Question to ex-Catholics

[mofca]

[quote]You could say so. Belief and knowledge are not necessarily contradictory.
One can believe in something objectively true. For instance, someone can believe the earth revolves around the sun. This would not make that fact subjective or false. [/quote]

Apparently we agree on this. I would take it further and say that it would be like turning off your intellect to not believe in something that is objectively true.

[quote]It is simply that those who do not belive and are not in communion with the body of Christ should not receive this sacrament until they believe and come into full communion with the Church.[/quote]

Is a second grader considered to be a believer and in full communion with the Church? How would a second grader be able to even remotely comprehend the teachings and the philosophy of the Church? I would argue that it is a decision made by the second grader's parents, and therefore it is impossible for the second grader to be in full communion with the Church. The poor kid has enough problems with simple arithmetic at this point in his/her life. It is on this point where I see a contradiction in the above statement.

Edited July 29, 2006 by mofca

[Contrary-Mary]

[quote]
With all due respect, this relativism is total nonsense.
Things are objectively true or false, whether people believe in them or not.
We humans are not God. Our beliefs do not create reality, and reality exists outside of our own minds.
[/quote]
Actually, your comment as you stated it lacked all respect for another's beliefs. might i say, with all due respect Catholisim is total nonesense? no, i would not. because i have an open mind that is willing to be presented with new ideas so that i may examine each and use my reason,logic, spirit to decide whether it holds enough evidence to be believable or if i do not think so, i may not reject the idea, but rather accept it as an option that i do not understand fully or as an option that i do not choose for myself. when i think i know the truth...i can be certain that i don't . when i think i know all the answers , then certainly there will be more questions....
yes, lots of things are objectively true or false, i do not disagree... however by what measure do you say one thing is true and another false....it is through YOUR PERSPECTIVE whether you believe it to be true or false regardless of what tool you have used such as your mind, your spirit ,or what you feel, see, touch, have been told....etc. there is no thing that proves that what we as humans 'know' is the actual reality at all. it is what we perceive with our minds and if you will, our spirit, that is true for us.
actually we are all gods of this world, we constantly create our own reality with our thoughts and our actions. god created us in his image and likeness...would he not give us the ability to create the world around us? are we not destroying the world around us with war and pollution? can we not fix the problem and 'create' a new world without war, without pollution. yes, we have the capabilities of these and many other great things. i am creating a reality for you as you see these words and read them.
reality can ONLY exist inside of our minds because we are the observer inside of a mind. if we lacked the ability to observe, there would be no reality. you know the whole...if a tree falls in a forest....we MUST exist and experience for there to be a reality. what of this reality that you say exists outside of the mind....there is no said reality without our observing it and experiencing it , we cannot seperate ourselves from our own perception, EVER...that is all we have.

[Contrary-Mary]

[quote] Relativism, where truth exists only in the minds of individuals, may sound nice (because, hey, nobody's wrong and everybody's right about everything!), but it is contrary to reason and common sense.[/quote]
you have labeled what i spoke of as relativism...something that you have learned about in philosophy class or something you read. don't instantly assume that i have taken an idea as my own and have done no thinking on it myself. you are missing what i am saying by instantly labeling what you 'think' i am saying and what i have REALLY said.
i am saying that what we percieve as our reality is our reality. period. if we were able to perceive two realities at the same time, that would be cool but we are not 'made that way' . all we have been given or possess as our tool to survive in reality is our own perception and it will always be subjective therefore NOTHING in one's reality is truly objective. as for the truth....well, that is another thing.
as for something to be contrary to reason and common sense, i would say one might have to fall back on 'Faith'. would you agree? ( i think you already said when it is beyond man's understanding one must rely on faith)just as those who have religious beliefs that they cannot prove objectively rely on faith , those very religious beliefs that to others might seem to lack reason and common sense. what makes your belief in Christ anymore real then my beliefs in 'x', but Faith. we just have Faith in different things.

Edited July 29, 2006 by Contrary-Mary

[Contrary-Mary]

[quote]
Not to start another debate, but I would consider faith to be an exercise of free will rather than a supernatural gift. Don't we have a choice as to our faith, and whether we even want to have faith or not? Saying that it is a "gift" implies that it is for special people and not for everyone.
[/quote]
I agree here wih mofca. faith is absolutely a choice...even Catholicism teaches this in that one must have faith as if it is chosen not given as a gift...because but what rule would god choose to give one person the gift and not another. that would be to say god had chosen one of his children over another. if it were a gift it would be about god choosing us rather than us choosing him, that would contradict the need for Christ. you might say that it is a gift given to all ,but not all are willing to receive it...and so i would respond with another hair splitting comment and so on.,etc
i just thought of something quite profound(at least i think so)...why are we all on here wasting time writing this stuff back and forth when we could be using this time to feed the hungry and cloth the poor and nurse the sick...THEN we would truly be following Christ's teachings. God doesn't mess around when she inspires the writers of the bible to not be vague about these subjects and to make sure that they are not open to interpretation. hmmm, why don't more people take up the walk of Christ if they truly believe rather then taking time to split hairs?
i say all of this in sincerity and absolute lack of understanding as to why we are all like this.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Contrary-Mary,
By saying we must be enlightened by revelation to know the Eucharist I mean that it is a doctrine that is told to us by Christ. It is not known through our own reason.
[quote name='mofca' post='1033085' date='Jul 28 2006, 05:30 PM']
LOL - Don't believe what you read in the papers, right? OK, seriously, logic and reason tells me that a news reporter works for a news agency, therefore by the definition of a News Agency a reporter will be held accountable for his/her accuracy in reporting, so on and so forth.
If you told me your name was "thedude" and it really wasn't, you would be lying and therefore it would not be the truth. My intellect would tell me that it is probably not your real name because it has the word "dude" in it. I would then be compelled to look for evidence to back up what you told me and I would quickly find out the truth based on overwhelming evidence and corroboration from others. It would be easy to deceive me into thinking you have a different name than your actual name if you wanted to, but in doing so you should choose something more convincing than "thedude". However, I do know that your name is "thedude" on this forum because there is overwhelming evidence to support it. The only truth in your example above is that by telling me your name is "thedude", the words "my name is the dude" came out of your mouth in my direction.
[/quote]
I believe that the writers of Scripture wrote with the authority of God and would definately be held accountable as well.
The point of my example was not that my actual name is "thedude" - it is not. That is irrelevant - however, the example still holds true. If I told you my real name you would have to make an act of faith that I am telling the truth. I used "thedude" because I did not want to reveal my name on the internet. If we approach this situation from a reason-only perspective however, the [i]assumption[/i] that my name is not "thedude" cannot possibly be made as it cannot possibly be verified strictly with rational thought.
I feel like I can do no more good in this discussion, so this will be my last reply. God bless you and keep you.

[Anomaly]

I guess this is why the internet is an ineffectual media to hold reasonabale discussions. We went from discussing proof for 'transubstantiation' to God is a female, and what 'thedude''s name is, or what is reality.

Sheesh

Edited July 29, 2006 by Anomaly

[Contrary-Mary]

I find this to be a rather engaging discussion. Plus, it will hopefully upgrade my lurker status.

[mofca]

[quote]I find this to be a rather engaging discussion. Plus, it will hopefully upgrade my lurker status. [/quote]
I'm with Contrary-Mary.

[quote]I believe that the writers of Scripture wrote with the authority of God and would definately be held accountable as well.[/quote]

This is a subjective statement because the Scriptures and the authority of God are open to interpretation.

[quote]The point of my example was not that my actual name is "thedude" - it is not. That is irrelevant - however, the example still holds true. If I told you my real name you would have to make an act of faith that I am telling the truth. I used "thedude" because I did not want to reveal my name on the internet. If we approach this situation from a reason-only perspective however, the assumption that my name is not "thedude" cannot possibly be made as it cannot possibly be verified strictly with rational thought.[/quote]

My act of faith as to your real name would come from the logical, rational thinking that when people introduce themselves, they almost always tell the truth. If the history of people introducing themselves proved that there was a 50% chance you were telling me your real name, I would be inclined to be skeptical.

Edited July 29, 2006 by mofca

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='mofca' post='1033550' date='Jul 29 2006, 08:12 AM']
I'm with Contrary-Mary.
This is a subjective statement because the Scriptures and the authority of God are open to interpretation.
My act of faith as to your real name would come from the logical, rational thinking that when people introduce themselves, [b]they almost always tell the truth[/b]. If the history of people introducing themselves proved that there was a 50% chance you were telling me your real name, I would be inclined to be skeptical.
[/quote]
I was mirroring your own subjective statement.
Notice the bolded part of your statement. An assumption like this is not the product of reason.

This is my last post, for real now . I think my previous posts are sufficient in making the case. God bless.

[mofca]

[quote]I was mirroring your own subjective statement.
Notice the bolded part of your statement. An assumption like this is not the product of reason. [/quote]

For clarification, you highlighted in my statement that people almost always tell the truth when they introduce themselves. Then you say that such an assumption is not the product of reason. Here is the reason behind that assumption: If there was a study that showed the number of times people introduce themselves with their proper name, it would be reasonable to conclude that statistically the vast majority would do so. Further more, in my own life experience, I have hardly ever encountered an introduction where the person did not use their real name. I would argue that that such an assumption is backed up with significant logic and reason. I have more to say when I have more time later . . .

[jswranch]

[quote name='mofca' post='1031259' date='Jul 26 2006, 10:53 AM']
Again I ask: How would one be aware that Christ is present in the bread and wine if they did not witness or were not told of the Consecration of said bread and wine? Providing scripture as evidence does not answer the question because it assumes that the Catholic interpretation of scripture is universally believed to be the truth.
Another way to ask this is: If I walked into a room with bread and wine on the table, how would I know whether Christ was present or not?
[/quote]
No they would not know. In the same way, a stranger meeting the 12 disciples and Jesus for the first time would not be able to tell the men from the God-man unless the stranger had previous knowledge.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1031509' date='Jul 26 2006, 05:56 PM']
The reason is God provided us intellect and reason. The should be able to be used, shouldn't they?
[/quote]
Yes, we must use our intellect. However, we are not to use intellect alone to fully experience and know God.

[quote name='mofca' post='1031921' date='Jul 27 2006, 08:40 AM']
Belief in alleged miracles such as Lanciano certainly back up the Catholic arguement. I am very skeptical about such miracles given that they occured so long ago, and they could have easily been faked.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=70440"][u]Ok, so you do not trust Lanciano (8th century) despite its investigation by modern science[/u].[/url]

[url="http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/siena.html"][u]Then how about Sienna in 1730[/u]?[/url]

Still too early? [url="http://members.aol.com/bjw1106/euchmir.htm"][u]How about Betania, Venezuela in 1991; Worcester, Massachusetts 1996; or Marlboro 1994[/u]?[/url]

[mofca]

I agree there are many things that happen that are not explainable. I am always skeptical of Catholic specific miracles that occur in a Catholic setting and affect only Catholic people. Human beings have an extraordinary ability to convince themselve of things that they really want to believe. Remember when the oil stain was being worshiped on the highway a few years ago? I have personally witnessed many, many alleged miracles in a charismatic setting (cured arthritis, bad backs, etc). Maybe some of those people really did experience relief from their ailments, but I suspect that most of it was either temporary, or exagerated and that the charasmatic setting and group frenzy acted like a placebo. When I used to work in the sound reinforcement business I have witnessed fake miracles being set up behind the stage at evangelical events. Miracles don't equal imperical evidence. Show me a Catholic miracle in a secular setting and I might be more convinced.

[mofca]

[quote]No they would not know. In the same way, a stranger meeting the 12 disciples and Jesus for the first time would not be able to tell the men from the God-man unless the stranger had previous knowledge. [/quote]

This is a good point. However, the testimony of the 12 men and the God-man who declares himself to be God does not make it an objective truth that he is God.

The point I want to make is that Christ's presence in the Eucharist can only be known if you have faith. This has been established over and over again on this thread. A conflict occurs when you call this knowledge an objective truth. By definition, something is objective if it is based on observable phenomena. Objective truth is a secular concept that applies to everybody. By contrast, faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or physical evidence. This may seem like splitting hairs, but I think it is a perplexing contradiction and it raises a more important underlying issue. Something that is declared to be objective truth, like the laws of physics, or the earth is round, can be demonstrated over and over again by concrete, observable evidence to every human being with an intellect. This is not true of Eucharistic Presence. With all due respect to the Church, I think the Eucharist should be defined by what it is: a concept and a belief. Calling it objective truth steps beyond the boundaries of ritual and faith, and crosses into secular territory in my humble opinion.

[Aloysius]

only if you believe in the materialism of the modern age.

true Christianity believes that spiritual truths and all articals of the Chrisitan Faith are true apart from whether or not anyone believes them. "When the Son of Man comes, will there be faith left upon the earth?" Asks Christ, obviously alluding to the possibility that there would be none left. But if there is no faith left upon the earth, Christ will still come. This is because the truth about Christ is objective, i.e. it is outside of ourselves and not subjective to any other criteria; it is true because it is true.

Actually, observational truth as you describe it could be said according to many modern philosophies to be subjective in and of itself. It is subjective to the view and perspective of the observer. Heisenburg's uncertainty principle shows that the very act of observing anything actually alters its location and reality, because the particals of light bouncing off objects actually alter the path of those objects.

When we say something is an "objective truth", we are differentiating it from "subjective truth". if it is objective, that means that it is true without any conditions. If no one believed it was true, it would still be true.

Objective truth is a philisophical concept which needn't be subjected to modern materialistic scientific absolutism. The claim that something is objectively true need undergo philisophical and/or theological tests, not the scientific method.

Anyway, I think you are operating under a false definition of objective truth. objective truth and subjective truth are both terms rooted in philosophy, not necessarily physical science. "objective truth" is not the same as "observable truth" as your post asserts.

[Aloysius]

oh, and just one more word I'd like to define in this discussion, my previous definition was challenged and I think that's another thing leading to the divergence of opinion here

theologically, faith is the supernatural gift of God to man which enables Him to believe in Him. one's "faith" is not exactly equivalent to their "belief". to believe is a verb whose subject is the believer, the perosn. faith is a noun, the object of the action of God giving. faith is something supernatural. our choice and freewill accepts or rejects God's gift of faith, but scripturally and theologically faith

now, since sociology/anthropology et al. developed in the west, they take tons of our Christian words and think they can be applied to all other cultures and religions. it is incorrect, theologically, to speak of different "faiths". there is only one true faith, the supernatural gift of God which reveals to man who God is. this concept is unique to judeo-Christianity anyway, and as such the word "faith" would be incorrectly applied in describing other religions. in some religions, even the word "belief" would be incorrectly applied.

[jswranch]

[quote name='mofca' post='1034256' date='Jul 30 2006, 06:11 AM']
I agree there are many things that happen that are not explainable. I am always skeptical of Catholic specific miracles that occur in a Catholic setting and affect only Catholic people. Human beings have an extraordinary ability to convince themselve of things that they really want to believe. Remember when the oil stain was being worshiped on the highway a few years ago? I have personally witnessed many, many alleged miracles in a charismatic setting (cured arthritis, bad backs, etc). Maybe some of those people really did experience relief from their ailments, but I suspect that most of it was either temporary, or exagerated and that the charasmatic setting and group frenzy acted like a placebo. When I used to work in the sound reinforcement business I have witnessed fake miracles being set up behind the stage at evangelical events. Miracles don't equal imperical evidence. Show me a Catholic miracle in a secular setting and I might be more convinced.
[/quote]
Sure, there are fakes. Some of the alleged miracles are staged. Yes, people can convince themsleves of that which does not exist. However, I do not find a grease stain of Mary or face of Jesus on grilled coagulated milk to be a miracle. Neither does the church as a whole (some individual Catholics do). That does not deny their existance. This thread is about transubstantiation. I would love to see you start a new thread on faith and reason or on miracles.


[quote name='mofca' post='1034261' date='Jul 30 2006, 06:51 AM']
This is a good point. However, the testimony of the 12 men and the God-man who declares himself to be God does not make it an objective truth that he is God.

The point I want to make is that Christ's presence in the Eucharist can only be known if you have faith. This has been established over and over again on this thread. A conflict occurs when you call this knowledge an objective truth. By definition, something is objective if it is based on observable phenomena. Objective truth is a secular concept that applies to everybody. By contrast, faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or physical evidence. This may seem like splitting hairs, but I think it is a perplexing contradiction and it raises a more important underlying issue. Something that is declared to be objective truth, like the laws of physics, or the earth is round, can be demonstrated over and over again by concrete, observable evidence to every human being with an intellect. This is not true of Eucharistic Presence. With all due respect to the Church, I think the Eucharist should be defined by what it is: a concept and a belief. Calling it objective truth steps beyond the boundaries of ritual and faith, and crosses into secular territory in my humble opinion.
[/quote]
If you do not believe Jesus was God who took human form, gave us a church which later canonized the bible, then we really cannot discuss transubstantiation. Once you have Christ, his church, and the bible, then believing in transubstantiation by reason alone is possible.

[mofca]

[quote]only if you believe in the materialism of the modern age.

true Christianity believes that spiritual truths and all articals of the Chrisitan Faith are true apart from whether or not anyone believes them. "When the Son of Man comes, will there be faith left upon the earth?" Asks Christ, obviously alluding to the possibility that there would be none left. But if there is no faith left upon the earth, Christ will still come. This is because the truth about Christ is objective, i.e. it is outside of ourselves and not subjective to any other criteria; it is true because it is true.[/quote]

The Christian belief comes from the teaching and scripture interpretation that have been passed down through the generations. I argue that the truth about Christ exists inside the teachings of the Christian faith. Outside of that there is no evidence. This same truth certainly does not exist for Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, or Athiests. Christians obviously think that the teaching of the Christian religion is the truth, but other religions have their version of faith and the "truth" which exists on the same platform as Christianity. There is nothing to distinguish the truth in faith and religion besides the statement "we believe because we believe".

[quote]Actually, observational truth as you describe it could be said according to many modern philosophies to be subjective in and of itself. It is subjective to the view and perspective of the observer. Heisenburg's uncertainty principle shows that the very act of observing anything actually alters its location and reality, because the particals of light bouncing off objects actually alter the path of those objects.

When we say something is an "objective truth", we are differentiating it from "subjective truth". if it is objective, that means that it is true without any conditions. If no one believed it was true, it would still be true.

Objective truth is a philisophical concept which needn't be subjected to modern materialistic scientific absolutism. The claim that something is objectively true need undergo philisophical and/or theological tests, not the scientific method.

Anyway, I think you are operating under a false definition of objective truth. objective truth and subjective truth are both terms rooted in philosophy, not necessarily physical science. "objective truth" is not the same as "observable truth" as your post asserts. [/quote]

There are definitely different degrees of objectivity. Philosophically speaking, nothing has true objectivity except for maybe mathmatics. My definition of objective truth strives for, if not absolute objective truth, a degree of objectivity which is as close to true objectivity as intellectualy possible. Like it or not, we do live in a scientific, modern, materialistic age that we humans have created, and for some (like myself), looking at this world through a religious lense limits the ability to truly think freely. Again, I say this with the utmost respect for the Faithful people who read this forum. I know I am the minority here, and I'm grateful that I'm able to say my peace and that we can respectfully disagree. Peace and Love to you.

[Aloysius]

Objective truth means that something exists outside of ourselves. If God exists, then He exists even if the whole world is full of athiests; it would be an absolute objective truth. If Jesus Christ exists, then it doesn't matter if the whole world says He doesn't... the whole world would be wrong if it was an objective truth that He exists. Truth is not subject to whether or not somebody believes it.

Free thought is not limited at all, no more than it is limited by the lense you take which excludes the purely religious point of view. Some things are within the realm of science, some things are within the realm of philosophy, some things are within the realm of theology. There are objective truths to be found in all three of these realms; objective not because they are observable or provable necessarily, but objective because they are true regardless of who believes them. They can all be approached and argued through different disciplines of thought, understanding, and analysis.

All you have proven here is that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not a provable truth, something I admitted from the get-go in my discussion with Anomaly (it is the summit of a mountain of articals in the Catholic faith, the base of which I believe can be proven philosophically and historically... I didn't want to get sidetracked from the topic though). That does not mean it is not an objective truth.

This is the problem with modern philosophy, it makes the leap from proving something as not materially observable to saying it is not true in and of itself. There is a fundamental philisophical problem to this system, because it excludes all recourse to logic and philosophy while raising observation, which modern physics is increasingly showing to be unable to absolutely know everything (see Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle), up to the level of dogma.

No, the Eucharist cannot be proven true by observation. Philosophers since Aristotle have said that observation does not necessarily get to the substance of any truth, and modern philosophy actually runs away with this idea denying the objective existence of anything. What is observed in the physical world is what Aristotle would call the accidents of the physical world. Its substance, however, must be discovered through philosophy, theology, logic, reason, et cetera.

let me repeat: objectivity means it is true regardless of how observable it is, how widely believed it is, or how provable it is. If there was a rock behind a wall and no one could see it, that rock would still be there. It could be called an objective truth that that rock was there. If somehow, someone on the other side of the wall began to believe that rock was there but everyone else on the otherside of that wall did not believe it was there, it would still be an objective truth that that rock was there.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Contrary-Mary' post='1033161' date='Jul 28 2006, 06:18 PM']
Actually, your comment as you stated it lacked all respect for another's beliefs. might i say, with all due respect Catholisim is total nonesense? no, i would not. because i have an open mind that is willing to be presented with new ideas so that i may examine each and use my reason,logic, spirit to decide whether it holds enough evidence to be believable or if i do not think so, i may not reject the idea, but rather accept it as an option that i do not understand fully or as an option that i do not choose for myself. when i think i know the truth...i can be certain that i don't . when i think i know all the answers , then certainly there will be more questions....
yes, lots of things are objectively true or false, i do not disagree... however by what measure do you say one thing is true and another false....it is through YOUR PERSPECTIVE whether you believe it to be true or false regardless of what tool you have used such as your mind, your spirit ,or what you feel, see, touch, have been told....etc. there is no thing that proves that what we as humans 'know' is the actual reality at all. it is what we perceive with our minds and if you will, our spirit, that is true for us.
actually we are all gods of this world, we constantly create our own reality with our thoughts and our actions. god created us in his image and likeness...would he not give us the ability to create the world around us? are we not destroying the world around us with war and pollution? can we not fix the problem and 'create' a new world without war, without pollution. yes, we have the capabilities of these and many other great things. i am creating a reality for you as you see these words and read them.
reality can ONLY exist inside of our minds because we are the observer inside of a mind. if we lacked the ability to observe, there would be no reality. you know the whole...if a tree falls in a forest....we MUST exist and experience for there to be a reality. what of this reality that you say exists outside of the mind....there is no said reality without our observing it and experiencing it , we cannot seperate ourselves from our own perception, EVER...that is all we have.
[/quote]
I must strongly disagree you that we each "create our own reality."
There is objective reality beyond what we beleive and what our minds perceive, and I believe our minds are capable of knowing this reality.
If nothing is real beyond what each individual thinks, or if this objective reality is completely unknowable, then there is really no point debating issues of religion or anything else.

To use your example, are you saying that it is "reality" that "we are destroying the world through war and pollution"?
If I chose to believe that we are not, would my belief that, say, pollution and war are good for the world, or are non-existent, be a "reality," or would it be delusional?

You have not in fact "created a reality" by merely talking about a world without war and pollution.
This would be properly considered "imagination" or "fantasy." It would only rightly be considered "reality" if indeed war and pollution were in fact ended in the real world.
As long as war and pollution exist in the real world, that is reality.
If people choose to deny the existence of war and pollution, or simply imagine a world in which they do not exist, that will not change objective reality.

To use the pollution example, let's take the issue of global warming. If man-made gases are drastically raising the earth's temperature, is that a "reality" which exists outside people's minds?
If everybody disbeleived in global warming, would global warming then no longer be reality?
If that were the case, the solution to the problem of global warming would be simple - everybody could believe the world was getting cooler, and the cooler world would be reality!

And yes, if a tree falls in a forest, it would still fall whether anyone heard it or not. (The "sound" might be a different question).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Contrary-Mary' post='1033185' date='Jul 28 2006, 06:49 PM']
you have labeled what i spoke of as relativism...something that you have learned about in philosophy class or something you read. don't instantly assume that i have taken an idea as my own and have done no thinking on it myself. you are missing what i am saying by instantly labeling what you 'think' i am saying and what i have REALLY said.
i am saying that what we percieve as our reality is our reality. period. if we were able to perceive two realities at the same time, that would be cool but we are not 'made that way' . all we have been given or possess as our tool to survive in reality is our own perception and it will always be subjective therefore NOTHING in one's reality is truly objective. as for the truth....well, that is another thing.
as for something to be contrary to reason and common sense, i would say one might have to fall back on 'Faith'. would you agree? ( i think you already said when it is beyond man's understanding one must rely on faith)just as those who have religious beliefs that they cannot prove objectively rely on faith , those very religious beliefs that to others might seem to lack reason and common sense. what makes your belief in Christ anymore real then my beliefs in 'x', but Faith. we just have Faith in different things.
[/quote]
It seems you are confusing "perception of reality" with "reality."
"Reality" and "truth" are one and the same.

Two people may just as sincerely and firmly believe in two opposing things, but this does not mean they both are equally correct.
One man may be an adament atheist, who says that when we die, we simply cease to exist.
The other may be a fervent Christian, who says that God will reward us all after death with heaven or hell.

However, both cannot be equally true.
If there is no God or immortal soul, the Christian will experience nothing after death, no matter how fervently he may believe.
If there is a God, the atheist will meet his Maker and his eternal reward, no matter how firm his atheistic unbelief in life.

As we see here, religious beliefs (or unbeleifs) cannot be simply labeled subjective, but must each be objectively true or false.

You can argue that my Christian beliefs are indeed false and unreasonable, but to claim that my Christian beliefs and those of an atheist can both be "reality" is indeed nonsense.

[quote name='mofca' post='1033156' date='Jul 28 2006, 06:07 PM']
Is a second grader considered to be a believer and in full communion with the Church? How would a second grader be able to even remotely comprehend the teachings and the philosophy of the Church? I would argue that it is a decision made by the second grader's parents, and therefore it is impossible for the second grader to be in full communion with the Church. The poor kid has enough problems with simple arithmetic at this point in his/her life. It is on this point where I see a contradiction in the above statement.
[/quote]
The most intelligent and learned scholars cannot remotely comprehend the divine Mystery of the Eucharist. Fully understanding the mysteries of God is beyond human intellect.
As long as the second-grader is able to beleive that he is indeed receiving Jesus, and not mere bread, the child is in communion with the Church.

Only if he refuses to believe would he cease to be in full communion with the Church.
The reason reception of the Eucharist is postponed in the Western rite is not because baptised babies are not in full communion with the Church, but so the communicant can understand the importance of this sacrament. (In the Eastern Rites, infants receive after baptism).