"Oh that's great that it works for you but not me"

[SpeakKindly]

Let’s say that you’re in a conversation with someone and a discussion about religion comes up. Eventually the conversation gets to a point where the person (who isn’t a person who practices any faith, and/or is someone who is “against organized religion”) says, “It’s great that it works for you and makes you a better person, but it’s not for me, it just isn’t something that works like that for me.”.

What do you say?

 

[Holly3278]

Well, I suppose it depends on what the specific topic is about. If it’s about homosexuality for example then one needs to come up with better arguments to back up the Church’s teachings on the issue. If the person still refuses to accept the Church’s teachings then you should simply pray for them that the Holy Spirit would work on them so that way eventually they may convert.

 

[hazcompat]

St. Patrick’s Seminary
Patrician Magazine
February 1999
Lecture by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Culture and Truth: Some Reflections on the Encyclical Letter, Fides et Ratio

…

Man is not trapped in a hall of mirrors of interpretations; one can and must seek a breakthrough to what is really true; man must ask who he really is and what he is to do; he must ask whether there is a God; who God is, and what the world is. The one who no longer poses these questions is by that very fact bereft of any standard or path. Allow me to give an example.

The position is gaining ground which maintains that human rights are the cultural product of the JudeoChristian world and which, outside this world, would be unintelligible and without foundation. But what then? What happens if we can no longer recognize common standards which transcend individual cultures? What happens if the unity of mankind is no longer recognizable to man?

Will not division into separate races, classes and nationalities become insurmountable? The person who can no longer recognize a common human nature in others, beyond all such boundaries, has lost his identity. Precisely as a human being, he is in peril. Thus, for philosophy in its classical and original sense, the question of truth is not a frivolity to be enjoyed by affluent cultures which can afford the luxury, but rather a question which concerns the existence and nonexistence of man.

And therefore the Pope earnestly asks for a breaking-down of the barriers of eclecticism, historicism, scientism, pragmatism and nihilism, and he exhorts us not to allow ourselves to be caught up in a form of Post-modernism which, in a decadent desire for negativity itself, tends toward the abdication of all meaning, and seeks to grasp only what is provisional and ephemeral (Cf. FR 91).

web.archive.org/web/20020204173249/http://www.stpatricksseminary.org/patwin99/ratzinger.html

Peace

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m not Catholic because it “works for me.” There are many ways my life would be easier without faith (sleeping in on Sundays for one ). I am Catholic because it is true. And it is true regardless of whether I believe it or not. God really is a Trinity of Persons who created the world from nothing. Our first parents blew it, so one of those Persons (i.e. Jesus) came to earth to save us. He established a visible Church (i.e. the Catholic Church) to safeguard and hand on this gift for all generations to follow.

 

[Origen52]

Am I the only one who sees utter futility in trying to convince others to our understanding by using religious arguments? If someone does not believe in God, how can you convince them an action is morally wrong by referring to biblical teaching? I think we live in an age which is becoming more difficult to evangelize than the pagan world of the early Christians. At least pagans believed in a power beyond them. In the West we must turn to the leadership of the pope and the bishops in evangelization.

 

[TimothyH]

You say, “What’s for lunch?” and witness to the presence of God in your life through the peace and joy you exhibit and the friendship you give to that person.

Eventually they will ask you how you can be at peace when some crisis of the day comes up, and that’s the time to speak about Jesus and the sacraments.

-Tim-

 

[OraLabora]

You say, “What’s for lunch?” and witness to the presence of God in your life through the peace and joy you exhibit and the friendship you give to that person.

Eventually they will ask you how you can be at peace when some crisis of the day comes up, and that’s the time to speak about Jesus and the sacraments.

-Tim-

Bingo!

As the monks at our abbey, we evangelize best through the witness of our own lives. The monks didn’t proselytize me into being an oblate. I just showed up and tried to figure out their calm and orderliness and why these cloistered men living under a Rule and an abbot seem so maddeningly free when I on the outside, seemed so enslaved. Then I decided “hey, I want some of that too!”.

One is often fine driving the same old jalopy that needs repairs to make it safe until the neighbour shows up in a shiny new car. Similarly we get into a rut, until the joy in someone’s life rubs off on us.

The other one I hear a lot is “religion is a crutch for the weak, I don’t need no crutches”. Oh yes we do! But it usually takes a life crisis to wake up. It certainly was the case for me. The best we can do for those folks is to be their tow truck when the wheels fall off…

 

[zz912]

Our culture is one that proclaims the belief in absolute relativity. I’ve always found it helpful to attack the fundamental error, problem, and impossibility of this view.

I usually begin by asking them if there is ANY objective truth in the universe. I start by asking them if certain things are right or wrong, like murdering babies, kicking puppies, raping grandmothers. One of these things will trigger revulsion in them, and that is your starting point. Deep down, they know and believe that these things are absolutely wrong. There is no acceptable “version” of the truth where they are acceptable. Once you get to that, you have to point out to them they don’t believe their own stated views.

The absolute relativity view is tough to combat, because it’s full of touchy-feely fluff with no real thought behind it.

 

[PennyinCanada]

I found people say 1) that God hasn’t shown himself since the parting of the Red Sea, and 2) religion is a way of keeping people in bondage. They may not say that directly because it might make further discussion, which they don’t want, so they find a way to shut you down in a polite way.

You might keep the book The Day the Sun Danced, the story of our Blessed Mother appearing at Fatima in 1917. That is bigger than God parting the Red Sea as far as I’m concerned, and it shows God is intervening in human history in modern day.

They can still say it’s all BS but our Lady asked for daily Rosary and sacrifices for the conversion of sinners. You never know if those prayers and sacrifices are being applied today to that person.

 

[Iron_Chariot]

I find it interesting that I’ve heard the “but it works for me” line from religious individuals far more often than I’ve ever heard from non-religious individuals.

The context in which it does come up in my experience is in the form of a religious family finding out that someone doesn’t believe and they flip out. Then that line is offered up as a way to potentially salvage a semblance of a working relationship amongst mean-spirited preaching, anger, threats (idle or otherwise), and/or other toxic behaviors that flare up when someone you thought was in your in group becomes one of the outgroup.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Am I the only one who sees utter futility in trying to convince others to our understanding by using religious arguments? If someone does not believe in God, how can you convince them an action is morally wrong by referring to biblical teaching?

I’m with you.

I never use religious language when discussing these things because the non-believer would dismiss what I say, regardless of how much sense it all makes.

I have found that the only way to talk to these people is to ask them questions that will show how illogical and confused their worldview is. I have yet to meet an atheist who has seriously thought things through and discusses it at a certain intellectual level.

To the “great for you but not for me” example given by the OP, I would simply not reply. I don’t think that a person who thinks like that would be open to a serious conversation about objective Truth

 

[PJM]

=SpeakKindly;12075467]Let’s say that you’re in a conversation with someone and a discussion about religion comes up. Eventually the conversation gets to a point where the person (who isn’t a person who practices any faith, and/or is someone who is “against organized religion”) says, “It’s great that it works for you and makes you a better person, but it’s not for me, it just isn’t something that works like that for me.”.

What do you say?

How about something along this line?

IF you believe in One TRUE God;

Than both logic a moral theology require that you also believe in just one set of faith beliefs.

Even God can’t possibly hold differing, often even contradictory views on the same defined issues.

God willing this then will lead to a different discussion on the One True Faith