Z
Zski01
Guest
How do you view the extensive efforts Catholics and Protestants make to debate and refute one another?
- Status
S
space_ghost
Guest
I have to say it’s a little too early for me to vote… i have seen some awful uncivil threads/debates… a healthy number are more interested in the last word, or the take that and stick it in your pipe and smoke it attitude… even i have piled on and have to include myself in that negative number, but i do resolve to do better… i hope the sprit of evangelazation and christian charity increase, and the name calling and back biting are reduced… to that end, i remain in spirit and in fact Space Ghost… i will be watching all the while hoping to garner a little insight, and who knows, i might even learn something along the way…Peace…
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
I would actually see them as largely a good thing. Groups that focus on their own ideas and materials to the exclusion of challenge tend to get intellectually lazy. Though I would disgaree with many Catholic teachings that have been pushed very hard in the last few years, nonetheless I am happy to see that these challenges have increasingly lead many to balance out their own theologies in light of these challenges.
For instance, the solipsistic twisting of Sola Scriptura that is so popular these days is finally being challenged by more the more theologically viable model brought forth during the Reformation. In this respect our debates have been helpful in clarifying our positions and rooting out nonsensical positions that have only proliferated in proportion to the degree in which they have grown unchallenged. We only make progress when we are pushed, not when we listen to the cheerleaders who will support us no matter how bad our ideas are.
ken
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
I would actually see them as largely a good thing. Groups that focus on their own ideas and materials to the exclusion of challenge tend to get intellectually lazy. Though I would disgaree with many Catholic teachings that have been pushed very hard in the last few years, nonetheless I am happy to see that these challenges have increasingly lead many to balance out their own theologies in light of these challenges.
For instance, the solipsistic twisting of Sola Scriptura that is so popular these days is finally being challenged by more the more theologically viable model brought forth during the Reformation. In this respect our debates have been helpful in clarifying our positions and rooting out nonsensical positions that have only proliferated in proportion to the degree in which they have grown unchallenged. We only make progress when we are pushed, not when we listen to the cheerleaders who will support us no matter how bad our ideas are.
ken
B
bernied
Guest
I think debates are very good-- they tend to bring the most important issues to the top. Many times these types of discussions get bogged down on side-issues, so when professionals debate, there’s usually a higher caliber of discussion happening. Want to know what the major issues are? Listen to a debate…
…Bernie (former catholic)
www.FreeGoodNews.com
…Bernie (former catholic)
www.FreeGoodNews.com
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
sorry about the double post
K
Kevan
Guest
Debates serve primarily to prove who is the best debater. It is unfortunate that the average onlooker, who couldn’t possibly have the mastery of the subject which the debaters have, gets suckered into thinking that the person who won the debate has the better case. In fact, if the debaters are good, there’s no connection whatsoever.
Compare it to the courts. Haven’t most of us been in a real courtroom (not that television garbage) and watched the lawyers? Usually they couldn’t care less what the truth is; they’re hired guns aimed at the opponent’s bank account.
How does one win? By making a case for his client and driving for it like a ball carrier behind the line of scrimmage. What About Truth? Justice? Right? Ho ho ho.
I’m not equating debaters and lawyers in all respects. I don’t think that most debaters are amoral leeches. But ask yourself this: have you ever seen a debater rub his chin and say, “I dunno; you got a good point there.” No. No matter how much sense his opponent makes, a debater will continue to charge ahead as though his opponent is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Things are more honest here on the forums, but not entirely so. When it comes down to actual debates, progress pretty well ceases. I like it when we struggle to clarify our respective postions and the reasons for them.
Compare it to the courts. Haven’t most of us been in a real courtroom (not that television garbage) and watched the lawyers? Usually they couldn’t care less what the truth is; they’re hired guns aimed at the opponent’s bank account.
How does one win? By making a case for his client and driving for it like a ball carrier behind the line of scrimmage. What About Truth? Justice? Right? Ho ho ho.
I’m not equating debaters and lawyers in all respects. I don’t think that most debaters are amoral leeches. But ask yourself this: have you ever seen a debater rub his chin and say, “I dunno; you got a good point there.” No. No matter how much sense his opponent makes, a debater will continue to charge ahead as though his opponent is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Things are more honest here on the forums, but not entirely so. When it comes down to actual debates, progress pretty well ceases. I like it when we struggle to clarify our respective postions and the reasons for them.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I think these debates are a great thing.
Such discussions help get the truth out there.
1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear
And it fulfills the scriptures!
Such discussions help get the truth out there.
1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear
And it fulfills the scriptures!
P
petra
Guest
I agree that debates are beneficial. If there is any hope for healing the rift between Catholics and Protestants, it is through communication and the pursuit of Truth. This also equips us to evangelize non-Christians because they often have similar objections to the Catholic faith.
E
elgom
Guest
I think debates are very helpful. There has been so much misinformation out there about who and what the Catholic Church is and believe that perhaps it will help in our understanding of each other. It is very interesting to me that “everyone” snipes at the Catholic Church, other denominations get it too, but there is such a unified effort against the Church that it begs the question “why”. The answer because it is the “Truth”.
I am so thankful for the gift of the Church and so filled with exuberance that I would burst if I couldn’t share it. Even if someone isn’t listening all that well I know the Holy Spirit will impress them with this and plant a seed that others will water.
Only God can know what that little pebble thrown into the pond will do in the ripples. Let’s all be little pebbles falling into the water off the big “Rock”. Sorry I got carried away.
God bless.
I am so thankful for the gift of the Church and so filled with exuberance that I would burst if I couldn’t share it. Even if someone isn’t listening all that well I know the Holy Spirit will impress them with this and plant a seed that others will water.
Only God can know what that little pebble thrown into the pond will do in the ripples. Let’s all be little pebbles falling into the water off the big “Rock”. Sorry I got carried away.
God bless.
I voted “Other.”
I think debates are fine in and of themselves. But I doubt a debate was ever really the final reason for anyone’s conversion. Cooperation with the Holy Spirit is much more (name removed by moderator)ortant.
Like many other things, there are rules for debates and not every debater understands or follows the rules. In any kind of logical exchange the parties have to agree on the point of the debate and on the rules for admitting evidence.
I rather enjoy debates where both parties are charitable with each other and are honestly and sincerely exchanging information. If the debaters show concern and compassion for each other, even when they disagree, I think they help remove the (often irrational)emotional and authority objections to their position.
Charitble debates also have a positve impact on the non-debating audience. The audience will hopefully learn the rules of debate and will be able to examine their own positions.
Even if the topic of debate is as important as Faith, I think the parties have to be able to exhibit a certain detachment from their position. But I’ve seen too many debates where the point seemed to be to attack or discredit the other person rather than to challenge that person’s viewpoint.
I think debates are fine in and of themselves. But I doubt a debate was ever really the final reason for anyone’s conversion. Cooperation with the Holy Spirit is much more (name removed by moderator)ortant.
Like many other things, there are rules for debates and not every debater understands or follows the rules. In any kind of logical exchange the parties have to agree on the point of the debate and on the rules for admitting evidence.
I rather enjoy debates where both parties are charitable with each other and are honestly and sincerely exchanging information. If the debaters show concern and compassion for each other, even when they disagree, I think they help remove the (often irrational)emotional and authority objections to their position.
Charitble debates also have a positve impact on the non-debating audience. The audience will hopefully learn the rules of debate and will be able to examine their own positions.
Even if the topic of debate is as important as Faith, I think the parties have to be able to exhibit a certain detachment from their position. But I’ve seen too many debates where the point seemed to be to attack or discredit the other person rather than to challenge that person’s viewpoint.
S
SOGFPP
Guest
Hello all!
In my process of conversion to the Catholic faith, I ran across a message board that was filled with several anti-Catholics and a few wonderful Catholic posters.
The anger and hatred of those anti-Catholic posters and the charity and knowledge of the Catholic debaters really helped me discern my path towards full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
My advice… keep yourselves sharp with debate, but always take the high road and practice charity and humility… you may never know who is reading!!
Peace,
Scott
FYI… one of those wonderful Catholics who helped me so much in my conversion posts here now!!!
God Bless you Salmon… :bowdown:
I, for one, think they have great benefit for both the debaters and those who may read them.
In my process of conversion to the Catholic faith, I ran across a message board that was filled with several anti-Catholics and a few wonderful Catholic posters.
The anger and hatred of those anti-Catholic posters and the charity and knowledge of the Catholic debaters really helped me discern my path towards full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
My advice… keep yourselves sharp with debate, but always take the high road and practice charity and humility… you may never know who is reading!!
Peace,
Scott
FYI… one of those wonderful Catholics who helped me so much in my conversion posts here now!!!
God Bless you Salmon… :bowdown:
S
Salena
Guest
I haven’t checked with Websters yet, but I always thought of a debate as somewhat of an argument. The best debater wins, no matter what the facts are.
When I hear the word dialogue I think of people exchanging information and, in the case of a Protestant and Catholic, explaining the roots of each others beliefs. So, with these two definitions (right or wrong) I think debating is harmful because it’s bound to get ugly. One or the other is going to walk away hurt or angry. Dialogue on the other hand is good. Exchanging information without trying to convince the other person that we are right can be very beneficial.
If this makes sense
When I hear the word dialogue I think of people exchanging information and, in the case of a Protestant and Catholic, explaining the roots of each others beliefs. So, with these two definitions (right or wrong) I think debating is harmful because it’s bound to get ugly. One or the other is going to walk away hurt or angry. Dialogue on the other hand is good. Exchanging information without trying to convince the other person that we are right can be very beneficial.
If this makes sense
Findnmway:
a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
For dialogue I found:
2 a : a conversation between two or more persons; also : a similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer) b : an exchange of ideas and opinions c : a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
I believe there is some overlap of definition between the two but I like the last definition of dialogue the best. But even the definiton of debate says that there are rules and regulations to be followed. I think the ugliness usually comes in when the rules aren’t followed.
When I think of a debate that doesn’t follow the rules, I can’t help but think of that old Monty Python sketch, “The Argument Clinic”.
I checked Websters-Meriam and found the following definition for debate:I haven’t checked with Websters yet, but I always thought of a debate as somewhat of an argument. The best debater wins, no matter what the facts are.
When I hear the word dialogue I think of people exchanging information and, in the case of a Protestant and Catholic, explaining the roots of each others beliefs. So, with these two definitions (right or wrong) I think debating is harmful because it’s bound to get ugly. One or the other is going to walk away hurt or angry. Dialogue on the other hand is good. Exchanging information without trying to convince the other person that we are right can be very beneficial.
If this makes sense
a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
For dialogue I found:
2 a : a conversation between two or more persons; also : a similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer) b : an exchange of ideas and opinions c : a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
I believe there is some overlap of definition between the two but I like the last definition of dialogue the best. But even the definiton of debate says that there are rules and regulations to be followed. I think the ugliness usually comes in when the rules aren’t followed.
When I think of a debate that doesn’t follow the rules, I can’t help but think of that old Monty Python sketch, “The Argument Clinic”.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Debate, in the strict sense of the word, is good. However, gentle discussion can, in its way, also be a form of debate.
Apologetics has had a hard run of it in the past decades, but it is making a comeback, and that’s good. At its best, it serves to clear the ground for evangelization. Although we will never argue someone into the Church, there are many misconceptions among our separated brethren about what the church is and teaches (for instance, a good number think that the Catholic Church teaches that all Protestants are damned), and even in the basis for some of the doctrines they hold themselves why DO they hold that Holy Scripture is inspired and has authority?)…
When someone comes to know the Lord, and enters into the fulness of his mystical body, the Church, that is the work of God the Holy Spirit. Apologetics prepares the ground for, and evangelization assists in, cooperation with the Spirit.
Blessings,
Gerry
Apologetics has had a hard run of it in the past decades, but it is making a comeback, and that’s good. At its best, it serves to clear the ground for evangelization. Although we will never argue someone into the Church, there are many misconceptions among our separated brethren about what the church is and teaches (for instance, a good number think that the Catholic Church teaches that all Protestants are damned), and even in the basis for some of the doctrines they hold themselves why DO they hold that Holy Scripture is inspired and has authority?)…
When someone comes to know the Lord, and enters into the fulness of his mystical body, the Church, that is the work of God the Holy Spirit. Apologetics prepares the ground for, and evangelization assists in, cooperation with the Spirit.
Blessings,
Gerry
B
briand
Guest
I think it depends, most of the time I think it just strokes egos and reinforces true believerism, but I am very jaded so please take my view with a grain of salt.
S
SojournerOf78
Guest
Well not every board is for debate although that is usually where it leads…I have learned a lot from the boards in the past couple weeks and have changed my beliefs on some different things, and that I feel is good, I am certainly more informed than I was…
:banghead: I also have a headache from spending a greater part of the day over at CARM :banghead: …but even that was good in its own ways :banghead:
One thing I learned today though is that if we come to the board with the attitude of “debating”, no one ever walks away changed, in fact the person that is wrong will walk away more convinced that he/she is right…and the other, if they are right walks away thinking they must be right about everything else…it can be a bad environment in that aspect.
Debating :bowdown: Sola Fide :bowdown: has been one of the most heinous things I have ever been through…
:banghead: I also have a headache from spending a greater part of the day over at CARM :banghead: …but even that was good in its own ways :banghead:
One thing I learned today though is that if we come to the board with the attitude of “debating”, no one ever walks away changed, in fact the person that is wrong will walk away more convinced that he/she is right…and the other, if they are right walks away thinking they must be right about everything else…it can be a bad environment in that aspect.
Debating :bowdown: Sola Fide :bowdown: has been one of the most heinous things I have ever been through…
A
achief1652
Guest
I think a good discussion on any topic is healthy. Providing all involved keep an open mind. The attitude of “I’m right and you are wrong” never wins converts or respect. Your stance in a healthy discussion, will be supported or under cut by the way you live your life. I am a terrible debater, but I love to discuss my faith. And in a small group I tend to be able to explain the Catholic belief. There for I believe a debate is only as good as the people in the debate
M
Michael_C
Guest
I think face to face debates are extremely good for everyone involved. We learn about each other. I find online forum / e-mail debates to be worthless. These tend to be contests.
I
Ignatius
Guest
St. Paul tells us to have a ready answer for those who question us about The Faith. I do not respond much, but I learn a great deal so as to be prepared to answere if I am asked. These discussions have certainly brought to light a great deal information in the repository of Faith of which I was completely unaware foundation of the Faith.
- Status