help wanted: Catholic apologists
#11
(01-22-2012, 03:40 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 03:35 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-21-2012, 10:11 PM)Warrenton Wrote: The diocesan newspaper (Arlington (VA) Catholic Herald dated Jan. 19, 2012 reports that Rome seeks Catholic Apologists.  The call is being put out by Legionaries of Christ professor Rev. Thomas D. Williams.  Evidently, there was consternation that Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry bested their Catholic opponents in open debate on the question whether the Catholic Church is a "force for good," held in the U.K. in 2009.

Does anyone share the thought that Father Williams might commence his search in the "aquarium"?

I'd start at Econe  LOL

But seriously probably, I can't believe Stephen Fry is a good debater though, I thought he was more of an actor?
He is not a good debater. But he memorizes his lines very well. (And is a drama queen. And is a sodomi....um..whoa, almost slipped there. He is a person with same sex attraction and is very vocal about it.

I was going to say that then decided better of it  Sticking tongue out at you But really beating a Cardinal, what is wrong with Rome these days?..Oh, don't bother answering lol

If only we had someone like Bl Cardinal Newman
Reply
#12
But really I'm not sure the Church should demean herself by debating with these buffoons.
Reply
#13
(01-22-2012, 03:47 PM)TrentCath Wrote: If only we had someone like Bl Cardinal Newman

I listened to the debate clip.  The debate was lost when the cardinal asked the audience not to consider the Church as an institution.  If the institution is not good, then the Church is not good.  

Not having listened to the remainder, I am on shaky ground, but if it followed the course of the beginning, the problem, quite clearly, is that the Church's defense was tepid.   Any institution that stand against Satan should be easy to identify as a force for good.  The audience of modern day Englishmen may not believe in Satan, but they know his works.  Satan is behind the nuclear weapons that threaten to kill everyone.  The largest atheist and agnostic states pour billions into their perfection.  Who stands against?  The Church.  Satan is behind an economic system that impoverishes millions worldwide and wastes the resources of all for the enrichment of the few.  Even "welfare" states like the US do nothing when millions are turned out of their homes because the banks want the property back.  Who stands for the millions?  The Church.  The states do nothing while millions of women and girls are degraded in every possible way to feed the sexual appetites of the many.  The states claim the inability to act, in the name of freedom.  Who stands for the women?  The Church.  Then the cardinal should have reminded the audience that if the world depends on people who sit around and listen to debates about whether the Church is a force for good to solve any of these problems, the world will be waiting until hell freezes.  

That's how the debate should have started.  And when Fry got up, the cardinal should have called him out as another doublespeaker, claiming that pervision is normal, while having the nerve to accuse the Church of committing his own evil.  I bet that did not happen.  That's what I mean by tepid.

We can't make atheists believe, if they are committed to Satan.  But we sure as heck can make them admit their own inaction and complicity in the face of evil.

Reply
#14
(01-22-2012, 04:09 PM)TrentCath Wrote: But really I'm not sure the Church should demean herself by debating with these buffoons.
This
It just makes assholes smell like rosebeds by being on the same stage with a great catholic debater.
If I could use a time machine it would be chester/belloc
Reply
#15
(01-22-2012, 04:09 PM)TrentCath Wrote: But really I'm not sure the Church should demean herself by debating with these buffoons.

The Church should not.  Her sons and daughters should be given the chance.
Reply
#16
This offers an opportunity if I can ask without derailing.
I wanted to produce an apologist debate night to raise some funds for my parish. I am not an egoist, and my posts here may not display it, but I have gift when confronted with an intelligent debates with prottys. Face to face. Does one need permission to stage a debate? And is it wrong to use it to raise funds?
Reply
#17
(01-22-2012, 04:12 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 04:09 PM)TrentCath Wrote: But really I'm not sure the Church should demean herself by debating with these buffoons.
This
It just makes assholes smell like rosebeds by being on the same stage with a great catholic debater.
If I could use a time machine it would be chester/belloc

That might be an idea to be fair though we all know who we really want.... St Thomas Aquinas, debate would have been won at the introduction stage!  Smile
Reply
#18
Also a Cardinal debating a sodomite? Really?  Huh?

I can't say I would even have agreed to the debate
Reply
#19
Here is an interesting article from the liberal side....why I think the church is getting owned by these clowns is because this articles Ideas are being followed:

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/a...e_id=10798

Excerpt:
Naïve Theism

As Michael Buckley, S.J., pointed out in his classic study of atheism (At the Origins of Modern Atheism), all forms of modern atheism are parasitic upon a particular form of theism. The proponents of the new atheism presuppose a naïve form of theism that perceives God, as Karl Rahner put it, as an individual being, albeit the Supreme Being, who is simply another “member of the larger household of reality” (Foundations of Christian Faith). Yet the god of this naïve theism more closely resembles a benevolent Zeus than the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition. One imagines a god standing on the sidelines of human history but occasionally intervening in the course of human events. Still, we should ask ourselves whether there are popular Catholic beliefs or practices that may, however unintentionally, support such naïve theism.
Reply
#20
(01-22-2012, 05:35 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: Here is an interesting article from the liberal side....why I think the church is getting owned by these clowns is because this articles Ideas are being followed:

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/a...e_id=10798

Excerpt:
Naïve Theism

As Michael Buckley, S.J., pointed out in his classic study of atheism (At the Origins of Modern Atheism), all forms of modern atheism are parasitic upon a particular form of theism. The proponents of the new atheism presuppose a naïve form of theism that perceives God, as Karl Rahner put it, as an individual being, albeit the Supreme Being, who is simply another “member of the larger household of reality” (Foundations of Christian Faith). Yet the god of this naïve theism more closely resembles a benevolent Zeus than the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition. One imagines a god standing on the sidelines of human history but occasionally intervening in the course of human events. Still, we should ask ourselves whether there are popular Catholic beliefs or practices that may, however unintentionally, support such naïve theism.

There are some problems in that article, but what is wrong with that particular quotation?

Anyway, I think the problem today is that Catholics tend to be very timid in these debates. Instead of pointing out the intellectual shallowness of the "new atheists," we hear that, yes, Catholicism might have been pretty nasty in the past, but the Church has made her peace with modernity, so everything is all right now. Modern Catholic apologists just aren't equipped to handle the polemical tone of the new atheists, or the extreme scientism that will not allow any room at all for religious belief, no matter how humble or subservient.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)