Being a Catholic Vulcan

  • Thread starter Thread starter frankpetrucci83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

frankpetrucci83

Guest
I have a difficult time once in awhile when it comes to debating. Although Vulcans have emotions they are capable of controlling them. I literally do not understand why people refuse to accept logical evidence and resort to emotional appeals or motives for their choice of faith. It seems that most noncatholics have chosen their religion based on what they want God to be rather than what he has actually revealed himself to be. This is illogical. Even when talking to fellow Catholics the rules should be simple. The Church has the final authority on the matter. If i say something in contradiction with the Church’s is teaching then I admit I am wrong when shown a simple Catechism quote that proves my error. I believe I am coming across as insensitive and uncharitable towards people based on their reactions. In reality, I am only being logically objective and not letting emotions interfere with my faith or reasoning. Can anyone help me become a better apologist, evangelist, and teacher by addressing my concerns? Thank you in advance.
 
HI Francpetrucci83,

Firstly, your attitude is valid and consistent with a particular personality type, of which there are several - each personailty type takes a different perspective of Christianity from the others, so just because you believe yourself to be right, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the others are wrong, (or any less right) - we all have different needs.

If you take a look at : - thenoxfactor.com/files/NoxonMyers-Briggs.pdf
it explains the relationship between personality type and Christianity, without needing a degree in psychology,
Hope this helps,

God bless
 
frankpetrucci83 said:
I have a difficult time once in awhile when it comes to debating. Although Vulcans have emotions they are capable of controlling them.
Click to expand...
You could replace “Vulcan” with “Stoic” for easier reference, though I suppose that creates a bit of a philosophical problem.
I literally do not understand why people refuse to accept logical evidence and resort to emotional appeals or motives for their choice of faith.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
It seems that most noncatholics have chosen their religion based on what they want God to be rather than what he has actually revealed himself to be. This is illogical.
Click to expand...
Part of it’s that, absolutely!

And part of it is bowing to the demands of more zealous family/friends/love interests.

Seriously, how many kids do you know that grow up and switch their religion for reasons other than, “It’s what my new wife practices”? Chances are you can list a few, but not many.

Or in my confirmation class, for example, do you know how many kids ended up getting confirmed out of 185? 100%!! One-hundred perceeeent! Now think about it: what are the chances that 100% of them reached that conclusion through the use of reason? 0.1%? Just throwing a number out there.

And furthermore, Catholics are not immune to this. Not by a longshot. It’s perfectly possible to be right about something for the wrong reasons (e.g., “My family made me get confirmed,” or “Everyone I know is Catholic.”)
Even when talking to fellow Catholics the rules should be simple. The Church has the final authority on the matter.
Click to expand...
When talking to fellow Catholics.

When not, best to provide “logical” evidence that the Church has such authority. Otherwise, illogical, because you are skipping a crucial step.
 
I never said that I did not prove Church authority when speaking to nonCatholics
 
I’m not sure how relevant that psychology paper is. I just skimmed through it and I may have skipped something but It did not seem like it was treating morality and truth as if it were objective. I could be wrong, as I have only skimmed through it and may have missed that information. Here is a simple fact though. The Catholic Church is either what it claims to be or it is not. Since it can only be true or false, it does not fall within the realm of opinion. The conclusion of truth I come to is from accepting God’s grace on the matter. By giving up my will to God, heart, mind, and soul. (covers every aspect of the psychology) I discover the truth, therefore there is no excuse for anyone of different personality types not to accept the truth. If a person gives up their will to God out of love with heart, mind, and soul, then every single aspect of their possible being will be open to God’s grace. And there is nothing lacking in God’s grace that would prevent it from completing its objective
 
When talking to fellow Catholics.

When not, best to provide “logical” evidence that the Church has such authority. Otherwise, illogical, because you are skipping a crucial step.

if that was not the implication, than what purpose does this statement serve?
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Please describe this epistemology.
Click to expand...
One can only come to the Father through Jesus, but according to the bible even that is only possible through the Holy Spirit. Theoretically, if someone is able to persevere without mortal sin for a week, God should become self-evident to them. Otherwise, Jesus is lying when he says blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see the Lord. So, if someone becomes pure in heart, they will see God. I have never seen a case where this experiment failed.
 
Logic is a powerful tool, but it is not an all-encompassing tool. There are limitations to it, and we begin to reach the limits of logic when we delve in to the realms of emotion, spirituality, and faith. Logic is not a useless tool in these areas, but it begins to realize its limits.

We are physical, intellectual, spiritual, and emotional beings. To disregard one or more of these aspects is folly! Don’t disdain emotional appeals, because for many people those can be more meaningful, more relevant, than logic.

It all depends, of course. What is your goal? To convert someone, or have them understand a faith matter? If an emotional appeal gets the point across, or is the only way a person can effectively get their point across, it is more effective than logic.

Logic is much more often a more effective tool, but it is not the end-all and be-all that some people treat it as. It’s important to realize this! 🙂
 
Garyjohn2 said:
Logic is a powerful tool, but it is not an all-encompassing tool. There are limitations to it, and we begin to reach the limits of logic when we delve in to the realms of emotion, spirituality, and faith. Logic is not a useless tool in these areas, but it begins to realize its limits.

We are physical, intellectual, spiritual, and emotional beings. To disregard one or more of these aspects is folly! Don’t disdain emotional appeals, because for many people those can be more meaningful, more relevant, than logic.

It all depends, of course. What is your goal? To convert someone, or have them understand a faith matter? If an emotional appeal gets the point across, or is the only way a person can effectively get their point across, it is more effective than logic.

Logic is much more often a more effective tool, but it is not the end-all and be-all. It’s important to realize this! 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes. Speaking just for myself, when I was an atheist no amount of logical demonstration could have caused me to become a believer. What finally worked was a combination of events in my life.
 
the goal is to agree on the most obvious of things…for example…how the bible was put together…this doesn’t involve anything other than historical fact…if a person rejects that the bible was put together by a council, I no longer know how to approach such a person
 
frankpetrucci83 said:
the goal is to agree on the most obvious of things…for example…how the bible was put together…this doesn’t involve anything other than historical fact…if a person rejects that the bible was put together by a council, I no longer know how to approach such a person
Click to expand...
Well, this is a case of history and fact, not necessarily faith and belief. If someone will not accept the facts in a case like this…there is little hope. 🙂

Was there enough backup and sources provided? Has the person offered any counter-evidence? It’s possible that this person simply does not want to learn anything new…and a that sounds like a lost cause! Even if you were able to procure the original ancient documents that summoned the bishops of the land to the council signed by the emperor himself…they could say its a fake. I definitely can relate to your frustration in this case. 🙂
 
frankpetrucci83 said:
the goal is to agree on the most obvious of things…for example…how the bible was put together…this doesn’t involve anything other than historical fact…if a person rejects that the bible was put together by a council, I no longer know how to approach such a person
Click to expand...
I think if someone refuses to accept something that is almost universally accepted and very well documented, then all you can do is pray for him or her.
 
Langdell said:
I think if someone refuses to accept something that is almost universally accepted and very well documented, then all you can do is pray for him or her.
Click to expand...
I have alot of people to pray for then. Yes but this is the type of thing I am talking about. I am not talking about faith on a whole, just the logical process. I am sure many apologists on here have spent a good deal of their time properly researching something in order to propose evidence only to have that evidence completely dismissed. Usually whenever something is logically proved to someone, they make an emotional appeal, almost like a reflex. Example, “here is the proof that the Church put together the bible”, Answer, “the church killed millions of people”, or “but the pope is the antichrist and the church is the whore of babylon”, sadly to say, these are not exaggerations of people’s actual responses. And once these accusations are taken seriously and responded to accordingly, it is on to the next list of accusations, “but you worship idols”, “but you make up new doctrine”…I hate to say this but I agree with Thomas Aquinas about unbelievers…a heretic is worse than an atheist…I could quote the Summa, but whenever I do, I feel as if no one actually reads the quote because of how St. Thomas writes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top