Former priest convicted of child molestation

Originally posted by Nemesio
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

This is a very good question.

Axioms (or any propositions for that matter) cannot have the property of being valid or invalid. Validity is a property of arguments. Axioms cannot even have the property of being false within their universe of discourse. (They can only have the property of being false when being analyzed as regular propositions within a meta-universe of discourse with its own axioms, none of which can be false within that meta-universe.)

Thus, one cannot prove or disprove the validity of axioms. One can demonstrate that they are inconsistent, the consequence of which is that all propositions in that universe can be shown to be both true and false, which renders that set of axioms utterly useless with regard to serving as a standard of truth for doing any reasoning. In your example, x and y being contradictory implies that A and B form an inconsistent axiomatic set, and thus a useless standard of truth - you would be better served by choosing "The moon is made of cheese" as your axiom. However, both A and B in your example would still be true within that universe of discourse, by virtue of being axioms.

Given that you hold a consistent set of axioms whose truth I do not accept, the best I can do to convince you to discard them is to derive somthing from them that you believe to be false. At that point, you will be faced with seeing that your standard of truth doesn't correspond to what you really think is true, and a reasonable person would modify one or the other - either change his axioms, or accept that what he once believed to be false is actually true.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]LH axiomatically accepts Revelation and Apostolic Tradition as his ultimate axioms.

Actually - no.[/b]

From what axioms does your acceptance of them derive? That is, what standard of truth do they conform to? What epistemic criteria allows you to accept them as true, actually to declare them to be objectively true?

Originally posted by LemonJello
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 justific ...[text shortened]... . At which time, the other man is concluding that in his estimation, you are very likely wrong.

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.

It's possible. Then again, it's possible that one (and exactly one) of us possesses knowledge on the subject - but of course not both.

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.

The point is - while my internal justification may only be "deductively" sufficient to conclude that my belief is only very probably true, I would nevertheless hold that the belief is actually true - and act on that basis.

There is nothing surprising here - we do it every day.

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

Some notes on redemption and messianism in Judaism:

From David S. Ariel, What Do Jews Believe?:

Martin Buber (interpreting the Hasidic understanding, which may be the most closely linked with “personal” redemption): “There is no definite magic action that is effective for redemption.; only the hallowing of all actions without distinction possesses redemptive power. Only out of the redemption of everyday does the Day of redemption grow.” (my italics)

Reform Judaism: “More recently, the Reform concept of messianism has come to mean the result of human effort on behalf of creating the perfect world.”

Conservative Judaism: “The Conservative credo is agnostic on the question of the Messiah: ‘We do not know when the Messiah will come, nor whether he will be a charismatic figure or is a symbol of the redemption of humankind from the evils of the world..”

A difference between Judaism and Christianity: “The major Jewish objection to Christianity is that Judaism regards the Messiah as a human being, and the Christian deification of a person constitutes idolatry.”

From Jurgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ:

Martin Buber: “We know more deeply, more truly, that world history has not been turned upside down to its very foundations—that the world is not yet redeemed. We sense its unredeemedness….The redemption of the world is for us indivisibly one with the perfecting of creation, with the establishment of the unity which nothing more prevents, the unity which is no longer controverted, and which is realized in all the protean variety of the world. Redemption is one with the Kingdom of God in its fulfillment. An anticipation of any single part of the completed redemption of the world—for example the redemption beforehand of the soul—is something we cannot grasp….” (italics in original)

Schalom Ben Chorin: “In Jewish eyes, redemption means redemption from all evil. Evil of body and soul, evil in creation and civilization. So when we say redemption, we mean the whole of redemption. Between creation and redemption we know only one caesura: the revelation of God’s will.”

Gershom Scholem: “It is a completely different concept of redemption which determines the attitude to messianism in Judaism and Christianity….In all its shapes and forms, Judaism has always adhered to a concept of redemption which sees it as a process that takes place publicly, on the stage of history and in the medium of the community; in short, which essentially takes place in the visible world, and cannot be thought of except as a phenomenon that appears in what is already visible. Christianity, on the other hand, understands redemption as a happening in the spiritual sphere, and in what is invisible. It takes place in the soul, in the world of every individual, and effects a mysterious transformation to which nothing in the external world necessarily corresponds….[This] has always seemed to the religious thinkers of Judaism an illegitimate anticipation of something which could at best come about as the inward side of an event which takes place essentially in the outward world; but this inward side could never be separated from that event itself.” (my italics)

Now, these views are not monolithic; and whether these writers’ understanding of Christianity is any better than most Christians’ understanding of Judaism, I do not know.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
From what axioms does your acceptance of them derive? That is, what standard of truth do they conform to? What epistemic criteria allows you to accept them as true, actually to declare them to be objectively true?

Ultimately - my axioms (besides the usual ones we would use in ordinary life) would be that:

1. A person is highly unlikely to sacrifice his life to defend a proposition he does not believe to be true.

2. When a significant number of people claim to have directly witnessed a particular event, then it is very likely that some event took place (though not necessarily the one they claim to have witnessed).

3. It is highly unlikely that a person's closest friends, family and acquaintances can be persistently fooled about encountering him.

Given these three, and the testimony of the early Christian martyrs, I hold to the Resurrection. Given my affirmation of the Resurrection, I hold to the Divinity of Christ*. Given the Divinity of Christ and the general historicity of the Gospels†, I hold that Christ established a Church that He intended to be true always (i.e. infallible) and that He taught His [proto-]Church a number of truths.

That last bit would be Apostolic Tradition and Revelation, respectively.

---
* Refer the classical "Mad, Bad or God" argument.
† Though not necessarily Inspiration.

Originally posted by vistesd
Some notes on redemption and messianism in Judaism:

From David S. Ariel, What Do Jews Believe?:

Martin Buber (interpreting the Hasidic understanding, which may be the most closely linked with “personal” redemption): “There is no definite magic action that is effective for redemption.; only the hallowing of all actions without distinction posse ...[text shortened]... ing of Christianity is any better than most Christians’ understanding of Judaism, I do not know.

It's a useful start. Between their understanding of Judaism and my (!!!) understanding of Christianity, maybe we can get somewhere. 🙂

Martin Buber (interpreting the Hasidic understanding, which may be the most closely linked with “personal” redemption): “There is no definite magic action that is effective for redemption.; only the hallowing of all actions without distinction possesses redemptive power. Only out of the redemption of everyday does the Day of redemption grow.”

Assuming that Buber is talking about personal redemption, compare this with the Catholic conception of justification from the Catechism:

1989 ... Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.39

1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

Reform Judaism: “More recently, the Reform concept of messianism has come to mean the result of human effort on behalf of creating the perfect world.”

According to the CCC, when Christ returns "there [will] be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells" (CCC 671).

Conservative Judaism: “The Conservative credo is agnostic on the question of the Messiah: ‘We do not know when the Messiah will come, nor whether he will be a charismatic figure or is a symbol of the redemption of humankind from the evils of the world..”

So, from a Conservative position, the Messiah could already have come?

A difference between Judaism and Christianity: “The major Jewish objection to Christianity is that Judaism regards the Messiah as a human being, and the Christian deification of a person constitutes idolatry.”

But Christ was a human being (in addition to being God)!

I think part of the problem is that Christians and Jews use "redemption" to refer to two different events/phenomena. Based on the quotes you've given, it seems that that the Jewish conception of Redemption is the same as the Christian conception of the Parousia.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Ultimately - my axioms (besides the usual ones we would use in ordinary life) would be that:

1. A person is highly unlikely to sacrifice his life to defend a proposition he does not believe to be true.

2. When a significant number of people claim to have directly witnessed a particular event, then it is very likely that some event took p ...[text shortened]...
---
* Refer the classical "Mad, Bad or God" argument.
† Though not necessarily Inspiration.

But it seems to me that 2 and 3, at least, ultimately depend on the assumption that the Gospel writers gave a factual account of actual events—i.e., that they were writing history and biography, and not writing metaphorically or symbolically or mythically; that the Gospels were not a continuation (and perhaps an expansion) of the Jewish genre that I call “histo-myth”—an artful mingling of history, mythology, midrash, etc.

I don’t see how 1 carries any real evidentiary evidence. Other people in history have been willing to die for their religious beliefs, even Buddhists who don’t really care much about whether the stories of Gautama have any real referent in history.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But Christ was a human being (in addition to being God)!

Could this be considered a typical Christian syllogistic fallacy?

Originally posted by vistesd
But it seems to me that 2 and 3, at least, ultimately depend on the assumption that the Gospel writers gave a factual account of actual events—i.e., that they were writing history and biography, and not writing metaphorically or symbolically or mythically; that the Gospels were not a continuation (and perhaps an expansion) of the Jewish genre that I call “h ...[text shortened]... o don’t really care much about whether the stories of Gautama have any real referent in history.

But it seems to me that 2 and 3, at least, ultimately depend on the assumption that the Gospel writers gave a factual account of actual events

No. Remember - the Gospels weren't even written when the earliest Christians were being martyred*.

I don’t see how 1 carries any real evidentiary evidence. Other people in history have been willing to die for their religious beliefs, even Buddhists who don’t really care much about whether the stories of Gautama have any real referent in history.

In itself - no. Read my argument again - it is the conjunction of (1), (2), (3) and the witness of the martyrs that justifies my belief in the literal Resurrection.

---
* Besides, the Gospels were written based on the witness of the first Christians - not the other way around. This, incidentally, is also the fallacy in the sola scriptura principle.

Originally posted by David C
Could this be considered a typical Christian syllogistic fallacy?

Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's a useful start. Between their understanding of Judaism and my (!!!) understanding of Christianity, maybe we can get somewhere. 🙂

[b]Martin Buber (interpreting the Hasidic understanding, which may be the most closely linked with “personal” redemption): “There is no definite magic action that is effective for redemption.; only the hallowing ...[text shortened]... Jewish conception of Redemption is the same as the Christian conception of the Parousia.

I think part of the problem is that Christians and Jews use "redemption" to refer to two different events/phenomena. Based on the quotes you've given, it seems that that the Jewish conception of Redemption is the same as the Christian conception of the Parousia.

[/b]That, I think—coupled with their different uses of the word “redemption,” and their differing views of the nature of messiah—it exactly! The Jews see no intervening event. Setting aside the different views of messiah among Jews, Jews are waiting for the Messiah; Christians are waiting for the Messiah’s return.

I know that it can seem to others somewhat maddening, the diversity of views among Jews (even Jews of the same “denomination” ), but Jews really only have one creedal statement: Shema Yisrael, YHVH eloheinu YHVH echad—“Hear O Israel, YHVH our God, YHVH is one.” And even this is subject to some interpretation—e.g., those who view it more monotheistically and those who view it more monastically.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I think part of the problem is that Christians and Jews use "redemption" to refer to two different events/phenomena. Based on the quotes you've given, it seems that that the Jewish conception of Redemption is the same as the Christian conception of the Parousia.

That, I think—coupled with their different uses of the word “redemption,” and their ...[text shortened]... pretation—e.g., those who view it more monotheistically and those who view it more monastically.[/b]

It would be fair, then, to say that belief in the divinity of Jesus is not incompatible with this creed, right?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]But it seems to me that 2 and 3, at least, ultimately depend on the assumption that the Gospel writers gave a factual account of actual events

No. Remember - the Gospels weren't even written when the earliest Christians were being martyred*.

I don’t see how 1 carries any real evidentiary evidence. Other people in history have been wi ...[text shortened]... ther way around. This, incidentally, is also the fallacy in the sola scriptura principle.

[/b]It's from the oral tradition, then, the message that the resurrection events, for example, were actual events?

I don't really disagree with your statement about the sola scriptura fallacy.

It's interesting that in Christianity, the oral tradition seems to be applied in order to hone interpretations (i.e. what is the correct understanding); while in the Jewish tradition it is aimed at expanding interpreations.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Care to elaborate?

Not especially, but remember...your statement that "Christ was a man as well as god" cannot be shown as anything other than a subjective belief. I can just as truthfully state "Not only was Jesus not God, but he never existed". That is to say, here is your syllogism:

Jesus, the man, existed.
The Gospels say Jesus Christ was God.
Therefore, Jesus was both a man and god.

Then again, I'm no philosopher. Just a mediocre chess enthusiast.

Originally posted by vistesd
It's from the oral tradition, then, the message that the resurrection events, for example, were actual events?

I don't really disagree with your statement about the sola scriptura fallacy.

It's interesting that in Christianity, the oral tradition seems to be applied in order to hone interpretations (i.e. what is the correct understanding); while in the Jewish tradition it is aimed at expanding interpreations.[/b]

It's from the oral tradition, then, the message that the resurrection events, for example, were actual events?

Yep.

It's interesting that in Christianity, the oral tradition seems to be applied in order to hone interpretations (i.e. what is the correct understanding); while in the Jewish tradition it is aimed at expanding interpreations.

Actually, many doctrines - the Trinity for instance - come solely from the oral tradition in Christianity.

Also, what about the canonisation of NT scripture itself? Is that honing or expanding?

EDIT: I think my position nicely links up with something we were talking about in another thread (forgot which one) - Christianity is really an extension of Judaism. A very interesting opinion I overheard recently was about the similarity between the Catholic liturgy and worship in the synagogue.