The Moral Superiority of Protestants. .

[aidanbradypop]

Motivated Cognition in action: I believe X, and so X is clearly correct; you don’t believe X, and so you must be daft.

What amuses me is the constant recurrence of naïve, simplistic arguments against Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Christianity, Atheism, evolution, creationism, etc, as if no one else in the entire history of the world had sat down and thought about their beliefs for more than thirty seconds. All too often, these arguments are applauded by the people who already agreed with the apologist’s viewpoint, while utterly failing to persuade anyone undecided on the matter.

Nice post.

 

[WillyAL]

The only times I’ve run into people - both Protestant & Catholic - who are verbally abusive is on-line. Anonymity seems to bring out the worst in people.

So true. One’s proximity to a potential punch in the face greatly influences the degree to which one exercises good manners.

 

[clem456]

Motivated Cognition in action: I believe X, and so X is clearly correct; you don’t believe X, and so you must be daft.

What amuses me is the constant recurrence of naïve, simplistic arguments against Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Christianity, Atheism, evolution, creationism, etc, as if no one else in the entire history of the world had sat down and thought about their beliefs for more than thirty seconds. All too often, these arguments are applauded by the people who already agreed with the apologist’s viewpoint, while utterly failing to persuade anyone undecided on the matter.

Just a couple of points.
Not all convicted believers consider those who don’t share their beliefs to be daft. Convicted believers simply take a position, some may disagree with that position. People don’t like to take positions, it can make us uncomfortable. People don’t like when others take positions, makes us uncomfortable. It’s easy to cry “you’re calling me daft” cause I take a position you don’t agree with or don’t understand.

Frequently the simple expression of a position by a convicted believer is taken as an affront by those who disagree with the position, or those who do not want to take convicted positions. It’s not that the Catholic Church claims a naïve and intolerant superiority by proclaiming a universal truth, it’s that the Church proclaims something, anything universal, that irritates people. Proclaiming universal truths puts the Church in a position to get shot at. Sometimes it seems the only evil left is to proclaim a universal good for all people…

The fact that people who agree with one another affirm one another with applause, and that those who disagree are un-persuaded means nothing, per se. We’d like to have unity, but if we don’t , the fact of separation does not in itself negate the positions taken.

The fact that an argument is simple does not mean it is naïve.
God is infinitely simple. Doesn’t mean he is not profound and of some depth.

 

[WillyAL]

Motivated Cognition in action: I believe X, and so X is clearly correct; you don’t believe X, and so you must be daft.

What amuses me is the constant recurrence of naïve, simplistic arguments against Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Christianity, Atheism, evolution, creationism, etc, as if no one else in the entire history of the world had sat down and thought about their beliefs for more than thirty seconds. All too often, these arguments are applauded by the people who already agreed with the apologist’s viewpoint, while utterly failing to persuade anyone undecided on the matter.

Although I’m fairly new here, I have to say that this is one of the most thoughtful, intelligent posts I have ever read on CAF.

 

[aidanbradypop]

The Pastor at our church spoke some very positive words in a sermon a few weeks ago.

He stated that we should be proud of the faith we proclaim. If a friend or family member is of a different Christian faith, it should not be a barrier. Jesus Christ is our focal point and God saves people of many different denominations, not just our faith.

He went on to state that many times we argue over the ins and outs, but forget what makes us Christians to begin with.

 

[clem456]

The Pastor at our church spoke some very positive words in a sermon a few weeks ago.

He stated that we should be proud of the faith we proclaim. If a friend or family member is of a different Christian faith, it should not be a barrier. Jesus Christ is our focal point and God saves people of many different denominations, not just our faith.

He went on to state that many times we argue over the ins and outs, but forget what makes us Christians to begin with.

Yes God saves who he wills but this is not an argument or excuse for indifferentism. I am not claiming that you personally are advocating for indifferentism, but that is where this frequently leads. Christ calls us to know him, love him, serve him, he does not call us to be indifferent.
How do we come to know him? The “ins and outs” are an important part of coming to know the person of Christ.

Our Friday scripture study is 50/50 Catholic and others, but 100% Christian. We love each other, and we have sometimes heated discussions about our faith (we can continue to do this because we love and respect each other. It can be difficult sometimes). God willing, we will all see God, but it won’t be out of indifference.

15‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Yes God saves who he wills but this is not an argument or excuse for indifferentism. Christ calls us to know him, love him, serve him, he does not call us to be indifferent.
How do we come to know him? The “ins and outs” are an important part of coming to know the person of Christ.

Our Friday scripture study is 50/50 Catholic and others, but 100% Christian. We love each other, and we have sometimes heated discussions about our faith (we can continue to do this because we love and respect each other. It can be difficult sometimes). God willing, we will all see God, but it won’t be out of indifference.

Catholic: We have the fullness of truth from Christ

Baptist: We have the fullness and you worship Mary

Catholic: we believe in Scripture and Tradition

Baptist: we believe in Scripture an tradition is made by sinners

Catholic: the Baptist faith was made by a man

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Endless and pointless really. Both parties will talk in circles and both leave the conversation upset. Maybe one or both get banned and nothing changes.

I do not get upset with someone being Catholic or Lutheran. I do not agree with some of the teachings but I’m sure they do not agree witn some of the things I believe in either. We both believe in Jesus Christ and that he died for our sins. Let us rejoice in that!

 

[benjohnson]

After many years of believing all sorts of things that turned out to be wrong (at least for me), I no longer try to convince anybody of anything. It’s rather pointless. And when I do give an opinion, I often add, “But I could be wrong.”

It’s often though that peppering your opinions with things like “I could be wrong” is more persuasive. This form was practiced by Ben Franklin:

*I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradictions to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbade myself the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as “certainly”, “undoubtedly”, etc. I adopted instead of them “I conceive”, “I apprehend”, or “I imagine” a thing to be so or so; or “so it appears to me at present”.

When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing him immediately some absurdity in his proposition. In answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or semed to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction. I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.
*
distributedrepublic.net/archives/2005/08/11/benjamin-franklin-on-arguing/

 

[clem456]

It’s often though that peppering your opinions with things like “I could be wrong” is more persuasive. This form was practiced by Ben Franklin:

*I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradictions to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbade myself the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as “certainly”, “undoubtedly”, etc. I adopted instead of them “I conceive”, “I apprehend”, or “I imagine” a thing to be so or so; or “so it appears to me at present”.

When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing him immediately some absurdity in his proposition. In answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or semed to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction. I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.
*
distributedrepublic.net/archives/2005/08/11/benjamin-franklin-on-arguing/

That’s a great pastoral approach

 

[Sarcelle]

Something which I have noticed about academics is that the recognition of that last point is one of the hallmarks of the most expert ones: those who presume that they are correct seem to be the quickest to fall into error, in all sorts of fields.

I once attended a lecture given during a SPIE convention, SPIE being an international organization of optical scientists and engineers. The lecturer said something I never forgot. He said that to be a good scientist, humility is a must. The advances in science takes place because the right questions are asked and it is difficult to ask the right questions if you are convinced you already know all the answers.

 

[Magdalena59]

. . . I keep running into Protestants who look down their nose at me for being Catholic, as if I’m simply a child and unable to think for myself.

How many Catholics have run into this?

Of course, for some, they don’t even know the theology of their own denomination and can’t explain how it differs from whatever’s being offered at other Protestant churches!

So it goes.

I think this is perhaps caused by the Doctrine of Niceness, in which “real Christians” practice niceness upon each other, and being nice is the sum of the Gospels. This has intellectual problems with it, I believe.

But in the meantime, I’m treated like a fifth grader.

I kind of see your point. I have had comments made to me in the past about being Catholic, either from protestants or atheists and sometimes it seems more frequent, I am not sure. I do agree with others that it can go both ways. I have seen Catholics look down on protestants. I think it would be a disservice to say which does it more often but I will say that the Catholic church in general probably takes the most criticism, just because those on the outside looking in do not understand.

When out with my protestant friends and we discuss religion, my Catholicism isn’t talked about unless I bring it up or someone makes a comment like, “oh those Catholics” or “oh you’re Catholic right”.

For the most part I think it is just because people do not understand the faith and they are going by what they hear about Catholics.

…
Quite the contrary. The Gospel that I saw in the Evangelical Protestants churches was much tougher than anything I see in the Catholic Church.

Do you want to know the answer to your question?

Evangelical Protestants see Catholics as somewhat wishy washy because they know many people who claim to be Catholic but haven’t attended Mass or any church in years or even decades. They see many Catholics co-habiting. They see regular occurrences of Catholics getting drunk and excusing it with a chuckle and a wink.

And sadly, while Evangelical Protestants voted around 90% against the election and re-election of the most pro-abortion president ever (Barack Obama), 51% of Catholics voted for President Obama and his pro-abortion policies.

Evangelical Protestants would be the first to tell you, sincerely, that they are the greatest of sinners and have no right to judge anyone.

I too am an ex-evangelical protestant and this post saddens me because this is probably what the OP was speaking of that happens, although, I understand your desire to defend something you were a part of for so long.

As an evangelical I saw a lot of these same similar things also, the drinking, co-habitating, don’t need to go to church on Sunday the Bible is all I need, and judging others. Shamefully, probably even participated in judging. It is easy to point fingers and say the people in this denomination have fewer sins than those in the other denomination but that is a wrong way to look at Christianity. Unfortunately we all do it. We are all sinners and these and other sins are found in all denominations.

The Catholic church is strong but the lack of sinners or multitude of sinners is not what is protecting our walls nor makes our gospel message stronger or weaker than theirs. It is the promise of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the same for protestants, it is not the amount of sinners in the church but the truth in it or lack thereof.

Protestants see the Catholic church in many different ways, some good, some bad, and they always will without our evangelizing or sharing the beauty of the faith with them. I know I fail at that too. They see our sins as we see theirs but that should never be what we look at. Only at the truth given to it by Our Lord.

youtube.com/watch?v=xu5pev9QrBk Catholics Come Home.

God bless.

 

[ptisme]

Lots of good stuff going on here. Really proud of my fellow Christans.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Protestants see the Catholic church in many different ways, some good, some bad, and they always will without our evangelizing or sharing the beauty of the faith with them. I know I fail at that too. They see our sins as we see theirs but that should never be what we look at. Only at the truth given to it by Our Lord.

God bless.

I liked your post Magdalena! The quoted section is really spot on. We often judge a faith by the sinner and not the substance and teachings of a given faith. I know many people that condemned the RCC because of the abuse scandals. I know many Catholics that condemn Evangelicalism because of a few pastors that preach stuff that is not even Christianity.

I always say, “Don’t judge Evangelicalism because of me but rather what they teach and believe.” We can work with doctrine but we cannot define one’s doctrine by sinful behavior.

 

[clem456]

I once attended a lecture given during a SPIE convention, SPIE being an international organization of optical scientists and engineers. The lecturer said something I never forgot. He said that to be a good scientist, humility is a must. The advances in science takes place because the right questions are asked and it is difficult to ask the right questions if you are convinced you already know all the answers.

It’s interesting that much of science has an indisputable base of knowledge. Even theoretical physics, which attempts to go where no man has gone before, honors basic principles.
If a physicist disputed the action of gravity he might not only be laughed at, he might not even find a job. If a doctor tried to cure your flu with “blood-letting” he would be fired.

Universal truths are accepted in many areas, yet the highest order of knowledge, the knowledge of Jesus Christ, is frequently left to “whatever you believe is good”. In fact this indifference is often now asserted in the most ironically fundamentalist and intolerant way. As if the knowledge of Christ is subject to an exclusive personal faith out of all other context. The humility you reference above implies deference to an established community with a base of knowledge. The scientist might not have the answers, but he certainly has a body of knowledge and a community to help guide him.

 

[Peter_J]

Catholic: We have the fullness of truth from Christ

Baptist: We have the fullness and you worship Mary

Catholic: we believe in Scripture and Tradition

Baptist: we believe in Scripture an tradition is made by sinners

Catholic: the Baptist faith was made by a man

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Endless and pointless really.

Where possible I try to direct me to the official dialogues (especially the Catholic-Orthodox ones, although that’s not too relevant to this thread) and away from the blogxperts.

 

[Mystophilus]

I once attended a lecture given during a SPIE convention, SPIE being an international organization of optical scientists and engineers. The lecturer said something I never forgot. He said that to be a good scientist, humility is a must. The advances in science takes place because the right questions are asked and it is difficult to ask the right questions if you are convinced you already know all the answers.

Exactly.

 

[Mystophilus]

If a physicist disputed the action of gravity he might not only be laughed at, he might not even find a job. If a doctor tried to cure your flu with “blood-letting” he would be fired.

Universal truths are accepted in many areas, yet the highest order of knowledge, the knowledge of Jesus Christ, is frequently left to “whatever you believe is good”.

The basic reason for that is that we can perform experiments to demonstrate and even measure gravity, but we cannot do the same for the divinity of Jesus.

The humility you reference above implies deference to an established community with a base of knowledge. The scientist might not have the answers, but he certainly has a body of knowledge and a community to help guide him.

Not quite: the supreme authority is not the community of scientists, but the scientific method itself. Both the argument from authority and the argument from popularity are recognised logical fallacies: authorities and even whole populations of authorities can still fail.

 

[JRKH]

The basic reason for that is that we can perform experiments to demonstrate and even measure gravity, but we cannot do the same for the divinity of Jesus.

Quite correct. We work on faith.

Not quite: the supreme authority is not the community of scientists, but the scientific method itself. Both the argument from authority and the argument from popularity are recognized logical fallacies: authorities and even whole populations of authorities can still fail.

Much truth here, and yet…moving away from the scientific example…in so far as matters of faith go, we have one authority who is infallible and He is our King. I’m sure we will all agree to that statement. We all agree that we need to be obedient to our King.
Well our King has told us to “Tell it to the Church…and…Listen to the Church”. Our King wants us to be one as He and the Father are one - without strife or division.
So if I, a simple layman, am to be obedient to my Lord and King, I must do as I am commanded and be obedient to the authority that HE placed over me.
It is not for me to say whether that authority is right or wrong on a given issue.

He did not promise that our leaders would be faultless - indeed I think He was pretty clear that they would NOT be. After all, we know how Jesus felt about the Pharisees of the time and yet He tells the Jews to be obedient to them because they “sit on Moses seat”. (Mt 23:1-3)

So - If I obey the God given authority, it appears from scripture that I am OK. If that authority is wrong…they will have a heavy price to pay.

Of course the above is extremely simplified…but I hope people get the idea here.

Peace
James

 

[SteveVH]

Both the argument from authority and the argument from popularity are recognised logical fallacies: authorities and even whole populations of authorities can still fail.

Global warming.

 

[JustaServant]

Catholic: We have the fullness of truth from Christ

Baptist: We have the fullness and you worship Mary

Catholic: we believe in Scripture and Tradition

Baptist: we believe in Scripture an tradition is made by sinners

Catholic: the Baptist faith was made by a man

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Endless and pointless really. Both parties will talk in circles and both leave the conversation upset. Maybe one or both get banned and nothing changes.

I do not get upset with someone being Catholic or Lutheran. I do not agree with some of the teachings but I’m sure they do not agree witn some of the things I believe in either. We both believe in Jesus Christ and that he died for our sins. Let us rejoice in that!

You forgot:
Baptist: your church is the whore of Babylon.

Catholic: your church uses the Bible for your own purposes.

Baptist: Yeah? Well…you’re goin’ to Hell!!

Catholic: No you are!

Baptist: No you are!

…