G
- Status
K
kkoleon
Guest
it ceased being a debate when the INC repersentative resorted to making his point by trying to win by constantly interupting Keating. I prefer listening to Catholic/ protestant debates for 2 reasons. The first is that most of the time the debate is done in a christian manner via mutual respect. secondly, they tend to be more scholarly.
M
MDK
Guest
Actually it’s not naive at all. Your approach, truth does not matter, only appearances. I’ve debated before, and the truth wins. Those who don’t understand this are relegated to “slick” charlatans, as you’re promoting (often not that slick either, as evident in the video as the guy is repulsive). The INC is a false organization, period. In reality, there is no debate needed for that. In your world, perhaps you have doubts. Your approach fails the truth test, and therefore fails what really matters. Sorry for you.
M
MDK
Guest
No, that’s politics. I am a Catholic because I value the truth and desire to know the authentic Jesus and receive His Sacraments.
I support Karl because Karl speaks the truth. The INC is clearly the worst kind of salesmen that you can imagine. They accept your money, and then Satan is pleased with the INC tactics and message distorting the authentic word of God. Sounds like a lose-lose proposition being in the INC.
Best thing I can charitably recommend to those fooled by this is walk away and learn the truth… please, before it is too late.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
It stings to be accused doesn’t it?
But just venting the indignation doesn’t help – I just got called “angry” in another thread for something that I clearly was not angry about, but the other side needed to save face. Pick on INC’s tactics – show how he fools people by emotional and shallow arguments. I’m sure you can!
Here’s a good starting point: The hypocrisy of the argument of Using St. Paul’s statement of Christ being the ONLY foundation that can be laid – and yet in another part of INC’s arguments he quotes but IGNORES the ramifications of St. Paul also speaking of the church built on the FOUNDATION of the apostles. He never clarifies what he accuses Catholics of saying – for he uses the word “Foundation” inconsistently – presuming his emotional emphaticness determines the meaning of the text – rather than the other way around. I like Karl’s first answer – “I am not the one … Jesus Christ made him the rock…” (Paraphrase).
Karl was obviously done some dirt with rule changing at the last moment – and it would be a pleasure to see a rematch where Karl is allowed a team of Catholic apologists to cross reference the biblical pages while Karl is speaking so that he too can lift up and shake the bible while making his statements…
There is to be sure, an attraction among fundamentalists, to the emotional passion of the speaker. The down side of the debate for me was watching Karl focus in on the idea of Petros being “ROCK” rather than stone (which is synonymous in fundie apologetics with “pebble”) and not being able to drive home the significance and history of rock with respect to the Jewish history – Abraham the ROCK, the circumcision knives made from (the feminine form) of ROCK – exactly oppostie to the standard protestant argument that the masculine means pebble and the feminine means GIANT BOULDER, etc.
Nor was there time/room for a discussion of the Faith of peter (like Abraham) being tied to his leadership in God’s plan – Peter who’s faith Christ promised would not fail. It is as if the INC want to pin the charge of IGNORANCE on Catholics by saying our remarks amount to replacing Christ with Peter! What foolishness – for INC is unable to think beyond direct relationships as proof – it never occurs to him that Christ as Foundation is IN Peter as Faith – and that Christ the builder, then, can only be using what he as already made in Peter to build the church. There is no point in saying to Peter – I will put myself in you – when he has already admitted the faith is THERE by revelation from none other than the Father.
Jesus says he will build his church on “this the rock”, an expression meaning the rock already at hand. In Greek saying “this the day” means “this very (and singular) day” – the one right here. And the only ROCK being singled out in Matthew 16:18 is Peter, who is a rock taken from Abraham. Of course Peter has a special place then, for it was with Abraham – and later Moses – with whom God entered into negotiations for the whole of his people; and again, Jesus speaks of the Pharisees haven taken over the chair of Moses – and that he was going to take it away from them and give it to another – so if he wasn’t taking it for himself, to whom did he give it?!
Argggggh… The ignorant and unstable wrestle and twist the scriptures to their own destruction; there is nothing new under the sun.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I did not say truth doesn’t matter. I said the way truth is presented matters.
Sometimes. Sometimes the truth is poorly expressed, sometimes the wrong part of the truth is argued. If the presentation truly didn’t matter, only the truth, there wouldn’t have been any need to get Karl to do the debate. They could have simply had some local middle school student present the argument instead.
I hope I’m not promoting a failure to understand - I’m cautioning that to best combat “slick” charlatans, one should try to remove as many obstacles to his own argument as possible, some of which may include a lack of slickness.
Doubts about what? I have no doubts that in a debate, presentation usually plays an important role, which is all I’m arguing.
No need to feel sorry for me. I recognize that truth is the most important thing, in and of itself. But I also recognize that in the context of a debate, if an argument is poorly stated, or the arguer is “repulsive”, or the words can’t be heard, an audience may not embrace the truth of that argument.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
This is true. I recall a thread on these forums that spoke of a debate between “Dr.” James White and Rev. Mitch Pacwa. It seems that “Dr.” White had the good Father tied up in knots, even though Fr. Pacwa had the truth on his side.
So, yes, the way the Truth is presented truly does matter.
D
dpgreen
Guest
Not sure how anyone could say Karl Keating lost this debate. The INC lost on sheer dishonesty, rudeness and refusal to debate by the rules. Just the comment that “Jesus is divine but not God” says it all.
I know we must behave in charity but what a bunch of loonies:hypno:
I know we must behave in charity but what a bunch of loonies:hypno:
M
Magnus1981
Guest
Actually you could argue that INC won the debate on sheer dishonesty, rudeness and refusal to debate by the rules.
M
MDK
Guest
Sorry, but your post did undervalue truth, and the truth matters most. Jesus is the Truth, is He not? Christ didn’t pick Peter as first Pope due to His slick speaking skills or interpersonal smoothness. The purpose of spiritual warfare is not really to look good in a debate or use proper debate “tactics”. Pride keeps people from the simple truth. Karl did very well. The audience was a bunch of very sick individuals. They likely needed to be freed from the slavery of sin and intellectual oppression they were under. You can’t do that in a debate. Karl spoke the truth. The focus on mechanics of the debate really miss the big points of spiritual warfare we are in.
M
MDK
Guest
I know what you’re trying to say, but it must also be said that as a Christian, we know that’s not winning.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Do we actually know what traits Peter had that caused Christ to choose him, vs the next fisherman? I think based on circumstantial evidence, one could argue that speaking skills were part of why Paul was chosen, as he seems to have been a very charismatic speaker.
Pride is not the only thing that keeps people from truth. Ignorance plays a big role as well, and I’m particularly talking about ignorance of how already known points fit together.
Since we are talking about Karl, has Catholic Answers brought people to truth? Certainly it has. In some cases people listening to the radio or reading this website may not have heard these truths before, in homilies, from parents, in CCD or Catholic schools. But in most cases they have - the points just weren’t explained in a clear and concise manner so that the logic became obvious. That’s something that can be done in a debate, but it requires skill in presentation so that the minds of the audience don’t wander, as they did when they heard the same thing in a droning homily in say 10th grade.
I suppose one could discuss the importance of spiritual warfare and minimize the apologetic aspect of just about any thread here. But since the topic of this thread is the debate, I feel that’s the best thing to focus on.
M
MDK
Guest
The first sentence is a very ignorant question, and it’s quite obvious what the answer is. It was correct to say that Peter had great love for Christ, but was not particularly smooth speaker. It would be obvious that it was God working in Peter that would glorify God, and not Peter’s natural talents. It’s obvious you did not follow the line of reasoning… possibly because you couldn’t argue something if you read it the way it was meant, because it made sense already. I know now why you defended sleazy debate techniques of the INC. These techniques are what people do when they have nothing, and have already lost the debate because of lack of substance… so, what do they do… manipulate and present false arguments for appearances.
Reading this, I had to ask if you are you writing this trying to convince yourself? Please note that while the thread is about a debate that occurred, and the issue was and is who has the truth of God… which side is correct, not which side can use shady techniques not approved by God (which actually further reveals their position). The wise know that the apologetic aspect is not diminished in the least when engaging for spiritual warfare. I recommend understanding a little better what is going on before discussing. We must protect ourselves from evil while defending the faith. This is why Karl did not and should not engage in immoral tactics used by the INC, which some uphold as worthy of note in debating. Arrogance and ignorance are a cozy pair that travel together, and humility is nowhere to be found. We must be humble to come to God (this is not a platitude, but a recommendation). Let’s please not lose the focus of what we’re doing here is to miss the truth about the Truth, who is Jesus Christ. It’s all about God.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
This is actually such an intriguing question, I’m starting another thread on it.
Looking back, I don’t see where I’ve defended the debate techniques of the Iglesia Ni Christo. In fact, I don’t think I’ve addressed INC at all in this thread, or any other thread on this board, ever.
The debate itself was about who has the truth of God. On the other hand, this thread, based on the OP, is about aspects of Karl’s approach - what he did, and what he should have done.
Fifteen minutes reading threads on this board will demonstrate that it is almost as often those who are correct using questionable techniques, and those who are incorrect using perfectly legitimate techniques. You can argue that the sky is blue using vindictive ad hominems, unsupported opinions, misleading statements, and other sloppy techniques. I disagree that you can discern the truth of a person’s argument by the technique he uses.
M
MDK
Guest
It is an intriguing question in general, outside of the context in which it was used here. Many things can be extracted and made into a discussion on their own. To deny the context in which they were used, is a mistake. As it existed in the context of this thread, your asking the question the way you did was very ignorant of what was actually written. Your technique of attempted distraction away from the real point was called out. We see once again a twist of the real meanings. You falsely accused me of being naive, but that indeed is far from the case. In arrogance people will do wrong things, and thereby contribute to undermining their own credibility by attempting these less than straight and honorable tactics, thinking no one will notice. Arrogance is never a good thing. Please be humble, to come to the Lord. It’s only in humility that we can be childlike, and keep ourselves from being a child of our generation.
In your post as you were responding to my comment about the INC tactics to their mind-numbed audience who would say Karl lost: “Assuming you are trying to win over members of an audience and convince them of your position, the manner of presentation of facts is very important.” In other words, you defended their tactics as appropriate and effective. If you were referring to Karl, I think you misunderstood my meaning there.
In that case, what was naive of you, would be thinking that in discussing Karl’s success, I was primarily focused on the debate here only as it exists on earth. My mindset includes pleasing God, and I don’t overlook something like this. Karl winning was that he won in Heaven by defending God. He was laying up treasure in Heaven. Your pride brought you past some barriers you should not have crossed, and ignored the fuller picture to attempt to make a point which was in the end, off-base.
Next, of course Karl could only discuss a part of the truth, because we as humans never have all of the truth, as in perfection. God does. However, what he did present was truthful, and no technique or attempted slick trick will make up for not having the truth.
Glad you included the truth of God as being important. That’s the most important here. The OP was about one item posed by INC, and how Karl should have responded to that item. Slick techniques won’t salvage you if you don’t have the truth. Those only are temporary and are used-car-salesmanish. When we’re talking about God, the truth itself expressed is most important.
A little humility would do wonders for you. To discuss legitimately and forthrightly is an honorable and laudable art. One must be a little less enamored with themselves, and more enamored with the Truth. The technique one uses will give insight into character, and that insight is valuable. The arrogant often make the mistake of thinking they are above detection.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Objecting to an unsupported claim hardly qualifies as an unwarranted distraction. You said
This may be true, and if so it supports the point you were making. If it’s not true, that fact might undermine your point. I started the separate thread to try to track down the truth of your statement, since I thought exploring it any further here would be off-topic.
As I read this, it sounds like you are suggesting that my only humble course is to admit that I was wrong and you were right.
Let’s go back to my post #17
I don’t think I misunderstood your meaning. The compound subject of your first sentence was “the ignorant and (those) brainwashed”. It sounded like you were excluding the possibility that a neutral observer could conclude Karl lost the debate. If that were a statement about how skillfully Karl debated, I would have granted that you felt he did so well, no reasonable person could believe he lost. Since I only watched part of it, I wouldn’t be in a position to disagree.MDK:
This is a naive view of how debating works. Assuming you are trying to win over members of an audience and convince them of your position, the manner of presentation of facts is very important.
Instead, you clarified that it was because Karl espoused truth, only the ignorant and brainwashed would say he lost. In other words, no matter how poor his debate performance, if Karl spoke the truth, a well-educated Muslim, atheist, Lutheran, etc could not possibly think he had lost. I said then, and I continue to believe, that this is a naive view of how debating works.
By that logic, I think Alan Keyes won the last presidential election. I may indeed have been naive to think you were using commonly understood language, consistent with the thread topic. The OP was asking what Karl should have said. I assumed he meant, what should Karl have said to better make his point, refute his opponent, and win over the audience - NOT what should Karl have said simply to please God. God wants us to do our best at what we endeavor, and once we accept that, we can move on to how we can do the best, where we fell short, and acknowledge that it’s possible to lose a debate, even as we are doing right by God.
I agree entirely.
N
nadadeturbe
Guest
You make a good point here. What a scam!
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
The Bible does not come with a glossary where every word has one and only meaning or usage.
The word “foundation” can refer to different things in Scripture. The Greek word themelios means “foundation” and is used literally in Lk 6:48-49 and AA 16:26. In the extended, metaphorical sense it refers to Christ in 1 Cor 3:11, the apostles in Eph 2:20, and doctrine in Heb 6:1. Jesus is behind all of what happens in the NT, but the word does not always directly refer to Him. "Foundation” is not a technical word with one and only one referent.
Perhaps the use of phos in the NT can cast a little “light.” Jesus says of Himself, “I am the light phos] of the world” (Jn 8:12). He also says to his disciples, “You are the light phos] of the world.” (Mt 5:14). We all know that the light in us is from Christ. However Mt 5:12 does not directly say that. Furthermore, it is truly correct to say that we are the light of the world in the sense that Jesus meant it, since Jesus said it.
Likewise it is truly correct to say that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles since, in fact, the texts says it. In the sense in which the text uses it, the apostles are the foundation of the church as a historical community of believers.
- Status