Why would God fear your curiosity?

[Brakeman]

I don't want to destroy your belief in a spiritual being if it makes you happy.

While I appreciate your good intentions, I think you're wrong here. Should doctors not try to cure insanity simply because the patient appears happy?

Perhaps even more apt, Should we, as members society, facilitate or approve the continued addiction of heroin addicts because it gives them so much pleasure and withdrawal causes so much pain?

[joebbowers]

^^ Oh that's good too. I like that, I'll remember it.

[learnin]

I don't want to destroy your belief in a spiritual being if it makes you happy.

While I appreciate your good intentions, I think you're wrong here. Should doctors not try to cure insanity simply because the patient appears happy?

You make a valid point but would some people go insane if they didn't have belief in something other than this life?   I think of a mother who might not be able to cope with the death of a child unless she believed she might see them again some day?

It's hard to say.

[Alzael]

You make a valid point but would some people go insane if they didn't have belief in something other than this life?   I think of a mother who might not be able to cope with the death of a child unless she believed she might see them again some day?

It's hard to say.

Most likely she would find something else. Maybe drugs or alchol. Maybe a good support group or friends and loved ones to help her cope. Maybe she could find solace working in the childcare industry like a friend of mines did. Helping to take care of other kids to make up for not having one of your own.

The point is that the solace which is offered by religion (actually anything that is offered by religion) can easily be gained in other ways. And in ways that are much more useful and constructive which don't involve lies and self-delusion.

[joebbowers]

Would some people go insane if they didn't have belief in something other than this life?   I think of a mother who might not be able to cope with the death of a child unless she believed she might see them again some day?

Most likely she would find something else. Maybe drugs or alchol. Maybe a good support group or friends and loved ones to help her cope. Maybe she could find solace working in the childcare industry like a friend of mines did. Helping to take care of other kids to make up for not having one of your own.

Alzael has a good idea, but there's also another point to be made that without religion, that mother may be not have been so deeply damaged by her child's death. I don't mean to say she wouldn't be sad, but perhaps she would have been able to rationalize it and accept it and continue on.

I don't think atheists are as deeply disturbed by death as theists. We accept it and understand it. When someone close to me dies, I'm sad of course, but I don't break down and become unable to function.

[learnin]

Alzael has a good idea, but there's also another point to be made that without religion, that mother may be not have been so deeply damaged by her child's death. I don't mean to say she wouldn't be sad, but perhaps she would have been able to rationalize it and accept it and continue on.

I don't think atheists are as deeply disturbed by death as theists. We accept it and understand it. When someone close to me dies, I'm sad of course, but I don't break down and become unable to function.

I would argue, however, that you might not break down upon the death of a loved one but another might.  One thing my many years of life has taught me is that every thing has negatives and positives.  Antibiotics kill harmful bacteria but also kill good bacteria.  The sun gives life and it kills life. 

If we could distinguish faith and religion from the face of the earth, I would propose that this would result in much good but would also bring a certain amount of bad.  It could be that the good would outweigh the bad but I'm not certain I could say for sure.

[joebbowers]

Learnin what you fail to be taking into account is that there are no gods, therefore whatever benefits religion has are not supernatural, but natural and man-made, and could therefore exist without religion.

The same is true of the horrible things religion does, they are also man-made and could exist without religion. However, compassion, community, and charity come naturally while to perform torture, genocide, and intolerance one must usually be indoctrinated specifically to reject one's nature.

[Alzael]

I would argue, however, that you might not break down upon the death of a loved one but another might.  One thing my many years of life has taught me is that every thing has negatives and positives.  Antibiotics kill harmful bacteria but also kill good bacteria.  The sun gives life and it kills life. 

If we could distinguish faith and religion from the face of the earth, I would propose that this would result in much good but would also bring a certain amount of bad.  It could be that the good would outweigh the bad but I'm not certain I could say for sure.

As I said, if they didn't have religion to fall back on, they would simply find something else.

[Ice Monkey]

Having been on both sides, I can say that there were no benefits I received from the church that I couldn't find elsewhere after I left it.

[gonegolfing]

Alzael has a good idea, but there's also another point to be made that without religion, that mother may be not have been so deeply damaged by her child's death. I don't mean to say she wouldn't be sad, but perhaps she would have been able to rationalize it and accept it and continue on.

I don't think atheists are as deeply disturbed by death as theists. We accept it and understand it. When someone close to me dies, I'm sad of course, but I don't break down and become unable to function.

I would argue, however, that you might not break down upon the death of a loved one but another might.  One thing my many years of life has taught me is that every thing has negatives and positives.  Antibiotics kill harmful bacteria but also kill good bacteria.  The sun gives life and it kills life. 

If we could distinguish faith and religion from the face of the earth, I would propose that this would result in much good but would also bring a certain amount of bad.  It could be that the good would outweigh the bad but I'm not certain I could say for sure.

Would you suggest then, or are you actually saying, that although you think extinguishing religion from the planet would have positive results, religion is in fact currently acting as the primary check and balance for societal behaviour ...And that you're in favour of it sticking around at the moment ?

If so, I think it would be much better to point out that it is in fact failing miserably in that capacity as a check and balance, and more oft than not acts to exacerbate the weaknesses and bad behaviours that come out of the human mind. Almost every conflict that is occurring on this planet currently has ties to religion which the facts show is in no way acting as a peaceful, compassionate and diplomatic check and balance. 

I've come to the conclusion that as long as we're a species we'll always have the religiously deluded and wishful thinkers on this planet. Eradication of religion and the supernatural-idea is out of the question in my mind.

To try and rehabilitate religion is to have to rehabilitate human minds which is a slow and hard process. 

What the reasonable, rational, and clear thinkers, on this planet must step up to the plate and do, is try with all their strength and resources to hammer home the fact of the miserable inefficiency of religion to make the world a better place and in turn then minimize its total effect in our world.

It would be beautiful to eventually see people practice their religions as they do their finances for the most part--keeping them private, peaceful, and no ones damn business.

However, taking candy from a child never happens without a confrontation...and convincing them it's bad for them is out of the question and only comprehensible after their teeth are rotted out. Even then it's still sometimes hard to throw away the lollipop

[jaimehlers]

However, compassion, community, and charity come naturally while to perform torture, genocide, and intolerance one must usually be indoctrinated specifically to reject one's nature.

*shakes head*  Not necessarily.  Empathy is a fundamental trait of the human condition, and you could argue that compassion, community, and charity are outgrowths of that.  In fact, I would agree; however, I do not think they are things that will come about automatically.  I think things like compassion, community, and charity are generally societal traits, not innate ones.

A child who grows up in a society which values compassion and charity will learn to value such things; a child who grows up in a society which does not value such things will not themselves value it.  Therefore, the converse also applies; a child who grows up in a society which views torture, genocide, and intolerance as normal will also view it as normal, and vice versa.

[BSD MAN]

It's a common trait of most religions that they indoctrinate children who are too young to know better, discourage scientific education, censor and forbid certain books, and generally discourage or outright condemn you for asking difficult questions about your religion. Faith, which is not knowledge in any sense of the word, but is belief without evidence and often belief in the face of opposing evidence, is hailed as among the highest of human virtues.

So I want to ask you theists this question, don't you find that a little strange? Why would God fear your curiosity? If God exists, shouldn't your thirst for knowledge simply discover more and more evidence and confirm your belief? Why would God discourage that?

Your argument and the term you use "common trait" could benefit from evidence to support it.  But let's not worry ourselves about evidence for now.  Assuming you are correct, my guess is that if you are trying to teach someone something (ANYTHING), you have two ways of approaching it.  Either ignore the other side or engage in it.  As a kid, I don't recall my public school teaching me about both sides to every topic - it is not a common approach in most elementary public schools.  From a development standpoint, (just my opinion) I really doubt teaching children a this-side-versus-that-side is an effective way of teaching until they have a more developed mind.  Showing both sides is done more frequently in high school and university settings where the intellect really starts to develop and grow. 

As a Catholic, I will definately teach my kids certain things the Church usually does not, i.e. arguments supporting athiesm as discussed in this forum. I plan to bring up the topic that some people don't believe in God.  They will ask why, and I will present the arguments I've seen here.  I will then add in my own opinion and theories, and let them decide.  If they come to the same conclusions I have, then I know they will be Catholics for life (I hope, anyway).  I have a few years to develop exactly HOW I will do this, but I believe it is important in case questions come up during their life, and they will know the Catholic responses.

As far as God fearing curiosity, I can only comment on the Catholic side.  And I can respond by saying that curiosity is not ever knocked or discouraged - in school or in Church.  Our kids ask great questions all the time, as kids do, and I tell them to keep asking.  As a veteran of Catholic education (10 years worth) I never, ever was told "Don't be curious" or heard "It would be wise NOT to ask that question".  Indeed, the Catholic Church more or less developed the modern / western university system to encourage wide spread education and scientific learning.  Some fun facts:
-The earliest universities were developed under the aegis of the Latin Church, usually from cathedral schools or by papal bull as studia generalia (n.b. The development of cathedral schools into universities actually appears to be quite rare, with the University of Paris being an exception — see Leff, Paris and Oxford Universities) (source: wikipedia)
-The Church, according to historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge". 
-Pope Innocent IV (1243–54) described the universities as "rivers of science which water and make fertile the soil of the universal Church"
-According to author Thomas E. Woods, "among the most important medieval contributions to modern science was the essentially free inquiry of the university system, where scholars could debate and discuss propositions, and in which the utility of human reason was taken for granted."
-35 craters on the moon are named after Jesuit scientists.
-Cassini (well known Italian Rennasissance era astronomer) was a student of Fr. Riccioli and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, astronomers who also discovered the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.
-Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories.
-Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as "the Jesuit science."
-List of 50 Jesuit scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
-Accroding to the NCEA, there are 6,841 Catholic schools (non-university): 5,636 elementary; 1,205 secondary.
-Total Catholic school student enrollment for the current academic year (2011-2012) is 2,031,455.

So when you posit, "It's a common trait of most religions that they indoctrinate children who are too young to know better, discourage scientific education, censor and forbid certain books, and generally discourage or outright condemn you for asking difficult questions about your religion." I can ask you, what makes you say that and what evidence do you have?  I never experienced this, I have never seen this, and don't understand on what grounds you are asking this question.  If you say "most religions" then you will need to provide us a list of which religions you are referring to as well as provide evidence from "most religions" to support your claim.

When you ask, "If God exists, shouldn't your thirst for knowledge simply discover more and more evidence and confirm your belief?"  Finding out more about science, for example, does not provide evidence that God exists in and of itself.  Knowing about photosynthesis for instance (BTW, first researched & developed by Jan Baptist van Helmont, a devout Catholic) does not show to anyone that there is a God all by itself.  It does offer the possibility that if God does exists (and we believe hs does), this is how He gives living organisms air to breathe and live - and so on.

The only people who would discourage curiosity would be people who act on their own, without any regard to reality or authority.

[Omen]

So when you posit, "It's a common trait of most religions that they indoctrinate children who are too young to know better, discourage scientific education, censor and forbid certain books, and generally discourage or outright condemn you for asking difficult questions about your religion." I can ask you, what makes you say that and what evidence do you have?

We have your own solipsistic appeals for one:

God would have to tell me He doesn't exist. 

Seriously... St. Thomas Aquinas explained it best,“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”  It's taken me 6 years to realize this. 

Old fogies like me are WAY to set in my ways to tell me otherwise.  There is NO ONE and nothing, not even Hutchins or Sheryl Crow or Dave Matthews, or Lance Armstrong, or HAL, or Janeane Garofalo or Bunny who can convince me, and that is because you don't accept the supernatural can exist without scientific evidence.  I believe it can and does exist above our experience (I am still trying to determine what qualitfies as evidence in your eyes, because most of you reject personal experience as evidence.  See converted atheist science fiction author to Catholic John C Wright http://www.scifiwright.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Wright_(author)  he witnessed the virgin Mary several times over several months). 

You need to canvas the high schools and colleges to find someone who is willign to listen... wait...  atheist teachers and professors are already convincing students for you (this is not sarcasm, I believe this to be the truth).  So in a sense, you should be encouraged.

This is your admission that you believe because you believe and for no other reason, you will believe regardless of any 'fact' to the contrary, and insist upon a qualification of your own disbelief that would be impossible to deliver:

"God would have to tell me He doesn't exist. "

This is paramount to indoctrination of yourself and I doubt your ability to honestly portray any 'argument' that supports your position or accurately describes the position of non-believers.  You will likely, as you have done above, use nothing but rhetorical equivocation.  You'll feed your children one line of bullshit after another and then when they ( unlikely, because they're children and will believe you out of hand ) demand you to support your position you will predictably do what you've done here:

Omen:
“I've crossed out the meaningless parts.  If you have evidence for a claim, back up the claim.  If you don't, then admit that you do not.”
-I’ll do what I can.  In the end I’m going to do what I want and it may make you satisfied and it may not.  I have no control over that.

“You are over generalizing an entire community based on responses that you won't even explain or cite examples for.   You no more qualify that then you qualify the assertion that sarcasm renders an argument invalid. We have no means to even determine your conclusions follow logically or rationally, much less why they were made in the first place.”
-As a general rule, I would agree with you.  But everyone, except you (and maybe one other) accepted, understood and agreed about this specific debate about using sarcasm.  So people got it, would you agree?  I am a bit more relaxed and conversational in my style, so I’m not going to be top heavy with evidence especially with regards to an opinion that is purely subjective.  Again, I will do what I can, but most of the issues I engage real life opinions/assertions that have been influenced by my faith.  I will offer reasons why I think so, and either you agree or don’t. 

Because apparently this is the best you can do.

So, to be honest, you have no room to claim that you are being forthright and honest when considering your behavior on this forum or to act surprised when someone points out that the very religious belief you espouse is backed by untold amounts of rhetorical dogma and indoctrination.

[Omen]

Indoctrination is part and parcel of christian ideology, like the sacrifice of Jesus:

It's part of a larger rhetorical device to release you from a metaphorical implication of your own guilt, a guilt given to you before you can exist ( the fall ). It is meant to make you emotionally dependent and it is reinforced by emphasizing the 'injustice' of the situation of an 'innocent' jesus being tortured and killed.  The method of this emphasis on the sacrifice is done in a manner that does nothing but prey on weak minded social participation.  The religion doesn't exist as anything more than the repetitious evocation of rhetorical nonsense, meant to burden you with an imagined guilt and the shame of the unnecessary suffering to relieve you of that imagined guilt.

Christians, like the believers of many religions, sit around churches being lambasted with this nonsense over and over. Since this is the only situation in which they have come to be dependent upon and indoctrinated into belief, they repeat the same rhetoric to people who do not believe without the intellectual necessity of even trying to explain it. Hence, why christians and other religious people evoke this nonsense ad nauseum. They have to believe it is self evidently true and treat you as if you believe it already, they can't allow it otherwise.  That is also why they more often then not can't bring themselves to account for contradictions or entertain non-belief in their own position.  You are ultimately more humble in admitting that you don't believe what you don't know, which is an admission that will send most believers into a mouth frothing rage.  That insecurity on their part precisely arises out of the cognitive dissonance of their own beliefs.

[BSD MAN]

Omen (a.k.a. Asian Darth Vader)-
Thanks for the fancy word there... I had to look up what "solipsistic" meant.  I learned something new today.

Anyway, I don't believe just to believe... the "just because" the Church told me so.  Although we are told in the Bible "Blessed are they who have not seen yet believe.(John 20:29)". I really do have a strong desire to gain as much earthly factual truths about God.  I loo up miracles, lives of the saints, converts, the list goes on and on.  We were born with brains that can reason... therefore we must reason.  But I can see how you thought I was a  mindless indoctrinated slave - but in your defense I presented it to you that way.  You were merely using my own quote to illustrate.  The quote holds no context to my life and you haven't a clue as to how/why I have come up with my theististic reasons.  I hope the change that misconception.  Although your statement makes for good & entertaining forum discussion - the "oooooh - he got you there!" moment we all seek. 

I have arrived at my conclusions starting from the point when I was not a passionately practicing Catholic (mid-20's, probably more agnotsitc than Catholic).  My conclusions are based on what I interpret as evidence as interpretted by a non-passionate and non-practicing Catholic.  I was a clean (mostly) slate.  But one by one, things added up over time.  Like arriving at scientific method, you collect evidence over time.  A single piece of evidence does not make a conclusion or a theory, but over time, little bits of information from sources I recognize as authentic lead to my ulitmate conclusion. 

You use the term Bull shit - meaning a lie, an untruth.  To you it is.  Anything beyond the physical cannot exist you (or can it?).  To me, little strings of evidence painted a story so glaringly true, that I cannot conclude anything else.  It is with these points, these strings of evidence, that I will illustrate to my kids.  But ultimately they are their own judges and have to conclude this on their own.  I must be aware of how I present your case then my case, because I want to be as honest as I can be about it.  But I do not need your approval.  They are my kids, your lack of faith in my ability to do this fairly does not interest me, and I can teach them how I want.  Heck, I can even do the ol' "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" schtick that was popular in New England 271 years ago (although I'd be way off). 

I have seen many of your arguments against God's existance and the only way to make this work properly is to present it to my kids in a way that even you would accept.  I cannot steer them, only present why I believe my conclusions are correct.  Besides, how many Xtian parents would actually present athiestic arguments to their children?  You now know of one. 

[Omen]

Omen (a.k.a. Asian Darth Vader)-
Thanks for the fancy word there... I had to look up what "solipsistic" meant.  I learned something new today.

Anyway, I don't believe just to believe... the "just because" the Church told me so.  Although we are told in the Bible "Blessed are they who have not seen yet believe.(John 20:29)".

Yes, a cult like self reinforcement through praising the act of believing without evidence.

I really do have a strong desire to gain as much earthly factual truths about God.  I loo up miracles, lives of the saints, converts, the list goes on and on.  We were born with brains that can reason... therefore we must reason.  But I can see how you thought I was a  mindless indoctrinated slave - but in your defense I presented it to you that way.

Now only if you could present it any different.

  You were merely using my own quote to illustrate.  The quote holds no context to my life and you haven't a clue as to how/why I have come up with my theististic reasons.

I don't give a shit.

What do you have to offer besides your insistence that you're not as dishonest as you have already behaved on this forum or as you did here:

Omen - I had an opinion based on real life experiences.  I asked a question based on my opinion.  People can choose to accept or reject my premise and answer, or not answer. 

It appears you require evidence for every assertion I make.  Giving you evidence as you require is not practicle (takes a lot of time).  Are you as demanding of evidence with everyone? 

Are you going to go back to complaining because you're being asked to support your position with evidence?

What should we take away from our experiences with you that doesn't demonstrate you to be little more than anti-intellectual?

I have arrived at my conclusions starting from the point when I was not a passionately practicing Catholic (mid-20's, probably more agnotsitc than Catholic).  My conclusions are based on what I interpret as evidence as interpretted by a non-passionate and non-practicing Catholic.

Logic.

Either P=P or P doesn't equal P.  Evidence is defined as:

ev·i·dence/?ev?d?ns/
Noun:   
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

When we speak of evidence we speak of how that evidence logically supports the conclusions drawn from that evidence.  When you speak of evidence, this goes back to the idea that religion promotes poor education and indoctrination, you speak of evidence in terms that makes evidence meaningless.

For example:

I am still trying to determine what qualitfies as evidence in your eyes, because most of you reject personal experience as evidence.

You're actually complaining that you can't submit 'personal experience' as evidence for a claim, as if you have no basic grasp on what it means for something to be objective vs subjective.  This kind of reasoning is solipsistic and is in support of indoctrinating dogma as it removes any responsibility for you to demonstrate the burden of proof for your claim.  You again reduce the meaning of 'knowledge' and 'evidence' to a point of ambiguity, where one can't distinguish personal experience as evidence for your claim vs the personal experience against your claim of someone else.

Plus, in this entire paragraph ( which I've removed ), you offer no explanation.  You just make another baseless claim without evidence, not once did you deliver a reasonable expectation to fullfill the burden of proof.

You will continue to do this in the next paragraph:

  You use the term Bull shit - meaning a lie, an untruth.  To you it is.  Anything beyond the physical cannot exist you (or can it?).  To me, little strings of evidence painted a story so glaringly true, that I cannot conclude anything else.  It is with these points, these strings of evidence, that I will illustrate to my kids.  But ultimately they are their own judges and have to conclude this on their own.  I must be aware of how I present your case then my case, because I want to be as honest as I can be about it.  But I do not need your approval.  They are my kids, your lack of faith in my ability to do this fairly does not interest me, and I can teach them how I want.  Heck, I can even do the ol' "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" schtick that was popular in New England 271 years ago (although I'd be way off). 

Beyond your dishonest assertion that you really really really have evidence, where is it?

I have seen many of your arguments against God's existance and the only way to make this work properly is to present it to my kids in a way that even you would accept.  I cannot steer them, only present why I believe my conclusions are correct.  Besides, how many Xtian parents would actually present athiestic arguments to their children?  You now know of one.

In the past you have dishonestly described our positions in a manner to be dismissive and can't seem to bring yourself to even honestly address posts:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,3037.msg64860.html#msg64860

This thread from 2008 for example, you totally avoided my first reply to you then insisted that you weren't going to respond me because of a number of totally asininie ad hominems about me as a person.  Even your 'coming back' thread, you frequently went out of your way to avoid addressing the posts or rebuttals of others, you clearly have no interest in behaving responsibly intellectually speaking or actually dealing with any argument an atheist presents.  Hell, you even insisted my position was something else that it wasn't, after you insisted you weren't going to respond to my rebuttal.  You behave exactly as an indoctrinated christian, purely incapable of thinking outside the box of your own imagined assumptions of others and even delusional to the point of not wanting to acknowledge the counter points people make.

[jdawg70]

As far as God fearing curiosity, I can only comment on the Catholic side.  And I can respond by saying that curiosity is not ever knocked or discouraged - in school or in Church.  Our kids ask great questions all the time, as kids do, and I tell them to keep asking.  As a veteran of Catholic education (10 years worth) I never, ever was told "Don't be curious" or heard "It would be wise NOT to ask that question".  Indeed, the Catholic Church more or less developed the modern / western university system to encourage wide spread education and scientific learning.  Some fun facts:
 people who would discourage curiosity would be people who act on their own, without any regard to reality or authority.

I grant you it's been a while since I've been to Catholic school, but the entire concept of 'divine mysteries' seems to contradict your claim that there are no questions that are out of bounds (or knocked or discouraged).  Or, I suppose that no one really said "You can't ask that question", but they sure as hell said "It's a mystery.  Just accept it as true.".

Holy Trinity.
The Annunciation.
The Eucharist.

Yes, I can ask the question.  But the only acceptable answer was always "It's a divine mystery."  I grant you that I've never asked the pope if it would be OK for me to take the Eucharist into the lab, have a priest consecrate it, and see if it truly does undergo transubstantiation in any meaningful way.  I'd suspect he'd accuse me of heresy or sacrilege and declare me immoral before the eyes of god, subject to denial of salvation.  But that's a guess.

According to Catholic doctrine, there are just some things that are plain unknowable.  Yeah, I suppose I can ask about it, but under no circumstance will I ever be able to arrive at an answer.  That's kinda discouraging.

As an aside, from a non-doctrinal standpoint, I've heard more than my fair share of practicing, devout Catholics ask the worst of all questions:
"Why do they always need to question?"
Seems like you aren't the type to do that, and I hope I'm right about that.

[nogodsforme]

How are you going to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural to your kids? And how are you going to show your kids that the miracles of the Catholic faith are true but the miracles of all other religions are false? 

Kids want to believe in magic, fairies, etc. But after a while, they know that Santa Claus is not real, the tooth fairy is not real, Harry Potter is just a story and Tinkerbell does not really come back to life when you clap. But they are supposed to still somehow believe in Noah's Ark and the Trinity and the magical healings of [some] sick people? Right.

Kids are also pretty hardheaded when it comes to fairness and justice. As a child, I never could buy the Adam and Eve story as fair. Even if you accept that Almighty God did not know about the snake, why punish everyone forever with death and suffering and hell over two people eating an apple?

Suppose two kids took reference books out of the library against the school rules. If the teacher punished the entire class by canceling all library privileges forever, the students would revolt.[1] And if the teacher then punished all subsequent classes as well? Every student comes into the class on day one already guilty of library theft? How is that fair?

The only way to justify this kind of behavior is to explain to your kids that god can do whatever he wants because he is god. We don't have to think it is fair because we are not god.  "Might makes right" is the way a dictator rules, and god is a really powerful dictator. Who loves you.

This is such convoluted reasoning that I can't imagine how people convince themselves that it is true, let alone convince others.

1.	You have to also know that the substitute teacher told them it was okay to take the books...

[Hatter23]

Yes, I can ask the question.  But the only acceptable answer was always "It's a divine mystery."  I grant you that I've never asked the pope if it would be OK for me to take the Eucharist into the lab, have a priest consecrate it, and see if it truly does undergo transubstantiation in any meaningful way.  I'd suspect he'd accuse me of heresy or sacrilege and declare me immoral before the eyes of god, subject to denial of salvation.  But that's a guess.

This is more or less the official answer:

Yes, you are correct that we Catholics do believe that Jesus is truly, wholly, entirely, and substantially present in the Eucharist.  However, the mistake that you are making is that you are not using the word "substantially" in the sense that the Catholic Church uses it – that is, how it is used in the context of medieval Scholastic / Aristotelian philosophy (i.e., the systematic language in which "Transubstantiation" was dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church in the year 1215 A.D.).  In essence, there is a MAJOR difference between "transSUBSTANTiation" and "transFORMation".  In "transFORMAation", the actual physical properties of a thing are changed into something else.  This would include, not only the thing's shape and size, but the very molecular structure of the thing itself.  However, when it comes to the Eucharist, Catholics obviously don't believe that the little fragment of what is apparently "bread" in the priest's hand takes on the "form" or "structure" of Jesus Christ – a 6-foot, living and breathing Individual.  We also do not believe that, if one placed a Eucharistic host (the wafer of consecrated "bread") under a microscope that one would be able to see the cells of a Divine Jewish Carpenter, etc.

No.  We do not believe that the form of bread or the form of wine changes at all.  Rather, what we believe is that the substance of bread and wine changes into something (Someone) else.  And here, "substance" is a specific metaphysical term used in the language of Scholastic / Aristotelian philosophy – the language which was used to define our dogmatic doctrine.  And what it refers to is the **essence** of the very thing itself.  For example, if I have an ordinary piece of bread, that piece of bread possesses both a physical reality and a metaphysical reality.  It is both something I can see, touch, and taste (its physical properties) and it is something that exists as a reality beyond the perception of my senses (its metaphysical reality).  For, if I were to leave the room, the bread would still objectively be there.  Our Catholic belief is not that the physical properties of bread and wine change.  Rather, we specifically teach (as stated in the Catechism sections that you quote from above) that Christ is substantially present "UNDER THE SPECIES of bread and wine", meaning that the "species" (the "physical properties" also called "accidents" in the language of Aristotelian / Scholastic philosophy) remain the same.  And so our senses (sight, taste, touch, etc.) only perceive bread and wine.  However, the metaphysical properties of the bread and wine (that is, the substances of the bread and wine) do change in a miraculous act of God which we call "Transubstantiation".  In other words, Jesus is truly, wholly, entirely, and substantially present in the Eucharist in a metaphysical sense, whereas the physical "species" (i.e., the physical properties – everything that can be perceived by our senses) of bread and wine remain the same.

So under Catholic doctrine, all scientific tests would remain the same, however it reall really did change in a way. So apparently bread has some sort of soul.

And I only knew it had a heel.

[BSD MAN]

Jdawg

"I'd suspect he'd accuse me of heresy or sacrilege and declare me immoral before the eyes of god, subject to denial of salvation.  But that's a guess."

 

LOL - that's funny!  (evil scowl) "YOU SINNER!!!  YOU WILL GO TO HELL FOR ASKING QUESTIONS!!!!!"  Haha.  That's not how it works.  One denies themselves salvation.  We hold that God is offers eternal salvation, and those who willingly laugh it off as bunk or fairy tales take themselves away from salvation.  But the answer on earth is... we don't know where the heck you're winding up - only God knows your heart. 

I split athiests into two groups:  1) Those who are willing to accept a supreme maker, creator, judge but have seen no evidence... but are open to evidence they deem authentic. 2) There is 100% absolutely, positootly no god no matter what evidence is thrown their way. 
Those who fall into the #1 category, I suspect just might be, maybe, just maybe forgiven and offered salvation (I think the door is open on this one).  Those who fall into #2, well I can't imagine any salvation.

According to Catholic doctrine, there are just some things that are plain unknowable.  Yeah, I suppose I can ask about it, but under no circumstance will I ever be able to arrive at an answer.  That's kinda discouraging.

Yes, this is true.  We do not have full knowledge of everything and I suspect we weren't meant to know everything.  But isn't science that way, too?  The more you find out, the more questions there are.  We will never know everything. 

As an aside, from a non-doctrinal standpoint, I've heard more than my fair share of practicing, devout Catholics ask the worst of all questions:
"Why do they always need to question?"
Seems like you aren't the type to do that, and I hope I'm right about that.

Answer: They ask the question becuase they want to know.  Right?  Thanks - I try not to be that way.  When it comes to faith, doctrine, the Church I say things and ask questions to my family that they feel are unduly harsh, I just say they're not using their brains.  I run through the same logic processes that some atheists here say they have, I just do the same from a Catholic POV.

OMEN - Harsh!  You smitted me three times!!  Honestly, you appear to me like that 1740's New England preacher Jonathan Edwards (author; "Sinners in the Hands...").  Even like the Inquisition - quick to judge and condemn.  I hope smitting me that eases your aingst toward me.  Okay Omen, you will get my reasons and evidence for belief in God, but it will take time to construct.  Remember I'm lazy, I get distracted (sorry, you call it dishonesty) and don't have a ton of time.  This shit ain't the simplist thing to whip out.  If it was, you'd be a believer.  Please allow me some time before giving me the Vulkan Death Grip again - or is it the 15' Darth Vader remote nerve pinch.  No- it's the Ginsu knife chopping the can in two.  I will send them to Velkyn, too.  She's on a tear.  BTW - Do you fall into my category 1 or category 2 type atheist?  Also, please let me know why there is no God.  You've been on my case so much, you haven't offered me your reasons for non-belief.  So let's see them.  Take as long as you need.

[nogodsforme]

So under Catholic doctrine, all scientific tests would remain the same, however it reall really did change in a way. So apparently bread has some sort of soul.

And I only knew it had a heel.

Well I guess that would make the communion wafer the original soul food. 

[Omen]

OMEN - Harsh!  You smitted me three times!!  Honestly, you appear to me like that 1740's New England preacher Jonathan Edwards (author; "Sinners in the Hands...").  Even like the Inquisition - quick to judge and condemn.  I hope smitting me that eases your aingst toward me.  Okay Omen, you will get my reasons and evidence for belief in God, but it will take time to construct.  Remember I'm lazy, I get distracted (sorry, you call it dishonesty) and don't have a ton of time.  This shit ain't the simplist thing to whip out.  If it was, you'd be a believer.  Please allow me some time before giving me the Vulkan Death Grip again - or is it the 15' Darth Vader remote nerve pinch.  No- it's the Ginsu knife chopping the can in two.  I will send them to Velkyn, too.  She's on a tear.  BTW - Do you fall into my category 1 or category 2 type atheist?  Also, please let me know why there is no God.  You've been on my case so much, you haven't offered me your reasons for non-belief.  So let's see them.  Take as long as you need.

I started a thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22310.new.html#new

[nogodsforme]

I split athiests into two groups:  1) Those who are willing to accept a supreme maker, creator, judge but have seen no evidence... but are open to evidence they deem authentic. 2) There is 100% absolutely, positootly no god no matter what evidence is thrown their way.  Those who fall into the #1 category, I suspect just might be, maybe, just maybe forgiven and offered salvation (I think the door is open on this one).  Those who fall into #2, well I can't imagine any salvation.

Category 1 is an atheist-- a person who does not believe in any gods because of the lack of evidence. Category 2 does not exist. There is no evidence to "throw their way", so we are back to Category 1.

[jaimehlers]

BSD MAN:  Are you open to the idea that your beliefs are not based on reality, but that they are essentially fictional?  That your brain is essentially seeing randomly-formed patterns which have fooled you into thinking that they are meaningful and purposeful, in other words, and that this idea has been reinforced for much of your life by like-minded people.  I am quite serious here.  It's very easy for someone to honestly get fooled into believing something that isn't true, yet because they came by that belief honestly, they don't realize that they've been deceived all along.  I suspect you would agree if I were to ask you about other religions.

[Tero]

I guess by category 2 he meant people who would reject new evidence not shown to them before. But I have no idea what the new evidence would be.

[Omen]

It is probably some asinine strawman about atheist.

[jdawg70]

According to Catholic doctrine, there are just some things that are plain unknowable.  Yeah, I suppose I can ask about it, but under no circumstance will I ever be able to arrive at an answer.  That's kinda discouraging.

Yes, this is true.  We do not have full knowledge of everything and I suspect we weren't meant to know everything.  But isn't science that way, too?  The more you find out, the more questions there are.  We will never know everything. 

I guess I should clarify.  The difference, I think, is this:

"This whole Holy Trinity thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  How is god 3 distinct persons, yet simultaneously 1 singular distinct entity?"

Mode A)
"I dunno.  You're right, that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.  Perhaps it isn't true?  Or, if it is, how do we determine what the nature of that 3 distinct persons in 1 distinct person thing?"

Mode B)
"I dunno.  But that's the way it is."

.......

You'll probably guess my answer to the follow-ups to mode A, but the point is I was able to make those follow-up questions.  Mode B did not allow that.  And I don't mean 'not allow' as in 'I will be threatened if I dare ask', but rather I was basically told that the question itself was invalid.  My problem isn't that there are more question but that questioning halts by arbitrary decree.

Within Catholic doctrine, The Holy Trinity is true...because.  It's a forgone conclusion.  I can ask "Why is it true?" but all I get is "because it's true".  In science, you get to always ask "Why is it true?" and at least dig into further inquiry.  With the possible exception of the assumption that there exists an objective reality, I can't really think of anything that is axiomatically true because it's true - I can always ask "Why?" and answer "I don't know, let's try to find out" or find some other referent in reality to attempt to answer the "Why?" question.

[Graybeard]

Anyway, I don't believe just to believe... the "just because" the Church told me so.

It is very hard, if not impossible to know why you believe something that is based upon "just having to accept" some things.

Like arriving at scientific method, you collect evidence over time.

Faith is the exact opposite of the scientific method. Faith starts with the conclusion that there is a god and then "facts" are sought to justify that belief.

I have seen many of your arguments against God's existance and the only way to make this work properly is to present it to my kids in a way that even you would accept.  I cannot steer them, only present why I believe my conclusions are correct.  Besides, how many Xtian parents would actually present athiestic arguments to their children?  You now know of one.

I don't know your nationality, but look in your pocket and find a set of all the coins in circulation up to $1/£1/€1.

Show them to your children. Ask if any are missing (There should not be). Now, how comfortable would you be with telling them that there was also a 43cent/pence coin.

You could explain that no one has ever seen one. You could tell stories of people who thought they had heard one fall to the floor, or of people who said they had found one, but when anyone asked them about it, they always said they had lost it.

Once you have convinced them that there really is a 43cent/pence coin, tell them to go and tell their friends about this. Tell them to tell their teacher. Tell them that you would be disappointed if they did not believe in the a 43cent/pence coin. Tell them how you believe in it.

Tell them that when they grow up they can work in a job that pays money to people who speak to others about how they should believe that there is a a 43cent/pence coin, because a lot of people want to hear about this strange thing.

I'd think doing that to a child would be strange.

[joebbowers]

^^ Also teach them to violently hate anyone who doesn't believe in the 43 cent coin.