Dungeons & Dragons roleplay. Yes or no?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fox
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As Catholics, we should be more concerned what the Bible has to say about socery and witchcraft than in having witty, intellectual, egotistical debates. God condemns witchcraft and socery and that those who do these things are not admitted to the kingdom of God. Whoever is worried about their soul should take heed.

Here’s one place to do research:

newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm
 
It is not a Catholic view that witchcraft, socery, and magic are harmless. It is a Catholic view that there are angels and there are fallen angels (demons) and that satan sometimes presents as an angel of light in order to deceive.
 
bluebutterfly said:
God condemns witchcraft and socery and that those who do these things are not admitted to the kingdom of God. Whoever is worried about their soul should take heed.
Click to expand...
No one has disputed either Scripture or the Church regarding witchcraft and sorcery. The object under dispute is your apparently baseless opinion regarding a particular game’s relation to satanism.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
CTA1967 said:
Was that sarcasm? Because they’re Latin phrases, not wiccan.
Click to expand...
No sarcasm, I’m honestly trying to understand how Harry Potter is fine but RPG games are not. Forgive me being lost on this yet… D&D or even computer RPG type games along the same lines… choose your character, here’s the story line… there’s a fork in the road, are you going left or right? … Then compare that to actual reciting spells in Harry Potter… again, no sarcasm but D&D/RPGs etc bad but Harry Potter good??? No sarcasm, trying to understand truthfully… because, I’m just thrown by this thread.

And wiccan isn’t a language so a spell can be in any language but again… I’m lost that Harry Potter is good but an RPG is bad? Like the old Zelda series was an RPG and other such games. Role playing game…
 
Dueteronomy 18:9 - 14 says:
9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee, beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations. 10 Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, 11 Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. 12 For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming. 13 Thou shalt be perfect, and without spot before the Lord thy God. 14 These nations, whose land thou shalt possess, hearken to soothsayers and diviners: but thou art otherwise instructed by the Lord thy God.

Is there an argument against that?
 
mlchance said:
No one has disputed either Scripture or the Church regarding witchcraft and sorcery. The object under dispute is your apparently baseless opinion regarding a particular game’s relation to satanism.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
If you can’t see the blatant parallel already, it wouldn’t help to get into specific rituals. You would not see it.
 
bluebutterfly said:
Dueteronomy 18:9 - 14 says:
9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee, beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations. 10 Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, 11 Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. 12 For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming. 13 Thou shalt be perfect, and without spot before the Lord thy God. 14 These nations, whose land thou shalt possess, hearken to soothsayers and diviners: but thou art otherwise instructed by the Lord thy God.

Is there an argument against that?
Click to expand...
If you cannot show the logical connection between an RPG player and a sorceror, there is no need to argue against the Bible. You as the challenger should provide proof. So far you have only provided your scrupulous standards.
 
bluebutterfly said:
If you can’t see the blatant parallel already, it wouldn’t help to get into specific rituals. You would not see it.
Click to expand...
So now you’re psychic? You actually know for a fact what I would or would not see? Interesting. Fallacious, but interesting.
bluebutterfly said:
Dueteronomy 18:9 - 14 says:

…

Is there an argument against that?
Click to expand...
Nope, but since no one is advocating such practices, it doesn’t seem particularly relevant to the question at hand.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
CTA1967 said:
If you cannot show the logical connection between an RPG player and a sorceror, there is no need to argue against the Bible. You as the challenger should provide proof. So far you have only provided your scrupulous standards.
Click to expand...
Biblical standards. Are you a Christian?
 
There seems to be a denial about what constitutes socery and witchcraft and magic, which is using supernatural powers that are not divine. There has been no good argument in this thread that shows that pretending to use such powers is not parallel to socery, witchcraft and magic, which is condemned in the Bible.
 
bluebutterfly said:
There seems to be a denial about what constitutes socery and witchcraft and magic, which is using supernatural powers that are not divine. There has been no good argument in this thread that shows that pretending to use such powers is not parallel to socery, witchcraft and magic, which is condemned in the Bible.
Click to expand...
unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
Keeping in mind that you are the challenger:
Appeal to ignorance
Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.”
Click to expand...
Example: “People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.” Here’s an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy: “People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists.” In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: If qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven’t found it, and it’s the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven’t found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
Begging the question
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.
Click to expand...
Examples: “Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.” Let’s lay this out in premise-conclusion form:
Click to expand...
Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.
Click to expand...
Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.
Click to expand...
If we “translate” the premise, we’ll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing twice: “decent, ethical” means pretty much the same thing as “morally acceptable,” and “help another human being escape suffering through death” means “active euthanasia.” So the premise basically says, “active euthanasia is morally acceptable,” just like the conclusion does! The arguer hasn’t yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking “well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?” Her argument “begs” (that is, evades) the real question.
Click to expand...
Here’s a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is needed to make the argument valid is completely ignored: “Murder is morally wrong. So active euthanasia is morally wrong.” The premise that gets left out is “active euthanasia is murder.” And that is a debatable premise—again, the argument “begs” or evades the question of whether active euthanasia is murder by simply not stating the premise. The arguer is hoping we’ll just focus on the uncontroversial premise, “Murder is morally wrong,” and not notice what is being assumed.
Click to expand...
Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and conclusion in a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are required to move from one premise to the next or from the premises to the conclusion. Write down the statements that would fill those gaps. If the statements are controversial and you’ve just glossed over them, you might be begging the question. Next, check to see whether any of your premises basically says the same thing as the conclusion (but in other words). If so, you’re begging the question. The moral of the story: You can’t just assume or use as uncontroversial evidence the very thing you’re trying to prove.
Click to expand...
 
bluebutterfly said:
There seems to be a denial about what constitutes socery and witchcraft and magic, which is using supernatural powers that are not divine.
Click to expand...
Considering no one has denied what constitutes sorcery or witchcraft, that seems a rather unusual claim to make.
bluebutterfly said:
There has been no good argument in this thread that shows that pretending to use such powers is not parallel to socery, witchcraft and magic, which is condemned in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Likewise, there hasn’t been anything remotely approaching a good argument in this thread that shows that pretending to use such powers is an offense against God. Furthermore, there hasn’t been anything remotely approaching a good argument that the game mechanics of D&D actually parallel the sorcery or witchcraft that is condemned by both Scripture and Church.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
mlchance said:
Considering no one has denied what constitutes sorcery or witchcraft, that seems a rather unusual claim to make.

Likewise, there hasn’t been anything remotely approaching a good argument in this thread that shows that pretending to use such powers is an offense against God. Furthermore, there hasn’t been anything remotely approaching a good argument that the game mechanics of D&D actually parallel the sorcery or witchcraft that is condemned by both Scripture and Church.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
The definition of witchcraft and magic is the use of supernatural power that are not divine (of God).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top