Why some rabid anti-Catholic debators are so boring

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eliza10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
crisleem said:
I don’t get it. If protestants and the like debate Catholicism because we do too much or added too much, why does that bother them?
The arguements I seem to hear most are about confession (our way is not necessary for them), baptism for babies (our way is too early for them), communion (our way is too real for them)
I’d think God would be happy when someone went out of their way to do more than he asked, or more than expected!
How can anyone go wrong by doing TOO MUCH for Him?? Can you actually do too much.
What if we are all wrong? Then, I’d rather be wrong doing too much than too little.
Click to expand...
Amen Brotha(or Sista)!
 
Do you have an example of “rabid” behavior of the Baptists? The moderator (a Baptist) threaten to remove a spectator if they didn’t shut up and allow Mr. Keating to speak.
 
Actually, I find that some debators on both sides (anti and pro Catholic) can be excellent debators. And then, on both sides they can be boring.

I found the responses all interesting and noteworthy. Btw, I guess you realise I am new on this thread - hello to all!

Debating is a skill. However, it is not just a skill, though. No matter what is debated, it must be done through the grace of God because everything, even debating whether Star Trek or Babylon Five is the better show (which I know sounds ludicrous) is a spiritual matter because we are a spiritual people. Nothing is truly secular, all things are under the authority of God. Therefore, it is a skill which must be developed but also is a gift from God. Not everyone has this gift. I can do it, but I cannot stand the fact that debates usually descend into arguments in which no one is learning anything or really sharing anything and the grace of God is not being used.

Debating also requires knowledge and reseach. Many protestants, and I know because I have been there, do not research the Church from both sides of the coin, the anti and pro. Therefore they do not know the arguments and beliefs of the Catholic side. They just quote, as one person put it, from websites. I once debated with a Mormon friend - it stayed a friendly debate, btw and hope that she went away with something that changed her mind. I’ll have no way of knowing until the final coming. I did come away with something. Actually, I had done my research from both sides, but mainly from the anti side. She asked me, when we finished talking, to look at more Mormon sources next time. Although I actually had, I realised that there was still more research to be done before I debated again. Some people are against this - will not read the Book of Mormon or Koran or whatever because they are not inspired by God and might have a negative effect on the well-meaning researcher. I understand this attitude. And one must be very, very careful when doing so - The Book of Mormon never turned me, but I found it very, very appealing. So doing it with the grace of God and by His permission is the only way to do it. He might not want someone doing that kind of research and in my opinion, that means not debating.

There is a very seemingly subjective reason as well, although because the Catholic Church is the complete Church I see it as objective. We have the full truth. The Protestants are Christians, but they are lacking in the full truth. One only has to see how many denominations there are and why they split - not just over issues such as antibaptism, predestination, the Real Presence, whether to be welcoming to all (the American Methodist Episcopal Church was formed because the white Methodist, a coupld of hundred years ago, did not want blacks in their congregations. Happily the Methodist Church is no longer that way). Sometimes churches split over even non-doctrinal issues. So that says a lot. When people do not have the full truth, EVEN when they have done all the research, they are going to be lacking as debators and sometimes, as one person put it, “boring”. That’s my take on things.
 
For more than 170 years The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has declared The Book of Mormon to be a scriptural and literal history. Subtitled “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” it recounts the story of an Israelite family who immigrated to and fully populated the American Continents. Jesus, after His death and resurrection, is said to have visited this once great Israelite civilization existing in the Americas. The Book of Mormon teaches that these Israelites are the principal ancestors of modern-day Native Americans. New discoveries in DNA research currently allow scientists to test this historical claim. Thousands of Native Americans from more than 150 tribes have been tested to determine their ancestry. Mormonism’s founding prophet, Joseph Smith, once said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion…” Now the same DNA evidence used in courts of law can credibly speak to the validity of The Book of Mormon, which serves as the foundation of the Mormon religion. The evidence answers one basic question: Are Israelites the principal ancestors of Native America? video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8925722320315641564
 
Thanks for your comment. You clarified by your quote what I did not - what the Book of Mormon is and what Mormons believe, or what they believe among other things. I looked at your website - interesting and good readings - I’ll earmark it.

Actually, Joseph Smith picked up a lot of his theories from the going on of his day. The idea that the Native Americans were the Ten Lost Tribes was made very popular by Calvinists in the early to mid 1800s when a series of Christian revivals spread across the US, now known as the Great Revival. The Great Revival was also the event which brought about the public school system, btw - education for every child regardless of economic status.

Judging by the fact that your website is one of an ex-Mormon, I am assuming you do not believe in Mormonism anymore and thus the theories about Indians, pre-existence and all of that.

The whole point of my previous msg, though was that in showing the respect for someone by researching and knowing HIS beliefs, it gives you better grounds on which to debate. Of course, we must also know our faith very strongly. Many people are boring debators because they refuse to do the research and can only repeat the dogma they’ve learnt. I’ll be reading your website - for anyone interested in Mormonism from the other side of the coin, it is a very good one.

regards
 
byrdele said:
Actually, I find that some debators on both sides (anti and pro Catholic) can be excellent debators. And then, on both sides they can be boring.

I found the responses all interesting and noteworthy. Btw, I guess you realise I am new on this thread - hello to all!

Debating is a skill. However, it is not just a skill, though. No matter what is debated, it must be done through the grace of God because everything, even debating whether Star Trek or Babylon Five is the better show (which I know sounds ludicrous) is a spiritual matter because we are a spiritual people. Nothing is truly secular, all things are under the authority of God. Therefore, it is a skill which must be developed but also is a gift from God. Not everyone has this gift. I can do it, but I cannot stand the fact that debates usually descend into arguments in which no one is learning anything or really sharing anything and the grace of God is not being used.

Debating also requires knowledge and reseach. Many protestants, and I know because I have been there, do not research the Church from both sides of the coin, the anti and pro. Therefore they do not know the arguments and beliefs of the Catholic side. They just quote, as one person put it, from websites. I once debated with a Mormon friend - it stayed a friendly debate, btw and hope that she went away with something that changed her mind. I’ll have no way of knowing until the final coming. I did come away with something. Actually, I had done my research from both sides, but mainly from the anti side. She asked me, when we finished talking, to look at more Mormon sources next time. Although I actually had, I realised that there was still more research to be done before I debated again. Some people are against this - will not read the Book of Mormon or Koran or whatever because they are not inspired by God and might have a negative effect on the well-meaning researcher. I understand this attitude. And one must be very, very careful when doing so - The Book of Mormon never turned me, but I found it very, very appealing. So doing it with the grace of God and by His permission is the only way to do it. He might not want someone doing that kind of research and in my opinion, that means not debating.

There is a very seemingly subjective reason as well, although because the Catholic Church is the complete Church I see it as objective. We have the full truth. The Protestants are Christians, but they are lacking in the full truth. One only has to see how many denominations there are and why they split - not just over issues such as antibaptism, predestination, the Real Presence, whether to be welcoming to all (the American Methodist Episcopal Church was formed because the white Methodist, a coupld of hundred years ago, did not want blacks in their congregations. Happily the Methodist Church is no longer that way). Sometimes churches split over even non-doctrinal issues. So that says a lot. When people do not have the full truth, EVEN when they have done all the research, they are going to be lacking as debators and sometimes, as one person put it, “boring”. That’s my take on things.
Click to expand...
I agree that debating can be a good thing as long as it stays friendly. Fr. Mitch Pacwa when debating someone always emphasizes that whatever problems he sees is not with the debater but with his position. For example in his debate with James White he often says that he has a problem with Justification by Faith Alone appearing only with the Reformation and not at all before that. He then uses Allister McGrath’s book Iustistia Dei which means Righteousness of God to make his point. I am for one an evangelical who wants to learn not to make mistakes that I will admit some of its apologists make. I believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. Eucharist means to give thanks. In Greek literature you will see that any form of thanksgiving is Eucharist. In the Eucharist we give thanks to God for the sacrifice of his Son every time we celebrate it. Jesus comes to fellowship with us in a spiritual way. It is similar to when at the Last Supper he told his disciples that he will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until I drink it with you in heaven. So this kind of fellowship he has with us in the Eucharist is only a foreshadow of what is to come in heaven. Space prohibits me from saying more.
 
Nick_Zeman said:
I agree that debating can be a good thing as long as it stays friendly. Fr. Mitch Pacwa when debating someone always emphasizes that whatever problems he sees is not with the debater but with his position. For example in his debate with James White he often says that he has a problem with Justification by Faith Alone appearing only with the Reformation and not at all before that. He then uses Allister McGrath’s book Iustistia Dei which means Righteousness of God to make his point. I am for one an evangelical who wants to learn not to make mistakes that I will admit some of its apologists make. I believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. Eucharist means to give thanks. In Greek literature you will see that any form of thanksgiving is Eucharist. In the Eucharist we give thanks to God for the sacrifice of his Son every time we celebrate it. Jesus comes to fellowship with us in a spiritual way. It is similar to when at the Last Supper he told his disciples that he will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until I drink it with you in heaven. So this kind of fellowship he has with us in the Eucharist is only a foreshadow of what is to come in heaven. Space prohibits me from saying more.
Click to expand...
How did that one come out? Link?

That was marvelously done.
 
Hello Nick Zemen and everyone else. I fully agree that you separate the debator from the issue. Just as we love the sinner, and we’re all sinners, and hate the sin. When you debate in that manner, in a manner of calm love, you get your point across much better, plus you do not alienate unnecessarily another human being - none of us want to be alienated, so we don’t do it to others.

Speaking of debating, or maybe discussing… I had someone tell me that he could not cotton with religion because of all the misery in the world being linked to religion. Well, I thought about it afterward and a thought popped in my head. Probably it has popped into many of your heads, but in case it has not…

I used to argue that we couldn’t judge by 21st c. standards (which is true), that the Christians who slaughtered people ad nauseum in the Crusades, or in the Inquistion were not true Christians. Now I’ve got a more powerful idea. I am going to point out all of the misery in which religion played absolutely no part.

Atilla the Hun was considered the Antichrist and was called the Scourge of God. He was pagan and religion played no part in his devastating ventures - one which actually resulted in a pass through the hills still smelling of death years later it was so bad. It was self-glory and avarice.

For Ghengis Khan, it was self-glory and money.

For Hitler, it was self-glory and his own twisted ideas of the Master Race, more land for the Germans, to be king of a 1000 year empire. He leaned toward paganism as well, but there was no religious fervor behind what he did.

Lenin and Stalin had ideas behind what they did, but they were virulently anti-religious in general. In fact, that was one of the main points. To build a just society without religion. Most revolutionaries meant well, but Stalin was mad and Lenin actually killed more people to get his point across than did Stalin, a little known fact.

Just a few ideas, I’m sure you can come up with some more. This is what I plan to say, gently, to the next person who says that. Hopefully it will make him stop and think and possibly open his heart up to the Gospel. I won’t deny that he has a point, but will show him that it is not just a religious issue.
 
Amen brothers!! I have listened to debates between James Aikin of Catholic Answers and James White. While Aikin did a fine job, I was shocked by the uncharitableness of James White and the intensity of his negatively. I feel for the man; he obviously is driven by intense feelings. His “debating” reminds mean of the comment made by John Kennedy about Nitkita Kruchev when he said it’s difficult to negotiate with someone who says “what is mine is mine but what’s yours is negotiable”. We Catholics are far from perfect, but I we are more charitable, more open in our faith and willing to engage than are these folks. Their tactics leave me wondering and not about our faith-thanks for the quote from Ghandi. It’s a quote we should always remember. God bless!!
PS-Spelling has always been a problem for me!!
 
Jerry Heil,

I agree with your last post on the non-Catholic debators being less charitable. Of course, not all, but so many are because so many of them are from that evangelical/fundamentalist group which in itself (and I don’t mean every person in it) is not charitable. I am working toward becoming a teacher and found out some interesting results about charitability and graduates of different facets of the US school system. Catholic parochial students and yeshiva students both evenly came out on top. Then came private schools close behind. Then public schools, and lastly, Protestant parochial schools, including, and this was a shocker, Quakers! The students from the yeshivas said that tolerance for others is simply ingrained in them from the word go. In the case of Catholic and private schools, there is so much seeking of diversity among the student body and so much of a desire to give education to those who cannot afford to attend that gobs and gobs of scholarships are given. This starts it out. The survey found that Catholic graduates are more likely to be for the underdog, to be involved in civic affairs, are more likely to be volunteers and that there is, simply across the board, more tolerance for others.

I think it’s a mark of our faith too. We do believe that faith without works is dead. Protestants believe that works are a result of faith. You know, the two variations on a theme don’t sound really different, except recently and painfully for our extended family we have learnt how the “once saved always saved” can really lure someone into a false lack of security and very often the faith does not result in works. Whereas with us, it is a part of faith, inseperable, and so we are just so much more keenly aware of doing unto others… I know when I returned from the Protestant faiths to the Catholic, I became much more aware. It’s not that I do good works so I won’t go to hell, although sometimes that does enter my mind, being only human, but I do them because they are a part of my faith in Christ and I have that faith coupled with works ONLY through the grace of God. When I was a “once saved always saved” Christian, the works were not as important to me. Now they are, because I realise that it is only then that I show my love for God and show God’s love for others.

regards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top