Spirituality
04 Aug 05
08 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerPolitical force, if it takes place without guns, is a misnomer.
Do you assert that "political force" (as I described in a previous post) is an invalid concept? Do you deny that compulsion need not be of a nature that implies personal, physical harm?
Its acceptance as a common term is a reflection of people's intellectual laziness; they mistakenly think they have to accept whatever is politically fashionable.
Compulsion entails the initiation of the use of force.
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf that's true, then for the Pope to say that Jews by choice still have the path to salvation open to them is for him to say that those Jews are unreasonable. This is because if they were reasonable, they would be denying Christ wilfully and knowingly, and thus the path would not be open; the only way the path is open to a willful Jew is if that Jew is unreasonable. So the Pope's message boils down to, "Jews, you're lucky you're so unreasonable, or you wouldn't have a prayer."
Not if it is wilfully and knowingly. I am using the word "knowing" in the sense of "reasonable belief" rather than "absolute certainty".
08 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesForce: To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
Political force, if it takes place without guns, is a misnomer.
It's acceptance as a common term is a reflection of people's intellectual laziness; they mistakenly think they have to accept whatever is politically fashionable.
Compulsion entails the initiation of the use of force.
- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=force
Compel: To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission.
- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compel
Of course, both verbs have definitions in the sense of physical force, but I've produced here the ones that correspond to the more general sense in which I've used them. The general sense does include the specific sense of physical force or compulsion.
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThese are liberally fashionable and politically correct definitions you supply. I put no stock in them.
[b]Force: To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=force
Compel: To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission.
- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compel
O ...[text shortened]... ve used them. The general sense does include the specific sense of physical force or compulsion.[/b]
Nobody has ever been forced to take a job, except slaves and by physical force.
Nobody has ever been compelled to join the armed forces, except conscripts and under threat of imprisonment.
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesReasonableness relates evidence available to a person with the conclusions he/she forms on the basis of that evidence. It is not unreasonable for a biologist to split the biological world into two Kingdoms - Plant and Animal - based on the evidence available to him. Nor is it unreasonable for the same biologist to decide that the biological world is best split into five Kingdoms as more evidence of the similarities and differences of species is presented to him.
If that's true, then for the Pope to say that Jews by choice still have the path to salvation open to them is for him to say that those Jews are unreasonable. This is because if they were reasonable, they would be denying Christ wilfully and knowingly, and thus the path would not be open; the only way the path is open to a willful Jew is if that Je ...[text shortened]... boils down to, "Jews, you're lucky you're so unreasonable, or you wouldn't have a prayer."
I should've clarified when I used the word "knowingly" - I mean that a person has evidence based on which he can reasonably conclude that Jesus is Christ etc., and has no substantial impediment to his making that conclusion (Perhaps he is struggling to make ends meet and has never quite had the leisure to think about such theological matters).
08 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOut of curiosity, what do you think of Wittgenstein (particularly in his Tractatus-era)?
These are liberally fashionable and politically correct definitions you supply. I put no stock in them.
Nobody has ever been forced to take a job, except slaves and by physical force.
Nobody has ever been compelled to join the armed forces, except conscripts and under threat of imprisonment.
In any case, these definitions are part of common English and I believe the sense in which I used them is clear enough from the context.
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis was hardly the love demonstrated to the Jews in Spain at the hands of the Catholic church during the middle ages.
"Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gif ...[text shortened]... the calls He issues."
- Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium. Vatican II.
08 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerHe said, "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."
Out of curiosity, what do you think of Wittgenstein (particularly in his Tractatus-era)?
In any case, these definitions are part of common English and I believe the sense in which I used them is clear enough from the context.
While you cannot forcefully bewitch my intelligence, in rejecting your bewitching definitions, I am doing my part to prevent such bewitchment. I am thus engaging in philosophy when I reject your definitions, and not mere pedantic quibbling as many here have been quick to suggest when they tire of my semantic precision.
He also said, "The limits of my language are the limits of my world."
This is something I observe over and over and over again in this forum.
If only Spirituality forum members would more often adhere to Proposition 7, we would be able to waste a lot less time.
Wittgenstein's contributions are valuable. They should be required reading for participation in this forum, if only for my sanity.
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe point is, did the Church's theological view on Jews' potential salvation change? If in modern times, the position is that they can be saved without being Christian, then why didn't the Inquisition also accept that they could be saved without being Christian?
No, it wasn't. But is that the point, in your opinion? And why?
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYet, it is interesting, is it not, that Wittgenstein should so forcefully abandon the precision he demanded of language in the Tractatus later in his career?
He said, "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."
While you cannot forcefully bewitch my intelligence, in rejecting your bewitching definitions, I am doing my part to prevent such bewitchment. I am thus engaging in philosophy when I reject your definitions, and not mere pedantic quibbling as man ...[text shortened]... luable. They should be required reading for participation in this forum, if only for my sanity.
08 Aug 05
Let us talk about "change." What is wrong with admitting the need for change. Is this not what repentence is all about? Why are denominations so resistent to change? What a wonderful example denominations set for individuals when they admit they have a history of wrongful and hurtful behaviors. Baptists once turned a blind eye to slavery. Some even endorsed it. Regrettably the history of the church on both sides of the Catholic-Protestant isle is that corporate repentence takes place after the victims are dead, sometimes for centuries.
We have before us today other issues that will one day be looked back on as "no-brainers." Two among them are the celibacy of the priesthood and the damnation of homosexuals.
So the concept of change is nothing to be afraid of as it is often impetus of a right relationship to God.
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe answer, as with Galileo, has little to do with theology. An interesting couple of links on the Inquisition from a Jewish perspective:
The point is, did the Church's theological view on Jews' potential salvation change? If in modern times, the position is that they can be saved without being Christian, then why didn't the Inquisition also accept that they could be saved without being Christian?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Maimonides.html
To answer your question, the Inquisition was directed against Jews who had converted to Christianity but remained secretly Jewish.
http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_48_-_The_Inquisition.asp (Also from a Jewish perspective)
Formally, of course, they were heretics. And, in the eyes of the medieval Inquisition, all heretics were wilfully and knowingly so.
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by kirksey957From a Catholic perspective, priestly celibacy and homosexuality are two entirely different ball games. One is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline (and can be "changed", to use the word of the moment), the other is a matter of morality (which cannot).
Let us talk about "change." What is wrong with admitting the need for change. Is this not what repentence is all about? Why are denominations so resistent to change? What a wonderful example denominations set for individuals when they admit they have a history of wrongful and hurtful behaviors. Baptists once turned a blind eye to slavery. Some ...[text shortened]... cept of change is nothing to be afraid of as it is often impetus of a right relationship to God.
Change, when it is a peripheral change (or more properly, an alteration) is no cause of resistance; when it is a substantial change, it's a different matter altogether.