Originally posted by DoctorScribblesRead my subsequent posts as well.
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?
But the answer to this is - yes.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat about the general population of non-Christians around the world?
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?
Same as the Judaists†.
---
† I've been told that people of Jewish origin consider the term "Jews" something of a pejorative. Also, since I'm referring to the followers of a particular religion, rather than the whole ethnic class of people, I think the term "Judaists" might work.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf you have sufficient cause to know that smoking is disastrous, you may still smoke, but you cannot fail to know that it is disastrous. We were discussing beliefs, not acting on beliefs.
As you can guess, I've been working through the thread.
[b]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.
[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerwhere do you get such nonsense?
[b]What about the general population of non-Christians around the world?
Same as the Judaists†.
---
† I've been told that people of Jewish origin consider the term "Jews" something of a pejorative. Also, since I'm referring to the followers of a particular religion, rather than the whole ethnic class of people, I think the term "Judaists" might work.[/b]
"The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi" ) is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim. Other sources, however, say that the word "Yehudim" means "People of G-d," because the first three letters of "Yehudah" are the same as the first three letters of G-d's four-letter name."
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFirst, even with sufficient cause to know that smoking is disastrous, I could choose not to accept those causes; or nitpick at them. It is by no means certain that I will believe that smoking is disastrous even with sufficient cause.
If you have sufficient cause to know that smoking is disastrous, you may still smoke, but you cannot fail to know that it is disastrous. We were discussing beliefs, not acting on beliefs.
Second, as bbarr pointed out in another thread, when Christians speak of "believe" it usually means something more than mere belief, it also involves acceptance and action.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you really believe that God would place us bodily into a fire for eternity?
Literal burning may be involved, though I think that is just the best way of analogically expressing the effects of the spiritual torment involved. Given the integral relationship between the soul and the body, it makes sense that eternal torment for the soul would be reflected physically as well.
Originally posted by lucifershammerExcellent. So failing to believe, due to insufficent evidence, is not grounds for damnation. Hooray!
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, [b]despite having sufficient cause, refuse to believe etc.
In other words, a person is not culpable if he/she acts ...[text shortened]... uress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments and other psychological or social factors (CCC 1735).[/b]
10 edits
Originally posted by bbarrGood observation. If a lack of belief due to a lack of sufficient evidence characterizes the weak atheist, then all weak atheists escape culpability in this matter, by definition.
Excellent. So failing to believe, due to insufficent evidence, is not grounds for damnation. Hooray!
LH says that only a small minority of Jews have both failed to convert and have been confronted with sufficient evidence to make them believe in Jesus, and thus they escape culpability. I have to assume the same extends to weak atheists, unless Jews get a special pass.
LH has essentially confirmed the weak atheistic position, especially for those who are habitually weak atheist, or those who adopt that position out of fear of being ridiculed in this forum by the other weak atheists were they to believe (see the habit, fear and social factors clauses).
I sense some equivocation coming on.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles9 edits???
Good observation. If a lack of belief due to a lack of sufficient evidence characterizes the weak atheist, then all weak atheists escape culpability in this matter, by definition.
LH says that only a small minority of Jews have both failed to convert and have been confronted with sufficient evidence to make them believe in Jesus, and thus they ...[text shortened]... elieve (see the habit, fear and social factors clauses).
I sense some equivocation coming on.
Originally posted by bbarrOh, come on. That's why they teach you in school to read and re-read your writing, so that you can AVOID making mistakes. Then you wouldn't need to edit (at least not 9 times). Someone of your intellectual capacity, and for that matter the "dear doctor" himself, should know that by now. In fact, a child in 3rd grade should know that by now. Obviously he didn't take the required time to read his post over to check for mistakes. And you rec him for THAT? This clique routine is getting old...
Priceless.
Furthermore, I am in a very bad mood right now (quite pissed off), so I really will find any reason to quibble over. However, taken into account my bias, I still believe that was an undeserved rec, and that the doctor should read his posts before posting them.... then he wouldn't need to edit.
It would also not surprise me if I came back tomorrow and saw another 3 or 4 recs given to that post. Birds of a feather stick together.
2 edits
Originally posted by lioyankYou obviously do not understand the process behind producing quality writing. You should be thanking me for my revisions, and requesting that others do the same. If all posts, and the catechism, had nine edits, we'd all get along a lot better. As it is, our disagreements center around he said she said battles, because few people bother to say what they mean, and to correct themselves when they miss the mark.
Oh, come on. That's why they teach you in school to read and re-read your writing, so that you can AVOID making mistakes. Then you wouldn't need to edit (at least not 9 times). Someone of your intellectual capacity, and for that matter the "dear doctor" himself, should know that by now. In fact, a child in 3rd grade should know that by now. Obviously he ...[text shortened]... back tomorrow and saw another 3 or 4 recs given to that post. Birds of a feather stick together.
To err is human. To fail to revise is lazy. To taunt the Wolfpack is just asking for it.
Originally posted by lioyankPerhaps your school spent too much time teaching you copyediting and too little time teaching you proper inference. Praytell, what reason do you have for thinking I recced Dr.S's post for not taking "the required time to read his post over for mistakes"? This is not only a stupid inference on your part, but it is clearly contradicted by the facts. After all, I didn't rec the post for which he needed 10 edits. I recced the post that consisted of a clever riposte to your incredulity, one that germanely highlighted the need for clarity in the writings of the Catechism. Don't worry, once you post something clever I'll rec you too.
Oh, come on. That's why they teach you in school to read and re-read your writing, so that you can AVOID making mistakes. Then you wouldn't need to edit (at least not 9 times). Someone of your intellectual capacity, and for that matter the "dear doctor" himself, should know that by now. In fact, a child in 3rd grade should know that by now. Obviously he ...[text shortened]... back tomorrow and saw another 3 or 4 recs given to that post. Birds of a feather stick together.