Religious children have harder time between fact and fiction

You claim to "know" what CS is thinking where I only think I understand what he's saying. I think he's trying to explain how the Church rationalizes the belief. Why don't you cherry-pick dictionary definitions to make your point?

I'm not claiming to know what he's thinking; I'm demonstrating what's he's doing - rationalising. I really don't care what definition is used; you're missing the point. You don't understand what Catholicism teaches and what a 'real' Catholic is required to believe. The transubstantiation is real. As CS says, it's not symbolism. It's a problem now because, of course, it's utter bullshit but that's why it's worth discussing.

I'm not claiming anything.Catholic doctrine does NOT claim that the bread physically becomes the body, no. The "substance" of the bread changes into the body, but the bread still physically looks like bread. No, its certainly a matter of belief. There's no evidence. Species is Latin for "form". It has nothing to do with animal species.These lines from wiki explain it fairly well:

quote:

---

"Substance" here means what something is in itself, its essence. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. While the appearances, which are also referred to, though not in the Church's official teaching, by the philosophical term 'accidents', are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.

---

The idea is that a hat is not the material its made of, or the shape, or whatever forms, aka species, it has. The hat has those things but those things are not the hat. What the hat actually is, its substance, is not something that you can perceive. You can only perceive its forms, or species.Well shit, now we're into that stupid ontological discussion... When I do occasionally go to church, I don't talk to the kids. You're probably wrong A logical deduction does not lead to veracity. The conclusion can only be as good as the premises. No doubt you disagree with the premises, but that doesn't make the pathway to the conclusion illogical. And being deduction just means that you start with the premises and work through logic to get to the conclusion. So there's really nothing wrong with it being a logical deduction, even if you know that the conclusion is wrong.

You're absolutely correct. I'm not talking about my personal beliefs, I'm explaining what the Church's doctrine says.

From Message 15then from Message 19Now from this message I am replying to: How can you honestly claim that the catholic church is "Better at not indoctrinating children so that they cannot distinguish between fact and fiction" when a core tenet of the religion is something not based in evidence and is simply wishful thinking? can you not see that it is exactly the sort of thing in question and is more evidence pointing to why religious kids are prone to having trouble distinguishing fact and fiction? Does your church tell it's members (children, specifically) that they are performing a symbolic gesture when eating the wafer? Or are you all told that it is actually turning into jesus? Thanks. I think I understand it now. My understanding was that your (or was the churches?) logical deduction in question is that it "logically follows" that the wafer and wine is jesus since that is what the bible says, so you "logically deduct" that the wafer you are eating turns into jesus. Maybe you could clarify?

Which was why I asked this But you declined to answer.

It's all about grown up people playing a child's game of pretend.

You're trying to demonstrate; you have not yet achieved demonstration. I'm taking it from a real Catholic rather than from somebody who doesn't seem to understand what real Catholics are saying.

Then I suggest you listen to what he's saying.

Because, I think, having a few "silly" beliefs doesn't render Catholic children unable to distinguish between fact and fiction as bad as the Creationist approach of indoctrinating children with a wholly anti-science mentality.Catholics tend to embrace new scientific discoveries while the Creationists just dig their heels in. (Like how the Pope said that he would baptize aliens and Ken Ham said we should stop looking for them because they're going to hell anyways.)I think those two different approaches form different fundamental bases that yield different effects on how to distinguish between fact and fiction.I'd bet that a Catholic upbringing might still be worse than a purely secular one, but the article in the OP just looked at "church-going" versus "not church-going". I just thought it be interesting to see how the Catholics differ from the Creationists. I think they'd do better. Yes, but I don't see this one in particular as being that big of deal. Most people don't put a lot of stock in this one.Especially in contrast with something like evolution. Its been a while, but I think we didn't really get into the speicifics of transubstantiation until high school. In grade school, I think we were taught that we believe that it really is the body, and not just a symbol, but there really wasn't that much detail on the subject given at that age.Oh and I think its worth pointing out that's typically how we were taught: "We believe this", "The Church teaches that", rather that "These are undeniable facts that you cannot doubt". No, the idea of transubstansiation was the deduction. Like, it goes:Premise 1) Jesus said the bread is his body
Premise 2) It sill looks like bread
Conclusion) The substance must be what is changing rather than the form - i.e. transubstansiation

Are you channelling Faith? He told me I understand what he's saying. Message 34

A lot of people don't get that there is a lot of diversity within the 'real' Catholics and that it never gets down to the point of being required to believe something. Well, not anymore. Our past is, shall I say, a little more colorful.I suppose it depends on the parish, but most priests are just happy that you show up. Its a community and you gotta have participation. And if you can't bring yourself to accept some belief, its really not that big of a deal.I mean, the Church can't really think that nobody is using birth control. And if they really cared as much as people seem to think they do, as if they'd kick you out for being bad at being Catholic, then they would've died out a long time ago.As someone else mentioned earlier: Anything to stay in business!

It occurs to me that that sounds a lot like mineralization of fossils - minerals replace the original materials while preserving the structure.

Show me where he says that he doesn't believe it himself. I'm still waiting for that answer. Regardless, he's still rationalising an impossible belief.Not that it matters what CS believes, it's what Catholics are actually taught that matters. And that varies over the years and in which country. Like I say, they're pragmatists.And btw, don't make assumptions, I know as much as CS does about what Catholics are taught and are supposed to believe.It's been a while since I believed that eating meat on Friday was a sin though.

It does, just less physical change and more magic:

quote:

---

When, therefore, He Who is All Truth and All Power said of the bread: "This is my body", the bread became, through the utterance of these words, the Body of Christ; consequently, on the completion of the sentence the substance of bread was no longer present, but the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread. Hence the bread must have become the Body of Christ, i.e. the former must have been converted into the latter. source

---