How to counter toughies

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

Silverstone

Guest
This is probably in the wrong subforum, but…
I’d just like to know a couple of ways I can systematically respond to each question slapped in my face by an atheist, Jew, or Muslim:
(they’re in no particular order, sorry; thoughts work that way sometimes.)
  1. Is the fetus a human being, and therefore a person, and therefore has all of our rights?
  2. ^ If so, then is abortion a moral evil?
  3. Does the Bible present scientific facts, historical truth, or anything that can be proven scientifically (e.g. the Flood) or is it just a book of Faith, and cannot be counted upon as historically or scientifically accurate?
  4. In a (hypothetical) world where abortion is illegal, what would be the punishment? (Understood to be an optional, hypothetical question)
  5. Does the Catholic Church hold the world back, or is it a force for good?
  6. How can I reconcile the “barbaric” history of the Church, including but not limited to the Inquisition and the Medieval Era?
  7. Why do so many people hate the Church if it teaches truth?
  8. How can I scientifically prove that God exists?
  9. Does the Church discriminate against anybody?
  10. Can the answers to these questions, or anything on this forum, be considered as ‘biased’?
  11. Does the Church ‘waste’ or ‘hoard’ money that could be spent better in helping third-world countries?
  12. Did the Catholic Church ‘steal’ the foundations of its doctrines from ancient sources?
  13. Is Christianity different from Catholicism?
  14. Are Catholics hypocritical in any form?
  15. Is Christ against the Church? (Yes, I notice the extreme whatever-you-want-to-call-it here. But I can’t give a ‘good enough’ answer.)
  16. Does the Church end up by making people hate it on account of its teachings?
  17. Do we consider ourselves as above everybody else and that we can make the rules that we force others to follow?
  18. Are secular historical sources really unfair to the Church?
  19. Does the ‘development of doctrine’ mean that the Church changes its stance on matters, or its terms used to describe its stance?
  20. Does the fact that animals can feel pain mean that they can think as we do?
  21. Is science incompatible with the Church?
  22. What should I do when I am slandered, called names, etc.? Ignore or refute?
  23. Are the consequences of making abortion illegal worse than abortion?
I’ve tried to counter these already; most of the time I get responses such as I’m using a ‘false logic’ fallacy, or I get called… unsavory… names. (Ignorant, among others.) I understand that this is a result of debating with non-Catholics; but I just find it disrespectful of our religion.

BTW, I’m not a newbie to apologetics; please don’t treat me as one. It’s just that I’ve found some questions to which I can’t seem to give a sufficient answer.

Anyway, if I could get some answers, that would help me a whole lot; thanks!
 
I’ve answered most if not all of these in my quick answers, which is a list of threads here on CAF where the issue was raised.
 
Silverstone said:
This is probably in the wrong subforum, but…
I’d just like to know a couple of ways I can systematically respond to each question slapped in my face by an atheist, Jew, or Muslim:
(they’re in no particular order, sorry; thoughts work that way sometimes.)
  1. Is the fetus a human being, and therefore a person, and therefore has all of our rights?
  2. ^ If so, then is abortion a moral evil?
  3. Does the Bible present scientific facts, historical truth, or anything that can be proven scientifically (e.g. the Flood) or is it just a book of Faith, and cannot be counted upon as historically or scientifically accurate?
  4. In a (hypothetical) world where abortion is illegal, what would be the punishment? (Understood to be an optional, hypothetical question)
  5. Does the Catholic Church hold the world back, or is it a force for good?
  6. How can I reconcile the “barbaric” history of the Church, including but not limited to the Inquisition and the Medieval Era?
  7. Why do so many people hate the Church if it teaches truth?
  8. How can I scientifically prove that God exists?
  9. Does the Church discriminate against anybody?
  10. Can the answers to these questions, or anything on this forum, be considered as ‘biased’?
  11. Does the Church ‘waste’ or ‘hoard’ money that could be spent better in helping third-world countries?
  12. Did the Catholic Church ‘steal’ the foundations of its doctrines from ancient sources?
  13. Is Christianity different from Catholicism?
  14. Are Catholics hypocritical in any form?
  15. Is Christ against the Church? (Yes, I notice the extreme whatever-you-want-to-call-it here. But I can’t give a ‘good enough’ answer.)
  16. Does the Church end up by making people hate it on account of its teachings?
  17. Do we consider ourselves as above everybody else and that we can make the rules that we force others to follow?
  18. Are secular historical sources really unfair to the Church?
  19. Does the ‘development of doctrine’ mean that the Church changes its stance on matters, or its terms used to describe its stance?
  20. Does the fact that animals can feel pain mean that they can think as we do?
  21. Is science incompatible with the Church?
  22. What should I do when I am slandered, called names, etc.? Ignore or refute?
  23. Are the consequences of making abortion illegal worse than abortion?
I’ve tried to counter these already; most of the time I get responses such as I’m using a ‘false logic’ fallacy, or I get called… unsavory… names. (Ignorant, among others.) I understand that this is a result of debating with non-Catholics; but I just find it disrespectful of our religion.

BTW, I’m not a newbie to apologetics; please don’t treat me as one. It’s just that I’ve found some questions to which I can’t seem to give a sufficient answer.

Anyway, if I could get some answers, that would help me a whole lot; thanks!
Click to expand...
I’ve found the following app a good tool for my mobile phone:

answers4catholics.com/Answers4Catholics/Welcome.html

God Bless
 
Read Catholics Are Right by Micheal Coren. I’m pretty sure it will answer all of your questions.👍
 
CruceSignati said:
Read Catholics Are Right by Micheal Coren. I’m pretty sure it will answer all of your questions.👍
Click to expand...
I second this - That book even though the title may seem a little agressive to some is AMAZING! I haven’t even finished reading it and im already amazed by the valuable information presented. I would get a pencil or highlighter for this book because its one that is great to use in evangelizing and defending the faith
 
The best way to counter toughies is to learn more about and study your faith. Don’t take any subject for granted. Never let enough be enough. Learn as much as you can, and continue learning thereafter.

I would suggest doing some searches on the CA’s main website (catholic.com) to find the answers.

My quick responses to these questions would be:
  1. Yes, because science says so.
  2. Yes
  3. Scientific, not necessarily, but it is certainly a source for historical accounts, though the further back you go, the more difficult it is to discern which aspects are true and which are creative liberties of the author, but for the most part is an accurate account of what the people of the time believed. Most good secular historians even acknowledge that.
  4. Punishment? Probably the same as murder, as it would fall under that category.
  5. Well, just look at what the CC has given to the world… Schools, hospitals, scientific advancements, and more. So, I would say it is a force for good and the healthy advancement of society.
  6. Well, how would one reconcile the “barbaric” past of their country? Just look at the US and its history with slavery, and the slaughter of Native Americans for land. You acknowledge it and hope people learn from the mistakes of the past. The actions of a few do not speak for the entirety.
    Also, if memory serves, the Inquisition was a defense, not a slaughter because they didn’t believe the same things.
  7. Because people are ignorant, arrogant, prideful, spiteful beings. They find a reason to hate something, even turn it into a scapegoat for other things. I think some people are jealous of the Church.
  8. Depends on what kind of scientific tests you want to go through. Most won’t get you anywhere because God is not a physical being, and therefore, cannot be measured by physical detection. But the fact that things exist instead of not existing is a start.
  9. Depends on your definition of discrimination. The Church, like anyone, knows that certain people are qualified for some things and not for others. Just like a father cannot be a mother. He may be able to act like one, or fill in the gap of effort when required, but a father cannot ever really be a mother.
  10. Depends on what you mean by having bias. In some cases it is impossible to not have a bias. It is a question dependent on specifics.
  11. The Church has been loosing money, so I doubt it is hoarding it. If they are looking for money to aid third-world countries, maybe they should try business owners who make a profit.
  12. You might say from Judaism, but that is because it is the fulfillment of Judaism. The ‘next step’ as it were. But not from any other religions. Correlation does not imply causation.
  13. If what is meant is Evangelical Christianity, or Protestants, then there are some differences, but Catholicism IS Christianity.
  14. Saying “Catholics” implies individuals, which yes, individuals can be hypocritical, just like an atheist or buddhist can be hypocritical. If what is meant is “Is Catholic teaching hypocritical?” then no, it is not.
  15. No
  16. The Church does not deliberately make people hate it, but some people do hate Her because of Her teachings.
  17. No. We are all sinners in need of Christ. I do know that many atheists think they are above Christians, because they “don’t believe in fairy-tales”. And they say we are the ones that hate…
  18. Sadly, I would say yes.
  19. The “development of doctrine” means that doctrine can be better defined, or described, but the doctrine itself does not change. It’s like the difference of saying you have a lamp, then later saying it is a brown lamp, and then later saying it is a brown lamp with a swirly pattern on it.
  20. No
  21. No, science is compatible with the Church. Science describes the physical reality, the Church describes the metaphysical reality. Two sides of the same coin. Both seek truth.
  22. Probably ignore them and walk away. If they are going to resort to childish tactics, then they are not going to listen to what you have to say, no matter how true or solid your argument.
  23. No, the consequences now are much worse, with millions of children being killed each year because of ‘convenience’ to the mother. People may fight for abortion in cases of rape or ‘safety’ of the mother, but what they really care about is the ‘convenience’. They want a reason to not feel guilty if they kill an innocent person. This is the culture of death…
 
I like your post and the questions. Also I like the fact that you say that your knowledge of apologetics is not enough. While it is good to always brush up on our apologetics and get razor sharp, we don’t always need to show our sharpness. Sometimes we can answer with a question: “why do you ask me that question?” followed by “I’m still not sure I understand why you are asking ME?” “is there some way I can help you find the answer?”

BECAUSE if they just want to rattle your chain and dump on you, they will be revealed. If they truly want answers, they will reveal themselves through answering your questions…something about not casting your pearls before swine?

Not all inquiries require your helpful answers. When they are truly sincere questions, give it your best and say, “I’ll get back to you on this if you want.”

If they are being difficult, ask them, “Why would you ever ask a question like that?” and then change the subject to some non controversial humor.

In short, not every question deserves an answer.
 
Silverstone said:
This is probably in the wrong subforum, but…
I’d just like to know a couple of ways I can systematically respond to each question slapped in my face by an atheist, Jew, or Muslim:
(they’re in no particular order, sorry; thoughts work that way sometimes.)
Click to expand...
Gosh, these are toughies. Okay, Silver Stone, here are some suggestions but they are obviously not definitive. Each question has a lot of possible tangents and is quite in-depth. So, this is a kind of preliminary direction…

**1. Is the fetus a human being, and therefore a person, and therefore has all of our rights?
**

A fetus within a human woman is a human fetus, with human DNA, and therefore a human being. It can’t be any other kind of being. Is it a person? Well, not everyone will agree here. However, all human beings we know in experience are persons and attempts to define personhood by emphasising rationality, consciousness, self-identity, etc. would exclude some human beings in our experience from personhood, so we know such definitions are wrong. Therefore, we should err on the side of caution: if we can’t be certain that the human fetus is a person with rights, we should be cautious and assume so. It is a worthwhile moral principle that in cases of doubt, caution is the way to go.

I’d suggest Peter Kreeft’s talks on this issue: peterkreeft.com/audio/19_prolife-philosophy.htm

2. ^ If so, then is abortion a moral evil?\

Yes, abortion is a morally evil act.

3. Does the Bible present scientific facts, historical truth, or anything that can be proven scientifically (e.g. the Flood) or is it just a book of Faith, and cannot be counted upon as historically or scientifically accurate?

It depends. Some texts, like the early chapters of Genesis or Jesus’ parables are not straight history, whereas others are. You need to consider each text (and then, parts within texts) on its own merits: what did the author mean by what he wrote and in what genre did he write?

Some stories, however, are clearly supposed to be factual and based in history, such as the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Exodus from Egypt, the period of the Kings, etc.

4. In a (hypothetical) world where abortion is illegal, what would be the punishment? (Understood to be an optional, hypothetical question)

It depends. There would obviously be a different punishment for the doctor and the medical staff involved than for the mother. Realistically, a lot of factors need to be taken into account (such as the state of the mother’s mind, the situation she is in, etc.). As a very general approach, I would suggest looking at how mothers who murder their children are dealt with in our society now. There is a wide variation on how the law and punishment is applied in these cases.

5. Does the Catholic Church hold the world back, or is it a force for good?

The Catholic Church certainly holds the world back - from descending into evil and chaos. Ask your friends to look at Jesus. How can a Church that honestly strives to follow him as Her Lord be a force for anything but good?

6. How can I reconcile the “barbaric” history of the Church, including but not limited to the Inquisition and the Medieval Era?

A few approaches.

Firstly, it wasn’t that “barbaric” when you consider what the Church was dealing with. The, on the whole, civilised Roman world was destroyed by invading “barbarians”, throwing Europe into Dark Ages, without effective schools and centres of learning, with poor governments, economies, etc. This happened for about three hundred years. During this time and into the Early Middle Ages, the Church not only managed to salvage what was left of civilisation but also began to rebuild, and converted the various “barbarian” peoples into Christians and civilised them. This is a pretty impressive feat.

Secondly, there were a number of different Inquisitions trying to accomplish different things. These need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. When you look into them, and consider the context and historical situation in which they were operating, you will conclude that although there were some terrible sins committed, on the whole they were not as bad as they are made out to be.

Lastly, if you mean other Medieval incidents, like the Crusades, well, these too need to be examined closely. Personally, I think there was little to be apologised for regarding the Crusades (at least, the First Crusade), once you take into account how Europe and Christians in general had suffered under Muslim oppression and threat for about four hundred years.
 
It is offensive to lump atheists, Jews, and Muslims together.
 
7. Why do so many people hate the Church if it teaches truth?

I can’t answer that for everyone, but perhaps it has to do with the fact that some people don’t like the truth because of the lifestyle they’re living. To quote St John:
And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.
Click to expand...
John 1:19-21, RSV.

8. How can I scientifically prove that God exists?

You can’t. The scientific method is based on experimentation (that is, repeatability) on physical phenomena to prove a hypothesis. Since God is not physical and, being a person, not subject to experimentation, science won’t work on proving God exists.

Instead, philosophy is the way to go. Philosophy can use scientific data as evidence to help demonstrate God’s existence.

P.S. Not everything needs to be proved by the scientific method for you to know it exists. I mean the statement: “Everything needs to be proved through science” itself cannot be proved through science, nor is it self-evident.

9. Does the Church discriminate against anybody?

It depends what you mean. If you mean, “Does the Church refuse anybody the opportunity for God’s love and salvation?” the answer is “No”. However, discriminate (though looked on as a negative term today) has a very positive sense: it is to be able to discern good from bad, right from wrong. In this case, the Church does discriminate, and She discriminates between people. However, I wouldn’t say She discriminates against people, since this discrimination is ideally done in charity (love) to bring them closer to God and so is for them, not against them.

10. Can the answers to these questions, or anything on this forum, be considered as ‘biased’?

Sure, everything is biased in a sense. But just because something is biased (e.g. the reports from Jews who were freed from the concentration camps after the Holocaust) it doesn’t make it false.

11. Does the Church ‘waste’ or ‘hoard’ money that could be spent better in helping third-world countries?

The Church isn’t that wealthy. When you consider all the schools, hospitals, charities, orphanages, churches, bingo halls(!), etc. She runs and maintains, She does need some cash. However, the Church is nowhere near as wealthy as countries, nor as some corporations.

Also, a lot of the Church’s wealth is in landed property and artefacts, which are used and cannot be easily sold. They have a purpose and a good one, so why sell them off?

Lastly, the Church already does more than practically any other institution to help the poor and those in need. If someone is picking a bone with the Church, I’d ask him if he is willing to give up all his money, or perhaps even 50% of his income, to support those in need.

12. Did the Catholic Church ‘steal’ the foundations of its doctrines from ancient sources?

The simple answer is “No”. There is actually no evidence for this. Anything the Church believes in creed is either based in natural law, ancient Judaism or the revelation of Christ through his apostles.

13. Is Christianity different from Catholicism?

No. Christianity is Catholicism and vice versa. The word “Catholic” comes from the Greek κατα ολοσ (“kata holos” - the last sigma in the Greek that I’ve written is wrong, I can’t get the proper letter working), which means “according to the whole” or “according to the full”. Some claim that this means the Catholic Church is “universal”, that is, everywhere, but really what it was understood as meaning in the early Church is that Catholicism is the “fullness” of revelation. There might be other claims to Christianity, but nothing is “according to the full” sense of Christianity as Catholicism is.

14. Are Catholics hypocritical in any form?

Practically all the time! You’ve heard of the hypostatic union of Christ? Well, Catholics have the hypocritical union - they have an honest and dishonest nature in one person! 😉 Even our head man, St Peter, was a bit of a hypocrite, as St Paul was not afraid to tell him to his face (see Galatians). Yes, we can be hypocrites but should strive not to be, always. We should be grateful that God has given us the sacrament of Confession.

15. Is Christ against the Church? (Yes, I notice the extreme whatever-you-want-to-call-it here. But I can’t give a ‘good enough’ answer.)

Not at all. The Church is the Body of Christ, and he is Her head. How can he be against his own body?

If you mean, would Christ be unhappy with the way the Catholic Church is operating, I’d respond: I’m sure Christ is very unhappy with the way some Catholics behave, but what would he see wrong with the Church?

16. Does the Church end up by making people hate it on account of its teachings?

Perhaps some people. However, those that love the Church also love Her because of the teachings. If people hate the Church because of Her teachings and these are true, people should be looking at themselves rather than at the Church.
 
17. Do we consider ourselves as above everybody else and that we can make the rules that we force others to follow?

Simply, no. The Church has never forced anyone to follow Her. Even in the Inquisition, such as the dreaded Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish government was trying to ascertain who was a true believer and who was just pretending. They didn’t force pretenders to be true believers but instead kicked them out of Spain or worse! Now, I don’t think what they did was right, but you won’t really find the Church, at any period, forcing anyone to believe (you might find individuals who try to do so or perhaps groups within the Church).

18. Are secular historical sources really unfair to the Church?

No, not always. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. Funnily enough, you’re probably more likely to find Christian sources that are against the Church, than secular ones.

19. Does the ‘development of doctrine’ mean that the Church changes its stance on matters, or its terms used to describe its stance?

Yes, terms used can change as old ones are no longer meaningful or more accurate terms come to hand. However, the essence (that is, truth) of the doctrine doesn’t change, it is only expressed differently (more fully) to be understood better.

We do this all the time. If a six year old asked you where babies came from, you’d give a truthful response about the mother and father loving each other and being with each other; if an eighteen year old asked the same question, you’d go into more biological detail. This is a kind of “development of doctrine”. Both answers are true but one is fleshed out more, in this case, because of the audience. Similarly, as you learn more about biology and procreation, you are able to answer in more detail. This is how the Church operates too.

20. Does the fact that animals can feel pain mean that they can think as we do?

That’s a non sequitur, it doesn’t follow. We can think the way we do because of the developed state of our brains and because of our mental capacities. Other animals do not have developed brains as we do, nor our kind of minds. The feeling of pain is based on nerves rather than mental states. Theoretically, you could remove someone’s nerves and they wouldn’t feel pain and still be able to think.

21. Is science incompatible with the Church?

That’s an easy one: no.

22. What should I do when I am slandered, called names, etc.? Ignore or refute?

Do what Jesus did, stand up to the slander with love. Don’t ignore it. And sometime refuting with arguments won’t help. Rather, refute with your being, through love and steadfastness.

23. Are the consequences of making abortion illegal worse than abortion?

It depends. On the whole, no. How could the consequences of removing the right to kill millions of innocent human beings be worse than the actual killing, not to say the stain it leaves on those involved? That doesn’t mean that just making abortion illegal is going to make things a whole lot better - there is a mentality and culture that needs to be changed too.
 
Forum rules stipulate one question per thread (though multiple questions that are related to a single topic are usually OK). jonathan_hili has done yeoman’s work in fielding 23 different questions.

If you wish to expand on any of these questions, I suggest you open new threads. The Forum is running a special on threads - they’re all free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top