A question about Hell

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being ridiculous; if all you were trying to provide is the biblical references, there was no need to provide the citation to the article: the citation to the passages would have been sufficient. You were citing the art ...[text shortened]... you quote the same source! You have my chutzpah award for the day.

Aargh!

Let me see if I can explain this very very simply. On the matter of whether procreation is the natural law purpose of sex, there are three possibilities:

(a) The Church teaches that procreation is the natural law purpose of sex.
(b) The Church teaches that procreation is not the natural law purpose of sex.
(c) The Church simply has no official position either way on the subject.

Now, suppose I write a document that says "Procreation is the natural law purpose of sex" and apply for a nihil obstat (no objection), the following will happen for each possibility listed above:

(a) Obviously, I will get a nihil obstat.
(b) Obviously, I will not get a nihil obstat.
(c) I will get a nihil obstat because I am not contradicting any stated Church teaching.

Since the nihil obstat is obtained in both cases (a) and (c), you cannot infer from my document whether the Church actually teaches the assertion or not. All you can say is that the Church definitely does not teach the opposite.

However, suppose my document asserted "The Church teaches that procreation is the natural law purpose of sex", the following would happen:

(a) I will get the nihil obstat
(b) I will not get the nihil obstat
(c) I will not get the nihil obstat (because the statement is a lie)

In this case, you can infer that the Church definitely teaches the assertion.

What you can infer about Church teaching from a document of this type depends on the type of statement being made.

In the document cited in the other thread, the key assertion was "Procreation is the natural law purpose of sex". Follow the logic above - you will see why your subsequent inference that the Church teaches this assertion is fallacious. That was, indeed, a fallacy of the excluded middle. Which is why I asked you to produce direct Church statements on the matter.

In this case, my reason for providing the link was to provide the hermenuetics for the Bible references cited (because none of them actually use the term "purgatory" ).

LH

PS - You can keep the chutzpah award. Give it to me when I commit a real offence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am not too sure about all the details. Actually I wouldn't like to know. I suppose the only way anyone will find out for sure is the moment they die and go there. I don't actually want to take that risk.

But here is a site that may give you as acurate a picture of Hell as we might know of before death:

http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

Give me a break, that is one of the worst web pages and I have ever seen in my life. You just set Christianity back to the 16th century with that crock.

I suggest if you are going to use such tacticts also recommend the SCIFI Channel.

Sorry, this is nuts!

Una

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Aargh!

Let me see if I can explain this very very simply. On the matter of whether procreation is the natural law purpose of sex, there are three possibilities:

(a) The Church teaches that procreation is the natural law purpose of sex.
(b) The Church teaches that procreation is not the natural law purpose of sex.
(c) The Church simply has no o ...[text shortened]...
LH

PS - You can keep the chutzpah award. Give it to me when I commit a real offence.

Absurd; the entire article I cited was discussing the Church's teachings, not the opinion of the author. You are being quite ridiculous to assert otherwise; try reading the article. Whether it started EVERY single sentence with "The Church teaches .........." is irrelevant; in the context of the article it was made clear that the author was stating Church doctrine, not his own opinion (indeed, there is no place where it is said who the author is). You are trying to nitpick single sentences when there is no doubt that the article is saying the Church teaches that the Natural Law purpose of sex is procreation (remember that the Church claims it is the ultimate interpreter of the Natural Law).

You continue to be disingenous whether you like the word or not. You continue to try to parse doubt into passages that are clear to any reasonable person. Your argument techniques are the sheerest of sophistry, Lucifershammer; the thumpers are more intellectually honest and only slightly dumber than you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Absurd; the entire article I cited was discussing the Church's teachings, not the opinion of the author. You are being quite ridiculous to assert otherwise; try reading the article. Whether it started EVERY single sentence with "The Church teaches .........." is irrelevant; in the context of the article it was made clear that the author was ...[text shortened]... cifershammer; the thumpers are more intellectually honest and only slightly dumber than you.

The article explicitly looks at the topic from a number of sources, it says so itself:

"Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract."

The main sources mentioned are:

1. Nature
2. Scripture
3. Apostolic Tradition
4. Magisterium
5. Human Experience

Each of these sources has its own section; the section where official teachings of the Church are quoted is called "Magisterium" in big bold letters.

The section titled "Nature" (which is where your quote comes from) uses Church teachings to construct a philosophical argument against contraception; not all of the arguments or premises used in it are those of the Church (though clearly not in opposition to it). You simply cannot quote it with the same authority as you would a Church document.

As I challenged you before, why don't you just quote a Church document on the matter and end the debate here and now?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The article explicitly looks at the topic from a number of sources, it says so itself:

"Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract."

The main sources mentioned are:

1. Nature
2. Scripture
3. Apostolic Tradition
4. Magisterium
5. Human Experience

Each ...[text shortened]... fore, why don't you just quote a Church document on the matter and end the debate here and now?

The debate exists only in your mind; I quoted several Church documents including encyclicals. Your response is to refuse to read them with anything but absolute literalness; if the words aren't "the Natural Law purpose of sex is procreation" you simply refuse to examine the documents in context. Pope Leo's words are clear but you look for loopholes. This is being disingenous unless you believe Pope Leo didn't mean what he said.

Please just quote a Church document on [whether purgatory exists] and end the debate here and now.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The debate exists only in your mind; I quoted several Church documents including encyclicals. Your response is to refuse to read them with anything but absolute literalness; if the words aren't "the Natural Law purpose of sex ...[text shortened]... ent on [whether purgatory exists] and end the debate here and now.

Get off it. CCC 1030-32 deals with Purgatory.

You quoted several Church documents that disproved your point of procreation being the sole purpose of marriage (a critical element of logic in the argument you were presenting there). You tried to omit or ignore portions (sometimes even in the same sentence you were quoting out of) that refuted your assertion. Even Pope Leo's quote simply did not prove your position.

If you cannot prove that the author of the Catholic.com article was repeating Church teaching in the sentence that was so essential to your logic - how can you assert it is true?

In any case, even if he were citing Church teaching, that would still be insufficient for your case. That particular objection was, probably, the least important of all the objections I cited in that thread.

Time and again in that thread I pointed out, in clear and precise terms, the lacunae in your reasoning - but you've never bothered to respond; instead you chose to huff and puff about about what would've been the easiest of the objections to refute if I were you. Unfortunately for you, even that seemed beyond you.

Cheers,

LH

PS - Go back and read the section you quoted from Rerum Novarum - Pope Leo says nothing whatsoever about the purpose of the conjugal act. You've drawn certain implications based on what he said, but the logic you used was faulty - as I showed in the other thread.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Matt 12:32
1 Cor 3:15
2 Macc 12:43-45

http://www.catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp

would you mind explaining how the 3 qouotes can support the idea of purgatory (a place for sin purging) without one hint of purgatory being in those quotes.

Originally posted by frogstomp
would you mind explaining how the 3 qouotes can support the idea of purgatory (a place for sin purging) without one hint of purgatory being in those quotes.

That's what the link is for.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Get off it. CCC 1030-32 deals with Purgatory.

You quoted several Church documents that disproved your point of procreation being the sole purpose of marriage (a critical element of logic in the argument you were presenting ...[text shortened]... t the logic you used was faulty - as I showed in the other thread.

Being a pompous ass does not an argument make. The documents I quoted in their context were in clear agreement with the statement in the article that the "Natural Law purpose of sex is procreation". All your windbaggery doesn't change that. You can stop patting yourself on the back for your supposed "logic"; all your words only amounted to sophistry and doubletalk.

EDIT: Perhaps you'd care to explain how this sentence: "No law of man can abolish the natural and primeval right of marriage, or in any way set aside the CHIEF PURPOSE OF MATRIMONY established in the beginning by the authority of God: "Increase and multiply." doesn't refer to "the purpose of the conjugal act." I guess Pope Leo knew some other way to "increase and multiply."

Originally posted by no1marauder
Being a pompous ass does not an argument make. The documents I quoted in their context were in clear agreement with the statement in the article that the "Natural Law purpose of sex is procreation". All your windbaggery doesn ...[text shortened]... I guess Pope Leo knew some other way to "increase and multiply."

Yes, Master Yoda. 🙂

I suppose an argument is made by evading direct refutations of logic, then?

As I said before, Pope Leo's statement does not deal with the purpose of sex, but with the purpose of marriage. To go from purpose of marriage to purpose of sex requires a logical argument - which was what your Argument I (refer other thread) did. Read my statement again.

Anyhow, the cornerstone of your logic was that procreation was the SOLE purpose of marriage/sex - which is not what Pope Leo says. All the other references you provided stress the secondary purpose of marriage/sex - the unitive aspect.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That's what the link is for.

Sorry, I had the mistaken impression that you claimed 3 bible quotes as support for the premise and had an opinion on what they meant.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Being a pompous ass does not an argument make. The documents I quoted in their context were in clear agreement with the statement in the article that the "Natural Law purpose of sex is procreation". All your windbaggery doesn't change that. You can stop patting yourself on the back for your supposed "logic"; all your words only amounted to s ...[text shortened]... urpose of the conjugal act." I guess Pope Leo knew some other way to "increase and multiply."

2000 years of windbaggery does not a Kingdom make, either.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Sorry, I had the mistaken impression that you claimed 3 bible quotes as support for the premise and had an opinion on what they meant.

They do and I do. That's what the link is for.