C
Catfinger77
Guest
I would think that the Spanish Inquisition utilized the argument of force.
- Status
H
HumbleIOughtToBe
Guest
Bad Argument: [I God am worthy of love] because [of what will happen to you if you fail to comply].
Good Argument
: “I God am worthy of love because of the documentation the Bible has of my good acts to humanity demonstrating myself as a loving friend”.
Good Argument
(That I submit to)
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
Well, has anyone actually made that precise “Bad argument”…? Can you quote it?
As for the “Good argument”, see, let’s say, Psalm 135 (like “21 And he gave their land for an inheritance: for his mercy endureth for ever. 22 For an inheritance to his servant Israel: for his mercy endureth for ever.”).
But then, one of things good friends do is defend their friends from evil-doers. And then, um, it is not all that pleasant to be an evil-doer…
And then it is time to remember that God is not “a bearded man on the cloud”. In many ways it would be better to imagine that God is a bit like “a theorem, but alive” (at least, that would be sufficiently strange to prompt you to think). He is Truth itself, Goodness itself, Beauty itself (or, perhaps, “Form of Good”, as Plato would say). To hate that makes one an evil-doer. And, given what was said previously, in the end it is not all that pleasant to be an evil-doer…
R
Rhubarb
Guest
You might want to look into the Carolingian conversion of Europe. Tribes were forcibly converted or killed.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I remember one time, in high school, the ‘bible kid’ came up to me. And he went “Hey Rhubarb. Do you know what it’s like to be burnt?” And I said “Yeah, I’ve burnt myself before. I work for a fast food joint, I get burnt all the time.”
He nodded. “Well that’s what it’s like in Hell. Except all over. Forever. It never stops. You might want to consider that and get yourself right with God”
I thought about this for awhile and concluded that if my reason for faith is to avoid punishment, that’s no faith I want to be a part of. I don’t want a god that will hold a threat of hell over my head to twist my arm into belief.
He nodded. “Well that’s what it’s like in Hell. Except all over. Forever. It never stops. You might want to consider that and get yourself right with God”
I thought about this for awhile and concluded that if my reason for faith is to avoid punishment, that’s no faith I want to be a part of. I don’t want a god that will hold a threat of hell over my head to twist my arm into belief.
M
MPat
Guest
“I don’t want a god that…” - that’s a surprisingly accurate expression.
Of course, your argument in this case goes like this:
- I do not like X. (premise)
- Therefore, not-X.
J
JerryZ
Guest
Well if someone actually looked at the evidence from History would learn that those “conversion” were not actually made by the Church or even Her priests.
It was the secular authority that carried out this practices. “Kings, Princes and Chieftains”.
Piece!
It was the secular authority that carried out this practices. “Kings, Princes and Chieftains”.
Piece!
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
And now, they can come up to you on CAF. “Hey Rhubarb…”
Anyway, thankfully nobody carries around baggage from high school, right.?
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
High School kids usually don’t have very good arguments.
J
JerryZ
Guest
The “Spanish Inquisition” was not used as a “method of conversion” for people. Rather it was a court that would judge if a person that was a Christian was not a heretic.
So the court would not judge someone who was not a Christian.
Unfortunately the secular courts would very frequently judge people as “heretics” or “witchcraft” and execute people, sometime for political or pecuniary advantage. The Church was forced to introduce the “Inquisition” as a means of trying to regulate these types of accusations. The “Spanish Inquisition” was the court that was located in Spain. In the intervening years it was given a very sinister outlook and people toss it at Catholics today as a means to shut them up. “Look at how horrible is your Church” etc. etc. But the historical record does not bear such a bleak look on the workings of the institution.
We have records that show that people actually requested to be judged by the “Inquisition” because the knew they had a more fair trial than at the hand of the secular tribunal. One very famous person that was judged by the Inquisition was Galileo, he was not killed nor burned. And he had some very offensive words for the Pope of his time.
Peace!!
So the court would not judge someone who was not a Christian.
Unfortunately the secular courts would very frequently judge people as “heretics” or “witchcraft” and execute people, sometime for political or pecuniary advantage. The Church was forced to introduce the “Inquisition” as a means of trying to regulate these types of accusations. The “Spanish Inquisition” was the court that was located in Spain. In the intervening years it was given a very sinister outlook and people toss it at Catholics today as a means to shut them up. “Look at how horrible is your Church” etc. etc. But the historical record does not bear such a bleak look on the workings of the institution.
We have records that show that people actually requested to be judged by the “Inquisition” because the knew they had a more fair trial than at the hand of the secular tribunal. One very famous person that was judged by the Inquisition was Galileo, he was not killed nor burned. And he had some very offensive words for the Pope of his time.
Peace!!
R
Rhubarb
Guest
It’s not an argument. I’m not arguing God doesn’t exist. I’m saying if that’s God’s terms, I don’t want anything to do with him, if he does exist. That’s how a tyrant maintains control - through fear.
If I wanted to argue against God’s existence, I would lay out the reasoning very clearly. But there’s no point in doing that on these forums. And frankly, I don’t care if someone believes or not. I have no interest in trying to rob someone of their faith, even if I think there’s no good base for it.
If I wanted to argue against God’s existence, I would lay out the reasoning very clearly. But there’s no point in doing that on these forums. And frankly, I don’t care if someone believes or not. I have no interest in trying to rob someone of their faith, even if I think there’s no good base for it.
Last edited:
R
Rhubarb
Guest
That would be moving the goal posts. "Oh no, it has to be by priests only’
Which is a silly on numerous levels. Religion was most assuredly used as impetus for the conquests. Churchmen did hold positions of secular authority in their various kingdoms and there’s lots of evidence of them using force to deal with heretics and such. Churchmen qua churchmen never had a chance to act like that on behalf of the Church. But most importantly… That religion you’re alluding to can say the exact same thing. There is no strict hierarchy in that religion. No “Church” so to speak. So they could say the exact same thing you said - “those “conversion” were not actually made by the Church or even Her priests”
Which is a silly on numerous levels. Religion was most assuredly used as impetus for the conquests. Churchmen did hold positions of secular authority in their various kingdoms and there’s lots of evidence of them using force to deal with heretics and such. Churchmen qua churchmen never had a chance to act like that on behalf of the Church. But most importantly… That religion you’re alluding to can say the exact same thing. There is no strict hierarchy in that religion. No “Church” so to speak. So they could say the exact same thing you said - “those “conversion” were not actually made by the Church or even Her priests”
J
JerryZ
Guest
Excuse me but the Priests did not GO anywhere, the Barbaric Invasions were that, “invasions”. From the north hordes of successive tribes in waves moved south plundering killing and conquering all of Europe.
In fact when one looks at it dispassionately one must acknowledge that it is a Miracle that the Church survived it all, AND converted the invading tribes.
Peace!
In fact when one looks at it dispassionately one must acknowledge that it is a Miracle that the Church survived it all, AND converted the invading tribes.
Peace!
M
MPat
Guest
So, it’s a “Reverse Argumentum ad Baculum”.
That is:
- If I do not choose X, Y will happen.
- I do not like Y, it is unpleasant.
- Therefore, I refuse to choose X, I’d rather have Y happen.
Not to mention that you choose to go to Hell rather than to be with God in Heaven, because… He gives you an option to do just that.
And now, let’s see how many posts will be written before you will claim that no one can possibly choose Hell rather than Heaven!
Or will you claim that “Belief is not a choice!” first?
Last edited:
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Excuse me. But the Frankish Empire - which carried Christianity into the reaches of pagan Europe, did in fact, bring their religion with them. Forcibly.
( Carolingian Empire - Wikipedia )
One dynasty doesn’t conquer nearly all of Europe fighting defensive wars.
( Carolingian Empire - Wikipedia )
One dynasty doesn’t conquer nearly all of Europe fighting defensive wars.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Not a good argument for what? I think you misread me. I just said I’m not trying to argue against God’s existence. I’m not arguing anything beyond my own personal taste.
If God exists, and I don’t have any evidence or external reasons to believe, I have no legitimate obligation to believe. If I have no good evidence or reasons to believe, resorting to “bad things will happen to me if I don’t” doesn’t compel me to believe. Just as “pay me protection money or else” wouldn’t compel me to pay.
If you have good reasons, or evidence, to believe - great. I have no desire whatsoever to convince you otherwise. But I won’t have my arm twisted into a belief out of fear. A god that would require blind belief “or else” is not deserving of my worship. And if that god set up the universe in some way that I must believe without true conviction to get to heaven, then I suppose I’m going to hell. And it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
If God exists, and I don’t have any evidence or external reasons to believe, I have no legitimate obligation to believe. If I have no good evidence or reasons to believe, resorting to “bad things will happen to me if I don’t” doesn’t compel me to believe. Just as “pay me protection money or else” wouldn’t compel me to pay.
If you have good reasons, or evidence, to believe - great. I have no desire whatsoever to convince you otherwise. But I won’t have my arm twisted into a belief out of fear. A god that would require blind belief “or else” is not deserving of my worship. And if that god set up the universe in some way that I must believe without true conviction to get to heaven, then I suppose I’m going to hell. And it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
Last edited:
R
Rhubarb
Guest
And I’ll go on a different post in case someone’s already quoted the last - the OP is falling victim to the fallacy fallacy - namely, that just because a line of reasoning is poor, doesn’t mean the conclusion is false.
God might really exist, the way He is popularly believed to exist. Just because I find this “believe or hell” thing odious doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.
- If Frances is Pope in 2019, Christmas is in December.
- Christmas is in December
C. Therefore, Francis is Pope in 2019
God might really exist, the way He is popularly believed to exist. Just because I find this “believe or hell” thing odious doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
Not a good argument for choosing not to believe. Which is precisely what your “clarifications” confirm.
If evidence or lack of it had played any significant part in your reasoning, you would have mentioned it a bit sooner.
Also, if evidence would have played any significant role, you would have asked that “Bible kid” if he could offer you any. But you did not.
Thus it looks like evidence has little to do with your rejection of God. For now, there is little evidence for your contrary claim, and rather strong evidence against it. (No, you making that claim is not evidence for it. Given the context, it is more of an evidence against it.)
So, we have just “Reverse Argumentum ad Baculum”. Perhaps I should formulate it with one more step:
- If I do not choose X, Y will happen.
- I do not like Y, it is unpleasant.
- How dare you threaten me with Y!!!
- Therefore, I refuse to choose X, I’d rather have Y happen.
Last edited:
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Wow, you can read minds! Amazing.
I meant exactly what I said. And I quote: “if my reason for faith is to avoid punishment, that’s no faith I want to be a part of.” Which implies that I’d have no other reason, as I’m not talking about reasons, plural. So I clarified when it seemed we weren’t on the same page.
(PS: This particular fellow, the ‘bible kid’ had many discussions with me throughout 3 years that I didn’t recount)
I really recommend not making assumptions about other people’s thinking - you know that ol’ saying about making assumptions. Especially when someone literally clarifies what they said. You might want to brush up on the Principle of Charity as it pertains to philosophy, too.
I meant exactly what I said. And I quote: “if my reason for faith is to avoid punishment, that’s no faith I want to be a part of.” Which implies that I’d have no other reason, as I’m not talking about reasons, plural. So I clarified when it seemed we weren’t on the same page.
(PS: This particular fellow, the ‘bible kid’ had many discussions with me throughout 3 years that I didn’t recount)
I really recommend not making assumptions about other people’s thinking - you know that ol’ saying about making assumptions. Especially when someone literally clarifies what they said. You might want to brush up on the Principle of Charity as it pertains to philosophy, too.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Followed by “a certain subsequent level of hubris decides it doesn’t need it and thus claims it doesn’t exist.”
So… the argumentum ad baculum is fallacious, but the argumentum ad populum isn’t?
No one expected it, though.
On the other hand, what if that’s simply a mischaracterization of the faith? The fact that your high school acquaintance perceived it that way doesn’t imply that it’s actually the case.
And if that isn’t “God’s terms”? Then what?
How about on the level of “the Church didn’t take those actions, as was asserted”?
But if the punishment of heretics came from secular jurisprudence (and, in fact, it did!), then why does the state get a pass and the Church not?
Again: “Empire”.
- Status