Tips and Tricks, please

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='Aug 31 2005, 06:58 PM']what do you think are the top five apologetic websites?

1. Catholic Defense Directory
?????
[right][snapback]706849[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
my top five, in no particular order:

1. Catholic Defense Directory
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/[/url]

2. Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (Dave Armstrong's website)
[url="http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/"]http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/[/url]

3. Catholic Outlook
[url="http://www.catholicoutlook.com/"]http://www.catholicoutlook.com/[/url]

4. Catholic Answers
[url="http://www.catholic.com"]http://www.catholic.com[/url]

5. Scripture Catholic
[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com[/url]

if you want to go w/ 10, i would also suggest these:

6. Catholic Legate
[url="http://www.catholic-legate.com"]http://www.catholic-legate.com[/url]

7. Evangelical Catholic Apologetics
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/[/url]

8. Catholic Bridge
[url="http://www.catholicbridge.com/"]http://www.catholicbridge.com/[/url]

9. Mystical Rose Catholic Webpage
[url="http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/index.html"]http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/index.html[/url]

10. Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page
[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/[/url]

[Lil Red]

awesome, thanks!

[thessalonian]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Sep 1 2005, 01:42 AM']
[b]MY TOP FIVE[/b] in no particular order:

1. - 10

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Sep 1 2005, 02:12 PM']
[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Sep 1 2005, 01:42 AM']
[b]MY TOP FIVE[/b] in no particular order:

1. - 10




[right][snapback]707568[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
hey! i prefaced it!! :

"if you want to go w/ 10, i would also suggest these"

i'm not [i][b]totally[/b][/i] braindead

[thessalonian]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Sep 1 2005, 11:41 PM']hey! i prefaced it!! :

"if you want to go w/ 10, i would also suggest these"

i'm not [i][b]totally[/b][/i] braindead 
[right][snapback]708442[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well if you were interpruting it like Luther interpruted the Bible (What I was reading in "The Facts About Luther" last night was very interesting) you might have said well I posted ten and said in no particular order so you I intended for you to put five of the ten in the top 5 you maliciously depraved popish a4%**$#ss.
That's basically how he was when people disagreed with him.

Edited September 2, 2005 by thessalonian

[Theologian in Training]

I have been looking for a reason to post excerps from my MDiv, and this seems to be the most appropriate thread and time. Feel free to use any of the ideas or information if it can help. BTW, I am still working out the finer details of the relationship that exists between apologetics and evangelization.

In 1 Peter 3:15 we are exhorted by the first Pope of the Church: “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” Now, on a cursory glance, and since most people are not proficient in Greek, the original tongue in which St. Peter wrote this letter, it seems as though the term apologetics is not even evident in this passage. However, as Patrick Madrid and other well-known apologists point out, hetoimoi de aei pros apologian, the original Greek, has been translated as “give an answer” or “defense.” However, defense in this context is not the same as being defensive. Rather, it is a command to be ready and not search for a battle. In fact, St. Peter specifies that the defense must be done with “gentleness and reverence.”
The question then arises as to what type of defense St. Peter speaks of then and why there seems to be a need to make this defense in the first place. The answer to this question can be found, as Madrid notes, by going back to the Scriptures, this time, to the Letters of St. Paul. For, although St. Peter was exhorting Christians to make this defense, the importance of making such a defense was actually already introduced in Paul’s Letters. In fact, in Philippians 1:7 we read: “you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.” In similar fashion we see this again in 1:16: “The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel.” It is therefore immediately evident what merits this defense: the confirmation and proclamation of the Gospel, on which our faith is based. Apologetics, therefore, is a defense, a defense, however, of a special nature. It is not a defense for its own sake; rather, it is a defense of the faith, a defense that seeks to protect and proclaim the Gospel.
In light of this, we see that apologetics originated as a means of defending the Gospel and the truths of the faith contained therein. This is important because it shows that, by its nature, apologetics was developed for this specific purpose, knowing that at some point these truths would be questioned and the validity of the Gospel put to the test. However, it also points to the fact that what is believed is so important that it merits a defense, so much so, in fact, that the need existed to develop a specific attitude toward preserving the faith. The difference, however, is that one is not to defend unless being attacked. It is almost akin to those that learn karate; they are given the tools necessary to use but are told to do so only in self-defense. In other words, to echo St. Peter, we are to be ready to make a defense, but we are not to strike first. Peter Kreeft, in his article, “Are Apologetics and Evangelism at Odds?” articulates this point quite well:
The professional apologist is busy giving reasons for the faith, even when not asked, throughout his workday. But the ordinary Christian is commanded to be ready to give a reason for his faith and hope and love whenever he is asked. And this assumes that he will be asked. And this assumes that there will be something askable, something different about him. In other words, it assumes that his faith is not so small as to be invisible to unbelievers. (Peter Kreeft, “Are Apologetics and Evangelism at Odds?,” This Rock Magazine, vol 14, no 1 January 2003, 12)


“Proving” Faith?
It must be remembered, amidst this, however, that although one cannot prove faith, one can intelligently reason certain fundamental truths that cannot be changed and which are integrally attached to the Church Herself. In fact, Mark Brumley, another well-known apologist, notes this distinction well: “Faith goes beyond what arguments can demonstrate. Faith is, in the final analysis, the work of God’s grace, not of an apologist’s argument.” However, he is also quick to point out that this does not mean that faith is therefore separate or absent from reason. “Yes, faith is supernatural,” he states “[Y]et, belief doesn’t destroy our nature as thinking beings; it builds upon it to elevate reason so we can ponder and understand things above our natural intellectual powers.” Therefore, faith and reason are complementary, if not integral to each other, rather than distinct of themselves.

It is in light of this in which a true apologetics should be motivated, that is, by a deep and intimate relationship with God. In fact, apologetics should presuppose one. However, this deep and intimate relationship with God does not mean that all knowledge will be known to us and as thus be great apologists without opening a book. No, rather, it means that we are to be ready, and the only way to be ready is to study and practice. It is in this way that a true apologetic is formed and a necessary balance attained.

Go Out To All The Nations and Apologize?
The question can then be raised as to what it means to do apologetics and why it is important to do apologetics today. However, in order to answer such a question, it is first necessary to place apologetics in the context in which it is understood and in which it is frequently seen as a subset, namely, evangelization. Now, at the outset it may not seem that the two are related in any way since one seeks to defend and protect while the other seeks to preach and bring the message to all. The distinction, however, lies in the fact that, by its nature, apologetics is something to be practiced, that is, it is something to be done. In fact, this is clearly evident in St. Peter’s command to be ready. In other words, one never gets ready unless he is to do something, unless an action is presupposed. The pros apologian, noted earlier can actually, according to Madrid, be translated literally as a command to “do apologetics.” Even the fact that St. Peter exhorts us to be charitable and respectful in our approach assumes that an engagement will take place and an action will be done. This is important to note, because it reaffirms the supposition that apologetics is actually a subset of evangelization rather than an independent entity of itself. For, in bringing the message there is the possibility that the message may not be accepted and, therefore, then there is the need to be ready. This form of readiness, however, will be different, because rather than formulating a defense, it will be more in trying to explain and help find reasons for the faith. Although, this is still considered apologetics, it demonstrates the wider and more proper understanding of what apologetics really is, which can only truly be understood when seen as a subset of evangelization. In fact, when apologetics is seen in this context it is less seen as a bodyguard trying to protect or as a warrior ready to strike as much an owner of a house hospitably extending an invitation or a teacher trying to enlighten her student. As Madrid himself notes, when apologetics is done right this is its truest form, that is, as an “invitation” rather than a “provocation.” Consequently, when apologetics is seen in the context of an invitation, it then functions as a teacher and educator. It then becomes, in essence, a classroom meeting of two minds, two minds, however, as Kreeft notes, which seek reasons. These reasons imply that a question was asked and a question would never have been asked unless somebody had preached to them something that had instigated the question in the first place. Thus, apologetics becomes an integral part of evangelization.

Evangeligetics?
A difficulty can arise, however, with the relationship of evangelization and apologetics, when the line of distinction becomes blurred between the two. The tendency is to falsely see apologetics as evangelization or evangelization as apologetics. This is dangerous because not only does it fail to see apologetics in its correct context, as noted above, but it also creates apologetics as an end within itself and, as we have seen, apologetics is neither an end nor a beginning, it is rather a means and a tool. A tool, especially, that makes extensive use of reason. In fact, this is actually what causes that line between apologetics and evangelization to become both blurred and distinct. As Kreeft, Madrid, and many other apologists note, echoing Isaiah 1:18, apologetics is an invitation to reason together. This act of reasoning is important because, as Brumley illustrates, one cannot believe unless one knows and one cannot know unless one seeks to understand, and he cannot understand unless he utilizes his reason to engage others in an effort to draw comprehensive conclusions. Fr. William Most, another apologist, was keen to such an understanding as well. Essentially, he believed that even before faith one needed reason: “That is, before anyone can or should believe, he should go through a process of discovery based on reason, not on faith.”
In light of this, apologetics can be properly understood as a reflection on all evangelical efforts. It functions not only as a subset of this evangelization but becomes integral to its mission. In the end, therefore, if we evangelize without being ready or are ready without evangelizing then we fail in both apologizing and evangelizing.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Sep 2 2005, 05:30 AM']Well if you were interpruting it like Luther interpruted the Bible (What I was reading  in "The Facts About Luther" last night was very interesting) you might have said well I posted ten and said in no particular order so you I intended for you to put five of the ten in the top 5 you maliciously depraved popish a4%**$#ss.
That's basically how he was when people disagreed with him.
[right][snapback]708549[/snapback][/right][/quote]
haha!! u kill me, dude!

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' date='Sep 2 2005, 08:03 AM']Evangeligetics?
    A difficulty can arise, however, with the relationship of evangelization and apologetics, when the line of distinction becomes blurred between the two. The tendency is to falsely see apologetics as evangelization or evangelization as apologetics. This is dangerous because not only does it fail to see apologetics in its correct context, as noted above, but it also creates apologetics as an end within itself and, as we have seen, apologetics is neither an end nor a beginning, it is rather a means and a tool. A tool, especially, that makes extensive use of reason. In fact, this is actually what causes that line between apologetics and evangelization to become both blurred and distinct. As Kreeft, Madrid, and many other apologists note, echoing Isaiah 1:18, apologetics is an invitation to reason together. This act of reasoning is important because, as Brumley illustrates,  one cannot believe unless one knows and one cannot know unless one seeks to understand, and he cannot understand unless he utilizes his reason to engage others in an effort to draw comprehensive conclusions. Fr. William Most, another apologist, was keen to such an understanding as well. Essentially, he believed that even before faith one needed reason: “That is, before anyone can or should believe, he should go through a process of discovery based on reason, not on faith.”         
    In light of this, apologetics can be properly understood as a reflection on all evangelical efforts. It functions not only as a subset of this evangelization but becomes integral to its mission. In the end, therefore, if we evangelize without being ready or are ready without evangelizing then we fail in both apologizing and evangelizing.
[right][snapback]708582[/snapback][/right][/quote]
can i offer some constructive criticism?

this last paragraph ends too abruptly. it needs to be fleshed out some more, possibly by answering the following questions:

--why is it dangerous to fail to see apologetics in its correct context?
--why is it that apologetics is neither an end nor a beginning?
--what is it about reason that blurs the line between apologetics and evangelization?
--what is it about reason that makes the line more distinct?
--how is apologetics a "reflection on all evangelical efforts"? what does this mean?

i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Sep 2 2005, 07:54 PM']can i offer some constructive criticism?

this last paragraph ends too abruptly. it needs to be fleshed out some more, possibly by answering the following questions:

--why is it dangerous to fail to see apologetics in its correct context?
--why is it that apologetics is neither an end nor a beginning?
--what is it about reason that blurs the line between apologetics and evangelization?
--what is it about reason that makes the line more distinct?
--how is apologetics a "reflection on all evangelical efforts"? what does this mean?

i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic
[right][snapback]709027[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

because these are exerpts not complete paragraphs. This is also the raw version...she has already corrected many of the mistakes and questions it raises. Also, I am still working towards trying to find the relationship that exists.

Thanks

Edited September 2, 2005 by Theologian in Training

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' date='Sep 2 2005, 06:25 PM']because these are exerpts not complete paragraphs. This is also the raw version...she has already corrected many of the mistakes and questions it raises. Also, I am still working towards trying to find the relationship that exists.

Thanks
[right][snapback]709061[/snapback][/right][/quote]
i see, my "apologies" good luck with this!! i look forward to reading the final version (if that is ok). what you provided here was really good, btw.

[Lil Red]

the first night was great! i only had 4 people, but it was just an "introductory" session, what we'll be covering, the materials we are using, etc.

i really am excited and i enjoyed last night! thank you to everyone who helped out!

[phatcatholic]

awesome! i hope it continues to go well

[Lil Red]

well, last night was okay. we went through the bread of life discourse verse by verse, which was good, but took forever, which was bad. i need to step up my prayer life again.

[phatcatholic]

don't be discouraged alot of times, the truth does rather well all on its own

[Lil Red]

thank you. i need to practice the material i will be presenting a little more too. next week, it's "The Canon of the Bible". so i need to bone up on that. any website suggestions?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='Sep 16 2005, 05:41 PM']thank you. i need to practice the material i will be presenting a little more too. next week, it's "The Canon of the Bible". so i need to bone up on that. any website suggestions?
[right][snapback]726257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/647"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/647[/url]

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Sep 2 2005, 07:54 PM']can i offer some constructive criticism?

this last paragraph ends too abruptly. it needs to be fleshed out some more, possibly by answering the following questions:

--why is it dangerous to fail to see apologetics in its correct context?
--why is it that apologetics is neither an end nor a beginning?
--what is it about reason that blurs the line between apologetics and evangelization?
--what is it about reason that makes the line more distinct?
--how is apologetics a "reflection on all evangelical efforts"? what does this mean?

i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic
[right][snapback]709027[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am going to have to present this in October, and essentially have not looked at it since last May. However, given your questions, though I thought the answers were implied, it may not have been as clear as I could have made it.

With regard to your first question I am still working out the finer details of the context into which we can understand apologetics. From my research, I have come to see that apologetics can not be an end within itself nor a beginning because it cannot function alone, as it were. Tools presuppose that they will be used, but a tool left by itself obviously will not. I have come to see apologetics not as an end but as something contingent on an action to be done. In this case, the action is evangelization. In other words, a hammer has the potential to build a house or tear one down, however, a hammer sitting on a table all alone, though full of potential, is not doing what it was designed to do.

I am beginning to see apologetics in the same fashion. It is a tool, and a very useful tool, but unless it is used for what it was designed to do, it has potential but is still waiting for an action to come along in order to fulfill that potential. I am beginning to see the action as evangelization, and therefore, need to now better understand what evangelization is and the action it entails.

I know that what I just said probably makes little sense, but I am actually trying to work it out in my head as I "speak" it out now. As you can see, I am trying to see the relationship that exists between apologetics and evangelization and trying to determine whether or not apologetics can really be its own entity.

I think I am going to email this to Patrick Madrid and see if he has anything to say.

Thanks

God Bless

[phatcatholic]

i think you're headed in the right direction. keep us updated on how this progresses :

good luck!! you have an excellent resource at your disposal

[Lil Red]

last night went really good, ppl were just amazed that luther could just say, well, these books i don't like and they don't match my theories, so i'm going to get rid of them. they couldn't understand the logic (or lack thereof) of such a thing. we had a great discussion!

[Lil Red]

questions from last night:

When did the research into Dead Sea Scrolls happen?

What do main stream Protestants use for readings when we use one of the 7 books of OT they don't accept? (for those who follow a liturgical calendar similar to the Roman Catholic Church)

Why is there no Psalm 151 in some Bibles, and yet there is in other versions of the Bible?

Can you provide examples of the Jehovah's Witness Bible that is so screwy?

Where can I find the document Denzinger-Schonmetzer online?