Wow are protestant apologists really THAT dishonest?

[JoeyWarren]

Wow are protestant apologists really THAT dishonest?

Yes. The question begs “Wittingly” or “UnWittingly”?

 

[deb1]

I have to pay more attention to the comma’s, or maybe my eyesight is getting weaker. It thought you said, “He is not blatantly stupid or dishonest unlike you…” I thought someone was fixing to throw down.

Hey, I had to read the statement twice also. What surprised me, was that I don’t think that I’ve ever read anything from this poster that was ever rude. So, I knew that I had misread something.

 

[Contarini]

Hey, I had to read the statement twice also. What surprised me, was that I don’t think that I’ve ever read anything from this poster that was ever rude. So, I knew that I had misread something.

Thanks. But I have often been rude. I don’t think I’ve ever called anyone stupid, but I have used words like “nonsense” and “bizarre” a lot. . . . I’m glad you have missed those posts!

Edwin

 

[mark_a]

Now Jack Chick on the other hand… :banghead:

Well, I read Jimmy Akin’s account of meeting the Jack Chick guy and his cartoonist drawer illustrator guy, and he says they were nice fellers and not disrespectful in the least.

Maybe you are interpteting them all wrong.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Thanks. But I have often been rude. I don’t think I’ve ever called anyone stupid, but I have used words like “nonsense” and “bizarre” a lot. . . . I’m glad you have missed those posts!Edwin

I have no problem calling someone stupid. Like Forrest Gump’s mother said:

“STUPID IS, STUPID DOES”

If the stupid shoe fits, I will make sure the stupid person wears it.

People don’t like being called stupid, but when you are stupid, YOU ARE STUPID. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

[NotWorthy]

Edwin (or Contarini),

What is a dis-honest Apologist. One who unknowingly says something like, “Catholics added 7 books to the Bible at Trent”, or “Catholics invented Transubstantiation in the 12th century”, or “Catholics killed 100 million Europeans during the Inquistion”. After the truth is pointed out to these people though, they turn around and repeat the accusation to other Catholics “conversion prospects”.

Now, I know I only used anti-catholic apologists in my examples. I know some catholics do this, but as you can imagine, I’m more attuned to the accusations against the Church.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin (or Contarini),

What is a dis-honest Apologist. One who unknowingly says something like, “Catholics added 7 books to the Bible at Trent”, or “Catholics invented Transubstantiation in the 12th century”, or “Catholics killed 100 million Europeans during the Inquistion”. After the truth is pointed out to these people though, they turn around and repeat the accusation to other Catholics “conversion prospects”…

But are they doing this out of dishonesty, or because they don’t believe you?

I’m probably naive, but I tend to rule out the hypothesis of deliberate dishonesty as long as possible, largely for the same reason I rule out materialistic atheism–because both hypotheses bring about the breakdown of rational discourse, so that if they are true there is really nothing left to talk about.

Edwin

 

[NotWorthy]

But are they doing this out of dishonesty, or because they don’t believe you?

I’m probably naive, but I tend to rule out the hypothesis of deliberate dishonesty as long as possible, largely for the same reason I rule out materialistic atheism–because both hypotheses bring about the breakdown of rational discourse, so that if they are true there is really nothing left to talk about.

Edwin

OK, maybe I didn’t explain it quite well. Most often to refute this argument they are fed a string of ECF teachings or Council decisions that refute their statements. But instead of doing even a minor research, they just choose not to believe.

Now, on the other hand, refuting Scripture (“By Faith are we saved”) with more Scripture (“Faith without works is dead”) often leads to each party saying, “well, that’s your interpretation” and going on their merry little way.

The biggest benefit to those exchanges are the innocent “bystanders” that are following the conversation because they have a real question. The two main protagonists, though, rarely leave the argument with the other crying, “Uncle”.

 

[christcnection1]

Not too long ago I was listening to D James Kennedy’s program, “Truths that Transform.” The whole program was on St. Patrick, and how he was actually a Protestant.

I don’t remember all the details, but some of the information they pushed was outlandish. I lost a tremendous amount respect for him and his program after that nightmare. It’s like they started with the assumption that St. Patrick had no contact with the Catholic Church.

After contacting them by email, they just told me they were going by the information they had, without trying to debunk all the traditonal history on him. After expressing my Catholic convictions after my conversion from Protestantism, the guy asked me if I had “absolute assurance of my salvation.” (I was assured truth wasn’t from these guys.)

Really, the whole radio program and response was pathetic. These people are supposedly respectable in the Evangelical world too. Very disappointing…

CA has a good little piece on St. Pat

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703prof.asp

 

[christcnection1]

I have to pay more attention to the comma’s, or maybe my eyesight is getting weaker. It thought you said, “He is not blatantly stupid or dishonest unlike you…” I thought someone was fixing to throw down.

Haha… that’s happening a lot to you tonight.

 

[NotWorthy]

Haha… that’s happening a lot to you tonight.

You wanna piece of me?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Not too long ago I was listening to D James Kennedy’s program, “Truths that Transform.” The whole program was on St. Patrick, and how he was actually a Protestant.

I listened to “Walk In The Word” by Dr. James MacDonald. He was doing a piece on Genesis. He stated that the oldest item is only actually 6000 years old. If anything that has an appearance of being older was made that way by God.

 

[pacislander4lif]

i was looking at Philip Porvaznik’s (“Philvaz”) website and saw an interesting quote from protestant apologist william webster and david king in their book “The Holy Scripture: Pillar and Foundation of our faith”

" The patristic evidence for sola Scriptura is, we believe, an overwhelming indictment against the claims of the Roman communion. " (volume 1 by David King, page 266)

" Such statements [regarding the unhistorical nature of sola Scriptura] manifest an ignorance of the patristic and medieval perspective on the authority of Scripture. Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages. " (volume 2 by William Webster, page 84-85)

" When they [the Church Fathers] are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that they universally taught sola Scriptura in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. " (volume 3 by Webster/King, page 9)

obviously this is a blatant lie since we can see through reading the church fathers in context that they did not teach sola scriptura at all! Now if webster’s argument was that there are certain passages from the church fathers which can be used to support his argument that is one thing (allthough i highly dissagre with it) but to say that there was a universal consesus for sola scriptura seems like these heretics are intenionally trying to misslead people. What do you think?

Do you believe there was a universal consensus for the Papacy?

 

[NotWorthy]

Do you believe there was a universal consensus for the Papacy?

In the west there seemed to be. In the east, it seemed to depended on whether the Pope agreed with them or not.

Often times, the Pope biggest detractors were those which had originally gone to the Pope to rectify a problem and were dissatisfied with the outcome.

 

[Della]

No, I don’t think that’s the question. Deliberate dishonesty is, I think, relatively rare among serious adherents of any form of Christianity. Perhaps I am naive. A “bad” apologist is “dishonest” in the sense that he or she does not pay careful enough attention to the evidence, but is overly driven by an ideological agenda

I meant the topic of this thread.

I see no evidence that Webster or any other major apologist for any Christian position believes in this. Where are you getting this rather shocking and frankly bizarre idea? OK, it’s not that bizarre–it’s a stock element of anti-Catholic rhetoric (that Catholics believe the ends justify the means), so I suppose it’s fair in some grimly ironic sense that Catholics are now using it against Protestants. It seems to be part of human nature to ascribe unscrupulousness to people with whom we disagree strongly. I think it comes from an unwillingness to recognize just how mistaken sincere people can be. After all, we wouldn’t want to be “relativists.” Unfortunately, the recognition of just how difficult and confusing matters of religious truth are (a recognition which often seems to be confounded with relativism) is simply a recognition of reality. It is quite the opposite of relativism, actually.

“On a huge hill,
Cragged and steep, truth stands, and he that will
Reach her, about must, and about must go,
And what the hill’s suddenness resist, win so.” (Donne, Satire 3)

People like Webster–and his counterparts in Catholicism–insist on charging straight up the hill. No wonder they generally fall down and bump their heads and wander around half-crazed ever afterwards. And no wander that unsympathetic people mistake them for liars.

Edwin

I’m sorry, but you are naive here. I lived the sort of attitude I cited as a Pentecostalist Christian. If a fact didn’t fit our argument it was glossed over or ignored or made into a strawman argument–all in an effort to draw people out of the Catholic Church. And, I have NEVER heard of a Catholic apologist being accused of believing that the ends justify the means. The very concept runs contrary to Catholic belief and practice!

As to theology being difficult, well no one’s claiming it’s a breeze. But, there are some things that are obviously true or Christianity itself makes no sense. The arguments of those who have disengaged themselves from ancient and orthodox teachings are no more than wishful thinking, and ought to be dealt with as such. Ideas such as once-saved-always-saved or Mary was no more than a mere vessel or denial of the communion of saints. Not everything people wish to believe is true. And there is an awful lot of wishful thinking within the ranks of Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Pentecostalist Christianity.

 

[deb1]

But are they doing this out of dishonesty, or because they don’t believe you?

I’m probably naive, but I tend to rule out the hypothesis of deliberate dishonesty as long as possible, largely for the same reason I rule out materialistic atheism–because both hypotheses bring about the breakdown of rational discourse, so that if they are true there is really nothing left to talk about.

Edwin

I don’t know if it is dishonesty or just an absolute certainty that they are right and on the side of God.

Someone who believes that Catholicism is from the devil, might feel justified in using any means possible-including lying-to save a soul from the clutches of the Church.

I feel sorry for such people.

 

[Zooey]

But are they doing this out of dishonesty, or because they don’t believe you?

I’m probably naive, but I tend to rule out the hypothesis of deliberate dishonesty as long as possible, largely for the same reason I rule out materialistic atheism–because both hypotheses bring about the breakdown of rational discourse, so that if they are true there is really nothing left to talk about.

Edwin

Edwin, I really have to say, that I think that a lot of them are outright lying. I have been increasingly impressed over the past few years, by the fact that, the best non-Catholic Christian apologists spend their time arguing against atheism, not against Catholics or Orthodox, or even against other Protestant apologists. They just have more important things to do, than indulge in hate-fests.
The worst, on the other hand, “are full of passionate intensity”. I dunno…There just seems to be a lot of stupidity rampart otherwise. I don’t believe that, though. I don’t think the likes of Webster are stupid. I think that they just hate Catholics more than they love Jesus.

 

[lak611]

I really have to say, that I think that a lot of them are outright lying. I have been increasingly impressed over the past few years, by the fact that, the best non-Catholic Christian apologists spend their time arguing against atheism, not against Catholics or Orthodox, or even against other Protestant apologists.

I agree. I think of C.S. Lewis, for example.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

deb1:

I don’t know if it is dishonesty or just an absolute certainty that they are right and on the side of God.

But the acid test is whether or not they are open to truth or whether they are content to justify pre-conceived notions or notions which are merely convenient to them.

It does not escape my notice that my friend’s cousin left the Church because there was no babysitting in the Church during Mass.

deb1:

Someone who believes that Catholicism is from the devil, might feel justified in using any means possible-including lying-to save a soul from the clutches of the Church.

Including lying. That is what disturbs me.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Zooey:

I really have to say, that I think that a lot of them are outright lying. I have been increasingly impressed over the past few years, by the fact that, the best non-Catholic Christian apologists spend their time arguing against atheism, not against Catholics or Orthodox, or even against other Protestant apologists. They just have more important things to do, than indulge in hate-fests… I don’t think the likes of Webster are stupid. I think that they just hate Catholics more than they love Jesus.

Thank you for having the courage to put this on the table.