I am relatively new to this forum, and actually I have recently come back to practicing my catholic faith. For a while I did attend a baptist church, and while I appreciated their love for scripture, they tended to have a very narrow view of things. For example, they tend to focus on those parts of scripture that pertain to their views and ignore the rest. Also, it seems that if a literal translation supports their views, then the bible must be interpreted literally (i.e. born again), where as if it doesn't (i.e. eucharist) then it must be interpret in some sort of bizarre context.

Anyway, my question is have anyone here had any success in apologetics with fundy's? In my experience when I present them with Bible verses that don't support their views they tend to give up (but not concede anything) and refuse to debate anymore. The bizarre thing about this is that they are usually the one's who started the argument in the first place. When I ask about success, I don't mean conversion to the true faith, but actually conceding that we are not wrong about everything and they are not right about everything.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 05, 2003

Answers

That's pretty much a human trait, James, not necessarily unique to "fundy's". You'll see the same thing happen here in debates (from both sides).

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003.

Perhaps I'm extremely wrong with my next comment:

A person's faith is all that he has when all of the chips are down. When that faith is challenged, the person has several choices of action.

1. Run and hide.
2. Stand and listen.
3. Stand and fight.
4. Sometimes we can all have the same understanding and worship together.
5. Close the mind and continue to worship just as before.
6. Keep on discussing, filtering, and learning amongst each other.

I've conversed with people who have shed tears, spit, and sweat over interpretations of the Scriptures. I have yet to shed blood, but there is still time and many people I have yet to meet.

People are people, as mentioned earlier. The main thing to remember is to stand your ground in what you believe or have been taught in your doctrine. If your doctrine is true, it will withstand any attack that may come your way. Let your conversations be driven by your faith, not your emotions (although tough, at times).

"Fundy's" are intiguing thinkers. They come up with some amazing interpretations. They make me think and re-think what I've been taught. "11 times out of 10" (my humor), they generally prove my accepted doctrine or theology to be more correct. I love "Fundy's".

My accepted doctrine? Well, Catholicism is my comfort zone, but I'm still learning.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003.

Father Mitch Pacwa said that Catholic evangelists are in the Sales Department ~ they are the ones who try to sell the Catholic Truth to non-believers. But God is in Management ~ He is the One who actually does the Conversion.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 05, 2003.

I saw Fr Connor tell the story of Jacques & Raissa Maritain on EWTN last night. Intriguing pair; the French philosophers of Catholicism. They both reached conversion after many ups & downs by the example of ONE holy man. They could easily have talked rings around him, they were intellectuals. His example was what God gave them, and they believed.

They were agnostics before, or free-thinkers. Fundamentalists are always convinced they HAVE the way to salvation. Yet, I've never known of a Catholic who could be converted by their examples. It would be a rare fundy. The best thing LITERALLY we can do for a fundy is pray for him/her. For God nothing is impossible. Arguments never seem to reach a fundy; but we can make him think. The rest is in God's hands.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 05, 2003.

That's pretty much a human trait, James, not necessarily unique to "fundy's". You'll see the same thing happen here in debates (from both sides).

WHAT is "pretty much a human trait"? James mentioned four things he has observed.

The comment I quoted is half baloney, if if is intended to refer to the following statement by James ----- "it seems that if a literal translation supports their views, then the bible must be interpreted literally (i.e. born again), where as if it doesn't (i.e. eucharist) then it must be interpret in some sort of bizarre context."

The reason that we cannot see this "same thing happen here in debates (from both sides)" is that you won't see it happen from the Catholic side, but only from the non-Catholic side. This is true because Catholic doctrine is not based on, or dependent on, the Bible -- while Protestant doctrine is based only on the Bible. (Catholic doctrine never contradicts the Bible, but it would go on until the end of the world, even if every Bible vanished overnight.)

Catholic doctrine already existed before the New Testament was written, and we have Apostolic Tradition guiding us as to whether a Bible passage is meant literally or figuratively. We don't have to figure it out for ourselves, while Fundies and all other Protestants DO have to make a conscious decision on how to take a passage (or they will look to their mentors -- their popettes -- in the pulpits to let them know what to do).

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), November 06, 2003.

BSD,

I was referring to not conceding anything in an argument even when presented with strong evidence worth considering - that's the human trait I'm talking about.

Protestants and Catholics each have their way of entrenching themselves refusing to listen to another perspective and of using double-standards when debating/arguing. A Protestant falls back on scripture for everything, yet when presented with a scripture that refutes their argument, is speechless. Same with Catholics except they fall back on tradition, except when presented with evidence that refutes their tradition, then they don't know what to do either.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 06, 2003.

"Protestants and Catholics each have their way of entrenching themselves refusing to listen to another perspective and of using double-standards when debating/arguing. A Protestant falls back on scripture for everything, yet when presented with a scripture that refutes their argument, is speechless. Same with Catholics except they fall back on tradition, except when presented with evidence that refutes their tradition, then they don't know what to do either."

In fact, no Catholic relys on Tradition to the exclusion of Scripture, OR Scripture to the exclusion of Tradition. That is impossible since Tradition and Scripture are one and the same - the inspired Word of God. The entire inspired Word of God was given to the Church as oral Tradition. Nothing was originally in writing. The fact that the Apostles later mentioned some of these verbally-revealed teachings in their correspondence didn't make the written portions any more authoritative, or the unwritten portions any less authoritative. It is all the Word of God, just as it was when it first left the lips of Jesus Christ. There is no valid evidence which refutes Tradition, any more than there is valid evidence that refutes Scripture. The Word of God cannot be refuted.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2003.

Same with Catholics except they fall back on tradition, except when presented with evidence that refutes their tradition, then they don't know what to do either.

B.S.!

There is no valid evidence which refutes Tradition, any more than there is valid evidence that refutes Scripture. The Word of God cannot be refuted.

AMEN.

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), November 06, 2003.