The entire idea of purgatory is deferred punishment that wasn’t completed in life. And just because we don’t know if any individual is in hell doesn’t mean it’s not dogma that everyone will be appropriately punished as justice requires.
Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that the church is the final authority. The church claims that Jesus gave it the authority. And when one asks for evidence, the church (or rather the members of the church!) will point to the Bible (compiled by the church), the “sacred” tradition (maintained by the church) and the magisterium (declared by the church). So if we get rid of the “fluff”, it boils down to: “the church is the final authority, because the church says so”.
You just reinforced what I said above. Why should the non-Catholics accept what the church says?
There is for non-Catholics.
Of course not. It allows the different interpreters to play hide-and-seek.
There is no evidence for the purgatory. Punishment is only justified if the punished person can LEARN from her mistakes. If she cannot, then the punishment is pure, unadulterated revenge. (“Vengeance is mine says the Lord.” - Romans 12:19)
Polygamy was tolerated in ancient times because the mortality of young men was so high and the idea was to allow families to be taken care of.
If you’ve read my posts on the News Forums, you’d know that I don’t like appeal to authority. “Because we or the Bible say so” is often a failed argument in the information age and one big reason why so-called gay “marriage” is legal namely because Catholics allowed Protestants to be the leading voice in the culture on that and a myriad of issues.Vera_Ljuba;14663608]Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that the church is the final authority. The church claims that Jesus gave it the authority. And when one asks for evidence, the church (or rather the members of the church!) will point to the Bible (compiled by the church), the “sacred” tradition (maintained by the church) and the magisterium (declared by the church). So if we get rid of the “fluff”, it boils down to: “the church is the final authority, because the church says so”.
Catholicism is about the Truth. There’s a reason why other religions today are falling apart on the seams or have all kinds of internal problems.
It does exist and that is a very weak argument as it uses the same appeal to authority you were against earlier in the conversation.
I don’t remember ever having read any of your posts, especially since I almost never visit the News Forums.
In my vocabulary there is no capitalized “the Truth”. And Catholicism does not do too well either. Rome keeps complaining about the decreasing attendance; especially in Europe. The number of the so-called Cafeteria Catholics (or CINO-s) is increasing, while the ultra-orthodox population is decreasing. There is also a shortage in the priesthood. (Oh, and the population of Muslims seems to be growing.)
I have no idea what you mean by appeal to authority. All I did was pointing out that there is no evidence for the purgatory, and also the well-known, universally accepted principle that the only acceptable reason for punishment is to teach better behavior. Since the purgatory happens after death, when people lose their opportunity to learn, it is obvious that the events in the purgatory - whatever they may be - cannot serve the purpose of teaching better behavior. You don’t get a second chance in real life to have a suitably modified behavior after having spent some unspecified time in the fire.
I value good evidence but I also value logic and logic counts towards truth. In other words, we can logically deduce a conclusion that God is okay with polygamy based on the EVIDENCE or facts!! The logic here is quite simple:
I am smiling here from ear to ear, enjoying the irony.
Here I am, simply playing the atheist and saying the equivalent of “I won’t believe in God until you show me some scientific evidence of His existence!”
That is, “I won’t believe God endorsed polygamy until you show me some Scriptural evidence that He endorsed polygamy!”
And here you are saying, “It doesn’t have to say it explicitly in the Bible!”
Are you willing to acknowledge the validity of the multitude proofs for God’s existence?
If so, then I might be willing to loosen my criterion for proof of God’s endorsement of polygamy.
Otherwise, I will be waiting for a Bible verse (or 2) that says, “And thus God commanded men to marry multiple women, and declared this to be good!”
Morally okay in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament. In the old Semite culture it was common to have more than one wife, but as we move through the ages into the Greek culture, it was not morally acceptable. As Christians we have a new covenant with God and Jesus is our mouthpiece.
Example from the Old Testament where polygamy was was permitted or at least tolerated: Jacob who had two wives, Lia and Rachel, and two concubines, Bala and Zelpha, to bear children for Lia and Rachel. Genesis 30:3, 9, 13.
Excellent.
It really depends on the arguments and counter-arguments. The biblical passages that I cited are empirical evidence in a sense, and the words in those passages are very clear towards my point. The passages show God’s concerns that prompted his actions. And His actions reflect his wants and desires which are supposed to be all-good.
Genesis 29:30-33 establishes that a man should love his wife, however, if you look at the details closely you’ll notice that it was a man’s second wife. Jacob should’ve only loved Rachel if your monogamy only position was correct, but we see God also wanting Jacob to love Leah, as well.
Well one topic at a time. Do you accept my arguments that God wanted ONE man to love TWO women and helped the ONE man impregnate them as mentioned in Genesis 29:30-33?
There can be some differences between legality and morality, but in the Bible and even in societies in general, the two overlap. At least in the Bible, the two concepts should not conflict. This is why we find Christians trying to make laws based off of their moral teachings on marriage, etc.
I find it shocking that God would punish married women for extramarital affairs, or even punish men for having sex with these married women, but yet not punish anyone for polygamy. Whether it would be called adultery or not, the acts are so nearly identical, that it makes no sense that God would have a problem punishing one but not the other. By nearly identical, I mean the only difference is between a married man who has extramarital affairs with MARRIED woman vs. extramarital affairs with unmarried women.
True.
Well, only in the sense that the world itself is empirical evidence for God’s existence.
What I see in Genesis is God showing mercy on Leah.
Don’t you have this backwards? Jacob should’ve only loved Leah. That’s his first wife.
No. There is no indication, at all, about what God “wants”.
Yes, this is correct.
Why wouldn’t it conflict if the legal laws are declared by man and the moral laws are declared by God?
You don’t know whether God did “not punish anyone for polygamy” in the afterlife
I’ve read the same view on other threads but I don’t find it convincing for 2 reasons (after rereading this thread your views are similar to those in Post #8, post #19, post #23, etc.
We don’t need to speculate, AB. We have the lens of the Church to enlighten our reading of these verses.
No, AB. God did not “act” to help it progress.
Not to mention the fullness of the Scriptures in the NT.
Sure, it can be used as empirical evidence if you can make the connection. The connection between the Bible and God’s position on polygamy is clear because the Bible is said to be part of God’s message. I should say that I created this thread to discuss a specific topic. I’d like to keep the thread focused on either refuting or supporting my argument for polygamy. Trying to bring up the cosmological argument to show God exists does nothing to refute my argument for polygamy.
Oh, no one ought deny that. God tolerated a lot of sins in the OT.
