This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
God does not have the power to rain hellfire down on anyone, just cuz. The reason is that killing people for jay walking is evil, is it not? God cannot do evil, he cannot shoot lightning bolts at people because that's the fun thing to do. Just because God has that power does not mean he will A) use it and B) should use it.
Let me repeat myself, since you didn't seem to listen.
You call down hellfire on someone, God is in his right to do it to you.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
"Neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers" = "the children shall not be punished for their father's misdeeds"
There's your fallacy.
If a mom tells a dad to go upstairs and punish the kid, she is in no way telling him to kill the kid.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You call down hellfire on someone, God is in his right to do it to you.
So God is exempt from the laws of morality he gave men?
Morality deals with right and wrong. God is Good, so morality is meaningless when applied to God.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
312559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
"Neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers" = "the children shant be punished for their father's misdeeds"
There's your fallacy.
Explain the fallacy, I don't see it.
In Hellenistic culture (and others) children were executed so the fathers may stay alive. Meaning the children were punished for their father's faults. That statement in the Bible says that it should not be done, but "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" seems pretty contradictory to me.
Honestly it doesn't get any clearer. The only thing I can do is recommend a logic course.
You can't go from 'No A is B' to 'No A is C' unless 'All C is B'.
And I think it's pretty obvious that 'All punishments are
not
killing'
It's basic syllogistic logic.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Do Christians seriously love God or do they fear going to hell?
Fear of hell is the lowest intention in acting. By itself it can be enough to lead you on a righteous path.
But I seriously know maybe 1-2 people who live there faith on a fear of hell basis. The other thousand or so people I've known though my life are in it for higher reasons.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Let's put your argument into a syllogism.
A = Punishing the sons
B = Killing the sons
C = Lawful
So the two passages state:
Some A is C.
No B is C.
Those two can only contradict if
All A is B.
However you just admitted that Not all punishment is killing.
Therefore they do not contradict.
As I said before, simple syllogistic logic.
So:
The fathers shall not be
punished
for the children, neither shall the children be
punished
for the fathers: every man shall be
punished
for his own sin.
You can't replace a species with the genus arbitrarily.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
They do. Not all punishment is killing, but all killing for sin is punishment.
You can't replace a species with the genus arbitrarily.
I wasn't doing it arbitrarily; I was cutting it down so you'd stop looking at semantics for a moment.
All wines are beverages.
Not all beverages are wines.
You drink wine.
You drink beverages.
All killing for sin is punishment.
Not all punishment is killing.
You kill people for their sins.
You punish people for their sins.
Now stop going around my argument and answer me. Why does the Bible contradict itself in these two passages?
Look, I don't know how to put this any more nicely than I have. You don't understand the syllogistic logic you're trying to use.
I like your wine and beverage example so I'll use that.
First passage would say "blah blah blah, I give them a beverage"
Second would be "Don't give them wine"
They don't contradict because wine isn't the only beverage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm
Please take a look at these pages before going on any further with your argument.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
First passage would say "blah blah blah, I give them a beverage"
Second would be "Don't give them wine"
Fair enough, my computer is shutting down. I read that passage and those were the implications I saw. I guess it's all just flat meanings.
God would punish children for the sins of their fathers, but wouldn't kill them.
A man would beat his son because he was angry at his wife, but he wouldn't kill him.
What a wonderful God you have.
I love how you totally ignored what comes right after that passage.
Post by
Miner
What is the Catholic view of Dinosaurs?
Post by
400276
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.