mall, and you see an unknown guy, dressed like a priest pull something like in that video (prior to you watching it), would you know he was genuine?
The reasonable answer is NO. There can always be unreasonable people who would assume it is the real thing and do worship. But honestly, we both know how inappropriate that would be if it was just a wafer. So my point still stands, if it was organized, we wouldn’t have this problem. There is a guarantee and faithful can engage without suspicion in the activity.
Why you are stuck up on defending randomness, is really out of my grasp of comprehension.
Even if we did think that “the point” of adoration is to inspire curiosity (which is wrong, although it may be a side benefit), who would ever imagine that this is more likely to happen by scheduling it at some parish on some Tuesday than by taking it out into the public at an unexpected time? I’m trying to imagine you walking up to a street preacher and saying, …d inviting people to see them at specified times. Why is the randomness so necessary? I see no justification for it."
Ha? Is this just advertising? No right? I mean honestly, I what are you trying to prove here?
All I am saying is that you can do ADVERTISING AND give people the chance to Adoration by FIRST LETTING PEOPLE KNOW.
How on earth is this hard to comprehend? I can’t believe we are debating this.
Probably the street-preacher analogy is the best one. Think of these friars as street preachers, and you will understand why your demands that they shuffle back to church don’t even compute.
Street preacher is fine and dandy. But this is NOT preaching. As I said before, by all means, if that was preaching, what he did was acceptable. Stop making false equivocations.
Let’s list some reasons:
- Perhaps, as friars, they don’t have a parish in the first place.
- Doing it in public makes a powerful statement that God and Catholic worship belong in public, not confined to churches where only Catholics need be confronted with them.
- Many people will not bother to go to scheduled adoration and may not even know what it is or understand why it should be important to them (certainly non-Catholics would virtually never go). For those there that day, this showed them.
- It is sometimes nice to have things of beauty in public. We would, for instance, be poorer if all public art were shut up in museums. That’s not to criticize museums, but it makes no sense in the case of any single statue to demand, “What is the necessity of having this particular statue in public? If there is no necessity, it must be in museum. After all, it could be damaged in public.” Some things are not necessary, but are nice because they are beautiful and enriching for everyone.
Nothing you said above qualifies the need for randomness. At best, it shows why public adoration is good. And I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I am only against the randomness. Even if the friar has no parish, he can simply notify the parish priest.
No, you just are wrong. If your claim was that it would be better if they scheduled it and kept it inside church doors, then that would be something that could be evaluated with pro- and con- arguments. I thought you were heading in that direction, but now you seem to have abandoned the “it’s too confusing” theory of argumentation for the logically flawed line, “Since you cannot prove that it is necessary that it be random, then it is necessary that it be scheduled.” Fallacy of the excluded middle, there.
Are you seriously reading what you type?
My point is the following. Notifying and having a designated place is more efficient and effective.
Randomness can still be justified if one can show that it is MORE EFFECTIVE or that it on his own intrinsic nature provides something different.
But as we can see, Randomness does not have such qualities. So my point was that we stick to the latter.
I have no clue what you are going with fallacies of excluded middle. This is a comparison between two things. If one is more effective than the other, you choose the other one. The problem statement has already been defined as a comparison between Random vs. Organized.
Now if your point is that there might be something better than Organized, sure. But as we have seen here, that can’t be random because it is already disqualified as performing less compared to Organized.
God Bless
