Former priest convicted of child molestation

Originally posted by lucifershammer

In any case, if objective truth exists, then all standards of that truth will be coherent (i.e. no contradictions between them). The Church adheres to all of them.

And the Jewish people to none of them, correct?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"According to" weakens the claim. Either drop it, or admit that you can only make the weaker claim. If you can make the stronger claim, just say
"Jews are objectively wrong."

What you did was a cop out, presumably because you realized how absurd you would sound saying that.

"According to" weakens the claim. Either drop it, or admit that you can only make the weaker claim. If you can make the stronger claim, just say
"Jews are objectively wrong."

OK - Jews are objectively wrong - provided they actually have a position on ordination that is in contradiction with the Catholic one.

EDIT: I believe they do not - not in their official Scriptures anyway.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
And the Jewish people to none of them, correct?

Wrong. The standard of truth that Jews adhere to is a subset of that which the RCC adheres to.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The Church adheres to all of them.

Under what epistemic criteria do you make this claim? It sounds like a circular one.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Wrong. The standard of truth that Jews adhere to is a subset of that which the RCC adheres to.

This makes no sense. If the Jews are objectively wrong, and the Jews' standard of truth is a subset of the Catholics' standard of truth, then a subset of the Catholics' standard of truth must be wrong. But you said the Catholics' standard is not wrong.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Under what epistemic criteria do you make this claim? It sounds like a circular one.

Could you clarify the question?

Are you asking by what epistemic criteria the Church holds that it adheres to objective truth? What do you mean by "epistemic criteria"; i.e. could you give an example?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This makes no sense. If the Jews are objectively wrong, and the Jews' standard of truth is a subset of the Catholics' standard of truth, then a subset of the Catholics' standard of truth must be wrong. But you said the Catholics' standard is not wrong.

Read my response on "Jews are objectively wrong" above.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

OK - Jews are objectively wrong - provided they actually have a position on ordination that is in contradiction with the Catholic one.

We know that most Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
Based on that, will you say that those Jews are objectively wrong?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
We know that most Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
Based on that, will you say that those Jews are objectively wrong?

Yes - I would say that those Jews are objectively wrong.

However, there is nothing in Judaism per se that prevents a Jew from acknowledging Jesus as Messiah.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Could you clarify the question?

Are you asking by what epistemic criteria the Church holds that it adheres to objective truth? What do you mean by "epistemic criteria"; i.e. could you give an example?

Sure. Some people say that everything in the Bible is true. That is one epistemic criteria. If I make the claim that Jonah was swallowed by a fish, they can turn to their standard and affirm it, for the Bible affirms that truth.

Similarly, if I make the claim that the Bible is not the word of God, they will turn to that same standard and deny my claim, since the Bible claims that it actually is the word of God.

Thus, such a person asserts his epistemic criteria is correct, and appeals to it as evidence for why it is correct. This is circular.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes - I would say that those Jews are objectively wrong.

However, there is nothing in Judaism per se that prevents a Jew from acknowledging Jesus as Messiah.

Do you wish to retract this: "the Jews' standard of truth is a subset of the Catholics' standard of truth."

Or do you wish to qualify it by saying that you were only referring to theoretically minimal Jews and not actual Jews?

I was asking about actual Jews with real beliefs.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes - I would say that those Jews are objectively wrong.

However, there is nothing in Judaism per se that prevents a Jew from acknowledging Jesus as Messiah.

However, there is nothing in Judaism per se that prevents a Jew from acknowledging Jesus as Messiah.

Except, (1) in the Jewish view, when the Messiah comes (and not all of Judaism holds to a view of a single personal Messiah) the world will be redeemed—and they don’t see a redeemed world out there; (2) the Jews do not accept the notion of a world that is somehow “spiritually” redeemed, while continuing on as it has in the past.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes - I would say that those Jews are objectively wrong.

I have to wonder if I'm the only one who thinks you're nuts. Maybe I am.

Would you say that you have faith, or does your set of religious beliefs consist strictly of knowledge?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I have to wonder if I'm the only one who thinks you're nuts. Maybe I am.

Would you say that you have faith, or does your set of religious beliefs consist strictly of knowledge?

I’m confused about “epistemic status” here. If my view of the truth rests on a system which depends on certain premises (axioms?) that cannot be proven from within the system that they support, then even an internally consistent system stands or falls on those premises, does it not? Now, I don’t take the premise that the Bible is the divinely-inspired, inerrant “word of God” (as opposed to human attempts at understanding the divine, whether inspired or not) as an objectively valid premise for arguing, say, the resurrection of Jesus. So, what do such premises require in terms of “epistemic status?”

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I would say that those Jews are objectively wrong.

Is this compatible with the ideas in the Vatican's article on tolerance that ivanhoe posted?