ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[BigDaddy]

Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:
Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

Actually, no. I'm not even nominally the member of any religion (or even an atheist). But calling people who try to practice magic 'evil' and getting upset over it seems even sillier than the people themselves.

[Scott Hebert]

BigDaddy said:
Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

Actually, to be just a little more specific, Catholic theology frowns on the practice of magic, as you cannot be sure that the source of the supernatural power is NOT demonic in nature.

Catholic theology has remarkably little to say about what might be out there, in a supernatural sense.

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

I don't think this was directed at me, per se, but for the record, my religion IS Roman Catholicism.

[BigDaddy]

Actually that is a quote, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. It is the official stance of the Holy See.

Consider:

II. TOTAL AGNOSTICISM SELF-REFUTING

Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law.

See more about your agnostic "faith" here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

[BigDaddy]

Scott,

Demons:

"In Scripture and in Catholic theology this word has come to mean much the same as devil and denotes one of the evil spirits or fallen angels. And in fact in some places in the New Testament where the Vulgate, in agreement with the Greek, has daemonium, our vernacular versions read devil. The precise distinction between the two terms in ecclesiastical usage may be seen in the phrase used in the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council: "Diabolus enim et alii daemones" (The devil and the other demons), i.e. all are demons, and the chief of the demons is called the devil. This distinction is observed in the Vulgate New Testament, where diabolus represents the Greek diabolos and in almost every instance refers to Satan himself, while his subordinate angels are described,. . ."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm

Most religions have similar teachings. It is not ambiguous at all.

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:
Actually that is a quote, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. It is the official stance of the Holy See.

Consider:

II. TOTAL AGNOSTICISM SELF-REFUTING

Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law.

See more about your agnostic "faith" here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

There are many flavors of agnosticism, from believing that nothing can ever be known, to the belief that there is simply not enough evidence at this time to draw conclusions about the existence of a god, to people who just don't care, and those that follow a particular religion but doubt it.

As for the second kind, which is more or less what I believe, it is rather hard to refute without some extremely strong evidence one way or the other.

EDIT: And on your definition of magic, I believe many people who try to practice magic believe that they are doing it by their own power, not necessarily aided by any other force.

[Scott Hebert]

Oh, I'm not saying anything about the definition of demons. They ARE out there, and they DO NOT LIKE us.

What I was trying to refer to is the fact that whether there are other beings out there, other beings created by God besides the angels and the fallen angels, is not really touched upon by Catholic theology.

Some people try to claim that they receive their power from a being that is not angelic, demonic, or God. While the Catholic Church does not say, one way or the other, if these beings exist or not, it still frowns upon 'experimentation' with trying to receive power from said beings, as there is no way to tell whether or not the source is in fact benign or malefic.

The basic fact that the Catholic Church decries magic is not at all in contention.

Atheism is an amusing 'religion', since it is impossible to prove a negative. As far as evidence of God, I believe there is quite a bit of evidence. The fact that some people do not believe so has always rather astonished me.

I do find it amusing, as well, that such a thing as posting a mod can provoke this kind of discussion. It's a wonder that my TC mod hasn't provoked a discussion on the exact difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:
Atheism is an amusing 'religion', since it is impossible to prove a negative. As far as evidence of God, I believe there is quite a bit of evidence. The fact that some people do not believe so has always rather astonished me.

Was this directed at me? I think it has not been near proven the existence of something before the universe, but it is certainly a strong possibility. I do find the sort of being that most religions describe (mostly concerned with humans/earth as opposed to the rest of universe, answering prayers, sending prophets, and in general constantly tinkering) highly unlikely. I would be interested in your strong evidence, however.

[Scott Hebert]

Actually, it was not directed towards anyone in particular. I will note, though, that as untenable as agnosticism is, atheism is even more so.

If you would like to hear about evidence, please PM me. This thread is too cluttered already.