Originally posted by lucifershammer
"It is possible that X is false" (which is equivalent to the statment "It is possible that X is true" )

Your asserted equivalence is most certainly in error.

If propositions A and B are equivalent, then the truth of one implies the truth of other.

Let A be the proposition "It is possible that 'X implies X is not a tautology' is false."
Let B be the proposition "It is possible that 'X implies X is not a tautology' is true."
You formally claim that A and B are equivalent. Thus a demonstration of the truth of A implicitly demonstrates the truth of B.

It is trivial to demonstrate the truth of A, and therefore under your assertion, one would conclude the truth of B. But this is an absurdity, and thus your assertion of equivalence must be incorrect.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Your asserted equivalence is most certainly in error.

How so?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How so?

By the rules of logical equivalence.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
By the rules of logical equivalence.

"The roots of these problems are to be found in certain presuppositions of both a philosophical and theological nature, which hinder the understanding and acceptance of the revealed truth. Some of these can be mentioned: .................................. the radical opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West and the symbolic mentality of the East; ............................................. finally, the tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church."


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

Originally posted by ivanhoe

"The roots of these problems are to be found in certain presuppositions of both a philosophical and theological nature, which hinder the understanding and acceptance of the revealed truth. Some of these can be mentioned: .................................. the radical opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West and the symbolic mentality o ...[text shortened]... va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

What a joke.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What a joke.

The truth ...... a joke ?


EDIT:

By the way, you will find more answers reading "Dominus Iesus", the link I provided, instead of trying to force your way into the House without the Key to the Lock ...... know what I'm saying ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

The truth ...... a joke ?

You make a joke of philosophical truth when you refer to it as a problematic supposition outside of the tradition of the Church.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Your asserted equivalence is most certainly in error.

If propositions A and B are equivalent, then the truth of one implies the truth of other.

Let A be the proposition "It is possible that 'X implies X is not a tautology' is false."
Let B be the proposition "It is possible that 'X implies X is not a tautology' is true."
You formally ...[text shortened]... truth of B. But this is an absurdity, and thus your assertion of equivalence must be incorrect.

Except that you need to know the truth of X (or Y -> Y is a tautology, in your example) to determine the truth value of the statement, "It is possible that X is true".

Let me rephrase - In normal conversation (which, I hope, has some correspondence to "semantic equivalence"😉, "It is possible that X is true" is interchangeable with "It is possible that X is false" where the actual truth of X is unknown.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You make a joke of philosophical truth when you refer to it as a problematic supposition outside of the tradition of the Church.

Did I say that ? ..... now that is really a joke ......

Please read my EDIT in my previous post and if possible "Dominus Jesus" ..........
*cough* ... for starters ... *cough*.

It will help you in avoiding many mistakes. You don't have to invent the theological wheel yourself here on RHP and nobody is asking you to do this ...... there were people before you who pondered these problems and came to certain conclusions.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Please read my EDIT in my previous post and if possible "Dominus Jesus" .......... *cough* ... for starters ... *cough*.

It will help you in avoiding many mistakes. You don't have to invent the theological wheel yourself here on RHP and nobody is asking you to do this ...... there were people before you who pondered these problems and came to certain conclusions.

I don't intend to read that document, nor to put my faith in the conclusions of those who have invented theological wheels before me.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
My view is that, [b]from first principles man cannot do anything to guarantee salvation - since salvation requires grace which is a gift from God. However, given that (as I understand it) God guarantees grace (the guarantee also being free of compulsion) to those who do certain things, man can do those things to ensure salvation.

I'm not sure if this is Nemesio's view.[/b]

I am afraid that it is not my view. It is not clear to me through Church documents
that salvation is assured by adhering to the teachings of the Church. The
reason I say this is because such a position is theologically unsound. There are many
examples in Scripture where the Pharisees are adhering to their teachings, but only
doing so for the sake of adhering, not because of sincere belief.

Indeed, adhering to Church teachings suggests salvation by works, which is a theologially
untenable position. It is not a matter of what you do or how many times you do it. What
matters is the state of a person's heart, whether s/he believes sincerely. This is the impact
of 'informed conscience.'

As such, it seems to me that Church's position is: If you adhere to the teachings of the Church
out of a position of sincere belief, you maximize the likelihood of acceptance into the Kingdom
of God. As the Church holds that no one can be 100% certain about whether their soul is, in
fact, in a state of Grace, one cannot be certain of salvation. However, She maintains that
sincerely adhering to Church teachings makes it more likely that one's soul is in a state of Grace
and, as such, makes it more likely to enter heaven.

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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.

I have never heard of 'Baptism of desire.' Is there a section of the Catechism that discusses this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't intend to read that document, nor to put my faith in the conclusions of those who have invented theological wheels before me.

Don't you intend to learn anything new here at all ? Then I'm afraid your intentions lie elsewhere. Please tell us Doctor, what are your intentions here on the forums, in this very thread for instance ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Please tell us Doctor, what are your intentions here on the forums, in this very thread for instance ?

To find out whether you believe that one must deduce from the teachings of the Catholic Church that Jews go to hell, and whether you accept those teachings and perform that deduction.

Dr. S.

P.S. Thank you for the proper form of address. I do appreciate it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
To find out whether you believe that one must deduce from the teachings of the Catholic Church that Jews go to hell, and whether you accept those teachings and perform that deduction.

Dr. S.

P.S. Thank you for the proper form of address. I do appreciate it.

DoctorScribbles: "To find out whether you believe that one must deduce from the teachings of the Catholic Church that Jews go to hell, .... "

The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that "Jews go to hell". I agree with that stance. I said this in a different form before and that's all there is to it. Nufsaid.