Honest and Dishonest Questions


#9

#10

You are certainly providing an excellent example of what Shea is referring to.

“Sleight of hand” is not a reference to anything you said, but a reference to a behavior Shea noted in his column, i.e. changing the terms of the question when the answer provided doesn’t suit your preconception.

An example of sleight of hand is to take a thread ostensibly about evangelism and, when provided an answer, to introduce irrelevancies such as by claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics are not Christians.

Another example is to refuse to engage the thread topic and instead seek to divert the discussion—in this case, regarding insincere questioners, into something else.

In this particular case, I don’t mind, since in doing so you’re essentially making Shea’s case.

If you disagree with Shea, you should stop exhibiting the behaviors he describes and instead put forth an argument for why he is wrong.

Likewise, you are free to demonstrate where my formulation of Shea’s argument above is in error. As a non-Catholic, your perspective may be particularly interesting on this topic.

One way you might shed light on this is to reverse the parties.

Let’s say I claim you, as a Christian belonging to a “Bible-believing” community (those are not scare quotes; I’m simply quoting your terminology) do not worship Christ but worship the Bible. (I do not really claim that, btw—you are a Christian; you worship God).

Let’s further stipulate that you offer evidence to rebut my claim.

I then ignore your evidence, and instead say, “You don’t recognize the successor of Peter as the Vicar of Christ, so how can you claim to believe the Bible?”

Am I being insincere in this hypothetical? Am I truly a seeker of truth, in this case, seeking to ascertain whether or not those who belong to “Bible-believing” communities indeed worship God?


#11

And what “vicious untruths” did I spread that warranted your attacks on me?

It is hardly remarkable that when somebody dredges up “the Jesuit Oath,” The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, The Two Babylons, or *The Trail of Blood, *Catholics can get combative. No excuse. But it does rather explain it.

Refresh my memory: when did I mention any of these things?

I guess we have trouble comprehending how anybody can BELIEVE that stuff, all of which has been soundly discredited – by Protestants. But people do.

I know what you mean. I have trouble comprhending how Roman Catholics can believe most of the things they believe when all of that stuff has been soundly discredited by the very same Bible they claim to have been so kind to give us.
And when did


A Challenge for Those Who Claim Catholics Are Not Christians
#12

I’m losing track—is this Exhibit W or Exhibit X in Brosam making Shea’s case for him?

Let’s get back on topic, please. And Brosam, try not to introduce anymore anti-Catholic calumnies in this thread, okay?

You are more than welcome to start another thread on the Scriptural basis for Catholicism if you’ve got a thick skin for the ensuing evisceration of your misconceptions.


A Challenge for Those Who Claim Catholics Are Not Christians
#13

Actually, I was responding to a statement that one of your fellow Roman Catholics made.

Another example is to refuse to engage the thread topic and instead seek to divert the discussion—in this case, regarding insincere questioners, into something else.

Actually, I tried very hard to engage in the thread topic but the very first post was about how Protestants are wrong.

Let’s say I claim you, as a Christian belonging to a “Bible-believing” community (those are not scare quotes; I’m simply quoting your terminology) do not worship Christ but worship the Bible. (I do not really claim that, btw—you are a Christian; you worship God).

I hear that from Roman Catholics all the time.

Am I being insincere in this hypothetical?

Am I truly a seeker of truth, in this case, seeking to ascertain whether or not those who belong to “Bible-believing” communities indeed worship God?

The difference, of course, is that I was sincerely seeking to ascertain why there is a difference between Christian evangelism and Roman Catholic evangelism.


#14

You’re right. This thread should be reserved for anti-Christian calumnies.


A Challenge for Those Who Claim Catholics Are Not Christians
#15

Have I attacked you? If so, I apologize. Perhaps you did not actually read my post, which attempted to put reactive Catholic belligerence into a historical context.

Refresh my memory: when did I mention any of these things?

Who said this was about you?

I know what you mean. I have trouble comprhending how Roman Catholics can believe most of the things they believe when all of that stuff has been soundly discredited by the very same Bible they claim to have been so kind to give us.
And when did

There ya go: changing the subject. I had referred to virulent anti-Catholic mythology. You bring up Scripture.


#16

How do you know your interlocutors follow the Latin rite and not, say, the Byzantine? Or were we using “Roman Catholic” as a perjorative?

In any case, Christ did not enjoin us to “respond in kind”, but to “turn the other cheek”.

Actually, I tried very hard to engage in the thread topic but the very first post was about how Protestants are wrong.

Are you a Protestant?

You might also consider that ignoring some posts is good for the soul. There are many non-Catholics on this Forum; you can always trust them to address any misconceptions about Protestantism.

I hear that from Roman Catholics all the time.

Perhaps you could post evidence of it. In another thread.

The difference, of course, is that I was sincerely seeking to ascertain why there is a difference between Christian evangelism and Roman Catholic evangelism.

And that’s got to be Exhibit Y.

As noted, Catholics are Christians. You make the insulting inference in your “question” that we are not.

In fact, when I asked you directly, you refused to state that Catholics are Christians.

You apparently believe we are not.

You therefore were not legitimately seeking after truth, but were in fact seeking to recycle the calumny that Catholics are not Christians.

Aside from being a dishonest practice, it is one which destroys your credibility as evangelist or apologist for your faith.

More importantly, it puts you in danger of violating Christ’s commandments, which I as your brother in Christ (whether you acknowledge me so or not) urge you to avoid.

You have utterly refused to engage on this thread at all, even when I handed you an opportunity for fruitful, calumny-free discussion.

So why not hit the reset button now, clear the previous discussion, and let’s talk about the topic?


#17

Roman Catholics are Christians, brosam, which is one place you are standing on an errorneous premise. Most of the readers misunderstood the question because Catholics think “the Gospel” means the teaching of Jesus, and not the four spiritual laws book. The thread was removed because you were hostile and pejorative toward the Catholic faith, which is against the forum rules. Read over the forum rules, and try again!


#18

Why would Catholics seek to insult themselves?

Or are Catholics not Christians?


#19

Perhaps you might look at the Church in Africa, which is bringing in 10,000 converts a week.


#20

And rather than get this thread removed, which I really would like to discuss, I will put Brosam on kind notice—please discuss this topic, find another thread to discuss, or we’ll have to notify the moderators that you’re violating the rules of the Forum.

There is no need for any of that, since we have ample space for polite discussion about the topic of the thread. You are also obviously welcome to discuss situations where the insincere questioners are Catholics. That’s fine, and on topic.


#21

I guess the larger question is, “Why pose as a seeker of truth if you’re not?”

In the heat of argument, we all make mistakes. It’s a telltale sign of the insincere that they absolutely will not admit to being wrong no matter what.

Case in point—in a discussion this morning on the primacy of Peter, I made the boneheaded assertion that no ECF said anything about Christ’s reference to the rock upon which he would found his Church indicating Peter’s confession versus Peter himself.

Calvinator promptly posted a relevant excerpt from Chrysostom showing just that. D’oh!

Should I have dug in my heels and said, “Well, Chrysostom wasn’t really orthodox; he said many other wrong things, what I MEANT was a reliable ECF?”

Should I have simply ignored Calvinator and claimed my question was never answered?

Or should I have admitted that I was wrong, Calvinator was right, and conceded the point that gave to those arguing against the primacy of Peter on these grounds?

I chose option C.

Option A or B just seem dishonest and ultimately counterproductive to me, beyond indicators of the deadly sin of pride.

I think the vast majority of folks on these boards own up right away to being mistaken. It’s no big deal given the amount of discussions we have.

Why do those who refuse to do so do so?


#22

Actually, the thread was removed because the Roman Catholics couldn’t get through a single post without attacking me personally.


#23

As usual, this is a dishonest insinuation on your part. I haven’t discussed anything here that you did not bring up first.


#24

Then tell me what Gospel they’re preaching.


#25

WIthout question they are preaching the Gospel of salvation through the Person of Jesus Christ. There is no other Gospel.

The issue in evangelism – Catholic or non-Catholic is HOW to preach the Gospel in different settings. The Holy Spirit enables us to preach the One Gospel in many ways so that it can be heard.

I know a Protestant who does it by helping people manage their farm animals. I know Catholics who do it by giving medical care to AIDS patients. Father Corapi does it by power-house evangelical preaching. Scott Hahn does it by scriptural exegesis.


#26

You haven’t discussed anything here which is on topic, and have utterly refused to engage the topic.

Moreover, you have now accused me of being a liar, a charge I take very seriously as a service academy graduate. We have an honor code which outlives our military service.

And beyond that, as a Christian, I have a right to expect my Christian brother to treat me as Christ commanded we treat each other.

I’ll request moderator attention to this thread. Please refrain from posting any more off-topic material in the meantime as you are in violation of forum rules in so doing.


#27

Mercygate-

Let’s not rise to the OT bait here. I value your insights but really would like to discuss Shea’s argument here.


#28

You are right.

But it seems we are being given a prime example of Shea’s case. I haven’t read the article, but I will the minute I get home.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.