08 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSince I am part of one group (Christian) and not the other (Right To Lifers), I guess I won't have too much to say on the subject. However, outside of Catholicism, you won't find many who believe in limbo, purgatory, or etc.
That is incorrect. I was referring to Right to Lifers in general, the majority of which are not Catholics (in the US anyway). Halitose is not a Catholic and he was consistently arguing that human beings exist from conception. I was expecting some input from other Christian denominations, but it's been veryyyyyyyyy quiet except for LH.
Pardon the interruption.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles'Ex Cathedra' isn't determined by physical location, but on the topic of the proclamation. The pope is only infallible when speaking on issues of church doctrine that regard faith or morality. I'm sure you can alter your question accordingly and still derive the desired paradox.
Assume he was in the chair when making this proclamation.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTrue enough, I hadn't expected the "limbo" angle (since it's not even official RCC doctrine).
Since I am part of one group (Christian) and not the other (Right To Lifers), I guess I won't have too much to say on the subject. However, outside of Catholicism, you won't find many who believe in limbo, purgatory, or etc.
Pardon the interruption.
08 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrDeriving paradoxes from Catholic doctrine is hardly a challenge.
'Ex Cathedra' isn't determined by physical location, but on the topic of the proclamation. The pope is only infallible when speaking on issues of church doctrine that regard faith or morality. I'm sure you can alter your question accordingly and still derive the desired paradox.
Suppose that the Pope makes this ex cathedra proclamation: The Lord has told me that He has just revoked the 5th Commandment, in a similar manner to how he revoked many other Old Testament Laws.
Does LH now hold that it is morally permissible to murder? If not, what distinguishes this hypothetical papal proclamation from the other with regard to the trust LH places in each?
Or how about this ex cathedra claim: "The Lord has told me that it is immoral for faithful Catholics to continue to put stock in my ex cathedra proclamations."
Will LH believe this?
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrMost definitely. If papal infallability isn't a church doctrine that regards faith, then I don't know what is.
'Ex Cathedra' isn't determined by physical location, but on the topic of the proclamation. The pope is only infallible when speaking on issues of church doctrine that regard faith or morality. I'm sure you can alter your question accordingly and still derive the desired paradox.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrIn any case, it isn't as though there is some direct causal link between Christ's crucifixion and the possibility of our salvation.
I'm not sure it makes sense to say that Christ's crucifixion was an action of his, but O.K. In any case, it isn't as though there is some direct causal link between Christ's crucifixion and the possibility of our salvation. That the crucifixion provides enables us to have the opportunity to be saved is something that God wrought, not Christ as man. ...[text shortened]... ually analogous, and that there would be no threat to our moral autonomy in the zygote case.
There is - and that was the whole point of Christ's sacrifice.
You (and tel) are arguing as though God drew up an arbitrary set of "rules" to interact with mankind. I'm arguing that there are no created "rules"; that when God does something He cannot actually do otherwise. The so-called "rules" are just corollaries of being and non-being.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I decide today that I have cancer (without a medical opinion), then change my mind tomorrow because the doctor(s) tell me I have no cancer, then is it suddenly "someone else"'s mind?
It seems it's hardly "your" mind if you change it merely on someone else's fiat.
The act of accepting authority is still an exercise of free will.
08 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer'Direct' here means 'unmediated'. The causal link between Christ's crucifixion and our opportunity for salvation was mediated by God. That is why the two cases are analogous. If the causal link between Christ's crucifixion was unmediated by God, and if it is the case that it wasn't Christ as God that was crucified but, rather, Christ as man, then there would be no explanation for why the crucifixions of other men didn't have similar effects on our opportunity for salvation.
[b]In any case, it isn't as though there is some direct causal link between Christ's crucifixion and the possibility of our salvation.
There is - and that was the whole point of Christ's sacrifice.
You (and tel) are arguing as though God drew up an arbitrary set of "rules" to interact with mankind. I'm arguing that there are no created "rul ually do otherwise. The so-called "rules" are just corollaries of being and non-being.[/b]