1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo, Dear Doctor. Maybe it would be a good idea to read the Cathechism of the Catholic Church from beginning to end and after that the encyclicals "Veritatis Splendor" ["The Splendor of Truth"] and "Fides et Ratio" ["Faith and Reason"].
According to the source you cited, is hell reservered for people such as Jews who refuse to believe in Jesus and who refuse to convert to Christianity? Or when it speaks of those who "refuse to believe and be converted," is it refering strictly to non-Jews?
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0222/_INDEX.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM
2 edits
What is the referent of "those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted?" Is it just what it means in plain language, or are those terms defined at an earlier place in the document? I don't see how it couldn't include Jews without some unusual definitions, since two defining characteristics of Jews are their refusal to accept Christ as their saviour, and also their failure to have converted to Catholicism.
I'm not interesetd in other references yet. I want to understand this one before moving on. If it is the authoritative source, then it shouldn't require others to be understood.
Originally posted by HalitoseMy conscience is in opposition to Scripture. How does that work?
Of course its gray. God will be doing the judging, not you or me. I believe in God's revealed moral law: firstly through our conscience and then through inspired scripture. We are answerable firstly to our conscience.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm afraid you will not be able to understand without reading the whole document ..... and even after that many questions will remain. The Roman-Catholic Faith is as simple and as complicated as life itself.
What is the referent of "those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted?" Is it just what it means in plain language, or are those terms defined at an earlier place in the document. I don't see how it couldn't include Jews without some unusual definitions.
I'm not interesetd in other references yet. I want to unders ...[text shortened]... ving on. If it is the authoritative source, then it shouldn't require others to be understood.
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeDo you understand what the three items in question mean? Are each of them correct and well-defined, and are they collectively consistent?
I'm afraid you will not be able to understand without reading the whole document ..... and even after that many questions will remain. The Roman-Catholic Faith is as simple or as complicated as life itself.
Can you deduce from your understanding of them whether there is a place in hell for Jews who don't believe in Jesus or convert to Catholicism? I don't understand why you continually dodge this question.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes, they are consistent, but I'm afraid not in a way you are used to, meaning in a mathematical way.
Do you understand what the three items in question mean? Are each of them correct and well-defined, and are they collectively consistent?
Can you deduce from your understanding of them whether there is a place in hell for Jews who don't believe in Jesus or convert to Catholicism? I don't understand why you continually dodge this question.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIs it consistent, in your special sort of consistency, with your understanding of them that there is a place in hell for Jews who don't believe in Jesus or convert to Catholicism? I don't understand why you continually dodge this question.
Yes, they are consistent, but I'm afraid not in a way you are used to, meaning in a mathematical way.
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo, you admit either that the terms of the document entail logical contradictions or that they are based on equivocation?
Yes, they are consistent, but I'm afraid not in a way you are used to, meaning in a mathematical way.
If they entail contradictions, I can use them to demonstrate anything at all, such as "Gay priests are the best."
If they are based on equivocation, then nobody can know what the document means.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDr.S.: "Can you deduce from your understanding of them whether there is a place in hell for Jews who don't believe in Jesus or convert to Catholicism? I don't understand why you continually dodge this question.[/b]
Do you understand what the three items in question mean? Are each of them correct and well-defined, and are they collectively consistent?
Can you deduce from your understanding of them whether there is a place in hell for Jews who don't believe in Jesus or convert to Catholicism? I don't understand why you continually dodge this question.
I am not dodging the question. It is an impossible one.
There is no "place in hell for Jews". It simply doesn't make any sense.
We are all judged by God on a personal basis. In deciding whether a person goes to heaven or hell God does not use the criterium of being a Jew or not, not even the question whether someone is a Christian or Roman-Catholic is a decisive criterium.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat about it doesn't make sense?
I am not dodging the question. It is an impossible one.
There is no "place in hell for Jews". It simply doesn't make any sense.
Does it make sense to say that there is a place reserved in hell for those who refuse to believe and convert?
Does it make sense to say that Jews don't believe and haven't converted?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy does the section on hell speak about those who refuse to convert, and say that there is a place in hell reserved for them?
We are all judged by God on a personal basis. In deciding whether a person goes to heaven or hell God does not use the criterium of being a Jew or not, not even the question whether someone is a Christian or Roman-Catholic is a decisive criterium.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDear Doctor Scribbles, you've got a problem in the field of Roman-Catholic issues. One the one hand you are trying to understand .... I hope ... and on the other hand you are so eager in "refuting" whatever is stated in whatever document in whatever context about whatever subject that, as a logical consequense, you entangle yourself in all kinds of difficulties concerning understanding and interpreting the text at hand. In other words, you are biting off more than you can chew.
So, you admit either that the terms of the document entail logical contradictions or that they are based on equivocation?
If they entail contradictions, I can use them to demonstrate anything at all, such as "Gay priests are the best."
If they are based on equivocation, then nobody can know what the document means.
Thoroughly reading the Cathechismus doesn't take long for a person of your intellectual status. If you don't understand some issue, just continue reading and more often than you think the issue will become more and more clear as you read on.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIs it true that the statements of the document are not consistent in a mathematical sense?
Thoroughly reading the Cathechismus doesn't take long for a person of your intellectual status. If you don't understand some issue, just continue reading and more often than you think the issue will become more and more clear as you read on.