Purgatory Article

  • Thread starter Thread starter graphite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

graphite

Guest
In this article, /magazine/online-edition/is-purgatory-in-the-bible, the author Tim declares that since scripture says a particular sin, X, will not be forgiven in the age to come, then that implies that there is some sin, Y, that WILL be forgiven in the age to come. Classic logical fallacy. Makes the article seem like it was written by a child.
 
Last edited:
Obviously, you know nothing about the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory (not even how to spell it correctly). Have you read about the doctrine?
 
  1. What article?
  2. Who is Tim? Tim who?
  3. What’s the logical fallacy in this argument?
  4. Did you even represent the argument correctly? We can’t really tell if your assertion holds up if we can’t even see what the original argument was. In which case, your argument relies on a strawman and is fallacious in itself.
-Fr ACEGC
 
graphite said:
Classic logical fallacy. Makes the article seem like it was written by a child.
Click to expand...
Just curious why you believe this is a classic logical fallacy?

I can see Tim’s point. What do you believe St. Matthew was trying to say by adding the words…

…either in this age or in the age to come
Matthew 12:32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t St. Matthew Just have said will not be forgiven PERIOD. If Jesus said will not be forgiven I would understand that that meant never and see no need for the author to add the extra wording.

Your thoughts?

God Bless
 
Here seems to be the quotation in question, which the OP misrepresented:
This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it. If Jesus wanted to condemn this teaching commonly taught in Israel, he was not doing a very good job of it according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.
Click to expand...
The OP says this is fallacious, since “a particular sin, X, will not be forgiven in the age to come, then that implies that there is some sin, Y, that will be forgiven in the age to come.” This is simply not what the author says. The author speaks conditionally, not absolutely. He says there is a sin that can be forgiven in the age to come. Furthermore, this isn’t the sole piece of the argument for the article. It’s a part of a broader whole of scriptural evidence that’s given.

-Fr ACEGC
 
  1. I could not insert a link, but another user pasted the link below.
  2. Tim Staples I believe is the author.
  3. the logical fallacy is a simple non-sequitur. if i propose the following… “That broom will not dance”. This does NOT “imply” that some brooms dance. Yet the author offers as evidence that “some” sins are forgiven after death since the scripture says this particular sin will NOT be forgiven after death. I hope you can follow this, it’s quite simple logic.
    I hope this makes sense. Please forgive the spelling, since I’m typing this on my phone.
 
Last edited:
I can understand why you would be reading into it and a lot of people do that who don’t know much about logic. But you do so in error. Please see my response to edward_george1 for more details about why I believe this is erroneous. God bless you as well. I mean nothing personal. But this is really important stuff to me.
 
please forgive my misspelling. I’m working on a phone, and yes I was a bit lazy with the spelling as I thought it was spelled differently.
 
I certainly did not misrepresent anything here. It’s quite simple. Read the passage in question again. Conditionally vs. absolutely? please expound on that. Whether or not this is the “sole piece of the argument” is of no consequence. The author committed a simple logical fallacy here and I’m calling him out. This is really important stuff here.
 
The quote in question is actually, “This declaration of our Lord implies there are at leastsome sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it.” and the immediately preceding quotation.
 
you said, “Why wouldn’t St. Matthew Just have said will not be forgiven PERIOD”… does that matter? matthew is driving home the point that it willNOT be forgiven, period, not now, not ever. again, this is at the heart of it. it is wrong to declare that this “implies” some sins can be forgiven after death. this does not follow and should be admitted as bad logic by the author himself.
 
graphite said:
I can understand why you would be reading into it and a lot of people do that who don’t know much about logic.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response.

I will admit I am no expert on the subject, but I am willing to learn. Maybe you could help me out and spell it out a little better so I can see where you are coming from.
graphite said:
the logical fallacy is a simple non-sequitur.
Click to expand...
Ok I didn’t want to jump to any conclusions so I looked it up.

I found a site that defines non sequitur - is all about taking a giant logical jump that is totally unreasonable. In formal logic, we start with at least two premises. This is followed by a conclusion that is based on those premises.

It seems by definition of a non-sequitur is illogical if the person takes a “giant logical jump that is totally unreasonable”

I understand the conclusion in your example as being “totally unreasonable”. However, what about Tim’s example is “totally unreasonable”?
  1. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven
  2. but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come
Tim’s Conclusion: This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it.

First, Jesus talks about sins that can be forgiven. Then He talks about a sin that can’t be forgiven. Jesus places emphasis on the second sin with the addition of the words “in this age or in the age to come”.

Could you explain what is “totally unreasonable” about applying Jesus emphasis to the first phrase? To me if the people of they day already knew that sins could not be forgiven in the next life wouldn’t Jesus’ addition of these words have caused more confusion?

I understand that you are saying Tim shouldn’t be applying Jesus words to both statements. Personally I don’t see how it’s a totally unreasonable conclusion. However, this did leave me curious of you thoughts on why Jesus used meaningless words in this statement?

I have some other thoughts but let’s not go too deep yet.

Thanks,

God Bless
 
graphite said:
you said, “Why wouldn’t St. Matthew Just have said will not be forgiven PERIOD”… does that matter?
Click to expand...
Yeah it kind of does to me. 2 Timothy 3:16 ALL scripture is profitable for teaching. So what is Jesus trying to teach by saying in this age (world) or the age (world) to come?

To me I would agree if Jesus simple said in this age (world) to come, would be equivalent to your definition…
graphite said:
matthew is driving home the point that it willNOT be forgiven, period, not now, not ever. again, this is at the heart of it
Click to expand...
But to add, or the age (world) to come, seems to be saying way more than just driving home the original point. In my mind implying something that could never ever be true would be more distracting than helpful. It’s not like Jesus is teaching using a parable here.

You said…
graphite said:
I can understand why you would be reading into it and a lot of people do that who don’t know much about logic.
Click to expand...
Sure I can admit this is what I see as soon as I read the verse. My Catholic upbringing, as well as other verses of the Bible, which Tim addresses in the rest of the article, is what leads me to making this conclusion.

However, with all due respect, for you to declare…
graphite said:
it is wrong to declare that this “implies” some sins can be forgiven after death. this does not follow and should be admitted as bad logic by the author himself.
Click to expand...
You would first need to show me that you are not reading your theology into the verse.

Therefore, logically speaking, for you to make this explicit definitive statement, you would need to point to where the Bible explicitly teaches that sins can only be forgiven in this life. Keep in mind you are calling Tim out because he simply “implies” this possibility. So by your own rules this teaching can not be based on your theological implications it would need to be EXPLICITLY taught in scripture.

Other wise how can you prove you aren’t the one using “bad logic”.

I apologize if this is coming off disrespectful, I’m just trying to point out that you haven’t given me any reason, other than your own personal logical opinion, that Jesus words at the end of the verse can’t be contextually applied to the beginning of the verse as well.

Thanks for the dialogue,

God Bless
 
graphite said:
the logical fallacy is a simple non-sequitur. if i propose the following… “That broom will not dance”. This does NOT “imply” that some brooms dance. Yet the author offers as evidence that “some” sins are forgiven after death since the scripture says this particular sin will NOT be forgiven after death. I hope you can follow this, it’s quite simple logic.
Click to expand...
The problem, though, is that you’re not taking the whole context into account, right? It’s not just “that broom will not dance” – it’s “this broom will dance, and that broom will not dance, either now or later.” The addition of the temporal element, juxtaposed with against an assertion that’s (presumably) talking about something that happens in this age, leads to an observation: why does he have to insert “or in the age to come” in the second example?

It’s not illogical to conclude that, when placed next to something that happens in this age, he doesn’t want folks to conclude simply that this forgiveness won’t happen now (but it will happen in the age to come).

Not exactly fallacious. 🤷‍♂️
 
You are correct that, as a matter of formal logic, X is not Y does not imply that some not-X is Y. However, ordinary speech isn’t organized around the rules of formal logic, so the inference is not invalid. In any case that’s not the only scriptural reference to purgatory.
 
This is the written word, not ordinary speech. And it certainly should follow the rules of logic. This can’t be the ONLY reference to Purgatory since it is NOT a reference to Purgatory as I have argued.
 
I cannot argue with someone who utters this phrase: “logical opinion.”
 
Last edited:
Another article commits the exact same logical fallacy. What is going on here? Since i can’t post a link, here it is, you’ll have to reconstruct it… www. catholic. com / purgatory

The author says, “From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come” (CCC 1031)."

Does anyone else find this to be difficult to swallow?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top