Apologists can defend anything...EXCEPT APOLOGETICS!

[Church_Militant]

I agree that apologetics is one aspect of evangelism; my point (which was not clear) is that some overemphasize the place of logic within apologetics.

What is the logic of God appearing to Moses as a burning bush?

What is the logic of Man sinning, and God becoming Man so as to expiate Man’s sins?

And yet apologetics is largely concerned with the deposit of faith and what we know of Man and God as a result.

Apologetics is predominantly concerned with Truth, not logic. Truth is Truth even where we cannot fully comprehend it.

As my local radio talk show is wont to say, “Agreement is not required.”

Much better!

 

[Janet_S]

If the Church didn’t call Mr. Smith and tell him that murder is a mortal sin, he’d still probably get the idea. But, if the Church didn’t call up Mr. Smith and tell him Gay-Sex was a mortal sin, and he was gay, I think he’d have NO CLUE…

There is absolute no scientific evidence that there is a “homosexual gene.”

Homosexual sex most definitely goes against the natural law. Any person who engages in it has to be aware of this and experiences some sense of guilt. It is a law written on the heart.

People in the gay lifestyle often blame society at large for their sense of guilt, and that is why they are trying to get society’s stamp of approval through legitimizing same-sex marriage.

It doesn’t matter what society’s position on this is, though. Homosexual sex will always go against natural law and people engaged in this activity will always struggle with their consciences.

 

[Janet_S]

I could probably name a dozen people my own age who’ve done more charitable work than I have ever done, since I’ve been too busy contemplating the essence of charity. For all I know, people find God more through selfless actions than they could ever find him in Summa Theologica.

I’ll be frank with you. In retrospect I don’t think I came to these forums to find God or help humanity, but because I was insecure. – Plain and simple.

You will gain a lot of wisdom just through prayer and loving people. Get out in the world and live the Gospel. Maybe apologetics per se is not your gift.

 

[Joe_5859]

It seems to me that apologetics and evangelization have been conflated by the OP.

I’ve always thought of evangelization as going out to other people whereas apologetics is just helping to remove the obstacles for those who come to you with questions and are sincerely looking for the truth.

I think that I understand what the OP is getting at, but it only makes sense if we think of heaven apart from God. As another poster pointed out, heaven is not just some divine amusement park. If that’s all it was, then it would make sense to try to sneak in any way we could. If this is how we think of heaven, then it does seem odd for God to punish us by withholding admission simply because we may be unfamiliar with the Park rules.

Rather, heaven is all about being in the presence of God. It is about coming to know a person (well, actually three persons). It is in getting to know God as He is that we will enjoy heaven. That is why we evangelize and catechize and utilize apologetics. We want as many people as possible to get to know God better. We want them to know the truth about God because that is the key to happiness.

We cannot say that all non-Catholics will automatically get to heaven because they didn’t know any better. They may be judged with less severity, but they will still be judged. Hiding the truth about the Gospel can never be anything but a disservice to other people. Those who are not ignorant of the Gospel may be held to a higher standard, but the corresponding graces that accompany life in the Catholic Church far outweigh this. It is far better to have the Sacraments and be judged more severely than to not have them and be judged less severely.

Janet S’ comment about the ferrari analogy is spot on. There is cost involved, and some aren’t willing to pay the price. Sure, if someone just had to walk down the street to pick up their 5 cent Ferrari, ignorance of the deal would be the only thing keeping them away. But what if the store selling these cheap cars was at the top of Mount Everest and you had to hike to the top in order to cash in? Even if you made the gruelling journey, once you got up there, you still wouldn’t be quite sure how you’d get back down with your cheap luxury sports car. Ignorance wouldn’t be the only thing keeping people away.

As a priest friend of mine always used to say, Christianity hasn’t been tried and found wanting, it’s been tried and found difficult.

 

[Teflon93]

That’s a great post, Joe.

There’s a tendency for some to view things the way the other son in the parable of the Prodigal Son did: Why should the Prodigal Son get to have all the “fun” of sin and be restored to the home? Why shouldn’t the feast be for ME, who never left?

It is all about walking with God. I don’t envy those who don’t know Him, or who reject Him. Their lives will be full of desperation, full of pain, and full of despair in ways we can only imagine. They will forever seek and not find.

The simple fact is that the Prodigal Son endured the crucible of sin, and would have to bear the guilt and shame of his foolishness in addition to the pain he undoubtedly endured before returning humbly home. The “faithful” son was spared all of this, and yet was not grateful, but perversely envious of his fallen brother when he should have been happy for his father and his brother both upon their reunion and reconciliation.

We must share the Gospel until all of the Prodigal Sons come home. Apologetics is one tool we use to light the way.

 

[Pete_1]

People who are invincibly ignorant will still go to hell for the same reasons Catholics will go to hell, namely, they die in a state of mortal sin.

Does not invincibly ignorant mean that you do not have ‘full knowlegde’ that an action is sinfull and therefore cannot commit a mortal sin?

 

[Teflon93]

Does not invincibly ignorant mean that you do not have ‘full knowlegde’ that an action is sinfull and therefore cannot commit a mortal sin?

That certainly is part of it. But keep in mind non-Catholics may not have access to all of the sacraments. The point of the sacraments, of course, is to build our righteousness and keep us from sin.

While not attending Mass is not a mortal for most non-Catholics (those not baptized Catholic in particular), it can lead to other mortal sins freely indulged. These imperil one’s salvation.

 

[Joe_5859]

That’s a great post, Joe.

Thanks, Teflon! :blushing:

You bring up a great point with the Parable of the Prodigal Son. I think that pretty much sums it up! We want to have all the “fun” of sin, and yet still have all the “fun” of heaven, too. God forbid we miss out on anything “fun”!

Then we think, “Well it’s too late for me because I know better. But why would I want to deny anyone else from getting the best of both? Better not to evangelize. That way people can sin their little hearts out and still get to heaven simply because they don’t know any better!”

That seems to me to be a very dangerous train of thought.

 

[Janet_S]

Thanks, Teflon! :blushing:

You bring up a great point with the Parable of the Prodigal Son. I think that pretty much sums it up! We want to have all the “fun” of sin, and yet still have all the “fun” of heaven, too. God forbid we miss out on anything “fun”!

Then we think, “Well it’s too late for me because I know better. But why would I want to deny anyone else from getting the best of both? Better not to evangelize. That way people can sin their little hearts out and still get to heaven simply because they don’t know any better!”

That seems to me to be a very dangerous train of thought.

It seems that the popular heresy today is that too many people believe everyone will make it to heaven, and no one will go to Hell.

Remember, Jesus Himself said:

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few. Matthew 7:13-14

I know I get nervous when I read Matthew 25:33-36:

33
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

I think the statements from *Lumen Gentium * affirm that we cannot exclude the possibility that non-Catholics will make it to heaven. But we definitely can’t assume everybody has a free pass either.

 

[Teflon93]

Great points, Joe and Janet! :clapping:

Christ says the gates of Heaven are narrow.

Christ says not all will make it through them.

Christ doesn’t lie.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Thanks, Teflon! :blushing:

You bring up a great point with the Parable of the Prodigal Son. I think that pretty much sums it up! We want to have all the “fun” of sin, and yet still have all the “fun” of heaven, too. God forbid we miss out on anything “fun”!

Then we think, “Well it’s too late for me because I know better. But why would I want to deny anyone else from getting the best of both? Better not to evangelize. That way people can sin their little hearts out and still get to heaven simply because they don’t know any better!”

That seems to me to be a very dangerous train of thought.

You think the lives of protestants, muslims, or even atheists are all fun and games? Far from it. Let’s not debate what I’m not talkin about, for I *too *feel that bad people who are bad intentioned and do bad things deserve some sort of poetic justice in the end.

Rather, I am asking “What’s the point of arguing over which religion holds the most truth?” *because *religion – in my view – really doesn’t have a huge impact on a person’s good or bad actions and intentions.

Some priests have violated children while some atheists have worked for the poor and vise-versa. If their respective world-views and theological stances had been that much different, do you think it would have made a heck of a lot of difference?

 

[jssaxon]

As far as my blind eyes can see, I’m wasting my time here. Day after day I venture through these forums trying to figure how a plethora of church teachings make logical sense – from those on sexuality to those on weekly mass attendance, yet after reading and sorting through answers to life’s questions, at most, I end up seeing how church teachings make THEOlogical sense.

Sadly though, the second you remove our friend “Theo” from his lofty prefix position, it takes an inordinate amount of time to make sense of say…the Church’s stance on masturbation…to the secular world. From the Church’s understanding of the issue, 94% of the world is sinning while only 1% of the world knows about it! 94%!!! 94% IS A MAJOR STINKIN’ CRISIS!!! But from a secular, non-theological standpoint, life goes on…

The Church (like any charitable, loving organization) does not want people to be bound for hell (or “eternal separation”…whatever), and in due course, the Church holds that people in error may still be saved if they are blinded by so-called “invincible ignorance”. But who is supremely ignorant? In my case, I’m hoping all the non-Catholics on this board are!

Ultimately, under “invincible ignorance”, just about every nonCath in the world would fall under this category, because in the end, only disinformation or shear ignorance would keep ANYBODY from being a member of the truest religion and therefore the surest ticket to paradise.

However…

“Invincibly ignorant” people live just as good, honest lives as the few Catholics in the world “who know the truth”. SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF APOLOGETICS? What does it matter who holds what truth then? Certainly going to hell is worse than having your clothes set on fire, yet when “believers” on these forums chat with “nonbelievers” on the “lower forums”, they don’t exactly act as if a fire has to be put out.

So again: what is the point of apologetics?

Ha!!! You’re right!!!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Simply put, we don’t know who is invincibly ignorant or not. Only God knows this as far as I know. However, the commandments which contains our duties toward men (honor mother and father, no murder, no lying, no stealing, etc.) no one of reasonable age is excempt from this.

So, for example, if an Aztec priest were to face before God and be asked why he participated in human sacrifice, he would not be able to say, “I did not know it was wrong”.

Yes, actually he did know this was wrong regardless of what his culture taught him. And, in accordance with the natural law enscribed onto his heart, he is held accountable to these duties toward humanity

The natural law is believed to be written on the hearts of all people regardless of culture or language-- this knowledge of our duty toward man (who was made in the image of God) was not lost with the fall of man (even if the supernatural aspect was).

The Christian faith seeks to reach out and fulfill this natural law with the knowledge of Christ, a natural law that already existed before they were ever pointed toward Christ though evangelization.

Consequently, simply breaking the natural law is a real danger to people-- especially if they have not heard the supernatural aspects of the commandments which pertain directly to God and are supernaturally revealed.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**A missionary went to the Eskimos to teach them about God, salvation, etc. He went to great length about talking about heaven and hell, and how horrible the torture and agony in hell would be. **

But many indigenous Alaskan peoples–especially the Tlingits and Aleuts–embraced Orthodoxy.

 

[Teflon93]

You think the lives of protestants, muslims, or even atheists are all fun and games? Far from it. Let’s not debate what I’m not talkin about, for I *too *feel that bad people who are bad intentioned and do bad things deserve some sort of poetic justice in the end.

But of course we don’t get to decide that. Sin is misery; that’s a universal truth, which is why “fun” was in quotes.

Rather, I am asking “What’s the point of arguing over which religion holds the most truth?” *because *religion – in my view – really doesn’t have a huge impact on a person’s good or bad actions and intentions.

Well, all evidence contradicts you. Might want to read up on those 20th century regimes which banned religion, for example. 100 million dead testify rather strongly to the ability of religion to moderate evil. This is a rather inconvenient fact for atheists who respect history less than religion and have to explain away the abattoirs of atheist regimes.

Some priests have violated children while some atheists have worked for the poor and vise-versa. If their respective world-views and theological stances had been that much different, do you think it would have made a heck of a lot of difference?

Ye seek in vain for the noble atheist, my friend. May I suggest reading a biography of famous atheists like Ayn Rand or Madeleine Murray O’Hare?

Might be worth a deeper study before casting the world into the pit of godlessness.

 

[Janet_S]

You think the lives of protestants, muslims, or even atheists are all fun and games? Far from it. Let’s not debate what I’m not talkin about, for I *too *feel that bad people who are bad intentioned and do bad things deserve some sort of poetic justice in the end.

Rather, I am asking “What’s the point of arguing over which religion holds the most truth?” *because *religion – in my view – really doesn’t have a huge impact on a person’s good or bad actions and intentions.

Some priests have violated children while some atheists have worked for the poor and vise-versa. If their respective world-views and theological stances had been that much different, do you think it would have made a heck of a lot of difference?

Every action is preceded by a thought.

Since a person’s religion shapes his worldview, how could religion not have a huge impact on a person’s good or bad actions and intentions?

You are comparing the worst Catholic with the best atheist. Why don’t you look at the best Catholics, the saints and martyrs. You won’t find any Mother Teresa’s or St Francis of Assisi’s in the non-Catholic world.

 

[Janet_S]

Interesting quote from a famous atheist:

I have been mistaken. It was necessary, I suppose, to liberate the multitude of oppressed people; but our method has provoked other oppressions, frightful massacres. You know that my most awful nightmare is to feel myself drowning in the blood of countless victims. To save our Russia, what we needed (but it is too late now) was ten Francises of Assisi. Ten Francises of Assisi, and we should have saved Russia.—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in his deathbed confession to a Hungarian priest, quoted in The Francis Book.

frimmin.com/etcetera/prevwis1.html

 

[Joe_5859]

Teflon and Janet said pretty much what I would have said (and then some!), so I will add just a few things.

**Some **priests have violated children while **some **atheists have worked for the poor and vise-versa. If their respective world-views and theological stances had been that much different, do you think it would have made a heck of a lot of difference?

The key word here being some, not all or most.

If someone’s religion does not make that big a difference in their life, they’re not really practicing their religion.

You are comparing the worst Catholic with the best atheist. Why don’t you look at the best Catholics, the saints and martyrs. You won’t find any Mother Teresa’s or St Francis of Assisi’s in the non-Catholic world.

Amen! Not to be a shameless self-promoter , but I recently wrote something similar in my blog. We wouldn’t judge the brilliance of Mozart based on someone who can’t even play the piano. We judge Mozart’s brilliance based on those who play well. Thus it makes far more sense to judge the Catholic Church based on those who live out the Church’s teachings well rather than those who don’t (i.e. the saints).

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Amen! Not to be a shameless self-promoter , but I recently wrote something similar in my blog. We wouldn’t judge the brilliance of Mozart based on someone who can’t even play the piano. We judge Mozart’s brilliance based on those who play well. Thus it makes far more sense to judge the Catholic Church based on those who live out the Church’s teachings well rather than those who don’t (i.e. the saints).

Thus it makes far more sense to judge Buddhism based on those who live out Buddhism’s teachings well rather than those who don’t.

Thus it makes far more sense to judge Lutheranism based on those who live out Lutheranism’s teachings well rather than those who don’t.

Thus it makes far more sense to judge Hinduism based on those who live out Hinduism’s teachings well rather than those who don’t.

Thus it makes far more sense to judge Mormonsim based on those who live out Mormonism’s (curent ) teachings well rather than those who don’t.

Thus it makes far more sense to judge Secular Humanism based on those who live out Secular Humanism’s *ideals * well rather than those who don’t.

Don’t make this too easy for me…

 

[teachccd]

I suppose the crucial question is, how much knowledge of and communion with God is enough? How much should a person be satisfied with? At what point is it reasonable to say “OK, I don’t desire to know anything else about God, or to be any closer to God”?

Utilize your question with a loved one on earth. What would be your answer? Now we can talk about the God who gave you that loved one…