Glad to bring you joy

(December 13, 2015 at 7:19 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: By "objective truth" do you guys mean something that is actually real?

Yes, I believe God is actually real.

No, it isn't what's "actually real", unless it's also actually real to people outside of Christianity. For an idea to qualify as this, it must be provable through empirical evidence (that means not subject to cultural or creed-based bias). If you cannot bring such evidence to an atheist forum, to a world science organization, to India, or to any place where the pre-conceived notion of your god is not held by the people there, then you may as well claim that you are Tinker Bell.

(December 13, 2015 at 10:57 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 8:46 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: The fact that it sounds so ridiculous you can't even explain it should tell you a lot.

Marry me, you sexy beast you. And then we can consummate.

I'd have an affair with you if you suddenly became an atheist .

(December 13, 2015 at 9:46 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 10:57 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Marry me, you sexy beast you. And then we can consummate.

I'd have an affair with you if you suddenly became an atheist .

Yayyyyyy! Celebrationnnnnnn!!!!!!

(December 13, 2015 at 7:01 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Quantum Wrote: Yes there is a reason.
I won't do that for example. I will not teach my daughter that there is no god. I will tell her that I sincerely believe that there is no god, but I will try to avoid telling her that as a truth behind which I put my authority as a parent, because her thinking about it freely is a higher good than her adopting my point of view on the matter.

That is still pretty different.  For most of us atheism is not a positive belief, nothing we're greatly invested in.  So intrinsically it isn't anything we would want to emphasize in child rearing anyhow.  For the theist, they believe it as something extremely important even central to who they are.  That we would not coerce disbelief doesn't really make us more noble.  Apples and oranges.

Actually I believe the fact that we don't have any definite belief systems makes us even greater parents all the same. If I had any kids I would be teaching them science and philosophy at the same age religious folks would biblicize theirs.

Maybe you can just compromise and be a Non-Christina instead, CL

(December 13, 2015 at 9:57 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Actually I believe the fact that we don't have any definite belief systems makes us even greater parents all the same. If I had any kids I would be teaching them science and philosophy at the same age religious folks would biblicize theirs.

Might help to explain why the US lags behind "less faithful" nations when it comes to education, eh?

(December 13, 2015 at 4:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The Catechism says differently, though. It specifically states that the substance of the wafer becomes the substance of Christ's body.  It is very clear on this matter.

Do you reject this part of the Catechism, then?

But they are still in the physical shape of bread and wine, that's what I'm saying.

I, and the Catechism, are both talking about the substance of matter, not its shape. If you're only concerned about shapes of things, what claim do you have at all to speak to deeper truths? And if you're concerned about deeper truths, why are you dodging my question?

Do you or do you not believe, as the Catechism says, that the wafers physically turn to the flesh of Christ, that the wine turns physically to the blood of Christ? Why, or why not? Either justify your agreement with this ridiculous claim made by the Catechism, or justify your heresy.

You may be misunderstanding what we mean by "substance of matter." This does not mean we believe the Eucharist looks/tastes like flesh. 

Here is a more thorough explanation of our beliefs regarding the Eucharist being Christ's body:

Quote: "When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, why do they still look and taste like bread and wine?"

In the celebration of the Eucharist, the glorified Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine in a way that is unique, a way that is uniquely suited to the Eucharist. In the Church's traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the Eucharist the "substance" of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the "substance" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the "accidents" or appearances of bread and wine remain. "Substance" and "accident" are here used as philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of "accidents" or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of "substance" or deepest reality). This change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is called "transubstantiation." According to Catholic faith, we can speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because this transubstantiation has occurred (cf. Catechism, no. 1376). This is a great mystery of our faith—we can only know it from Christ's teaching given us in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church. Every other change that occurs in the world involves a change in accidents or characteristics. Sometimes the accidents change while the substance remains the same. For example, when a child reaches adulthood, the characteristics of the human person change in many ways, but the adult remains the same person—the same substance. At other times, the substance and the accidents both change. For example, when a person eats an apple, the apple is incorporated into the body of that person—is changed into the body of that person. When this change of substance occurs, however, the accidents or characteristics of the apple do not remain. As the apple is changed into the body of the person, it takes on the accidents or characteristics of the body of that person. Christ's presence in the Eucharist is unique in that, even though the consecrated bread and wine truly are in substance the Body and Blood of Christ, they have none of the accidents or characteristics of a human body, but only those of bread and wine.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/...nswers.cfm

(December 13, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Here's some info on the belief:

Quote:"When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, why do they still look and taste like bread and wine?"

In the celebration of the Eucharist, the glorified Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine in a way that is unique, a way that is uniquely suited to the Eucharist. In the Church's traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the Eucharist the "substance" of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the "substance" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the "accidents" or appearances of bread and wine remain. "Substance" and "accident" are here used as philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of "accidents" or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of "substance" or deepest reality). This change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is called "transubstantiation." According to Catholic faith, we can speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because this transubstantiation has occurred (cf. Catechism, no. 1376). This is a great mystery of our faith—we can only know it from Christ's teaching given us in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church. Every other change that occurs in the world involves a change in accidents or characteristics. Sometimes the accidents change while the substance remains the same. For example, when a child reaches adulthood, the characteristics of the human person change in many ways, but the adult remains the same person—the same substance. At other times, the substance and the accidents both change. For example, when a person eats an apple, the apple is incorporated into the body of that person—is changed into the body of that person. When this change of substance occurs, however, the accidents or characteristics of the apple do not remain. As the apple is changed into the body of the person, it takes on the accidents or characteristics of the body of that person. Christ's presence in the Eucharist is unique in that, even though the consecrated bread and wine truly are in substance the Body and Blood of Christ, they have none of the accidents or characteristics of a human body, but only those of bread and wine.

They are still in the shape of bread and wine, but we do believe that Jesus is present within them.

Well, that's not what the Catechism says. It says that there is a change in the substance -- "transubstantiation". Your quote cites CCC 1736 as if it's relevant, but it isn't, if you'll do yourself the favor of reading it.

This quote compares the doctrine of wine changing into blood -- physically, according to Catechism -- to a child changing into an adult. The comparison is clearly faulty, for while children, so long as they are nurtured indeed grow into adults, wine, no matter how long it is prayed-over, will never change into the blood of a man. You appeal to a meaningless spirituo-theological definition of "substance" in this special pleading of yours, but the fact is, your Catholic Catechism makes no such claim, distinguishes no such nuance. It simply states that the wafers turn into the substance of flesh -- they take on that material form. The wine turns to blood.

The quote you've provided is a combination of semantics and appeals to authority that carry no weight. These bishops can redefine substance as "deepest reality" (whatever that horseshit means!), but the fact is, they did not write the Catechism. The authors of the Catechism left no doubt in their words that they thought of transubstantiation as a physical thing.