A Question for Christians Of All Kinds

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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?

It is referring to all human beings.

But Hell is an individual state of soul; it does not operate on a class of people. So, even if Judaists (as a religion) reject the divinity of Christ (as do Muslims), only those Judaists who, despite having sufficient cause, refuse to believe etc.

In other words, a person is not culpable if he/she acts in ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments and other psychological or social factors (CCC 1735).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
only those Judaists who, [b]despite having sufficient cause, refuse to believe etc.[/b]

Do you suppose this characterizes the majority or the minority of Jews?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

So, you admit either that the terms of the document entail logical contradictions or that they are based on equivocation?

Excluded middle.

The answer is - neither. The terms are used in a narrower sense than the range of meanings in normal use of language, but identifying the right sense does involve viewing those terms in light of the whole document and other Church documents.

Usually (but not always), a plain reading will do. However, pulling them out of context will simply not do.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The terms are used in a narrower sense than the range of meanings in normal use of language, but identifying the right sense does involve viewing those terms in light of the whole document and other Church documents.

Ivanhoe said the document was not mathematically consistent. There is no excluded middle, given that. Narrow meanings is not an excluded middle; with respect to mathematical consistency, the narrower the better.

Is hell a furnace of fire, in light of the whole document?

You'll agree that it can't both be and not be a furnace of fire, won't you?

If it is not, then item 1034 shows either a contradiction or an equivocation, for it says that hell is a furnace of fire.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
only those Judaists who, [b]despite having sufficient cause, refuse to believe etc.

In other words, a person is not culpable if he/she acts in ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments and other psychological or social factors (CCC 1735).[/b]

Only somebody with a mental disorder could refuse to believe something in the presence of sufficient cause to believe it. But hopefully somebody with a mental disorder would fall under the "psychological factors" exclusion from culpability, and thus nobody would ever be culpable.

Does (3) follow from (1) and (2)?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Ivanhoe said the document was not mathematically consistent. There is no excluded middle, given that. Narrow meanings is not an excluded middle; with respect to mathematical consistency, the narrower the better.

Is hell a furnace of fire, in light of the whole document?

You'll agree that it can't both be and not be a furnace of fire, won't ...[text shortened]... 034 shows either a contradiction or an equivocation, for it says that hell is a furnace of fire.

Dr.Scribbles: "Ivanhoe said the document was not mathematically consistent."

😀 😵 😀

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course it is a major point!

If hell is a furnace of torment, then disbelievers are punished for their rejection of God.

If hell is mere separation without physical torment, then what did Jesus save us from? This separation only? Why did he have to endure suffering , supposedly on our behalf, if that is the case?

It is a major point that ...[text shortened]... t him, or he is the sort that allows them to go their way without reaping his revenge upon them.

First, there is no"going [its] way" when it comes to the soul and separation from God. The human soul was created for intimate communion with God; to be separated from God is like a human being who deprives himself of food and water. Separation from God is torment to the human soul.

Second, I'm sure you're familiar with psychosomatic illnesses. If mental stress or depression can lead to physical pain, then why not the torment of the soul?

Third, a person who is in hell has committed a mortal sin - a sin on grave matter that is committed with full knowledge and consent (CCC 1857ff). Further, that person has remained unrepentant to the very end. Therefore, the "furnace" (if it exists) would be a just punishment given the gravity and deliberateness of the act. In other words, a person consigned to the furnace has committed a sin so grevious it warrants the punishment.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It says he spoke of it solemnly. Like one speaks at a funeral. Not like one speaks at a puppet show.

Does (3) follow from (1) and (2)?

There is no reason to think that he wasn't speaking analogically even if he was speaking solemnly. Especially when the concept he's talking about probably cannot be expressed in human experience and language.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Ivanhoe said the document was not mathematically consistent. There is no excluded middle, given that. Narrow meanings is not an excluded middle; with respect to mathematical consistency, the narrower the better.

Is hell a furnace of fire, in light of the whole document?

You'll agree that it can't both be and not be a furnace of fire, won't ...[text shortened]... 034 shows either a contradiction or an equivocation, for it says that hell is a furnace of fire.

When reading your posts I cannot help looking continuously at your avatar ....... then I can't help myself ..... I just have to laugh out loud ............. 😉 😀 😵 😀

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In other words, a person consigned to the furnace has committed a sin so grevious it warrants the punishment.

I see. Do you agree that it logically follows that Jews who are consigned to the furnace have each committed a sin so grevious it warrants the punishment, that sin being failure to believe and convert?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you suppose this characterizes the majority or the minority of Jews?

I have no idea. I would suppose a very small minority.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I have no idea. I would suppose a very small minority.

That's what I would suppose too. Does it follow logically that you think the majority of Jews are in hell?

EDIT: I misread your answer. You think only a very small minority of Jews have been given sufficient cause to convert? What about the general population of non-Christians around the world?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
When reading your posts I cannot help looking continuously at your avatar ....... then I can't help myself ..... I just have to laugh out loud ............. 😉 😀 😵 😀

Me too. It's a good avatar.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Ivanhoe said the document was not mathematically consistent. There is no excluded middle, given that. Narrow meanings is not an excluded middle; with respect to mathematical consistency, the narrower the better.

Is hell a furnace of fire, in light of the whole document?

You'll agree that it can't both be and not be a furnace of fire, won't ...[text shortened]... 034 shows either a contradiction or an equivocation, for it says that hell is a furnace of fire.

equivocation (Wordnet)

n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth [syn: evasion] 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn: prevarication, evasiveness] 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language [syn: tergiversation]

The excluded middle refers to your two choices - mathematical consistency and equivocation. There is a third - analogy (one that does not have the negative connotation of equivocation).

As I pointed out - the concept of hell very probably cannot be expressed in human language. So it could be best described as being a furnace of fire without actually being one (in the sense that we would normally encounter).

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Only somebody with a mental disorder could refuse to believe something in the presence of sufficient cause to believe it. But hopefully somebody with a mental disorder would fall under the "psychological factors" exclusion from culpability, and thus nobody would ever be culpable.

Does (3) follow from (1) and (2)?

As you can guess, I've been working through the thread.

Only somebody with a mental disorder could refuse to believe something in the presence of sufficient cause to believe it.

Not necessarily. I have sufficient cause to know that smoking is disastrous for my health, but could smoke nevertheless.

Granted, I cannot say what kind of person could have sufficient cause to accept God and reject Him nevertheless without other impediments.

Does (3) follow from (1) and (2)?

I thought I did.