Is it time to close the Ark? (Depravity is why we can’t evangelize, so let’s focus on seekers with beauty, encounter and family)

[HopkinsReb]

Neithan:

we should not forget the worth of philosophical debate as an intellectual foundation for faith.

But you can’t have a debate with someone who isn’t listening. If they like the Pill more than the Church, why bother?

Another argument that got me interested in Catholicism was about birth control. That debate with this Protestant was pretty effective.

You don’t know whether they’ll listen until you try.

 

[MarysLurker]

You don’t know whether they’ll listen until you try.

So we see that the format of debate works on people other than the parties to the debate. So Catholic Answers, Catholic Youtubers, etc. should have public debates for public consumption. But private debate?

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

You don’t know whether they’ll listen until you try.

So we see that the format of debate works on people other than the parties to the debate. So Catholic Answers, Catholic Youtubers, etc. should have public debates for public consumption. But private debate?

This was a private discussion.

If you just put materials out there and don’t deliberately engage people, two types of people will see it:

1. Catholics
2. Fundies who are only reading it to give them anti-Catholic ammo.

 

[Beryllos]

Because focusing on the commonalities leads to discarding the essentials (such as Mary).

Except we haven’t discarded the essentials.

We lose nothing if we meet people where they are and walk with them toward the source of truth and love (by which I mean God).

To “close the Ark” sounds to me like putting all the burden (and all the risk) on them. “Here’s our catechism. Come back after you’ve read it. Give your assent and then we can address your remaining spiritual needs.”

 

[MarysLurker]

To “close the Ark” sounds to me like putting all the burden (and all the risk) on them. “Here’s our catechism. Come back after you’ve read it. Give your assent and then we can address your remaining spiritual needs.”

Close the ark and cast the nets to the seekers. 2nd OP edited accordingly.

 

[MarysLurker]

This was a private discussion.

You were one of the parties to the debate? What do you think made it successful?

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

This was a private discussion.

You were one of the parties to the debate? What do you think made it successful?

Yes.

What made it successful? The arguments were sound. Good arguments often work. I suspect the reason that you think they don’t is that they haven’t worked when you have made them. Given the way you originally worded your posts in this thread and the way you jumped at me in the other, I’d suggest that maybe the issue is that your approach is harsh and inimical, not that the Protestants won’t listen to reason.

In the other thread, when I suggested that radical Calvinists smashed the altars not because they were on the Turkish dime but because they were radical Calvinists, I got condescending comments about how I didn’t know anything about history and I can’t always assume that England is always the good guy. You knew nothing about me or what I believed, but you immediately assumed a particular stance and went after it in a harsh, condescending manner. I bring this up not to attack you for that, but to say that in my first interaction with you, you did not debate with me in a manner that would make me want to seriously entertain anything you said.

The people who got me interested in Catholicism took a completely different approach; they were unfailingly kind and took me seriously. There was no condescending, “if you knew anything about history you’d know this,” or “your church only exists because the king wanted the Church’s money,” or any of that mess. There was friendly discussion of theological differences. And it was pretty dang effective.

 

[MarysLurker]

I suspect the reason that you think they don’t is that they haven’t worked when you have made them. Given the way you originally worded your posts in this thread and the way you jumped at me in the other, I’d suggest that maybe the issue is that your approach is harsh and inimical,

Or that you interpret them as harsh and inimical due to the medium of anonymous online debate. I would bet good money that the successful debate was not in fact a debate but a conversation between friends.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

I suspect the reason that you think they don’t is that they haven’t worked when you have made them. Given the way you originally worded your posts in this thread and the way you jumped at me in the other, I’d suggest that maybe the issue is that your approach is harsh and inimical,

Or that you interpret them as harsh and inimical due to the medium of anonymous online debate.

It was absolutely condescending and sarcastic. You apologized for it for a reason. You jumped to conclusions about me and then condescended to me based on your fallacious assumptions. Again, not trying to attack you here. Just pointing out how utterly off-putting you came off. Plenty on here completely avoid coming across that way while just as forcefully arguing the Catholic position.

I would bet good money that the successful debate was not in fact a debate but a conversation between friends.

Conversations between friends can be debates. I debate with my friends all the time. You seem to have an extremely restrictive definition of “debate.” Can you give me a definition of exactly what you mean by the term?

 

[MarysLurker]

You jumped to conclusions about me

You and I are not the topic here and we were not the topic on the original thread. An attack on Elizabeth I is not an attack on you any more than it is an attack on Elizabeth II or anyone today. An attack on Hitler or Mussolini is not an attack on Germans or Italians anymore than an attack on Jimmy Carter is an attack on Americans.

This is one of the big problems with online debate. No nonverbals, no context, everything is internalized, it’s always you vs. me.

 

[MarysLurker]

You seem to have an extremely restrictive definition of “debate.”

Adversarial debate intended to change the position of the interlocutor. You don’t do that to a friend.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

You jumped to conclusions about me

You and I are not the topic here and we were not the topic on the original thread. An attack on Elizabeth I is not an attack on you any more than it is an attack on Elizabeth II or anyone today.

This is one of the big problems with online debate. No nonverbals, no context, everything is internalized, it’s always you vs. me.

This is not about you and me. You’re suggesting that reaching out to Protestants is utterly ineffective and instead Catholics should just wait for them to walk into the Church’s arms. I’m suggesting that reaching out to Protestants can be quite effective, but you may be struggling with it because you do it in a harsh, condescending manner.

I didn’t interpret an attack on Elizabeth I as an attack on me. I interpreted the way you wrote it as condescending.

Adversarial debate intended to change the position of the interlocutor.

Many of my conversations with friends definitely fit that description. Unless you have a more restrictive definition of “adversarial” than I do, requiring the word to also indicate hostility.

 

[MarysLurker]

You’re suggesting that reaching out to Protestants is utterly ineffective and instead Catholics should just wait for them to walk into the Church’s arms

I did not say that, but you’re proving that the point. Look how other people have observed my position.. You have not understood it correctly, but that’s not your fault; it’s the medium that is defective, which is the point I’m trying to make.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Evangelicals tend to be critical of those who do not believe exactly what they believe. To a certain extent, that is hypocrisy in action.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I did not say that

I said “you’re suggesting,” not “you said.” You revised the second OP at my suggestion to make it clearer, but the fact remains that you initially said that Catholics shouldn’t engage with Protestants. That’s not a failing of the medium; that’s bad writing. In fact, my debate with a friend who got me on this path was in this medium. Not this specific forum, but the same type.

 

[MarysLurker]

That’s not a failing of the medium; that’s bad writing

That’s the writing of a person who is extremely busy and desperately trying to do something good with the limited time they have (and trying to decide at this point if it’s even worth it). Which, in fact, describes everyone here including you. It is a problem of the medium.

 

[Dovekin]

You should make sure you are on the Ark before you close the doors.

 

[MarysLurker]

You should make sure you are on the Ark before you close the doors.

In other words, take care of your own charges (yourself, your family, your friends, your parish) and evangelize them first before worrying about the world. Agreed, hence the (stuff in parentheses) in the title of the topic.

 

[VeryBlessed]

I didn’t fully read the original post nor all the answers so far. But I do agree with one aspect of what the OP said, in that current cultural attitudes toward sex are a massive barrier to evangelization. I would put it this way - our current society has made a god of sex. We worship at the altar of sex without consequences. I mean, we will even kill our own unborn children (and expect the government to pay for it) in order to protect and preserve the status quo of sex without consequences. Jesus said it well when he said that you cannot serve two masters and you will hate the one and love the other.

Nonetheless, as the OP was getting at, there is a rare beauty to true holiness, so let us seek holiness ourselves, especially in the area of sexual behavior. So many are so broken after following the siren call of our culture. We must keep inviting people in, we have what they need! The light shines brightest in the darkest places…

 

[po18guy]

We should first avoid having an eye for the negative. That would occupy us 24/7. What happens to evangelization then? Depravity? Jean Calvin thought as much. If you were totally depraved, you could not ask what you are asking here.

It is also good to remember here the Lord’s parable of the shepherd leaving the 99 and going in search of the single (X1) lost sheep. A very few of us are granted the grace to do great things. The rest of us are called to march along humbly, winning a soul or two by our demonstration of faith, hope and charity.

Remember also that (IMO) the worlds greatest living theologian, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, anticipates a smaller, yet more fervent Church. Can we become dismayed at seeing this occur? I think this thread reveals that the answer is a definite “yes.” Let us not fall into the devil’s traps: Four Common Tactics of the Devil - Community in Mission

Finally, we are called by the Lord, not to be successful (He was left with only 12 followers and He is God!), but to be faithful. He calls us to persevere to the end - not be be spectacularly successful - lest we become “puffed up” as Saint Paul wrote.