Objections, questions, and non sequiturs

[Windfish]

In apologetics, I have noticed that my opponents respond to arguments and proofs for the truth of Catholicism with either objections, questions, or non sequiturs.

Objections are actual challenges to the truth of Catholicism.

Questions are, well, questions. The Catholic may or may not have an answer, but questions are not a challenge to the truth of Catholicism. A hundred questions do not equal one objection.

Non sequiturs are responses that have nothing to do with the arguments or proofs. Whether or not Catholics have killed in the name of Catholicism is besides the point.

I rarely see objections. I mostly see questions and non sequiturs. Does everyone else agree with my analysis? I made this thread because I think distinguishing between these three categories is helpful for the apologist. What do you think?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I rarely see objections. I mostly see questions and non sequiturs.

Many questions are actually objections (why do Catholics worship Mary?)

Does everyone else agree with my analysis? I made this thread because I think distinguishing between these three categories is helpful for the apologist. What do you think?

I think it does not matter to the apologist. Why do you think it should be helpful?

 

[Windfish]

Many questions are actually objections (why do Catholics worship Mary?)

But that it is neither a true objection nor a true question. That is a misunderstanding. It needs to be corrected since the very question itself is based on a false understanding. I guess I missed a fourth category: misunderstandings.

I think it does not matter to the apologist. Why do you think it should be helpful?

Because most of the stuff we field on CAF are questions. And some of these questions distress the people who ask them. What I am pointing out is that 100 questions do not equal one challenge or obstacle to the truth of Catholicism. It is possible that there may not be an answer to the question why God allows evil in the world, but that question does not make for a logical objection. And there is a certain comfort in that. Or how about this one, which I see often: why does God order seemingly violent things in the OT? That is a question, and it does nothing disprove the existence of God. Do you see what I am getting at?