How can you reason with this line of thinking?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicZ09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicZ09

Guest
There was a post I made on this topic a while back, but I didn’t really get a clear answer, so I though I’d try it again.

A while back in chatting with a Protestant friend, I brought up the Early Church Fathers and how through their writings they were Catholic. My friend said that maybe someone forged every letter of the ECF, and now everything that Catholics believe is the exact opposite of what they believed. Now, how do you reason with this line of thinking? I mean, I see his point, but using this line of thinking denies history, and it’s sort of like saying “How do we know that George Washington existed?” I mean, you could go crazy. Is this taking a myth and acting as though it is actual history? Aren’t we better off following what the ECF’s wrote and not a myth conjugated from our minds?
 
She’s involving herself in backwards thinking to support her conclusion. Ultimately she holds her religious beliefs independantly of what the Church Father’s say. Since it contradicts her conclusion, she is looking for any possibility that will explain the contradiction away and keep her conclusion as supported as possible.

Most of us engage in backwards thinking, so don’t be too critical of it. Stop trying to reason with her. Pray for her and be there to answer questions if she has them. Evangalization is not the same thing as badgering people and getting frustrated with them.

Let it go.
 
twoangels said:
She’s involving herself in backwards thinking to support her conclusion. Ultimately she holds her religious beliefs independantly of what the Church Father’s say. Since it contradicts her conclusion, she is looking for any possibility that will explain the contradiction away and keep her conclusion as supported as possible.

Most of us engage in backwards thinking, so don’t be too critical of it. Stop trying to reason with her. Pray for her and be there to answer questions if she has them. Evangalization is not the same thing as badgering people and getting frustrated with them.

Let it go.
Click to expand...
I’m inclined to agree. There are some people who respond well to being engaged in such a direct way. There are some who don’t and will put up any mental blocker they can find to not see what’s in front of them. Prayer is the best thing in this instance.

God bless,

Rob
 
CatholicZ09 said:
There was a post I made on this topic a while back, but I didn’t really get a clear answer, so I though I’d try it again.

A while back in chatting with a Protestant friend, I brought up the Early Church Fathers and how through their writings they were Catholic. My friend said that maybe someone forged every letter of the ECF, and now everything that Catholics believe is the exact opposite of what they believed. Now, how do you reason with this line of thinking? I mean, I see his point, but using this line of thinking denies history, and it’s sort of like saying “How do we know that George Washington existed?” I mean, you could go crazy. Is this taking a myth and acting as though it is actual history? Aren’t we better off following what the ECF’s wrote and not a myth conjugated from our minds?
Click to expand...
I know a bunch of people who call themselves Christian who just ignore the Gospels for the most part because the Catholic Church just “stuck a lot of stuff in there that Jesus didn’t say and never happened.”

You discuss the weather with these folks if forced to speak with them at all. To maintain this relationship if it is important to you, avoid all discussion of religion.
 
CatholicZ09 said:
There was a post I made on this topic a while back, but I didn’t really get a clear answer, so I though I’d try it again.

A while back in chatting with a Protestant friend, I brought up the Early Church Fathers and how through their writings they were Catholic. My friend said that maybe someone forged every letter of the ECF, and now everything that Catholics believe is the exact opposite of what they believed. Now, how do you reason with this line of thinking? I mean, I see his point, but using this line of thinking denies history, and it’s sort of like saying “How do we know that George Washington existed?” I mean, you could go crazy. Is this taking a myth and acting as though it is actual history? Aren’t we better off following what the ECF’s wrote and not a myth conjugated from our minds?
Click to expand...
Easy! You pray. Daily. For years, if necessary.
 
CatholicZ09 said:
There was a post I made on this topic a while back, but I didn’t really get a clear answer, so I though I’d try it again.

A while back in chatting with a Protestant friend, I brought up the Early Church Fathers and how through their writings they were Catholic. My friend said that maybe someone forged every letter of the ECF, and now everything that Catholics believe is the exact opposite of what they believed. Now, how do you reason with this line of thinking? I mean, I see his point, but using this line of thinking denies history, and it’s sort of like saying “How do we know that George Washington existed?” I mean, you could go crazy. Is this taking a myth and acting as though it is actual history? Aren’t we better off following what the ECF’s wrote and not a myth conjugated from our minds?
Click to expand...
You provided a good answer within the question.
 
The funny part is that if we wanted to assume something was made up, for instance the early church fathers, we also have to assume that anything they support as historical evidence is also made up. For instance, the New Testament alone would be pretty hard to believe in. Why would we trust this 2000 year old book that no one talked about for 2000 years. If all the early church fathers (let’s assume from the year 33 to 400) are all made up… then the bible itself doesn’t hold much credence. It must have been made up as well since no one talked about it for 400 years.

The very fact that there are writings, whether we agree with them or not, indicates that there is good historical evidence to believe the Bible stories were believed and testified to by those who experienced/wrote them.
 
If anyone wants correct historical information they need to rely on the Church. After the protestant rebellion people started doctoring historical documents to suit themselves.
 
Someone like this you just can’t reason with; I’d back away from them very fast, since they seem pretty entrenched in their crazy notions. I don’t think anything can jar them from it. Eesh, I’m sorry you had to suffer through that, brother.
 
I agree that such people are difficult to reason with. I also agree that praying for an increase in Wisdom and Understanding that leads to an increase in Faith is the better path.

The “maybe” crowd fails to see the difference between ‘possible’ and “probable.” Anyone who asserts and hide behind “maybe” should be challenged to provide reliable evidence that can move their idea to probable.

As Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”

In the end, Christ also commanded His Apostles to go and teach. If a town accepts you say awhile and teach more. IF they do not accept it, shake the dust off your sandals and go elsewhere. We are obligated to EXPLAIN not to WIN agruments.

So, did George W really exist? WOW! Whoda thunk that? :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top