Why Debate?

[prose]

I have a question. Is there a true purpose to debate? I mean, I know that ultimately it is for conversion, but is there a point in running circles around one another with the same repeated arguments? Is it truly bringing people closer to their faith? Or is it causing a bigger canyon between faiths?

This topic is now open for debate

[carrdero]

[quote name='prose' post='1261739' date='May 1 2007, 01:53 PM']I have a question. Is there a true purpose to debate? I mean, I know that ultimately it is for conversion, but is there a point in running circles around one another with the same repeated arguments? Is it truly bringing people closer to their faith?[/quote]
Debate is supposed to bring people closer to a resolve of their beliefs. I can't debate faith. It refuses to be questioned, it refuses to be reasoned.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='prose' post='1261739' date='May 1 2007, 01:53 PM']I have a question. Is there a true purpose to debate? I mean, I know that ultimately it is for conversion, but is there a point in running circles around one another with the same repeated arguments? Is it truly bringing people closer to their faith? Or is it causing a bigger canyon between faiths?

This topic is now open for debate [/quote]

I don't see a whole lot of fruit in debating religious issues. However, I have seen a few open minded individuals "soften" some of their anti-catholic stances here. Personally, I like using the debate forum for talking politics. Not to say that I won't contribute to a religious debate. I just think that conversion requires some physically present relationships.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1261757' date='May 1 2007, 02:08 PM']Debate is supposed to bring people closer to a resolve of their beliefs. I can't debate faith. It refuses to be questioned, it refuses to be reasoned.[/quote]

That statement is inflamatory. I would love to debate the reasonableness of faith with you. hehe...

[thessalonian]

Paul debated the Jews so we have biblical precedence for doing it. In general we expect too much of these debates. We expect the other party to ever admit they were wrong. Yet over time the questions that are raised will not sit with them and every time the read certain passages the truth will gnaw at them. You hear this in the testimonies of Hahn, Staples, Cavins, and many others. It takes time for people to change their minds. You can ask Brother Adam and NeilForChrist as well, whom I had the pleasure of debating back when they were protestants. Ironmonk and I debated this one guy, the usual circles, on Monks board for several months. Then he left, saying he was shaking the dust off his feet. Six months later I got an email from him saying that we were right and he was becomming Catholic. So you just don't know what is going on in the minds of men. Some will never convert no matter what. But some will.

My dad had a field that came up in sweet clover one year from end to end. We handn't planted the seeds and the neighbors said it had been 20 years since the field had been planted in sweet clover. Evidently some seeds had laid dormant in the ground until the conditions were right.

We must have great patience and charity, and not neccessarily expect to see the fruit of our debates.

Edited May 1, 2007 by thessalonian

[carrdero]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1261763' date='May 1 2007, 02:10 PM']That statement is inflamatory. I would love to debate the reasonableness of faith with you. hehe...[/quote]
There is literally nothing to debate. It is an experiment in futility. What can possibly be discussed? Why one's hope and expectations are not more wanting or trusting than the the next person’s? Faith is personal and if one chooses to practice it and refuses to relinquish it, there will be nothing any person can say or do to convince someone otherwise.

[Era Might]

[quote]This truth about dialogue, so profoundly expressed by Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, was also taken up by the Council in its teaching and ecumenical activity. Dialogue is not simply an exchange of ideas. In some way it is always an "exchange of gifts".

For this reason, the Council's Decree on Ecumenism also emphasizes the importance of "every effort to eliminate words, judgments, and actions which do not respond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult". The Decree approaches the question from the standpoint of the Catholic Church and refers to the criteria which she must apply in relation to other Christians. In all this, however, reciprocity is required. To follow these criteria is a commitment of each of the parties which desire to enter into dialogue and it is a precondition for starting such dialogue. It is necessary to pass from antagonism and conflict to a situation where each party recognizes the other as a partner. When undertaking dialogue, each side must presuppose in the other a desire for reconciliation, for unity in truth. For this to happen, any display of mutual opposition must disappear. Only thus will dialogue help to overcome division and lead us closer to unity.

--Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Ut Unum Sint"[/quote]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1261781' date='May 1 2007, 02:45 PM']There is literally nothing to debate. It is an experiment in futility. What can possibly be discussed? Why one's hope and expectations are not more wanting or trusting than the the next person’s? Faith is personal and if one chooses to practice it and refuses to relinquish it, there will be nothing any person can say or do to convince someone otherwise.[/quote]


This is in fact false and you can ask a number of former protestants such as Brother Adam and NeilforChrist. See my post above. The problem is we want too much immediate gratification. But Paul says "I thank God I baptized noone (except a few)". "I planted, Apollos watered, but the Lord made it grow". He intially went to Thessalonica and got only a few converts. But not too long after there is a whole community of Christians that he writes to.


One more point is that while we may go in circles with people like Budge, their obvious distortions actually help us in our quest to spread the truth. There lack of credibility points toward the truth. In this way it is a blessing that they oppose us with red herrings and straw men.

Edited May 1, 2007 by thessalonian

[carrdero]

[quote]thessalonian writes: Paul debated the Jews so we have biblical precedence for doing it.[/quote]
In the same breath Paul also proclaims:

[b][i]Prove all things[/i][/b], hold fast that which is good, I Thess. 5.21
I have no idea how Paul expected this proof to manifest into Truth if someone is romancing or courting faith and not continually challenging and questioning their beliefs.

Edited May 1, 2007 by carrdero

[thessalonian]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1261787' date='May 1 2007, 02:54 PM']In the same breath Paul also proclaims:

[b][i]Prove all things[/i][/b], hold fast that which is good, I Thess. 5.21
I have no idea how Paul expected this proof to manifest into Truth if someone is romancing or courting faith and not continually challenging and questioning their beliefs.[/quote]

Not quite sure you understand conscience. One does not have to be openly seeking to change their beliefs. They may deny there is a conflict due to the hardness of their hearts. But over time they will have to come to grips with the truth. We expect this to happen too quickly as I have stated above. We expect them to admit it before us. It rarely happens. God's time is not ours. His ways are not ours. We scatter where we do not reap.

[Brother Adam]

double

Edited May 1, 2007 by Brother Adam

[Brother Adam]

You can ask Brother Adam and NeilForChrist as well, whom I had the pleasure of debating back when they were protestants.

--

Nu-uh I was never Protestant. I was a Baptist. muhahaha

I'll admit I've long since gotten tired with the debates that cycle through on PM (the anti-catholicism put into practice by Protestants here looks for evil in all things, which is just depressing and kills the soul), but all I can say is listen to history. Read the beautiful poetic philosophy of St. Anselm, here the cries of Ignatius of Antioch, give ear to the intellect of Newman and Chrysostom, take witness to the aesthetics of Balthasar. Read Aristotle, Plato, Sophocles, Augustine, Dante, Dostoyevsky, and Aquinas. Then look for the good, true, and beautiful in it. Look beyond the ordinary and mundane.

[carrdero]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1261784' date='May 1 2007, 02:48 PM']There lack of credibility points toward the truth. In this way it is a blessing that they oppose us with red herrings and straw men.[/quote]

And then there is that word Truth. This would be the question I would start with. If some religions claim to have the Truth, why would someone need to practice faith or come up with statements such as "I beleive that I have the Truth". If one has the Truth than there is no reason for faith or belief. You cant believe or hope something to Truth.

[quote]thessalonian writes: One more point is that while we may go in circles with people like Budge, their obvious distortions actually help us in our quest to spread the truth.[/quote]

I like Budge. Every religious forum should have a Budge.

[thessalonian]

[quote]some religions claim to have the Truth, why would someone need to practice faith or come up with statements such as "I beleive that I have the Truth". If one has the Truth than there is no reason for faith or belief[/quote]In this life we will never had certainty or complete understanding that allows for that certainty. If we are to go beyond what our limited intellect and will are capable of we must have faith.

[quote] You cant believe or hope something to Truth.[/quote]

No you can't. But truth goes beyond our capacity to reason and that is why faith is neccessary. That we don't understand does not mean that something is not true either. Truth that is beyond our reason has been revealed in scripture. We assent in faith to such truth.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1261793' date='May 1 2007, 04:00 PM']I'll admit I've long since gotten tired with the debates that cycle through on PM (the anti-catholicism put into practice by Protestants here looks for evil in all things, which is just depressing and kills the soul), but all I can say is listen to history. Read the beautiful poetic philosophy of St. Anselm, here the cries of Ignatius of Antioch, give ear to the intellect of Newman and Chrysostom, take witness to the aesthetics of Balthasar. Read Aristotle, Plato, Sophocles, Augustine, Dante, Dostoyevsky, and Aquinas. Then look for the good, true, and beautiful in it. Look beyond the ordinary and mundane.[/quote]If I could sum up the point, there is a big difference between Our Catholic Faith and apologetics. For a good book on the subject:
[url="http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Share-Your-Faith/dp/1888992301/"]http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Share-Your-F.../dp/1888992301/[/url]

Apologetics can be fun, though excessive exposure can wear a person down.

As far as the effectiveness of debate, the Catholic religion is not exclusively based on Faith or Reason. It is a religion of Truth, which includes both Faith [u]and[/u] Reason. So, debate can be useful.

For myself, I've feel I've benefitted from debate. I think I've grown up a bit. I've learned a lot about the Catholic Faith--not to mention other religions--because of Phatmass and the "Debate Table." I hope that I've also been able to help clear some of the misconceptions held be non-Catholics who don't understand Catholicism, or have been taught incorrect things by anti-Catholic authors.