• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Church Reaffirms That Jews Can Achieve Salvation Without Conversion

CaptainCourtesy said:
Correct. Logic and belief are separate issues. One can hold both at the same time, but they still don't intersect.
Click to expand...

/thread

I suspect that someone else will never accept that logic, which is what makes me very sceptical as to whether he's any kind of atheist.
 
Andalublue said:
You don't think that's a very big difference? You also seem to ignore the large number of Christian denominations who don't recognise the Trinitarian dogma. I guess you could argue that the god of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Jewish god are much more similar.
Click to expand...

I made a very simple statement. I didn't "seem" to do anything, other than exactly what I specifically said. My belief is my belief, and having you and a staffer berate my belief is not my idea of debate or fun. That's why I removed myself from this thread, but came back because you quoted me. I'm removing myself again.
 
Andalublue said:
Logic cannot help turn belief into fact, or vice versa.
Click to expand...
It can, if all of a sudden a giant hand came out of the clouds and destroyed Mecca, logic would dictate at least one particular belief is false. But since that will never happen, that is an irrelevant point. Fact of the matter is, as I have stated, that logic dictates that either:

1) There is no God as fact
2) There is a (or multiple) God(s) as fact

No facts (except "facts" in the minds of believers) allow to establish which one is true and in case of (2.), which particular belief system is actually fact.

If you can't understand that, you are not discussing from logic.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I made a very simple statement. I didn't "seem" to do anything, other than exactly what I specifically said. My belief is my belief, and having you and a staffer berate my belief is not my idea of debate or fun. That's why I removed myself from this thread, but came back because you quoted me. I'm removing myself again.
Click to expand...

No one "berated" you. You were debated and information was posted that your supposition was incorrect. That's what this site is... a debate site. If you disagree, feel free to challenge what was said. Or not.
 
Natan said:
It can, if all of a sudden a giant hand came out of the clouds and destroyed Mecca, logic would dictate at least one particular belief is false. But since that will never happen, that is an irrelevant point. Fact of the matter is, as I have stated, that logic dictates that either:

1) There is no God as fact
2) There is a (or multiple) God(s) as fact

No facts (except "facts" in the minds of believers) allow to establish which one is true and in case of (2.), which particular belief system is actually fact.

If you can't understand that, you are not discussing from logic.
Click to expand...

"Facts" in the mind of believers aren't facts. They are beliefs. That's the point that you are missing. That's why your presentation isn't holding any logic in what you are trying to discuss.

And if a giant hand cam down out of the clouds and destroyed Mecca, logic would not dictate anything. It might appear that God was angry with Muslims, but that wouldn't mean that God was not Allah. Any God can be angry and punish His believers.

Do you see how your logic is NOT binary and cannot apply to this argument?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The factual existence of God has nothing to do with one's belief in God, since the factual existence cannot be proven.
Click to expand...
Whether or not something (belief, scientific theory) can be proven factually (a belief in God can, bar exceptional circumstances as explained, not be proven factually), does not mean that factually either it is true or it is false.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I made a very simple statement. I didn't "seem" to do anything, other than exactly what I specifically said. My belief is my belief, and having you and a staffer berate my belief is not my idea of debate or fun. That's why I removed myself from this thread, but came back because you quoted me. I'm removing myself again.
Click to expand...

Where's this berating going on? I just pointed out that your statement was contradictory, without insult, derision or sarcasm. Stay or go, it's all the same to me. If you don't want to debate you probably ought not to stay.
 
Last edited:
Natan said:
It can, if all of a sudden a giant hand came out of the clouds and destroyed Mecca, logic would dictate at least one particular belief is false. But since that will never happen, that is an irrelevant point. Fact of the matter is, as I have stated, that logic dictates that either:

1) There is no God as fact
2) There is a (or multiple) God(s) as fact

No facts (except "facts" in the minds of believers) allow to establish which one is true and in case of (2.), which particular belief system is actually fact.

If you can't understand that, you are not discussing from logic.
Click to expand...

I see that you have an inability to distinguish between facts and beliefs. That would make the application of logic impossible. So it appears. So be it. Or Amen, as some would have it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
"Facts" in the mind of believers aren't facts. They are beliefs.
Click to expand...
I did not dispute but enhance that by putting facts between quotes and believers in bold. I do not "miss" any point.

CaptainCourtesy said:
And if a giant hand cam down out of the clouds and destroyed Mecca, logic would not dictate anything. It might appear that God was angry with Muslims, but that wouldn't mean that God was not Allah. Any God can be angry and punish His believers.
Click to expand...
Well, I perhaps made my thought experiment a bit incomplete. If along with a giant hand there would also be a loud worldwide voice saying explicitly state islam is hogwash, logic would leave me to assume it probably is by factual observation of the destruction of Mecca and an unexplainable voice.
 
Natan said:
Whether or not something (belief, scientific theory) can be proven factually (a belief in God can, bar exceptional circumstances as explained, not be proven factually), does not mean that factually either it is true or it is false.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. If something can be proven factually, that means that, factually, it is proven to be either true or false.
 
Andalublue said:
I see that you have an inability to distinguish between facts and beliefs. That would make the application of logic impossible. So it appears. So be it. Or Amen, as some would have it.
Click to expand...
I tried to put it as simple as possible but putting it any simpler would mean I committed violent rape against logic.
 
Natan said:
I did not dispute but enhance that by putting facts between quotes and believers in bold. I do not "miss" any point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you did. Those enhancements didn't alter the inaccuracy of what you said.


Well, I perhaps made my thought experiment a bit incomplete. If along with a giant hand there would also be a loud worldwide voice saying explicitly state islam is hogwash, logic would leave me to assume it probably is by factual observation of the destruction of Mecca and an unexplainable voice.
Click to expand...

That could be some time traveler from the future, one who hates Islam, who created the giant hand and the voice, in his effort to harm something that he hates. No evidence that it's God, therefore, your logic is just a supposition that is not proven.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That doesn't make any sense. If something can be proven factually, that means that, factually, it is proven to be either true or false.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And if it can not be proven factually? Ask yourself?

The Riemann hypothesis is currently unproven and as per Gödel might be unprovable. Regardless of that, it is fact that:

1. Either all non trivial zeros lie on the critical line
2. Either some (none found yet) do not

In a similar fashion: even if it cannot be proven a God or multiple Gods exist, it is fact that:

1. either no God exist
2. either God(s) exist
 
Natan said:
Indeed. And if it can not be proven factually? Ask yourself?

The Riemann hypothesis is currently unproven and as per Gödel might be unprovable. Regardless of that, it is fact that:

1. Either all non trivial zeros lie on the critical line
2. Either some do not
Click to expand...

We are not talking mathematics, here. Belief systems are a different kind of though process. Mathematics is objective. Belief systems are subjective. That is a basic difference that does not intersect.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
We are not talking mathematics, here. Belief systems are a different kind of though process. Mathematics is objective. Belief systems are subjective. That is a basic difference that does not intersect.
Click to expand...
The distinction you make is artificial. I already asked you whether you believe in God. You said you do. That means you believe that the existence of God could be a FACT, which you seem to argument against, leading me to doubt you. I think you're either an agnost or an atheist that has trouble understanding that something which is a belief can also be a fact (or not).
 
Natan said:
The distinction you make is artificial. I already asked you whether you believe in God. You said you do. That means you believe that the existence of God could be a FACT, which you seem to argument against, leading me to doubt you. I think you're either an agnost or an atheist that has trouble understanding that something which is a belief can also be a fact (or not).
Click to expand...

Whether I believe in God or not (and I do), God's existence, COULD be a fact (or not). That is logical, not artificial. My beliefs are irrelevant to logic. I believe I've said that at least 6 times.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Whether I believe in God or not (and I do), God's existence, COULD be a fact (or not). That is logical, not artificial. My beliefs are irrelevant to logic. I believe I've said that at least 6 times.
Click to expand...
Thank you. So it follows:

1. The existence of other Gods could be a fact too (or not).
2. The existence of a jealous (as per the old OT writings) christian (as per the new NT writings) God could be a fact too (or not)
3. If (if!) the God in 2. is fact, the writings in the NT do have consequences for jews.

Quod erat demonstrandum.
 
Natan said:
Thank you. So it follows:

1. The existence of other Gods could be a fact too (or not).
Click to expand...
Yes, but not what you were arguing a few posts ago.

2. The existence of a jealous (as per the old OT writings) christian (as per the new NT writings) God could be a fact too (or not)
Click to expand...
Ditto

3. If (if!) the God in 2. is fact, the writings in the NT do have consequences for jews.
Click to expand...
If 2 is unknowable, which it is, then it will never have consequences (or relevance) for Jews, or anyone else for that matter, other than those who believe it.
 
Andalublue said:
Yes, but not what you were arguing a few posts ago.
Click to expand...
Please present the conflicting post and an argument of WHY it conflicts. Don't just blurb out stuff.

Andalublue said:
If 2 is unknowable, which it is, then it will never have consequences (or relevance) for Jews, or anyone else for that matter, other than those who believe it.
Click to expand...
Example:

1. You take a bus, you see a muslim man with a big beard in traditional garb and a suspiciously thick jacket. You wish to not "racially" profile him so you keep quiet.
2. By chosing to believe the politically correct thing (which is actually a fact) that most muslims are not terrorists and to believe that there is no bomb belt underneath, you will never know for a fact whether that bomb belt under his jacket is real or not, until you die. (Just as you will never find out about God until you die - or not if there is nothing)
3. Suppose in the thought experiment he HAS a bomb belt, the to you inconceivable fact that there is a bomb belt (or a God) is true and fact.
4. There are far reaching consequences for both you (Andalablue will be blown to smithereens standing next to the terrorist) and others, some of which might have believed there was a bomb belt underneath.

Just because something is unknowable (bomb belt or not) until you die, does not mean something will not have far reaching consequences if you chose not to believe in something (no bomb belt underneath).
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
I'm sure this will enrage Paleocon and a few of the more extreme Traditionalist Catholics at least a little bit. That is before they try and explain why that isn't really what the Vatican is saying.

Can Jews go to heaven? Vatican reconfirms: Yes!
Click to expand...

Is this really all that new?

Going to 1965 and Pope Paul VI, there was "declaration" from the Vatican in very generalized statements on what would qualify as salvation, usually termed acceptance. The door was open for Jews with the statement those who "did not declare a belief in Jesus." Which was interesting as in the same declaration was a statement on "Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ" but a warning to those of Catholicism not to hold today's followers of Judaism as responsible for the actions then.

In this most recent declaration (really a document on Christian-Jewish dialogue) is both more or less a continuation of the prior thought, and clarifies new suggestion on *not* try to convert Jews to Catholicism. There are references made to the OT and NT, and additional consideration for their relation to one another. There is also reference to the 1965 declaration, and there is reference to Saint Pope John Paul II's calls (1980) for cooperation between the Catholic and Jewish faiths "as children of Abraham" in for peace (which was later taken to mean cooperation in dealing with those adversarial to both... namely the Middle East where at the time Christian and Jewish persecution was high.) Jewish followers going to heaven in Catholicism terms is nothing new.

From my chair this should not really enrage anyone, unless they were just as enraged 50+ years ago when these olive branches (for lack of a better phrase) were being offered between Judaism and Catholicism. I would not call this unprecedented, but I would call this another evolution of the thought from authority on relationship between the Jewish faith and Catholic faith.
 
Last edited:
Natan said:
Please present the conflicting post and an argument of WHY it conflicts. Don't just blurb out stuff.
Click to expand...
Previously you argued:

1. there is no God
2. there are one or multiple Gods.
Click to expand...
Now you're arguing that these COULD be facts, whereas previously you argued that either one or the other IS a fact. You changed from making an indicative statement to making a conditional statement.


Example:

1. You take a bus, you see a muslim man with a big beard in traditional garb and a suspiciously thick jacket. You wish to not "racially" profile him so you keep quiet.
2. By chosing to believe the politically correct thing (which is actually a fact) that most muslims are not terrorists and to believe that there is no bomb belt underneath (thought experiment, he has a bomb belt as fact, equivalent to believing God exists or not), you will never know for a fact whether that bomb belt under his jacket is real or not, until you die. (Just as you will never find out about God until you die - or not if there is nothing)
3. Suppose in the thought experiment he HAS a bomb belt.
4. There are far reaching consequences for both you (who will be blown to smithereens standing next to him) and others, some of which might have believed there was a bomb belt underneath.
Click to expand...

That's an entirely fallacious, false comparison, since whether or not the man in question has a bomb strapped to his chest is eminently knowable. We can prove he has one by opening his coat. There is no way to know the unknowable 'fact' of the existence of god(s).
 
Andalublue said:
Now you're arguing that these COULD be facts, whereas previously you argued that either one or the other IS a fact. You changed from making an indicative statement to making a conditional statement.
Click to expand...
If:

1. Either A is true or B is true

Logic dictates that:

2. Either A could be true or B could be true

Until either one is proven. That's not a contradiction/conflict.
 
Andalublue said:
That's an entirely fallacious, false comparison, since whether or not the man in question has a bomb strapped to his chest is eminently knowable. We can prove he has one by opening his coat. There is no way to know the unknowable 'fact' of the existence of god(s).
Click to expand...
It's a thought experiment. Let's logically assume you'll never get the chance to open his coat before you die as he'll detonate himself.

Andalublue said:
There is no way to know the unknowable 'fact' of the existence of god(s).
Click to expand...
Again: whether a belief/hypothesis is knowable or unknowable, or provable or unprovable, it is simple logic even a child can understand that either the belief /hypothesis is factually correct or not.
 
Hard to tell whether deliberately trolling or generally obtuse/confused with the concepts of fact, belief, thought experiments, logic, cause and effect and the differences. Let me just ignore as this isn't going in any positive, reasonable direction ever.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom