Debating Fundies

  • Thread starter Thread starter Servus_Pio_XII
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Servus_Pio_XII

Guest
I am debating via email a woman from “Former Catholics For Christ”, an offshoot of Cutting Edge ministries. I need to know how to debate someone who uses only the “you are a pagan” rhetoric, and refuses to answer point blank, direct questions. It brings me to the point of looking like this guy → :mad: , but I know I cannot show it at risk of losing the debate. Can you help me? 😦
 
If they refuse to answer questions, then it’s not really a debate, is it? She’s just yelling at you without explaining her beliefs. I guess you should just pray for her and hope that your patience bears fruit. Sorry that I can’t help much, I’ll pray for you, though.
 
I don’t know if this will work or not, but it might get her attention. Ask her to take a step back and ask the most basic, fundamental question of Christianity… “What did Christ institute?” Think about it, God on Earth and what did he do???

He did not write one word of scripture. He did not commission the Apostles to write scripture. He did not prepare the first century Christians for a upcoming authoritative book - or the written word at all for that matter. Furthermore, the Apostles seemingly didn’t make writing any sort of priority. Depending on who you think wrote what, basically 3 (min) - 5 (max) Apostles out of 11 wrote anything apparently. Christ in no way, shape or form instituted the Bible as any rule of faith, let alone the sole rule of faith. Christ instituted a CHURCH - end of story. Now, not to belittle the Bible, which Christ did not institute, but the Bible is a record of the things that Christ DID institute!!!

Church
Papacy
Priesthood

Baptism
Confession
Eucharist
Confirmation
Annointing of the sick
Marriage
Holy Orders

Wow, that sounds Catholic to me. I actually thought all of this up today, so it isn’t all that developed of an argument, and it could also be wrong too… (aka disclaimer!)

I went through a Christian crises recently after laughing at all of the holes in the book of Mormon… “Who could believe such a thing?” I thought, but then I found a web site that kindly mentioned all of the holes in the Bible… One of which is that we don’t know who wrote some of the books of the Bible… Don’t you think that knowing who wrote something would be a prerequisite to declaring it infallible??? OUCH!!! Then it came to me that Christ didn’t institute a Bible, he instituted a Church that still exists today against all odds and in spite of itself at times!!!

Hope that helps!!!

Catholics for Christ has a mentality about 1/2 notch above the KKK - at best… perhaps we should just call them the KKC…
 
40.png
maesoph:
Catholics for Christ has a mentality about 1/2 notch above the KKK…
Click to expand...
You mean, Former Catholics for Christ? 😉
 
All you can do is invite them to reconsider the basis for their misperceptions about Catholic doctrine and practices. It’s really up to them to decide to take a second look at the issue. If they’re entrenched in their belief and unwilling to see the arguments you’ve presented, you can’t go much further. There’s a time when you have to let go of it and just trust God. Pray for them and then knock the dust of your sandals and move on to the next village, so to speak.

Charity in all things.
 
I was in a debate with a Church of Christ friend of mine…and it was the first time I have totally defended…not just avoided by saying you have your beliefs…I have mine.

My Adreneline took over and almost ruined the whole thing…my heart started pounding so hard and I began to shake…I excused myself to go to the bathroom, composed myself and did O.K…I’ll do better next time.

I think that staying calm and focused is the Key…we all know the answers, pray to the holy spirit…

She said that drinking beer was sinful, and that the wine Jesus drank was unfermented…While I was drinking a beer mind you, and so she was basically calling me out.

…I told her that no respectful Jewish person would drink unfermented wine, and Jesus was a top notch Jew. welches grape juice wasn’t invented until 1930…and all things in excess can be sinful

It went on to several topics, which I did well…but not great… I believe it was a victory for me when she said…well…we’re all christians after all, I respect your beliefs…

I think this thing takes practice!!!

Good Luck!
 
You should no more debate an anti-Catholic than you should debate a KKK member on race issues. While they deserve our prayers and answers to legitimate questions, they don’t deserve a hearing. What you described is not a debate. It is a forum for them to spout off.

Scott
 
It will be difficult to debate if you stick with matters of personal faith or belief
I mean if someone says “I believe X” what are you going to say…“No you don’t”?

BUT if she starts talking about others’ beliefs and teachings or misrepresenting actual verifiable historical events or other items where you have facts then, if you feel compelled to respond, give her the verbal smack down she deserves…charitably of course. 😉

Generally cranks like that will just keep shouting at you regardless of what you say. They will employ classic tricks like the appeal to authority, the strawman, or the moving goal post. Just be patient and give her detailed responses to her points and then watch her reveal to the rest of the board what she is really made of.
 
Jimmy Akin and Steve Greydanus compiled a “Fundamentalist Catechism” which shows the mindset of a Fundamentalist.
cin.org/users/james/files/howtodis.htm

While it’s a humorous look at how Fundamentalists argue their beliefs, it is also informative. Fundies dismiss any Catholic argument because it’s Catholic. As a former Fundie, now a Catholic, told me, Protestants can’t agree on anything except that Catholics are wrong.
This is pretty much the position of the person you are debating. There may be no talking to her because her mind is closed to the truth. Don’t get into a “you’re wrong, no you’re wrong” argument with her. Just present the Catholic faith clearly and concisely to her and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
 
Servus Pio XII:
I am debating via email a woman from “Former Catholics For Christ”, an offshoot of Cutting Edge ministries. I need to know how to debate someone who uses only the “you are a pagan” rhetoric, and refuses to answer point blank, direct questions. It brings me to the point of looking like this guy → :mad: , but I know I cannot show it at risk of losing the debate. Can you help me? 😦
Click to expand...
Servus,

Phil Neri hit it on the head: calling you a pagan and refusing to answer your questions is not a debate, it is name-calling. The formal term for it is “ad hominem,” meaning that the arguer is attacking the person and not the argument. Someone once said that “ad hominem is the last gasp of the losing side.” What it means is that the person has no real reason to think or believe the way he does. There is really no way to reason with a person like this; all (and that’s quite a bit) you can do is pray–for an increase in the virtue of patience in yourself and for enlightenment in the other person.
  • Liberian
 
Servus Pio XII:
… I need to know how to debate someone who uses only the “you are a pagan” rhetoric, and refuses to answer point blank, direct questions. …
Click to expand...
You can’t. In their eyes you will always be wrong no matter what you say. Only thing I would do is say “I’ll pray for you”
~ Kathy ~
 
Fundies dismiss any Catholic argument because it’s Catholic
Click to expand...
Your using too broad of a brush here. I am a fundamentalist here who is very curious about what you are saying. Also name calling does not equal fundamentalist.

-Tim
 
40.png
timz:
Your using too broad of a brush here. I am a fundamentalist here who is very curious about what you are saying. Also name calling does not equal fundamentalist.

-Tim
Click to expand...
Good point and charitably made. Those folks over at FCFC are … over the edge in their rhetoric and anger.

(heresy frequently begins in the pants and is therefore a source of anger)
 
40.png
Liberian:
Servus,

Phil Neri hit it on the head: calling you a pagan and refusing to answer your questions is not a debate, it is name-calling. The formal term for it is “ad hominem,” meaning that the arguer is attacking the person and not the argument. Someone once said that “ad hominem is the last gasp of the losing side.” What it means is that the person has no real reason to think or believe the way he does. There is really no way to reason with a person like this; all (and that’s quite a bit) you can do is pray–for an increase in the virtue of patience in yourself and for enlightenment in the other person.
  • Liberian
Click to expand...
Good points! I would agree that debate with that person is impossible, but I think you should point out to them that calling you a pagan is an ad hominem attack, as Liberian said, and not a logical argument. Once they realize they need to apply logic, you may get somewhere with them.
 
40.png
timz:
Your using too broad of a brush here. I am a fundamentalist here who is very curious about what you are saying. Also name calling does not equal fundamentalist.

-Tim
Click to expand...
Tim – you get extra points just for saying that you ARE a fundamentalist! The origin of the term is perfectly respectable, and we should remember that – notwithstanding some of the insanity that is now attached to the word.

I see you are new here. Some of us may react without thinking because we DO get a lot of nasty Catholic-baiting here. We also get a lot of bull-headed stupidity:

Catholics worship Mary
No, we don’t.
Yes, you do.
No, worship is for God alone; we venerate Mary as the Mother of our Lord.
Same thing.
No, it isn’t.
Yes, it is.

So, we get a little weary. :whacky:

Welcome!
 
40.png
timz:
Your using too broad of a brush here. I am a fundamentalist here who is very curious about what you are saying. Also name calling does not equal fundamentalist.
Click to expand...
I agree with Timz, and would ask that we be a little more cognizant of making unfair generalizations about “fundamentalists” and “evangelicals”. The people who populate anti-catholic message boards do not represent fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity as a whole. They may not even be representative of their particular denomination.

I know that it is easy for Catholics to deride the profusion of Protestant denominations, but if your intention is to witness and convert, then you must respect those differences and treat people as individuals.

–Bill
 
Mot Juste:
I agree with Timz, and would ask that we be a little more cognizant of making unfair generalizations about “fundamentalists” and “evangelicals”. The people who populate anti-catholic message boards do not represent fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity as a whole. They may not even be representative of their particular denomination.

I know that it is easy for Catholics to deride the profusion of Protestant denominations, but if your intention is to witness and convert, then you must respect those differences and treat people as individuals.

–Bill
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
mercygate, Mot Juste, quasimodo,

All classy responses. It looks like I will enjoy these forums.

mercygate:
The origin of the term is perfectly respectable, and we should remember that – notwithstanding some of the insanity that is now attached to the word.
Click to expand...
I believe much of that insanity is attached by the liberal media. Practicing Catholics, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists all share that enemy.

God Bless,
Tim
 
Thank you very much. She apparently recently read a bit out of the Catchism (a superficial amount, of course), and is now saying that since I cannot interpret scripture without the Magisterum, it is hypocritical for me to quote scriptures.

At least she’s arguing something now.
 
40.png
timz:
I believe much of that insanity is attached by the liberal media. Practicing Catholics, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists all share that enemy.
Click to expand...
Now THAT is truth friend. Well said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top