17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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 ...[text shortened]... e, as a US judge is, or is he free to act arbitrarily. It cannot be both, I'm afraid.
Dr. S
2 Samuel, chapter 12
"13": And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
17 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou have an annoying habit of simply changing the meaning of a word so that your argument becomes true by definition. Since you have now changed the meaning of "arbitrary" to "non-reviewable" and since, of course, there is no appellate court to review God's decisions on Judgment Day your argument is "correct" though meaningless. I take arbitrary to mean what the law takes it to mean; a decision made by whim or caprice without sound reason. But I'm sure there will be plenty more semantical nitpickery forthcoming.
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 ...[text shortened]... free to act arbitrarily. It cannot be both, I'm afraid.
Dr. S
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
You have an annoying habit of simply changing the meaning of a word so that your argument becomes true by definition. Since you have now changed the meaning of "arbitrary" to "reviewable" and since, of course, there is no appellate court to review God's decisions on Judgment Day your argument is "correct" though meaningless. I take arbitr ...[text shortened]... without sound reason. But I'm sure there will be plenty more semantical nitpickery forthcoming.
One rec from Ivanhoe ! ........ I know, I know No1 ..... miracles dó happen ...... 😛
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioWhat do you mean by "guidelines"? On one level it could simply be receiving the sacraments, attending Mass on Sundays and Holy days of Obligation etc. etc. Adherence to these certainly does not assure salvation if a person commits a mortal sin otherwise.
As for 'strict necessary criteria,' the Church, as far as I can discern,
gives an escape clause to God's judgment (as, I believe, makes
sense), that, while we have a bunch of 'guidelines,' the adherence of
which nearly ensures salvation, the ignoring of which does not
necessarily guarantee damnation.
On another level, "guidelines" would also include love and faith in God, love for neighbour, not murdering, not committing adultery etc. Adherence to these would certainly assure salvation (C.f. LG 9).
17 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy teach them something in direct opposition to doctrine?
No and yes.
I don't buy the argument that 'probably' is too big a concept for a child to understand, and thus the teachers opt to convery certainty instead. Any child that can understand 'certainty' can understand 'probably'.
Dr. S
P.S. I'm assuming your No and Yes refer to the last two questions I posed.
17 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderEither we will have the nitpicking to resolve our misunderstanding, or I will be forced to abandon you on your hopeless path of trying to make one word represent two opposing concepts.
But I'm sure there will be plenty more semantical nitpickery forthcoming.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioI would certainly dispute that number. Most people who are raised or initiated Catholic are aware that non-Catholics (and even non-Christians) can be saved - they may not be aware of the theology behind it.
'...and performed no theological study...'
I would say 999.9 of a 1000, or 9999 in 10000.
That having been said, I would say that none of these who had
performed 'no theological study' would have heard of Dominus
Iesus. Indeed, I would guess that only 50% of priests would have
even glanced at it, much less the % who know its contents. ...[text shortened]... his forum from 'Christians' who claim
to know both their Bible and church history.
Nemesio
I agree that virtually no person with no theological exposure would know what Dominus Iesus is or says.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by Nemesio
I think what an RCer would say is that:
1) God does have a decision process;
Yes
2) The RCC does not know every part of the process; but
Yes
3) The RCC is a critical but not essential part of it;
Depends on how you define "critical" and "essential". Certainly, visible membership of the Church is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for salvation.
4) Adherence to RCC teachings will increase the likelihood of salvation.
Would assure salvation.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesReally? Perhaps you should read your own post where you defined arbitrary:
No. My habit is choosing my words precisely to begin with when presenting my position. I don't change the meaning of my terms mid-argument.
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?
I believe the word "whim" is in there, isn't it? But you now reject the legal definition which is a "based on whim or caprice without sound reasons". Sure looks like you changed the meaning of "your" terms mid-argument, doesn't it Mr. Precision?
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerWHOA!
[b]4) Adherence to RCC teachings will increase the likelihood of salvation.
Would assure salvation.[/b]
Now we have a sufficient condition for salvaltion?
I don't understand. I thought we already concluded that no such things exist! That's what no1 was berating me about. Is he wrong?
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo. My original elaboration is consistent with the definition I gave later.
Really? Perhaps you should read your own post where you defined arbitrary:
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?
I believe the word "whim" is in there, isn't it? But you now reject the legal definition which is ...[text shortened]... re looks like you changed the meaning of "your" terms mid-argument, doesn't it Mr. Precision?
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe same section VI says that the Church has not discouraged those who say that Hell is metaphorical. So, at the moment, neither side is in theological error. Both views are acceptable.
"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]
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEuthyphro's Dilemma.
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 ...[text shortened]... e, as a US judge is, or is he free to act arbitrarily. It cannot be both, I'm afraid.
Dr. S