Kirk Cameron--not a wimp

[6glargento]

from what i saw, i didn’t really think that Kirk or Ray did very well (the athiests wern’t that great either)

if you want to hear some good natural apologetics (apologetics for the existance of a divine being using the natural law) listen to John Martignoni’s “Was Hitler Right” at www.biblechristiansociety.com

 

[Atemi]

Their arguments turned into a sermon.
Have you lied? LIAR!!
Have you ever stolen? THIEF!!!
I can’t stand it. Obviously these guys don’t believe in FORGIVENESS.

You were obviously not paying attention.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

You were obviously not paying attention.

If “not paying attention” constitutes watching it, analyzing it, and commenting on it for all to see on a public message board(regardless of whether or not you agree with me), then sure, you’re right, I was “not paying attention.”

 

[awfulthings9]

I’lll be honest, after watching the first half of the debate on internet at the ABC site, I couldn’t bear anymore of it. The Cameron team did pitifully and relied on hackneyed, undeveloped arguments just long enough to open a window to preach on the need to accept God. The athiests, as some have mentioned, weren’t much more impressive. I don’t know, however, if this is because of their limitations in knowledge and debate skills, or if they were playing to the level of the opponent. Their job was, after all, to refute the “%100 proof for the existance of God” that Cameron and his partner proposed as the burden of proof for the debate. I get the impression the athiests couldn’t have help their ground in a true debate (with cross-examination) against a skilled apologist, but long-story short, it was awful. The worst part was when Ray Comfort (Cameron’s partner) was given a chance to answer the opponent, and he declined. When the moderator asked again if he would like to comment, he responded, “Oh, I think people will figure it out.” Very sad. I’m glad that the Dateline version had been chopped down to a few select soundbites. Hopefully that limited the damage.

 

[Hellisreal]

Hmm, I just commented on this on a simmilar thread. I asked how Protestants could fight the Nestorian heresy. (But really, if you think about it, there are a few others they would really have a hard time with)

Still waiting for a reply. Not holding my breath either on that thread.

They just dont have all the tools they need to fight this kind of thing is what it boils down to.

No offense Atemi, to you personally or your faith.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Im curious.

Who do you think would have done a better job? A catholic that is.

What protestant do you think would have done a better job?

 

[Atemi]

If “not paying attention” constitutes watching it, analyzing it, and commenting on it for all to see on a public message board(regardless of whether or not you agree with me), then sure, you’re right, I was “not paying attention.”

Their whole method is built around God’s forgiveness, so you could not make that claim if you paid better attention to it before commenting.

By the way, one cannot see the need for forgiveness if they do not have any sense of wrongdoing or guilt deserving everlasting punsihment.

This is why Christ is foolishness to the Gentiles.

…

 

[Hellisreal]

Im curious.

Who do you think would have done a better job? A catholic that is.

What protestant do you think would have done a better job?

That is a good question, (if it was for me) ?

If we are still talking about confronting strictly atheists though?
Or any heresy?

I think I should have also mentioned the Eastern Orthodox!

(sorry I did not now!)

I think they should be in the mix here too, and would be excellent in defending heresy with the Catholics!

 

[djrakowski]

Im curious.

Who do you think would have done a better job? A catholic that is.

What protestant do you think would have done a better job?

From the non-Catholic side, I would’ve chosen the excellent Ravi Zacharias. Lee Strobel may have also done well against atheists, based on the fact that he was an atheist at one point, as well.

From the Catholic side, I would’ve chosen Peter Kreeft.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

From the non-Catholic side, I would’ve chosen the excellent Ravi Zacharias. Lee Strobel may have also done well against atheists, based on the fact that he was an atheist at one point, as well.

From the Catholic side, I would’ve chosen Peter Kreeft.

AH Lee Strobel yes he is good. I bet Josh McDoweel would have been good because he was an atheist as well. Actually he was an atheist trying to prove God didnt exist and ended up becoming saved:thumbsup:

What about Scott Hahn or Father Corapi. I personally have never heard them speak or read anything by them, but the catholics here talk about them all the time.

 

[djrakowski]

AH Lee Strobel yes he is good. I bet Josh McDoweel would have been good because he was an atheist as well. Actually he was an atheist trying to prove God didnt exist and ended up becoming saved:thumbsup:

Good point… McDowell, at least from what I’ve heard, has written good stuff. It was very popular at my old church, but I never got into it.

What about Scott Hahn or Father Corapi. I personally have never heard them speak or read anything by them, but the catholics here talk about them all the time.

I think Hahn would’ve done well, and perhaps even Corapi, but I see him as more of a catechist to Catholics rather than an apologist to non-Catholics.

 

[awfulthings9]

From the non-Catholic side, I would’ve chosen the excellent Ravi Zacharias. Lee Strobel may have also done well against atheists, based on the fact that he was an atheist at one point, as well.

From the Catholic side, I would’ve chosen Peter Kreeft.

I was also thinking Peter Kreeft. I’ll also nominate Jimmy Akin because his to-the-point style would have eliminated the theatrics and purposefully-distracting-humor that each side used to skirt around the issue. I don’t know how with-it Akin is on biology, physics, and such, but his work indicates that he does his homework enough that I feel he would have been more prepared on the current research into the matters at hand.

In fact, since it was a two-person team, since Kreeft is so good philosophically and Akin is so good with qualifying such philosophy with support, these would be my choices.

I can’t comment on the Protestant end as I’m simply not familiar enough with the the pool. I’d be curious to see the responses on that and look some of them up.

 

[Della]

Im protastant and have never heard someone say to me I had to witness or Id be held responsible.

I always took it as simply part of the great commision that one doenst want to keep the good news to themselves.

If you dont “do” anything when you could have that will be judged not just to do with witnessing. I guess one could say works are encouraged We are to be the hands and feet.

Instead of asking God why havent You done this, He asks us, why havent we done it for Him.

Kirk is a keener and to those he speaks to is great. Some of us need that approach. Others need as many approaches as can be thought of. Thus a “style” for the different “styles/types” of people out there.

It depends on the type of Evangelical we are talking about. Even within Evangelical denominations there can be a wide range of what is expected in the area of personal witnessing. Some demand just what I said–that their members “witness” to everyone they possibly can or face the consequences of a wrathful God. Many other Evangelicals have never had this kind of pressure put on them, fortunately. But, it does exist on the Evangelical side of Christianity, no doubt about it.

 

[Della]

Oh man.

I read the above and see you are so close to the truth here, but then you miss the whole reason this is in the end.

On the edge of truly seeing the problem, but then you slipped back into the inevitable sense of superiority, IMV.

…

If you are implying that Catholicism doesn’t have the truth, which is why Catholics aren’t as aggressinve in personal witnessing (which is only one aspect of evangelization), then you have missed the point entirely.

The whole of the Gospel truth resides within the Catholic Church. How well it’s various members act on that has nothing whatsoever to do with that fact. The Church has missions to every part of the world with many volunteers doing a wide variety of good works of every kind, bodily and spiritual. They don’t advertise it or make a fuss about it, they just do it.

 

[Nicene]

On the edge of truly seeing the problem, but then you slipped back into the inevitable sense of superiority, IMV.

And the funny thing is, this is exactly the trait of fundamentalists in every aspect. It is often characterized by the statement “You”, the pointing finger. (as in the sentence above)

So personally when debating with them I have adopted their own tactic as it seems to be the only language that is understood. And when employed suddenly the martyr card is played to elicit sympathy.

It all stems from a fundamentalists sense of superiority. And worst it is used to pray on catholics weak in their faith, to shame them into looking and feeling stupid.

It’s the log eye syndrome.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[holly_potter]

From the Catholic side, I would’ve chosen Peter Kreeft.

I agree, Peter Kreeft is a great philosopher! I read the “Unaborted Socrates”, and I kept laughing at how Socrates kept tearing down all the arguments for abortion.

Has he written any other good books you can suggest?

As for proving God’s existence to athiests, if they can’t believe the “first cause/first mover”, how else can you convince them?

(ps. Kirk Cameron ----> )

 

[ALLFORHIM]

It depends on the type of Evangelical we are talking about. Even within Evangelical denominations there can be a wide range of what is expected in the area of personal witnessing. Some demand just what I said–that their members “witness” to everyone they possibly can or face the consequences of a wrathful God. Many other Evangelicals have never had this kind of pressure put on them, fortunately. But, it does exist on the Evangelical side of Christianity, no doubt about it.

Ive never felt that pressure. Thank God my church doesnt put pressure on us like that. My minister talks about the importance of witnessing-but that is as far as he goes.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

Their whole method is built around God’s forgiveness, so you could not make that claim if you paid better attention to it before commenting.
By the way, one cannot see the need for forgiveness if they do not have any sense of wrongdoing or guilt deserving everlasting punsihment.
…

Firstly, I was mistaken. I thought you were saying that I did not pay attention to the “debate,” if you want to call it that, not Kirk and Ray’s “method.”
That said, their method is built around walking up to people on the streets in order to persecute and condem from their high chair. It’s not the most inviting method, and many people are going to walk away angry rather than into the arms of God and his Church, as is evidenced on their television show.

 

[Nicene]

It depends on the type of Evangelical we are talking about. Even within Evangelical denominations there can be a wide range of what is expected in the area of personal witnessing.

I totally agree with this. One of my Evangelical friends rolls his eyes at the “Are you saved,” “Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.” approach. (then again he and his denomination don’t believe in OSAS) because of the inherent condemnative quality. He recognizes it is a christian walk, a journey.

Some demand just what I said–that their members “witness” to everyone they possibly can or face the consequences of a wrathful God.

And this wrathful God approach is transmitted in their witnessing. Generally it also entails using innuendo and shame. Particularly in those Evangelicals who teach “those catholics need to be saved” (personally I think it’s a form of brainwashing)

Thankfully not all Evangelicals are alike. It is generally the fundy’s who have the inferiority/superiority complex.

When we, a catholic and an evangelical, double team a fundy it gets interesting.

Another example was another Evangelical friend (and his wife) who were taken aside and told by their pastor in his last church, that because he didn’t display the “fruit of the spirit” (speaking in tongues) showing that he was saved. When in fact they have the truest fruit of the spirit. excessive charity. They left. The whole movement is dubious and dangerous IMHO.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Ive never felt that pressure. Thank God my church doesnt put pressure on us like that. My minister talks about the importance of witnessing-but that is as far as he goes.

Thats how I have found it too. There is a church here that has a sign over the parking lot entrance. On the side leaving it says, “You are entering the mission field”

I dont doubt Della that there are some, but I wonder if they are self proclaimed keeners and it didnt come from the pulpit?? just wondering I dont know. I havent been everywhere but Ive never heard of that kind of pressure.

In the end God will “clean House” anyway, because pushy bossy types of leaders or followers dont last.