Calling out ivanhoe

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So, it is your claim that the decision is arbitrary, in the sense that God is not bound by any rules and may cast people into hell at a whim, correct?

It may be his claim (though I do not think so), but it is not the RCC's
claim. The RCC would state that there are indeed rules, but that we
do not know all of them. We do know some of them, some of the
most important ones, and that these constitute the body of theological
literature which the Church currently embraces.

Nemesio

"According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct."

"How are we to form a conception of that fire in detail remains quite undetermined; we merely know that it is corporeal."

The above are from the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Hell, section VI.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

Are you saying that they are in error?

Originally posted by Nemesio
We do know some of them, some of the
most important ones, and that these constitute the body of theological
literature which the Church currently embraces.

Do you agree that according to the most important guidelines on salvation that the Church teaches, Jews who are not baptized or fail to accept Jesus will go to hell, and that it is only in the minor, unimportant or unknown guidelines that they have any hope of salvation?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a [b]material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct."

"How are we to form a conception of that ...[text shortened]... ww.newadvent.org/cathen/

Are you saying that they are in error?[/b]

One more from the same section:

"Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor."

Is this in error?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So, it is your claim that the decision is arbitrary, in the sense that God is not bound by any rules and may cast people into hell at a whim, correct? There is nothing you can do to ensure your salvation, correct? If this is so obviously true and consistent with official doctrine, why does the Church teach children the direct opposite of this?

Your "logic" is faulty; I and the RCC do not claim that the decision is arbitrary. Is God "bound" by rules; of course not. Is there nothing you can do to ensure your salvation? Well, you can follow the teachings of Jesus but whether you have ever done it to the satisfaction of God is unknowable until Judgement Day. The RCC is not a document; it is organization made up of millions of individuals trying to find their path to Jesus' way. There is no ABCD way to "ensure" salvation and most Catholics know this.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your "logic" is faulty; I and the RCC do not claim that the decision is arbitrary. Is God "bound" by rules; of course not. Is there nothing you can do to ensure your salvation? Well, you can follow the teachings of Jesus but whether you have ever done it to the satisfaction of God is unknowable until Judgement Day. The RCC is not a document; i ...[text shortened]... path to Jesus' way. There is no ABCD way to "ensure" salvation and most Catholics know this.

You're trying to have it both ways. I cannot permit myself to continue on this path of absurdity.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I and the RCC do not claim that the decision is arbitrary.

you can follow the teachings of Jesus but whether you have ever done it to the satisfaction of God is unknowable until Judgement Day.

I will leave you to wallow in your contradiction and contemplate the primary definition of 'arbitrary' given at www.m-w.com:

"depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)"

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a [b]material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct."

"How are we to form a conception of that fire in detail remains quite undetermined; we merely know that it is corporeal."

The above are from the Cath ...[text shortened]... on Hell, section VI.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

Are you saying that they are in error?[/b]

Just so you know, the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' which you are citing is the
product of Tridentine Theology, a theology amended (read: supplanted)
by post-Vatican II theology. The Catechism's teaching represents the
modern interpretation (but Mel Gibson, as a Tridentine, presumably holds
the believe you cited).

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you agree that according to the most important guidelines on salvation that the Church teaches, Jews who are not baptized or fail to accept Jesus will go to hell, and that it is only in the minor, unimportant or unknown guidelines that they have any hope of salvation?

The Church does indeed speak out of both sides of its mouth: at the same
time saying that the Jews have a rich theological heritage and are close to
God's heart while on the other hand saying that Baptism and faith in the
Church Universal are a 'near' requirement for salvation. The documents
make this position very clear. The Church would be foolish to deny this
apparant doublespeak.

I would have to affirm your statement that this would be the mainstream
perspective of the RCC.

That having been said, there are many RC theologians who would disagree
with the mainstream and, while being censured (by admonita), remain
active in publishing theological articles. This is the product of the informed
conscience and the Church would be hypocritical to force these priests and
theologians to keep silent on this issue.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If we could take this to one more level of precision, I would appreciate it.

To teach that Baptism increases the likelihood of salvation might mean one of two things, and I'm not sure which you intend.

One sense of increasing the likelihood is that God has definite, strict necessary criteria for salvation, and the Church teaches that Baptism ...[text shortened]... ion to heaven, and the more points you collect, the more likely you are to be admitted.

Dr. S

(If I might draw back this discussion a little)

Salvation is essentially a "locking in" of the state of a person's soul at the time of his death. If the soul is at some level of communion with God, it will remain in communion with God forever (Heaven); if the soul is separated from God (original and/or mortal sin), it will remain separated forever (Hell) [1].

What Baptism does is to remove original sin. Hence, the sense in which Baptism increases the likelihood of salvation is that, if you start off with a "clean slate", you are more likely to end with one. It's still up to you to maintain a clean slate.

One more thing to note - baptism of desire (a perfect act of contrition or love from a person) has the same soul-regenerating effect/removal of original sin-effect as baptism with water (though the latter is much richer spiritually). So, it's possible (but quite difficult) for people to clean the slate themselves.

Luc

[1] Not strictly true. God can, at his discretion, save souls that may be in a state of original but not mortal sin. Unbaptised infants would fall in this category.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I will leave you to wallow in your contradiction and contemplate the primary definition of 'arbitrary' given at www.m-w.com:

"depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)"

I prefer the second definition in my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: arising from will or caprice; selected at random and without reason.

The definition you are using makes every single decision made by a judge "arbitrary" unless there are 100% criteria to follow. That is a contradiction; if there is precisely definable criteria, there is no need for a judge.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't want to create a program.

I want to know if you believe that God has a decision process, or if he assigns people to hell arbitarily; if he has a process, what your faith teaches you about it and the extent to which you b ...[text shortened]... he employ a decision process, or does he use the keys arbitrarily?

Please read very carefully. I wrote: Saint Peter holds the Key (capital K). Doing so I refer to the fact that Jesus Christ opened the door to the Father, to the heavens. He is the Key.

If you want to know what you want to know, the only thing you can do is to start studying the teachings of the Roman Catholic faith, enlightened by the Holy Spirit. However, if you haven't accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, the Catholic Church as His Bride and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Magisterium as your guide, you will never gain a genuine and benevolent understanding of the Truth, being Jesus Christ Himself, the Image of the one and only true living God.

One of the first steps to understand what it is all about is to kneel down and confess your sins to God and ask for forgiveness. The very first step would be to go and see an orthodox Roman-Catholic priest, one who accepts the teachings of the Church, and accept him to introduce you to the faith.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Please read very carefully. I wrote: Saint Peter holds the Key (capital K). Doing so I refer to the fact that Jesus Christ opened the door to the Father, to the heavens. He is the Key.

If you want to know what you want to know, the only thing you can do is to start studying the teachings of the Roman Catholic faith, enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Howev ...[text shortened]... st, one who accepts the teachings of the Church, and accept him to introduce you to the faith.

So I take it that receiving guidance from me probably would not be sufficient.

Originally posted by kirksey957
So I take it that receiving guidance from me probably would not be sufficient.

I'm afraid not Kirk ..... 😛

Originally posted by no1marauder

The definition you are using makes every single decision made by a judge "arbitrary" unless there are 100% criteria to follow. That is a contradiction; if there is precisely definable criteria, there is no need for a judge.

Under my (etymologicially sound) definition of arbitrary...

Judges in the United States are bound by their oath as officiers of the court to uphold the law to the best of their ability. The law always takes priority over a judge's discretion. For example, a judge may not sentence a person to death for petty larceny, nor appoint a 30-member jury. Those are examples of the "100% criteria" criterion, but they are the norm rather than the exception. Only when the law doesn't speak to an issue at hand may a judge use his discretion and act arbitrarily, but only in accordance with his oath to uphold justice. A judge may never act completely arbitrarily and violate his oath, for if he did, then he wasn't really a judge to begin with.

The entire appellate court system is grounded in the fact that judges must not act arbitrarily but rather in accordance with law and procedure. If a judge does act arbitrarily when due process does not allow him to, a higher court is there to rectify that.

It is only in minor findings and procedural decisions, such as when to adjourn for lunch, that a judge may exercise complete discretion and act completely arbitrarily. When his arbitrariness violates one's right to due process, recourse is available to right that wrong.

So, when God acts as Judge on Judgment Day, is he bound by set principles of law and justice, as a US judge is, or is he free to act arbitrarily. It cannot be both, I'm afraid.

Dr. S