Former priest convicted of child molestation

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

No, Doctor, you are not alone.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]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.[/b]

What does redemption mean in the Jewish context?

Originally posted by vistesd
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, ine ...[text shortened]... , the resurrection of Jesus. So, what do such premises require in terms of “epistemic status?”

Axioms are not intended to be proven from within the system they support. They are intended to be the standard of truth by which all other claims in the system are judged. They are those things that one accepts, asserts, or relies on as being true without proof.

At the end of the day, they are subjective claims, since each of two people with competing axioms cannot demonstrate to the other his own to be true. The best he can do is to show that the other's are collectively inconsistent, or that they do not actually reflect a standard of what that other person actually believes to be true by showing that they entail something that the other believes to be false.

Epistemic criteria are essentially a set of axioms that dictate how to evaluate the truth of claims. LH axiomatically accepts Revelation and Apostolic Tradition as his ultimate axioms. Others, such as scientists operating under the scientific method, typically accept some combination of rationality and empiricism as theirs.

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

No, Doctor, you are not alone.[/b]

Praise Jesus. I have to wonder if all informed Catholics actually think that they are objectively correct to the exclusion of all other competing faiths.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I wonder if you guys really are interested in the pain and agony of the victims. I strongly doubt it. Your whole attitude points in a quite different direction. Guess what that direction is ?

You assume too much!

D

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?

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

Knowledge is, after all, true justified belief. In most cases, we cannot determine with complete certainty that a particular proposition is true; i.e. corresponds to objective reality. This is certainly the case with religious beliefs - so all I can say is whether my belief is justified or not. Again, with justification, individual standards differ - so all I can say is whether my belief is internally justified or not.

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

Yes. Why would this not be the case?

Originally posted by vistesd
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, ine ...[text shortened]... , the resurrection of Jesus. So, what do such premises require in terms of “epistemic status?”

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.

Neither does (if you look at Church history) the Catholic Church. 🙂

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Praise Jesus. I have to wonder if all informed Catholics actually think that they are objectively correct to the exclusion of all other competing faiths.

If they hold to the Catholic faith - then yes.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Axioms are not intended to be proven from within the system they support. They are intended to be the standard of truth by which all other claims in the system are judged. They are those things that one accepts, asserts, or relies on as being true without proof.

You might modify this, or qualify it a bit, though.

If a person holds axioms A and B, which assert that x and y are True (respectively),
but x and y entail a logical contradiction, one can disprove the validity of the
axiom from within the system they allegedly support.

Right?

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What does redemption mean in the Jewish context?

I’m still researching that—since, as usual, there seem to be some various understandings. Minimally, however, it appears to be a world in which justice and compassion reign. Maximally, a return to an earthly paradisiacal state, but without relinquishing our knowledge of good and evil. For many, our job (the human vocation, if you will) is to move as far as possible toward redemption of the world. For some, the Messiah is not one person, but an aspect of all persons.

That’s the best I can do at the moment; will try to work on it some more. As a side note, messiah can mean anyone who is anointed by God to carry out any particular task. For example, in Isaiah 45:1, Cyrus is referred to as YHVH’s lo mashiach. Eschatological messianism seems to have come late as a stream in Judaism, with different understandings.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Axioms are not intended to be proven from within the system they support. They are intended to be the standard of truth by which all other claims in the system are judged. They are those things that one accepts, asserts, or relies on as being true without proof.

At the end of the day, they are subjective claims, since each of two people with com ...[text shortened]... he scientific method, typically accept some combination of rationality and empiricism as theirs.

Thank you.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Would you say that you have faith, or does your set of religious beliefs consist strictly of knowledge?

Knowledge is, after all, true justified belief. In most cases, we cannot determine with complete certainty that a particular proposition is true; i.e. corresponds to objective reality. This is certainly the case with religious beliefs - so ...[text shortened]... ividual standards differ - so all I can say is whether my belief is internally justified or not.[/b]

So then you inform me that your belief is internally justified. Meanwhile, a man of competing faith informs me that his competing belief is internally justified. All I gather is that it may well be the case that neither of you possess any knowledge on the subject.

I am just wondering how you reason from your perception of your own internal justification to the conclusion that the man of competing faith is objectively wrong. I am not sure how that works. I think you might be able to conclude that in your estimation, the man is very likely wrong. At which time, the other man is concluding that in his estimation, you are very likely wrong.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]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.

Neither does (if you look at Church history) the Catholic Church. 🙂[/b]

I was afraid that I was articulating a particularly Protestant perspective.😳

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Axioms are not intended to be proven from within the system they support. They are intended to be the standard of truth by which all other claims in the system are judged. They are those things that one accepts, asserts, or relies on as being true without proof.

At the end of the day, they are subjective claims, since each of two people with com ...[text shortened]... he scientific method, typically accept some combination of rationality and empiricism as theirs.

LH axiomatically accepts Revelation and Apostolic Tradition as his ultimate axioms.

Actually - no.