Etzelnik wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

Etzelnik wrote:

I can understand this concept very well. Granted revelation, faith is a natural and necessary outgrowth of our rationalist substrate of monotheism.

The question here is what makes honest disbelief in revelation a mortal sin?

That seems to beg the question. How can one honestly disbelieve revelation? I mean for me, it would sound bizarre in the extreme to say or argue, "I know Almighty God teaches us such-and-such, but I don't honestly believe Him." I think that would rather point to obstinancy in the will than qualify as "honest disbelief."

I think the logic of most who deny revelation is on the grounds exactly that because God is omniscient and because we know from reason/science such-and-such, that the claims of this or that religion that God has taught such-and-such cannot be a true revelation, based on the same reasoning of various believers that God could not possibly teach what is false. That, I think, would be more askin to "honest disbelief"; i.e., they deny on rational grounds that it could even i principle be revelation. That, or they understand on the basis of past or previous revelation that certain possibilities are thereby excluded logically or necessarily on the grounds, of course, of what God has already revealed about Himself. That, too, in my opinion, would be "honest disbelief" but, again, it isn't a denial of the authority or necessary obedience/adherence to God's revelation as such, which they of course agree is binding on the intellect or the conscience.

In Christian thought, it is the conscience of man that has the effect of God's revelation and is binding on all, whether atheist or otherwise and where ignorance can excuse iff one obeys their conscience.

 
No, no, no! I'm sorry, I probably was not clear enough. Obviously, if there is revelation we are bound to it. I myself believe in Mosaic revelation. My question is about one who does not believe that the revelation occured, just as you don't believe in the Mohammedan revelation as such.

I am Jewish, and I simply don't believe that God changed his law and covenant. Why does that exclude me from the afterlife?

Okay, yes, I did misunderstand you; but also, I think you may have misunderstood me as well.

Christian doctrine does not exclude Jews from the afterlife or eternal beatitude, of course. I don't see where that follows; most definitely not on the grounds of heritage. It can and normally would exclude on the grounds of, e.g., conscience and knowledge in certain instances; e.g., a deliberate breaking of one of the Commandments especially asbent any repentance for doing so.

Also, I understand revelation to be of God.

And as for whether one does not believe revelation occured, I think I did address that. If one does not believe it occured, that statement would seem to presuppose knowledge of the content, so we aren't talking about strict ignorance. At this point, we would have to assess the reasons for the denial that it was or is authentic revelation; and again I believe I addressed this in my last post and how and what is revelant in Christian doctrine before guilt or fault or even sin may be reasonably assigned.

Last edited by Timocrates (7/07/2015 12:58 pm)

Etzelnik wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

Christian doctrine does not exclude Jews from the afterlife or eternal beatitude, of course. I don't see where that follows; most definitely not on the grounds of heritage. It can and normally would exclude on the grounds of, e.g., conscience and knowledge in certain instances; e.g., a deliberate breaking of one of the Commandments especially asbent any repentance for doing so.

We seem to be speaking different languages. ;) I don't view Judaism primarily as an ethnicity, rather as a religion. The pious black convert is more of a Jew than the Reform descendant of King David.

Of course I understand that the Church doesn't exclude Jews on ethnicity, our history is replete with many instances of the church trying to 'save our souls'.

And as for whether one does not believe revelation occured, I think I did address that. If one does not believe it occured, that statement would seem to presuppose knowledge of the content, so we aren't talking about strict ignorance. At this point, we would have to assess the reasons for the denial that it was or is authentic revelation; and again I believe I addressed this in my last post and how and what is revelant in Christian doctrine before guilt or fault or even sin may be reasonably assigned.

Yes, I do see now that you've written something like this before. However, this seems to be manifestly inconsistent with the Church's historical position. I mean, I don't mean to be a jerk, but the inquisition?

I don't want to start a new debate here, but there are quite a few rational reasons for a Jew to reject Christianity.
 

An ecclesiastical inquisition is null and void if it is applied to non-Christians. Ecclesiastical tribunals only have authority over Christians.

And yes, it would be the reasons for denying revelation according to Christianity that become relevant to the doctrine of 'no salvation outside of the Church'. The early Church Fathers insisted on the basis of Job, for instance, that ignorance of the Gospel (which of course didn't even exist yet) did not preclude one from the possibility of attaining eternal bliss by God's grace. By parity of reasoning, it also follows that rejection of a false of bastardized version of the Gospels would likewise not preclude one -on that basis alone- from entering heaven.

Last edited by Timocrates (7/07/2015 1:43 pm)

Etzelnik wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

Etzelnik wrote:

We seem to be speaking different languages. ;) I don't view Judaism primarily as an ethnicity, rather as a religion. The pious black convert is more of a Jew than the Reform descendant of King David.

Of course I understand that the Church doesn't exclude Jews on ethnicity, our history is replete with many instances of the church trying to 'save our souls'.


Yes, I do see now that you've written something like this before. However, this seems to be manifestly inconsistent with the Church's historical position. I mean, I don't mean to be a jerk, but the inquisition?

I don't want to start a new debate here, but there are quite a few rational reasons for a Jew to reject Christianity.
 

An ecclesiastical inquisition is null and void if it is applied to non-Christians. Ecclesiastical tribunals only have authority over Christians.

And what of the compulsory conversions?

And yes, it would be the reasons for denying revelation according to Christianity that become relevant to the doctrine of 'no salvation outside of the Church'. The early Church Fathers insisted on the basis of Job, for instance, that ignorance of the Gospel (which of course didn't even exist yet) did not preclude one from the possibility of attaining eternal bliss by God's grace. By parity of reasoning, it also follows that rejection of a false of bastardized version of the Gospels would likewise not preclude one -on that basis alone- from entering heaven.

 
I see what you're saying here. I'm just having a hard time squaring that with the ecclesiastical persecutions we've suffered at the hands of the Church.

By the way, thanks for taking the time to respond to me.

"And what of the compulsory conversions?"

Null, void and doubly criminal in Church law. ("Doubly," I mean - indeed, perhaps in a sense triply, because forced conversions are themselves criminal, null and void but then it only compounds the crime when this illicit "conversion" is used as a pretext for subjecting someone to an ecclesiastical tribunal).

"I see what you're saying here. I'm just having a hard time squaring that with the ecclesiastical persecutions we've suffered at the hands of the Church."

It was on account of such crimes that both the Second Vatican Council (at least implicitly) but Pope St John Paul II (explicitly) apologized to the Jewish people; and, indeed, for the crimes committed by Christians generally against the Jewish people anywhere and at anytime. Further and likewise similar apologies were issued to other groups.

I would also add - if you are interested in these matters - that was in fact ever and always the Roman Church that most vehemently condemned and prosecuted those who in any way molested the rights of Jewish people. I wish I could recall the more specific bulls and proclamations that are direct sources for this but, alas, my Church (though I love her dearly) has had this habit of issuing all its declarations titled in Latin, which I find at times rather difficult to recall.

"By the way, thanks for taking the time to respond to me."

Thank you for enriching me with your knowledge in this discussion... somewhat off-topic, but how's the weather in Jerusalem this time of year?

Take care,
Timo.

Last edited by Timocrates (7/07/2015 1:56 pm)

Etzelnik wrote:

 
Hot and dry days, cool nights.

Lol! Sounds like Arizona right now!

Etzelnik wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

Etzelnik wrote:

 
Hot and dry days, cool nights.

Lol! Sounds like Arizona right now!

 
Exactly like Arizona (I went there for a week a few years ago).

Wow. That is truly amazing (and I am glad you are so well traveled - one of the things I sincerely hope to be able to do some day).

I have really appreciated our conversation, Etzelnik, but some duties call that can't be postponed any further (though I am personally a strong believer in (if I recall correctly) Benjamin Franklin's sentiment (or perhaps Jefferson's) that one should not put off to tomorrow what can be put off to the day after that! lol). I should be back in a few hours though.

Take care,
Timo.

Last edited by Timocrates (7/07/2015 2:33 pm)