What's your role in defending/explaining Christianity? (for Protestants)

[GKC]

PeterJ, how did this thread go wrong? :doh2: LOL

I got in it, I think.

 

[undead_rat]

My opinions re: the Shroud are cautiously affirmative. As I expressed in the last series of posts I made, on a thread which covered a few points, the most interesting being the contributions of the late Raymond Rogers, contra the “late” carbon 14 dating of the Shroud and the reweaving issue, re: the sites from which the relevant samples were taken. I think Rogers has it right.

No reason to think the Edessa Image is the Shroud of Turin.
.

The Shroud was “restored” in 2002 and in that process its backing cloth was removed. A very careful examination of the 1988 C-14 sample area was made by Dr. Flury-Lemburg on both sides of the linen cloth, and no evidence of any repair or so-called “invisible reweaving” could be found. Mr. Antonacci debunks Mr. Rogers’ hypothesis rather conclusively.

When the Image of Edessa was removed from its 500 years of hiding in the West Gate, a true likeness of our Lord was finally available, and this likeness was carried by monks throughout the Christian world.
One of the most notable examples is the Christ Pantocrator sixth-century icon at the monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai.* This image bears a striking resemblance to the facial image found on the Shroud and contains features unique to the Shroud image.

Sir, you say that you have read Prof. Wilson’s latest book, and at the same time you say that “there is no reason to think the Edessa Image is the Shroud of Turin.” But Wilson details many reasons as to why the Image of Edessa is, in fact, the Shroud. He even goes so far as to sub-title his 2010 book:
THE 2000-YEAR-OLD MYSTERY SOLVED, meaning that he has unraveled the Shroud’s missing history, not that he has explained the process by which its miraculous Image was formed.

*Plate 17d, THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010

 

[Peter_J]

Well I guess this is one of those times where you say to yourself “Well, this isn’t really being used as intended … but it wasn’t really being used much otherwise so alright.”

 

[Padres1969]

This may be kind of a rookie question, but I’d be interested to hear from Protestant posters: how do you see your role when it comes to defending/explaining/etc Christianity?

I see my role to try and live a good Christian life and to provide an example (such as it is). Other than that I’ll answer questions when asked regarding Christianity.

 

[Peter_J]

I see my role to try and live a good Christian life and to provide an example (such as it is). Other than that I’ll answer questions when asked regarding Christianity.

If I might pile on another question to what I’ve asked already, is part of your reason for participating on CAF (or at least the section devoted to other religions) to talk to non-Christians about your faith?

 

[Padres1969]

If I might pile on another question to what I’ve asked already, is part of your reason for participating on CAF (or at least the section devoted to other religions) to talk to non-Christians about your faith?

Nope. I participate here for due to my own intellectual curiosity.

 

[undead_rat]

This may be kind of a rookie question, but I’d be interested to hear from Protestant posters: how do you see your role when it comes to defending/explaining/etc Christianity?

Now that I think about it, I never fully answered this question. but, instead, became sidetracked. My apologies.

I see my role in explaining Christianity as providing an alternative explanation to some very crucial passages. For instance, Luke 12:49 where the Catholic interpretation of the “fire” is that such is the fire of the Pentecost (CCC 696.)
But my take has been that this “fire” is one and the same as the fire of Isaiah 66:15-16, the fire of divine judgment.

Then there is Jeremiah 25:32-33 predicting a “disaster” that spreads "“from nation to nation” which I see as global nuclear war: “a mighty tempest rises from the far ends of the earth,”
and the dead shall be “scattered across the world” with no one to bury them.
I believe that these apocalyptic passages will come true within the next fifty years, if not sooner.

Finally there is the much derided Prophecy of the Popes which, since the election of our blessed Pope Francis, no one puts much stock in since he is obviously not Peter the Roman.
My feeble research found that this list of papal mottoes had been spuriously edited in 1624 and that the motto which actually applied to Pope Francis had nothing to do with the “Petrus Romanus” lines.
Number 112 is this:
He will reign in the final persecution. of the Holy Roman Church.

Motto number 113 is still left. There will be one more Pope after Francis.

 

[Peter_J]

This popped into my head, and it’s a bit simplistic but I’ll throw it up here regardless: If our conversations are going to turn into us-versus-them (and I assume that anyone who spent even a little bit of time on forums knows what I’m talking about!) wouldn’t it be better to have “us Christians vs. those other religions” than “us Roman Catholics vs. those devil-following Protestants and Eastern Orthodox”?

 

[Picky_Picky]

This popped into my head, and it’s a bit simplistic but I’ll throw it up here regardless: If our conversations are going to turn into us-versus-them (and I assume that anyone who spent even a little bit of time on forums knows what I’m talking about!) wouldn’t it be better to have “us Christians vs. those other religions” than “us Roman Catholics vs. those devil-following Protestants and Eastern Orthodox”?

Wouldn’t that be even more damaging to peaceful coexistence?

 

[drac16]

I simply use the Scriptures as my source. If someone asks me what I think of same-sex marriage, I don’t say “Well, I think such-and-such”; rather, I say “This is what the Bible says…” and so on. It’s better for me to present what the Bible says than to share my own personal feelings. This can only be done if one has a good understanding of the Bible, so I make sure to read it every day. If you’re armed with the Bible, you can present the perfect moral code that was laid down [by Christ].

 

[JonNC]

This popped into my head, and it’s a bit simplistic but I’ll throw it up here regardless: If our conversations are going to turn into us-versus-them (and I assume that anyone who spent even a little bit of time on forums knows what I’m talking about!) wouldn’t it be better to have “us Christians vs. those other religions” than “us Roman Catholics vs. those devil-following Protestants and Eastern Orthodox”?

Precisely.

Wait! Devil - following?

 

[Peter_J]

Indeed!

 

[Peter_J]

This popped into my head, and it’s a bit simplistic but I’ll throw it up here regardless: If our conversations are going to turn into us-versus-them (and I assume that anyone who spent even a little bit of time on forums knows what I’m talking about!) wouldn’t it be better to have “us Christians vs. those other religions” than “us Roman Catholics vs. those devil-following Protestants and Eastern Orthodox”?

Wouldn’t that be even more damaging to peaceful coexistence?

Even though I didn’t offer an answer to your question, I was rather hoping that others would.

 

[Peter_J]

Now that I think about it, I never fully answered this question. but, instead, became sidetracked. My apologies.

I see my role in explaining Christianity as providing an alternative explanation to some very crucial passages. For instance, Luke 12:49 where the Catholic interpretation of the “fire” is that such is the fire of the Pentecost (CCC 696.)
But my take has been that this “fire” is one and the same as the fire of Isaiah 66:15-16, the fire of divine judgment.

Then there is Jeremiah 25:32-33 predicting a “disaster” that spreads "“from nation to nation” which I see as global nuclear war: “a mighty tempest rises from the far ends of the earth,”
and the dead shall be “scattered across the world” with no one to bury them.
I believe that these apocalyptic passages will come true within the next fifty years, if not sooner.

Finally there is the much derided Prophecy of the Popes which, since the election of our blessed Pope Francis, no one puts much stock in since he is obviously not Peter the Roman.
My feeble research found that this list of papal mottoes had been spuriously edited in 1624 and that the motto which actually applied to Pope Francis had nothing to do with the “Petrus Romanus” lines.
Number 112 is this:
He will reign in the final persecution. of the Holy Roman Church.

Motto number 113 is still left. There will be one more Pope after Francis.

So generally speaking, how interested are you in e.g. forum threads for discussing Christianity with non-Christians? And why?

 

[LutheranScholar]

This may be kind of a rookie question, but I’d be interested to hear from Protestant posters: how do you see your role when it comes to defending/explaining/etc Christianity?

My faith is a part of me. When a non- Christian is interested in learning more about what I believe in and why, I will enthusiastically engage in dialogue with such a person. I guess in that instance, I would see my role as a teacher first and then an apologist for my religious beliefs.

 

[Peter_J]

My faith is a part of me. When a non- Christian is interested in learning more about what I believe in and why, I will enthusiastically engage in dialogue with such a person. I guess in that instance, I would see my role as a teacher first and then an apologist for my religious beliefs.

Perhaps your approach is better than mine, I don’t know.

During my decade on CAF (although maybe not so much in recent months) I’ve talked a lot with Protestants – heck I think I’ve read more posts from Protestants than from Catholics, which is remarkable when you think about it – as well as trying to distance myself from Protestant-bashing.

But I think there can come a point where you just have ask, why am I doing this? Does it even matter to anyone?

(I’m not saying that the answer is to switch to dialogue with non-Christians. I don’t really know what the answer is.)

 

[Wannano]

Perhaps your approach is better than mine, I don’t know.

During my decade on CAF (although maybe not so much in recent months) I’ve talked a lot with Protestants – heck I think I’ve read more posts from Protestants than from Catholics, which is remarkable when you think about it – as well as trying to distance myself from Protestant-bashing.

But I think there can come a point where you just have ask, why am I doing this? Does it even matter to anyone?

(I’m not saying that the answer is to switch to dialogue with non-Christians. I don’t really know what the answer is.)

It has mattered to me Peter. I think it also matters to God. A lack of love is so obvious among some here but you exhibit a loving attitude. Without love we are nothing.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Perhaps your approach is better than mine, I don’t know.

During my decade on CAF (although maybe not so much in recent months) I’ve talked a lot with Protestants – heck I think I’ve read more posts from Protestants than from Catholics, which is remarkable when you think about it – as well as trying to distance myself from Protestant-bashing.

But I think there can come a point where you just have ask, why am I doing this? Does it even matter to anyone?

(I’m not saying that the answer is to switch to dialogue with non-Christians. I don’t really know what the answer is.)

I wouldn’t call it better, not at all. I’m simply trying to offer my perspective on the matter. When I engage with Christians not of my Confession, I try to approach our differences in a similar way. I don’t really get that " Deus Vult" until I get the impression that somebody’s deliberately trying to slam my own faith ( which is, as I mentioned, a part of me).

Your approach is remarkably diplomatic and I applaud your efforts here. I could see where it would get terribly discouraging to try to repeat your points for the umpteenth time just to hear a " nyaah, nyaah, can’t hear YOOOUU!!" response. That’s when I would quietly find a Facebook ( or some other) group of brethren who share my own Confession and settle in comfortably. Your willingness to lovingly engage people instead of trying to bury them underneath loads of verbiage speaks volumes about the sincerity of your own faith and is, indeed, a credit to your Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks Wannano and LutheranScholar.

Perhaps I should have edited my last post a bit before submitting (e.g. not saying “Does it even matter to anyone?”).

There’s actually a lot that I like about the Protestant posters here. But the reason I get extremely frustrated talking with y’all (and why I consider switching to dialogue with other religions) is that I’m continually baffled by the selection criteria you use in choosing dialogue partners … for one thing, many if not most of y’all seem to prefer Catholics who engage in plenty of Protestant-bashing.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Thanks Wannano and LutheranScholar.

Perhaps I should have edited my last post a bit before submitting (e.g. not saying “Does it even matter to anyone?”).

There’s actually a lot that I like about the Protestant posters here. But the reason I get extremely frustrated talking with y’all (and why I consider switching to dialogue with other religions) is that I’m continually baffled by the selection criteria you use in choosing dialogue partners … for one thing, many if not most of y’all seem to prefer Catholics who engage in plenty of Protestant-bashing.

Guilty. I am not sure I’d call them " dialogue partners" as much as I would " sparring partners." I saw a couple of posts that I was tempted to swoop right down on and engage today, but that leads to very little other than an elevated blood pressure and a huffy rush of self- righteousness. People hold their beliefs dearly and this is a Catholic Apologetics site, designed, for, well, Catholic Apologetics. There are plenty of Facebook- hosted Lutheran pages that serve as excellent sources of Confessional Apologetics. For what it’s worth, Peter, it’s always a pleasure to engage you in conversation.