Religious Knowledge Test
Quote: WizardHere are 15 questions about basic religion knowledge: features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/. I got a 12.
I got a 13. Didn't know about Joseph Smith and missed the one on when teachers can read the bible. I wonder what the average score is?
Quote: WizardHere are 15 questions about basic religion knowledge: features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/. I got a 12.
I only got an 11. I'll have to take Dorothy's threads more seriously.
But the prayer question must be wrong. Teachers are permitted to lead prayers in parochial schools!
And the question about Joseph Smith is, strictly speaking, unanswerable because "Loony Bird" wasn't one of the choices.
Quote: truck7200315/15. Makes me feel good that all the time and money I spent on Seminary wasn't wasted.
I got one wrong and I don't know which one it was. Maybe it where I said Chuck Heston led the Jews out of Egypt.
Quote: Question 6
Which of the following best describes the Catholic teaching about the bread and wine used for Communion?
A) The bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
B) The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
My gut instinct was to answer A. However, I thought maybe that was just a myth, and changed it to B. However, the correct answer was A. Just goes to show what they said in SAT prep class was right -- you should go with your first instinct.
So, can any Catholics on the board explain this to me? Was (A) really the right answer? Does the bread and wine actually contain the DNA of Jesus after the priest blesses it, or whatever he does. Does any physical change happen to the bread and wine? I will have follow up questions either way.
Make of those results what you will.
Quote: WizardNow that this is on page 2, I think I can safely ask about question 6.
My gut instinct was to answer A. However, I thought maybe that was just a myth, and changed it to B. However, the correct answer was A. Just goes to show what they said in SAT prep class was right -- you should go with your first instinct.
So, can any Catholics on the board explain this to me? Was (A) really the right answer? Does the bread and wine actually contain the DNA of Jesus after the priest blesses it, or whatever he does. Does any physical change happen to the bread and wine? I will have follow up questions either way.
Yup, thats the one I got wrong. No offense, but do people actually believe this in the modern age? It sounds awfully Pagan to me.
Quote: EvenBobYup, thats the one I got wrong. No offense, but do people actually believe this in the modern age? It sounds awfully Pagan to me.
Me too. I think I can say that when protestants do communion the bread and wine are just symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus.
Quote: WizardSo, can any Catholics on the board explain this to me?
I'm not Catholic, and make no claim of authority here. I think the Catholic belief of Transubstantiation means that during communion the host and wine are changed to the blood and body of Christ.
I suspect the church makes no DNA claims, and to do so is pointless; this is a matter of faith. I leave it at that, confident that others will fill in condescending comments about the belief of others.
When does this magical transformation take place? Whenever it is, it would be easy enough to test. We all know the answer, a bunch of people totally ignorant of science thought this would fool people even more ignorant then they were, and they were correct.
Quote: CalderI'm not Catholic, and make no claim of authority here. I think the Catholic belief of Transubstantiation means that during communion the host and wine are changed to the blood and body of Christ.
Hmmm. I suspect that if I went to mass, and pretended to be Catholic at communion time, I would say that the bread tasted like bread to me. If it changed into human flesh, wouldn't it taste like meat? If Catholics believe they are really eating human flesh, doesn't that make them all cannibals?
Oh, well, that's no dumber than believing there's a man in the sky who actually cares whether you eat fish on Friday or not.
Those who fancy themselves rationalists may want to consider that Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were Christians, or at least in Albert's case, believed in God. You may pooh-pooh the scientific method, but it was (arguably) invented and flourished in the Christian west. One needn't be superstitious to acknowledge that much.
Quote: CalderThis remains a matter of faith, obviously.
Those who fancy themselves rationalists may want to consider that Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were Christians...
It is pointless having faith in something that obviously isn't true, no matter what your other qualifications are.
Quote: chookIt is pointless having faith in something that obviously isn't true, no matter what your other qualifications are.
Faith is just something people resort to when they have no idea what the real answer is. Faith based on nothing is, well, nothing.
Quote: WizardJust goes to show what they said in SAT prep class was right -- you should go with your first instinct.
Agreed. On prayer in school, my gut instinct said no, prayer is not allowed in school, but then again, my gut is usually full of shit, so I psyched myself into answering "yes" (thinking that as long as you're not pushing one religion over another, it's OK, forgetting that the First Amendment also covers theism over atheism).
Also, I had never heard of a Great Awakening, much less that there were multiple ones that implied that there was a first one.
Quote: WizardSo, can any Catholics on the board explain this to me? Was (A) really the right answer? Does the bread and wine actually contain the DNA of Jesus after the priest blesses it, or whatever he does. Does any physical change happen to the bread and wine? I will have follow up questions either way.
As said before, it's called transubstantiation. The gist of it is that the bread and wine take the substance of Jesus' body and blood. The physical aspects don't change; they still have the physical appearance, taste, etc. of bread and wine, down to a molecular level. They don't become flesh and blood in any physically detectable way, but by being blessed, they take the substance of Jesus, and therefore his divinity, and by taking them, his divinity becomes part of the taker.
Quote: mkl654321(if you want to ensure that someone grows up to be an atheist, send them to Catholic school)
I only went for three years (well, that and seven years of Sunday School), and... yeah, pretty much. Then again, I never really cared enough about religion enough to deny it.
Quote: mkl654321I can't imagine the pharmacological implications of eating somebody who's been dead for 2000 years.
No, Jesus is risen and alive, so he's actually very fresh, like divine sashimi.
Quote: mkl654321Oh, well, that's no dumber than believing there's a man in the sky who actually cares whether you eat fish on Friday or not.
That's the same guy. The God of Abraham (who is also the father of Christ) doesn't care if you eat fish on Friday. Might be a broblem if you cook it, though.
Quote: CalderI claimed no qualifications, I merely cited those of people [Galileo, Newton] who are a lot smarter than me, and, I'm confident, you.
I don't know what information they had available.
But, a God who thought that Adam & Eve and Noah actually existed, can't exactly be omniscient.
Quote: CalderI'm confident it would taste like bread to you, Mr. Wizard. As I noted, I'm not Catholic, nor do I make any claim of expertise in Catholic doctrine, nor would I expect any adherents on this board. This remains a matter of faith, obviously.
Those who fancy themselves rationalists may want to consider that Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were Christians, or at least in Albert's case, believed in God. You may pooh-pooh the scientific method, but it was (arguably) invented and flourished in the Christian west. One needn't be superstitious to acknowledge that much.
I doubt that Galileo was much of a Christian, since he flouted their doctrines, then they arrested him, charged him with heresy, nearly executed him, then kept him under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Newton was more of a mystic than a Christian. He pissed away a dozen years of his life studying alchemy, and he believed in the occult--his Theory of Gravitation was an artifact of his belief in something very much akin to "the Force" (in other words, he was right for the wrong reasons). He did spend a great deal of time trying to prove that the Bible was literally true, but he diverged from Christian interpretations of the text.
Einstein's God that "does not play dice with the universe" was an entirely different God than the Christian one. Richard Dawkins gives an excellent account of this in his book, "The God Delusion".
I realize that the scientific method flourished in the West during the late Renaissance, but that was despite the Catholic Church and Christianity, not because of it. For one thing, the Church persecuted scientists well into the 19th century. I would also point out that the scientific method had been flourishing in the Middle East for 700 years by the time it got to the Christian West (which, in turn, can be traced to the fall of Constantinople and the migration of scholars and texts from that city to Venice).
Quote: wildqatAs said before, it's called transubstantiation. The gist of it is that the bread and wine take the substance of Jesus' body and blood. The physical aspects don't change; they still have the physical appearance, taste, etc. of bread and wine, down to a molecular level. They don't become flesh and blood in any physically detectable way, but by being blessed, they take the substance of Jesus, and therefore his divinity, and by taking them, his divinity becomes part of the taker.
If that is the case, then I feel (B) is the correct answer. Here it is again:
Quote: answer BThe bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
If not, then can you elaborate on the meaning of the word "substance"? If the bread does not literally become meat, then I think I was wronged, and should get a 13 on the test!
Quote: wildqat
No, Jesus is risen and alive, so he's actually very fresh, like divine sashimi.
Or Elvis.
Quote: WizardIf not, then can you elaborate on the meaning of the word "substance"?
Um, not really, but Wikipedia can.
Quote: WizardIf the bread does not literally become meat, then I think I was wronged, and should get a 13 on the test!
The way I understand it, it doesn't literally become meat; it becomes Christ with the appearance of bread and wine. Not just a symbol of Christ, as the Protestants believe; it's the (Son of) man himself. And when I say "appearance," I mean in every physically measurable way, they have the physical appearance and properties of bread and wine.
Really, the best I can do is say "Read the Wiki articles" because I can't really explain it properly, being not-a-philosopher and not religious.
Quote: mkl654321I doubt that Galileo was much of a Christian
You might not like his conclusions, and Galileo might not like being imprisoned and excommunicated, but that doesn't change history.
Quote: mkl654321Newton was more of a mystic than a Christian
This might be news to Isaac. He was pretty explicit in his writings. If you need to twist things to fit your needs, go ahead.
Newton may have spent a great deal of time arguing things that were wrong (alchemy), but that doesn't make him less of a Christian, it just makes him wrong.
Quote: mkl654321Einstein's God that "does not play dice with the universe"
I did not claim Einstein was a Christian, I said he believed in God, which is manifest in the quote.
Quote: mkl654321the scientific method had been flourishing in the Middle East for 700 years by the time it got to the Christian West (which, in turn, can be traced to the fall of Constantinople and the migration of scholars and texts from that city to Venice).
I'll grant the Middle East the invention of the 'zero'. What's next?
Quote: wildqatThe way I understand it, it doesn't literally become meat; it becomes Christ with the appearance of bread and wine. Not just a symbol of Christ, as the Protestants believe; it's the (Son of) man himself. And when I say "appearance," I mean in every physically measurable way, they have the physical appearance and properties of bread and wine.
That wiki article compared "substance" to liquid water changing to ice. The same H2O molecules, but in a different state. At least when liquid water changes to ice, there is a physical change. Not only do the electrons move more slowly, but the state of the matter changes from liquid to a solid.
So, can somebody give me anything that changes about the bread when the priest blesses it for communion? I'll take a change in temperature, viscosity, or anything observable. I'm not asking for the "substance" to change, just any physical characteristic of it. Please give me something ANYTHING that is not symbolic in nature.
Is it just me, or can anybody else see that the emperor has no clothes?
Catholics believe in a change of substance, and that's the end of it. You can interpret their lack of evidence as irrationality or mental illness, but you still have to deal with their beliefs.
Perhaps 80% of humanity that believes in something. You don't have to like it. but that's the world in which we live.
(I think it was Jesus? Hmm, I think it was toast? I think it was Ebay?? Nevermind.)
I live in Wisconsin. Was it butter or margarine?
Quote: CalderThis is a question of faith, not of reason. It may drive you nuts, but that's the end of it.
I can't get past the feeling that this particular belief is just batsh*t crazy. The bread changes into Jesus' flesh, yet it still maintains every physical property of bread. Come one Catholics, wake up! I would have more respect for somebody who believed in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
Hmmmm. Where should I start?
OK. How about an easy one. Ghandi was smarter than I am now, and he was not a Christian.
Or we can just go through history, pairing off eggheads, and discovering who was the smartest human of all time... and then whatever religion he was, that's the one that is right!
I'll start.
Newton or Muhammad ibn Musa al-Kwarizm?
I have to give this one to Muhammad ibn Musa al-Kwarizm. So +1 for Islam!
Who's next?
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Kwarizm or ????
Quote: WizardI can't get past the feeling that this particular belief is just batsh*t crazy. The bread changes into Jesus' flesh, yet it still maintains every physical property of bread. Come one Catholics, wake up! I would have more respect for somebody who believed in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
Geez, Wiz. (Cheese whiz?) It's supposed to be a miracle. Remember that this is a belief that has been passed down for almost 2000 years. It might seem silly today, but it was pretty damned mysterious in 1228.
As far as it being open to reinterpretation, well, the Catholic Church is pretty hung up on being completely and absolutely right, then, now, and for all time. It's sort of like the Roger Clemens situation. Once you've insisted that you are right, and you've staked all the marbles on that claim and in the absence of anything that shows that all the facts to the contrary are wrong, it doesn't really matter how much incontrovertible evidence gets thrown against you; you can't change your story. Now, take Roger Clemens, raise the stakes by about a billion Catholics, and maintain your story for 2000 years, and here we are, with transubstantiation, celibate priests, no birth control and missionary position only, no meat on Friday, and a whole boatload of strange "truths" both large and small.
Although the quiz asked a few questions about US law ... which was weird, as laws relating to religions aren't "religion," but oh well.
Quote: MoscaGeez, Wiz. (Cheese whiz?) It's supposed to be a miracle. Remember that this is a belief that has been passed down for almost 2000 years. It might seem silly today, but it was pretty damned mysterious in 1228....
Good point. I know Catholics are not big on change or dissent. However, amongst themselves, do they ever wink when discussing the more ridiculous beliefs like this.
Quote: WizardGood point. I know Catholics are not big on change or dissent. However, amongst themselves, do they ever wink when discussing the more ridiculous beliefs like this.
Nope. We believe them. To a certain point it just becomes a matter of faith, but if I already believe in an omniscient and omnipotent being, why would I balk at something like trans transubstantiation?
Oh, I got 13/15. Apparently Jewish Sabbaths aren't a well-known topic by me, and I'd never heard of a First Great Awakening.
Quote: ElectricDreamsNope. We believe them.
I can't speak for every Catholic but a good friend of mine in Baltimore was a devout Catholic. I argued with him often about the more bizarre Catholic beliefs. He tried to defend them at first. However, he eventually said that there are only a handful of core beliefs a Catholic must have. The rest is optional.
Quote: WizardGood point. I know Catholics are not big on change or dissent. However, amongst themselves, do they ever wink when discussing the more ridiculous beliefs like this.
Most Catholics I know don't discuss stuff like that at all, and they take and leave other beliefs at their convenience. It doesn't "cost" anything to accept transubstantiation, so they believe it. However, Mrs Mosca took The Pill, and she's just about the most devout person I've ever met in my life, except probably my grandmother. There are Catholics who are pro-choice, even though the pope says if you're pro-choice you're not Catholic.
Quote: WizardI can't speak for every Catholic but a good friend of mine in Baltimore was a devout Catholic. I argued with him often about the more bizarre Catholic beliefs. He tried to defend them at first. However, he eventually said that there are only a handful of core beliefs a Catholic must have. The rest is optional.
Sorry, I ninja edited my above post.
I guess it depends on what he meant by "core beliefs"? Transubstantiation is definitely something "required".
Quote: WizardI can't get past the feeling that this particular belief is just batsh*t crazy. The bread changes into Jesus' flesh, yet it still maintains every physical property of bread.
What I find baffling is that a bizarre act of cannibalism is part of a religious service.
Quote:Come one Catholics, wake up! I would have more respect for somebody who believed in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
But there is a basis for belief in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. You got money under your pillow and the tooth disappeared, right? You got presents on Xmas, didn't you? Of course it's all a hoax, but within the cognitive limits of childhood, these are sensible beliefs.
Quote: Mosca"Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were Christians, and they were smarter than you are now, so they must be right and you must be wrong."
I guess if you think this is the point I made, you may claim to have refuted it.
By the way, know a good hangover cure?
Quote: MoscaMost Catholics I know don't discuss stuff like that at all, and they take and leave other beliefs at their convenience. It doesn't "cost" anything to accept transubstantiation, so they believe it. However, Mrs Mosca took The Pill, and she's just about the most devout person I've ever met in my life, except probably my grandmother. There are Catholics who are pro-choice, even though the pope says if you're pro-choice you're not Catholic.
Yeah. It reminds of the Pascal's Wager thread. Theists will always say they believe this and that, but I wonder how deeply they really believe some parts that are just silly or inconvenient to follow. I'm sorry, but I just can't get past how ridiculous the commune thing is. Can anybody name a belief in any other religion that is more patently ridiculous? I could also easily go after the belief that the Virgin Mary was eternally a virgin. Lots of verses in the bible specifically mention Jesus' brothers and sisters. To name just one:
"Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." -- Mark 6:3
If I had to choose a religion, I think Catholicism would be dead last.
