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.

[thessalonian]

[quote]For myself, I've feel I've benefitted from debate. I think I've grown up a bit.[/quote]

AMEN BROTHER. A point I forgot to mention. Another good reason for debate. Augustine in an unpolitically correct way states this in City of God where he says the heretics are allowed for our benefit so that we will not rest on our laurelel's and will continue to study and grow deeper in our faith. It's quite true.

Edited May 1, 2007 by thessalonian

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1261796' date='May 1 2007, 03:02 PM']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]

Nobody has faith in something they possess no knowledge in. That would be absurd. Faith begins with knowledge that is a promise, a seed if you will. It contains within it Truth that you aren't fully aware of. Faith is reasoable, because the knowledge that you have and the promise that you've been given is reasonable. It's true that not every aspect of Faith has been explored and made real. It is also true that if every aspect of Faith had been explored and made real, then we wouldn't call it Faith anymore. It would simply be. However, this doesn't give us permission to alter the essential character of our Faith or abandon it altogether. True Faith is organic. It adds to itself, but still maintains the essential sameness that it had in the beginning. Otherwise, you've abandoned that faith in favor of something else.

[carrdero]

[quote]carrdero writes: 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][quote name='thessalonian' post='1261813' date='May 1 2007, 03:17 PM']
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]

That is to be understandable but do not pass it off as something that it is not. If you have a belief in something then say it is a belief. Do not color or season it with faith. It does not make the belief anymore attractive, acceptable, trusting or believable. As I mentioned in another thread, there is no shame in honestly admitting that one does not know.

[quote]thessalonian writes: 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.[/quote]If one is claiming something to be True one better have the evidence and understanding to back it up, especially if someone is going to try to convince another person. If one is not interested in persuading another person in this “certainty” it is probably safe to assume this this idea resides in the realm of one’s own personal faith. In other words the person who is accompanying this faith hasn’t necessarily proven this to be a Truth, they hope it is True, which is not the meaning of Truth. That is essentially the nature of what faith is. Faith is an excuse bestowed on people by themselves or another individual who is supposed to K(NOW), but doesn't.

Example 1:
Child: Pastor, how can we know if the Bible is the Truth?
Pastor: You will just have to take my word for it.

This is the concept of faith. It is not Truth

[quote]thessalonian writes: Truth that is beyond our reason has been revealed in scripture. We assent in faith to such truth.[/quote]Scripture is collection of proposed beliefs in which many have interpreted differently (read:faithfully). If the scriptures were a collection of revealed Truths than at the most everyone would be convinced that these are indeed Truths and at the very least some would claim that yes, that they are indeed True but unnecessary for their own personal lives or purpose. The scriptures have not been able to convince everyone of this claim to Truth or trust or authority.

Edited May 1, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Mateo El Feo: 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 and Reason. So, debate can be useful.[/quote]
This is the reason I debate. It is an opportunity for me to learn other people’s beliefs and a chance to understand why they believe and also affords the ability to challenge my own beliefs. If someone is leading a debate with their faith I am at loss of what to do with this. It is a very distracting disturbance to the debate process.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1261832' date='May 1 2007, 06:32 PM']If I could sum up the point, there is a big difference between Our Catholic Faith and apologetics.[/quote]

Apologetics is at the service of Sacred Theology. Brumley's text is quite good actually, most of those 7 deadly apologetical sins run a muck at PM and other debate boards. My post is in response to the first question - debate is fine, but it cannot consume our lives or all we are left with is unsubstantiated opinion, not debate.