Question to ex-Catholics

[mofca]

[quote] how is it the only thing you know of that is claimed as objective truth that requires faith? have you heard of the incarnation? the Trinity? every Christian doctrine regarding the faith? they all are claimed as objective truth and require faith. [/quote]

I should clarify that I meant the concept of Sacramental truth as a whole.

Edited August 1, 2006 by mofca

[mofca]

[quote]now you must begin with the universal fallen nature of humanity and thus all the physical world. [/quote]

This is where faith is introduced to the explaination, and therefore is no longer objective. I read and understand everything about the philosophy behind Eucharistic truth. There are aspects that I find very poetic and beautiful. However, if faith is taken out of the equation, there is no logical ground for it to stand on.
I disagree that people have a tendency towards evil. I think the opposite is true, that people all have a desire to do good. It is when we are taught from infancy that we are not worthy and have shame woven into our being, that we are set up for failure. I wonder what would happen if we entered the world and we were told instead that we have great tendencies, and it is good to be kind to your fellow man for the sake of being true to those tendencies. Instead, most of us have a worldview consisting of judgement, punishment and unworthyness, and our behavior falls into that line of thinking.

[Aloysius]

[quote]
The important point here is that the sacrament of the Eucharist is declared to be an objective truth, and I argue that it is not. As I have said before, objective truth in reality does not rely on belief in a deity to exist. If the Eucharist is truly objective, I should be able to know it regardless of what I believe. If somebody declared that the planet Mars was an alien space craft roaming the sky (or a God, as it was actually believed at one time) but offered no proof of alien beings other than ancient stories and a book about it, and then somebody else explained that it is another world that orbits the sun, and here's the evidence that shows why we know, and on top of that it is clear, concise, observable evidence that can be demonstrated over and over, and corroberated by people everywhere on the planet from every culture and religious sect . . . . I would tend to go with explanation #2.
You could tell me that Christ/Messiah/God is true, but you can't prove it. On the other side of the coin, I can't prove to you that He doesn't exist either. At the risk of conveying an attitude of pride, cynicism and superiority, I am a person who uses his intellect to determine what is true and what isn't. We may be spinning our wheels at this point. I admit that I will never consider the Eucharist an objective truth, simply because I've reasoned that it isn't. If you are curious about my worldview, I find the universe to be fascinating and wonderous, filled with many great things that are beyond our comprehension, one of those being the concept of God. However, that does not sway me from the search for truth. History clearly demonstrates that Religious beliefs have been at the root of some of the greatest atrocities ever committed by humans, and it is still happening today. Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict, a conflict that will seemingly never end until one side ceases to exist. All of this is because of declarations of truth that cannot be accepted by everyone. Therefore, doesn't it make sense to use our intellect to figure stuff out? Clearly, religion hasn't got it right, and that is one of many reasons why I choose not to participate.[/quote]
You're still mixing up "objective truth" and "observable truth"

what you describe as "objective truth" is absolutely and completely subject to human observation... i.e. very much subjective. whether or not a truth can be proven or observed does not affect whether or not it is an "objective truth". all discussion of what "objective truth" is, therefore, is subject to philosophy. physical science cannot and does not reach beyond the accidents of the world. it describes the way the physical world works. but it cannot adequately describe WHAT the world IS or WHY the world IS. These are both philosophical questions, as is the question of what anything is.

Physics can cut all matter down to different assemblances of the same 7 quarks, but the substance of those quarks remains a mystery. Their attributes can be described, but precisely what they are and how they exist is inexplicable, unobservable, unprovable. Philosophy and logic say what their substance is and what causes them to exist instead of a vaccuum of nothingness in their place. The substance of a quark reaches the point at which human words begin to fail: that's how mystery existence itself is. Sure it's interesting and amazing to see the way the accidents of the world work, and it tells us much about their substance (which is why Christ clearly chose two foods which had accidents which would remind one of the substance He changed them into, bread and wine, body and blood), I've been known to spend nights on end writing on the walls all sorts of equations and cosmological theories myself, but the core of substance is unanswerable by physical, accidental, science.

see that's why it is called "accidental", it indirectly points to what is the true substance but is completely subject to fallible human observation. approaching substance is subject to the failings of fallible human logic as well, but at least it can be discussed and argued.

[quote name='mofca' post='1035509' date='Aug 1 2006, 11:56 AM']
This is where faith is introduced to the explaination, and therefore is no longer objective. I read and understand everything about the philosophy behind Eucharistic truth. There are aspects that I find very poetic and beautiful. However, if faith is taken out of the equation, there is no logical ground for it to stand on.
I disagree that people have a tendency towards evil. I think the opposite is true, that people all have a desire to do good. It is when we are taught from infancy that we are not worthy and have shame woven into our being, that we are set up for failure. I wonder what would happen if we entered the world and we were told instead that we have great tendencies, and it is good to be kind to your fellow man for the sake of being true to those tendencies. Instead, most of us have a worldview consisting of judgement, punishment and unworthyness, and our behavior falls into that line of thinking.
[/quote]

"Original sin is really original. Not merely in theology but in history it is a thing rooted in the origins. Whatever else men have believed, they have all believed that there is something the matter with mankind This sense of sin has made it impossible to be natural and have no clothes, just as it has made it impossible to be natural and have no laws." -- GK Chesterton

If you are right, that there is absolutely no tendency towards sin, then the very first beginnings of every civilization would never have introduced it. It has its origins somwhere... somwhere original (the Bible points to Adam and Eve, but in any event it begins somewhere)

Human beings are by nature good. They have a tendency to fail to live up to their full good potential. If it is merely perpetuated by society, then it could never have been introduced in the first place. There had to be something that started it, started doing evil and teaching their kids that they had a tendency towards evil. It makes more sense that everyone has this potentiality within themselves... Occam's Razor, that's much simpler than trying to argue that there was a few originators of evil plans and they just convinced all their successive generations that they should have evil plans too.

The fact of humanity's failure to live up to its full good potential is self evident, and it is in the substance of humanity that this shortcoming arrives. Go back to your praise for observational evidence: observe the human race and discover that in all cultures and all peoples independent of each other (well, I suppose there could be some really really ancient cultural diffusion in the source of all the civilizations, but it still proves the point) they originate the concept that they are prone to fail at their potential goodness: there you have it: observable and provable truth of what Chrisitans label as "fallen nature" due to "original sin"

[Anomaly]

great points for observable evidence for original sin.

observable evidence for real presence?

[Aloysius]

I told you that cannot be done. The Eucharist is a summit and as such its proof lies in philosophical and logical conclusions resting upon truths that are observable. I laid out in my other post that transubstantiation is the only logical conclusion to lift humanity out of original sin; that if Jesus didn't do it with the Eucharist it would have to be done with some other food being transubstantiated into a divine substance.

Of course, I've been known never to let go of a challenge even trying to prove the truth of the Trinity by reason alone apart from Divine Revelation... so I'll attempt a stab at observable evidence.

This thread alone was begun as an observation which tends to ring true on a large part throughout the Church: those who truly believe in the Real Presence tend to remain in the Church-- their faith in the Church is observably sustained by the Eucharist. Then there is the large number of faithful who still attend adoration after leaving the Church and no longer positively believing in the Real Presence, saying that they feel something there. And my point in the negative that those who receive it unworthily pile on more and more sins and that hard core satanists can tell the difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated host. Of course all of these things are too hard to gage, otherwise I'd like to see statistics of some sort on some of them... but it seems to be a consistent observation among those who work with Catholics and ex-Catholics et cetera that the Eucharist is always such a key factor in remaining in or leaving the Church... pointing towards my argument that it sustains faith.

Ehh... I said all that before though. I really gotta rest on my strongest argument two posts ago that the Eucharist is the logical conclusion if one is to be lifted out of a substantial human fallen nature, so the fact that so many historical forces pointed towards it from the greeks to the hebrews makes it the most likely candidate to sustain a person whose substance is lifted from fallen nature.

Because of its role-- sustaining already existing faith-- it really is hard to gauge observably the extent of whether it acheives its goal. It's not the origin point, it's not the conversion point, it's the daily sustinence. I still feel safe saying that those who receive the Eucharist worthily are by far more secured and sustained in their faith and in their moral conduct of their daily lives as humans sustained in a lifted nature... still struggling from the effects of original sin but no longer substantially fallen.

[mofca]

[quote] observe the human race and discover that in all cultures and all peoples independent of each other (well, I suppose there could be some really really ancient cultural diffusion in the source of all the civilizations, but it still proves the point) they originate the concept that they are prone to fail at their potential goodness: there you have it: observable and provable truth of what Chrisitans label as "fallen nature" due to "original sin"[/quote]

I'm not an expert, but I don't think eastern religions and philosophy such as Buddhism (in fact, among the oldest known religions) recognize the concept of sin.

[Aloysius]

eastern cultures prove my point even more than Christianity, now that you bring it up. thanks... hahaha : just kiddin.

there are two ways to respond to the fact of fallen nature: an optimistic way and a pessimistic way. the eastern religions have a pessimistic way: squelch out the self because it is the self which is the problem. Buddhist meditation consists of completely clearing out all your thoughts, all things of yourself. The Buddha saw so much suffering in the world due to greed and sin, that the path he chose was to do away with everything. the physical world is a prison to be escaped from, the nature of a human "self" must be escaped from. nirvana, literally translated, means the squelching out of the fire of the self.

the western religions tend to have a more positive approach saying human nature must be rebuilt.

the fundamental difference between east and west is and has always been the complete opposite of what it appears to the westerner at first. the westerner upon initial examination sees Christianity too heavy on penancy and not being bad anymore and thinks Buddhism is showing us how to ascend our person to be better. The complete opposite is true: Chrisitanity says we have to stop doing bad things so that we can do good things, remain as individual selves lifted up to a state of grace. Buddhism says we must escape our self because our self is evil. I believe the term (I could by fuzzy in the head though, I'm on an uberman sleep schedule) is "atman", the self which must be destroyed.

very clear example of responding to the fallen nature of humanity: we must destroy the self because it is substantially fallen.

[jswranch]

Please help me understand. Your following two quotes seem to contradict.
[quote name='mofca' post='1035220' date='Jul 31 2006, 10:27 PM']
It is firmly established, and has been said over and over on this thread that objective truth is that which is true, whether we believe it or not.
[/quote]

[quote name='mofca' post='1035460' date='Aug 1 2006, 08:53 AM']
As I have said before, objective truth in reality does not rely on belief in a deity to exist. If the Eucharist is truly objective, I should be able to know it regardless of what I believe.
[/quote]


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1035545' date='Aug 1 2006, 10:30 AM']
great points for observable evidence for original sin.

observable evidence for real presence?
[/quote]
Besides Bible, Early Christian understanding, authority?

Could you go with the size, age, and resiliant attributes of the Catholic Church?

[jswranch]

[quote name='mofca' post='1035460' date='Aug 1 2006, 08:53 AM']
History clearly demonstrates that Religious beliefs have been at the root of some of the greatest atrocities ever committed by humans, and it is still happening today. Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict, a conflict that will seemingly never end until one side ceases to exist. All of this is because of declarations of truth that cannot be accepted by everyone. Therefore, doesn't it make sense to use our intellect to figure stuff out? Clearly, religion hasn't got it right, and that is one of many reasons why I choose not to participate.
[/quote]
So you find it best to abstain from participation in religion? Name three nations that erradicated religion from public policy:

Soviet Union
Nazi Germany
Pol Pot's Cambodia

Yet, do you still feel these nations did not commit "the greatest atrocities ever committed by humans?" The worst fighting between Jihad, crusades, Zionist Israel will never come close to the millions killed by the 'religion neutral' nations listed above.

As for the Crusades, I find Rome had more of a reason to enter into war with Islamic invaders than the US did to enter WWI or WWII.

Edited August 1, 2006 by jswranch

[mofca]

[quote]So you find it best to abstain from participation in religion? Name three nations that erradicated religion from public policy:

Soviet Union
Nazi Germany
Pol Pot's Cambodia [/quote]

Lets not forget about the United States. And, I know this is opening up a whole other can of worms, but the idea is that Church and State should be separate. The leaders who dictate public policy might claim to practice a religion, however, religious dogma should not dictate public policy. It crosses the line of separation of church and state. We're getting way off topic now.
As to the question whether I find it best to abstain from participation in religion, I think a more appropriate question would be: do I find it best to abstain from blind faith? The answer is most certainly yes.

[mofca]

[quote]eastern cultures prove my point even more than Christianity, now that you bring it up. thanks... hahaha P.gif just kiddin. [/quote]
Wow, you need to get some sleep brother
[quote]there are two ways to respond to the fact of fallen nature: an optimistic way and a pessimistic way. the eastern religions have a pessimistic way: squelch out the self because it is the self which is the problem. Buddhist meditation consists of completely clearing out all your thoughts, all things of yourself. The Buddha saw so much suffering in the world due to greed and sin, that the path he chose was to do away with everything. the physical world is a prison to be escaped from, the nature of a human "self" must be escaped from. nirvana, literally translated, means the squelching out of the fire of the self.[/quote]
Do eastern religions even recognize the "fact of fallen nature" as you put it? It seems awkward to make such comparisons because eastern religions (and I think mostly of Buddhist philosophy) are drastically different from Christianity. Is it your perception of western religion as more "optimistic" that caused you to choose Catholicism as your faith rather than Buddhism?
My interpretation of what I've read, and I would argue that most Buddhists see it this way, is that the path to nirvana lies within ones self, and it is through complete and total concious self awareness that it is attained. It is the embracement of this self awareness that is at the core of their belief. Some argue that Buddhism is non-theistic and therefore is not considered a religion, however it is certainly a valid worldview IMHO (in my humble opinion).
A quick google search turned up these Buddha quotes:
[quote]He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye. -Buddha[/quote]
[quote]Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without. -Buddha[/quote]
[quote]We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world. -Buddha [/quote]
[quote]You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that person is not to be found anywhere. You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection. -Buddha[/quote]
I can relate to this one:
[quote]Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. -Buddha[/quote]

Again, this is just my opinion, but I don't detect a hint of pessimism from anything I've read about eastern philosophy.

Edited August 1, 2006 by mofca

[Aloysius]

which is the initial reaction of a westerner. eastern philosophy is very much about denying the physical world, extinguishing the "atman"

eastern philosophy seeks to rid oneself of all desire, and of all "self". the way to acheive peace is to be completely rid of your human self, all attachment to your self, all desire.

I call it a "pessimistic" approach because it recognizes the same problem Christianity does-- namely that human beings are prone to greed and suffering and evil-- and it offers a solution of completely doing away with the individual. the self, the atman, is only at peace when it becomes one with the brahman. not one the way Christians say we will be one with God, mind you, but one as in there no longer is another entity, they are completely united into a soup of universal reality, completely unselfed

what I refer to as "fallen nature" and "original sin" with Christian terms, comparative religion experts would refer to as "the human condition"... saying all religions are essentially attempting to answer the problem of "the human condition". I use the word "pessimistic" to refer to an approach which attempts to blow out the flame of ones self seeing that as the source of all suffering. I use the word "optimistic" to refer to an approach which maintains the integrity of the individual self and person, saying that each individual need not be "blown out" (nirvana) to be free from the human condition, but that each self can be lifted up and as an individual self attain eternal life.

to the buddhist, eternal bliss is equivalent more or less to eternal oblivion of the human self and the physical world.

of course, it needn't be considered pessimistic, it's not how they consider themselves. that's just my comparative analysis to how they deal with the human condition verses how the west deals with the human condition. their meditations are all about clearing their minds, ours are all about filling our minds up. their ultimate goal is total self-abandonmnet, the extinguishing of their self into the wind of the brahman, the ultimate reality. that they would no longer exist as an individual so that they would no longer have to suffer. it is "nirvana", the "extinguishing".

There is something intriguing about it all that calling it "pessimistic" does not give full justice to, mind you. I just use those words in comparing the response each side of this divide has to the human condition.

the point is that they recognize the human condition. that's the entire point of buddhism and all eastern philosophy, to be liberated from the suffering that comes from the human condition. they attempt to escape the human condition, we attempt to restore it.

[mofca]

From the Wikipedia:
[quote]Due to secular propagation, a general acceptance of the concept of “A Doctrine of Anatta” exists as status quo, however there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddhism’s denial of soul, or in using the term anatta in anything but a positive sense in denying Self-Nature, the Soul, to any one of a conglomeration of corporeal and empirical phenomena which were by their very transitory nature, “impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and Selfless (anatta)”. The only noun in sutra which is referred to as “permanent (nicca)” is the Soul, such as Samyutta Nikaya 1.169.

In fact the phrase “Doctrine of anatta”, or “Anatmavada” is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist Sutra, existing in only non-doctrinal Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries. As the saying goes, a “lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth”. Those interested parties to Buddhism incapable of pouring through endless piles of Buddhist doctrine have defacto accepted the notion of a “Doctrine of anatta” as key to Buddhism itself, when in fact there exists not one citation of this concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we must stick strictly to sutra as reference, wherein the usage of anatta never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life which is “subject to arising and passing”, and which is most certain not (AN) our Soul (ATTA). Certainly the most simple philosophical logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail body is “my Self, is That which I am”, is “not my Soul”, of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it was the Soul, i.e. was in fact anatta.

The perfect contextual usage of anatta is: “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” [MN 1.436][/quote]

[Aloysius]

Point taken about Buddhism, to an extent. Still in what is described by that quote there is denial of self, which is still completely foreign to Christianity. in Christianity our desires, feelings, perceptions, experiences, et certera are good things which ought to be restored through the restoration of our nature whereas in Buddhism they are to be escaped from.

But keeping in focus the entire point of our excursion here into the east: there is a sense of the human condition which needs to be escaped from: form, feelings, perception, experiences et cetera which cause greed suffering et cetera. This is the human condition, the fallen nature of humanity. They seek to extinguish these things, we seek to restore them; both recognize a problem which needs a solution: a problem in the substance of the human condition, of human nature. desire, greed, envy, evil, et cetera are all impulses in every man which buddhism seeks to destroy, extinguish, because they are currupt.

[mofca]

[quote]buddhism seeks to destroy, extinguish, because they are currupt.[/quote]

Perhaps they see the "self" as a distraction to enlightenment.

[Aloysius]

yes, that's it. if our "self" blocks us from enlightenment, a state buddhism would say is a natural state of humanity, then there must be a disordered or "fallen" nature in the substance of human beings. re-affirming my point of a fallen nature in human substance while the accidents remains working fine-- thereby following to my logical conclusion that if our fallen natures were to be truly restored we would need a food which by its accidents fed the working accidents of our body and by its substance lifted up the fallen substance of our nature. that third mode of change I described in the other post which was pointed to in potentiality by the greek system of accidents is the best way to accomplish the creation of such a food.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mofca' post='1035220' date='Jul 31 2006, 10:27 PM']
It is firmly established, and has been said over and over on this thread that objective truth is that which is true, whether we believe it or not. This statement is clear, concise, and is very easy for a child to understand.
My question is also a very simple question, what evidence is there for the objective truth of Christ's presence in the Eucharist? It is a question that I have always asked since I was a child. The answers to this question have always been lengthy, scripture based, mixed in with heady philosophy, and comes with the requirement of having faith. It is the only concept that I know of that is claimed to be an objective truth, yet there is no observable evidence, there is no easy answer to explain its existence, and it's not even universally accepted as truth by all Christians.
The statement "We are to come to Christ with child-like faith and trust, not an attitude of pride, cynicism, and superiority.
We will be judged on our Faith, not our intellect or sophistication." is a Catholic teaching, and frankly it implies that our intellect and sophistication, or the use of such, can be a bad thing. Another interpretation of this teaching might be: "as long as you believe everything we tell you, God will look kindly upon you." And yet, we're supposed to be able to think freely with these kinds of teachings?
When it comes to religious matters such as this, people who are "in the know" are the vessels of information. Religion aside, in all cases of something being objectively true, and universally known to be true, the truth is revealed because the alleged truth can provide for itself the information needed to know whether its true or not, and this information is observable to every human being with an intellect. I keep saying intellect because even a child at age seven, granted it is not as developed as an adult, has an intellect. A child at this age is capable of figuring out whether things are true or not. A child is capable of asking the question:
"hey, i can't tell whether Christ is in this bread or not. How do you know He is?"
Is the Church saying to this child, "believe what we teach you to be the truth, because if you do, God will be pleased with you. By the way, in doing so try not to think about it too much because if you question it, you may be punished."?
A child is baptised because it is forced upon him when the child is born. It is not a decision that the child makes (which I consider to be one of the worst evils of mankind). The child at this point in his life has no intellect, which make him safe from heresy, and is in full communion with the church, so why wait to give him/her Communion?
How can we as humans, each with an intellect of our own, justify teaching our children that inquiry can be considered an attitude of pride, cynicism and superiority? I am truly perplexed
[/quote]
You're misreading what I'm saying. "Having the faith of a little child" does not mean having the intellectual level of a little child. It means having a child's trust and humility in God. It's about attitude, not about intellect, or cleverness. I did not say we should not use our intellects; I meant that what God will judge us on is not how smart we are, but our Faith and Love.
Christ's presence in the Eucharist can be known at a simple level by a 7-year-old-child, but can be known at a deeper level by such geniuses as St. Thomas Aquinas (who proves that faith is not contrary to intellect and reason).
Your statement about Baptism of infants being "one of the greatest evils of mankind" is just bizarre. If the Christian religion is true, it will save that child's soul. But if Christianity is not true, then it is just a harmless ritual which has done the child no harm.
Inquiry is not in itself not "an attitude of pride, cynicism and superiority", but an attitude which is disdainful of belief in anything one cannot immediately understand is.
Catholics teach their children the Catholic Faith because we believe it to be true. Should we not teach the truth to children?

The Eucharist is indeed believed on Faith, but Faith is not necessarily unreasonable. Christ chose to give himself to us in this "hidden" way, in which we can choose whether to accept and believe due to Faith in Him, or choose to reject this "hard teaching" and leave, as many of His disciples did.
Christ worked many signs and wonders, but here requires us to trust in His word alone.
There is ample evidence in Scripture and history for the Divinity of Christ and the truth of His Church. He claimed to be the Son of God, and worked many miracles showing His Divine Power and authority. He was willing to be put to death on account of this claim, and as witnessed by His followers, rose from the dead. If we say that this was all a hoax or delusion, then why would his followers willingly suffer perecution and death to perpetuate a hoax which gave no material benefit to them? And why would His Church still last 2000 years later?

While you may not accept it, there is indeed reason to believe Jesus Christ is God, and if He is God, we have reason to trust Him about the Eucharist, even if we cannot normally physically observe evidence. (And what would you want, that the Eucharist look and taste like human flesh after transubsantiation?)

Your problem is that you come to this with a prejudiced mind - you say claim that nothing we cannot physically experience can be real, and you demand that articles of religious Faith be proven without dealing with anything concerning religious faith! That is simply absurd, like demanding proof for a mathematical fact without any refrence to mathematics or mathematicians.

Edited August 2, 2006 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='mofca' post='1035460' date='Aug 1 2006, 08:53 AM']
History clearly demonstrates that Religious beliefs have been at the root of some of the greatest atrocities ever committed by humans, and it is still happening today. Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict, a conflict that will seemingly never end until one side ceases to exist. All of this is because of declarations of truth that cannot be accepted by everyone. Therefore, doesn't it make sense to use our intellect to figure stuff out? Clearly, religion hasn't got it right, and that is one of many reasons why I choose not to participate.
[/quote]
I've heard this "argument" that "religion is the cause of the world's greatest atrocities" from about every atheist and "freethinker" that has debated on here, yet I never fail to be amazed at the wilfull ignorance of this proposition.

Atheistic Communism over the past 75 years or so has alone been responsible for more murder, terror, and atrocities around the world than any other system in history. This should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are perfectly capable of committing attrocities without religion! (And Communism was not, as jswranch said, "religion-neutral," but outright hostile to religion, and vehemently atheist.)
(I suppose this clearly proves that irreligion "hasn't got it right" either.)

Greater numbers of people have been killed in the twentieth century, by non(or anti)-religious regimes, and in non-religious wars (such as the two World Wars) than have ever been killed over religion.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is a conflict primarily over land and between tribal/ethnic groups. Such conflicts will exist regardless of religion. And since this is a struggle primarily between Muslims and Jews (two groups which reject Christ's divinity), this really has no bearing on the original issue here of Christian Faith and belief in the Eucharist. (And the truth is that most modern Jews, including Israelis, are not heavily religious, but are about as secular as you are.)

I think you will be hard pressed to find evidence that Catholics with a fervent belief in the Real Presence tend to be more violent or prone to atrocities than unbelievers!

The whole "religion is wrong because it causes atrocities" line is a fallacious and illogical diversion from the discussion of truth.

Edited August 2, 2006 by Socrates

[mofca]

I think I see the connection you are trying to make, however I think the only commonality is that east and west both recognize the concept of self. Buddhism sees enlightenment as a realization of the natural state of immortality in the universe, and this can only be achieved through introspective observation by ones self. The temporary nature of our "self" distracts us from the big picture, which is the only negative spin on their concept of self. That is why eastern meditation focuses on the present moment, and strives for a tranquil sense of our existence.
They don't use negative language such as "evil", "fallen", "curupt", "tendency for greed" to describe human nature. When they refer to human experience, which obviously includes suffering, they are merely acknowleding its lack of permanence. On the contrary, western dogma is filled with violence and suffering. Plus, they've already got it figured out for you while implying that denial is considered a sin. Whereas eastern philosophy encourages the contemplation of all that "is", and wants you to excercise your intellect.

[Aloysius]

western philosophy emphasises intellect as well ... you have a very superior attitude towards a great number of smart minds throughout history; it is the mark of insanity to assume a vast majority of men to be ignorant of the special understanding you alone possess. keep yourself on an equal playing field with religious men; they are not dellusioned by their dogmas any more than you or I are delusioned by our own presumptions.


anyway, east and west both recognize a problem with human nature. what their solutions to it are are besides the point, however. the fact that they both offer solutions points to the fact that they both recognize the same problem; a problem observed in the actions of all humanity throughout the world at all times in history. if this problem is shown to be universally cross-cultural, then logic would point to it being universally human. it is thus a problem with human nature-- the substance of man is not in its good, perfect, natural state.

my point remains: every culture recognizes in human nature a problem which needs to be fixed. therefore, that there is a problem with human nature is not a matter of faith but of provable observable evidence. therefore, this link in my trail of logic is not a leap of faith.