Debating a Neo-Pagan
#1
So Im in a debate with a neopagan. I had made a comment about how letting in millions of immigrants is dangerous to the state and the security of the native population and is not necessarily Christian. He then precedes to make the comment that because I said that I am not following my Gods command to love my neighbor and turn the other cheek. I attempted to explain to him that this commandment is a positive moral precept and although we must adhere to it, when and how to go about it falls under the context of prudential judgement and it is not prudent to allow such an influx of immigrants from a different culture and religion into our lands. Furthermore I tried to show that turning the other cheek means to put aside pride when personally insulted and not retaliate to petty insults and that loving your enemy is an act of the will, not accommodating or tolerating evil.  I also attempted to inform him that the duties of an individual are not necessarily the duties of the state, and the states duties are to safeguard its population. He just keeps responding with "so you don't follow your Gods commandments." I attempted to inform him that as a Catholic I am not a literalist and that the theological and moral philosophical teaching of scripture is usually deeper then he is implying. Obviously this is to no avail.

Anyway I am not attempting to win this argument because obviously he is not open to understanding my position. I was just going to ask if what I am saying is proper theologically?
Reply
#2
I'm sure that one of our resident theology geeks (I mean that in the best possible way) will be here shortly to address your question, but in the meantime I'd just like to remind you to be charitable and to remember the audience reading over your shoulder, to forget about if you're going to convert this particular neo-pagan.  He/she isn't the target, not really.

Good luck. Smile
Reply
#3

(01-07-2016, 03:57 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote: I'm sure that one of our resident theology geeks (I mean that in the best possible way) will be here shortly to address your question, but in the meantime I'd just like to remind you to be charitable and to remember the audience reading over your shoulder, to forget about if you're going to convert this particular neo-pagan.  He/she isn't the target, not really.

Good luck. Smile

I kept it charitable. Didn't insult or act mean. Just kept it simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#4
(01-07-2016, 01:41 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: So Im in a debate with a neopagan. I had made a comment about how letting in millions of immigrants is dangerous to the state and the security of the native population and is not necessarily Christian. He then precedes to make the comment that because I said that I am not following my Gods command to love my neighbor and turn the other cheek. I attempted to explain to him that this commandment is a positive moral precept and although we must adhere to it, when and how to go about it falls under the context of prudential judgement and it is not prudent to allow such an influx of immigrants from a different culture and religion into our lands. Furthermore I tried to show that turning the other cheek means to put aside pride when personally insulted and not retaliate to petty insults and that loving your enemy is an act of the will, not accommodating or tolerating evil.  I also attempted to inform him that the duties of an individual are not necessarily the duties of the state, and the states duties are to safeguard its population. He just keeps responding with "so you don't follow your Gods commandments." I attempted to inform him that as a Catholic I am not a literalist and that the theological and moral philosophical teaching of scripture is usually deeper then he is implying. Obviously this is to no avail.

Anyway I am not attempting to win this argument because obviously he is not open to understanding my position. I was just going to ask if what I am saying is proper theologically?

What you are dealing with here is an individual who cannot make distinctions between differing genera, and as a result, will not be able to engage with you in an intelligent conversation on the top. The individual and state fall into differing genera with differing ends. As a result, Christ's command to "turn the other cheek" cannot be applied to the state in the same way that it can be applied to the individual . Since your opponent can't understand this, its best to shake the dust from your sandals and move on.
Reply
#5

(01-07-2016, 04:20 PM)Papist Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 01:41 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: So Im in a debate with a neopagan. I had made a comment about how letting in millions of immigrants is dangerous to the state and the security of the native population and is not necessarily Christian. He then precedes to make the comment that because I said that I am not following my Gods command to love my neighbor and turn the other cheek. I attempted to explain to him that this commandment is a positive moral precept and although we must adhere to it, when and how to go about it falls under the context of prudential judgement and it is not prudent to allow such an influx of immigrants from a different culture and religion into our lands. Furthermore I tried to show that turning the other cheek means to put aside pride when personally insulted and not retaliate to petty insults and that loving your enemy is an act of the will, not accommodating or tolerating evil.  I also attempted to inform him that the duties of an individual are not necessarily the duties of the state, and the states duties are to safeguard its population. He just keeps responding with "so you don't follow your Gods commandments." I attempted to inform him that as a Catholic I am not a literalist and that the theological and moral philosophical teaching of scripture is usually deeper then he is implying. Obviously this is to no avail.

Anyway I am not attempting to win this argument because obviously he is not open to understanding my position. I was just going to ask if what I am saying is proper theologically?

What you are dealing with here is an individual who cannot make distinctions between differing genera, and as a result, will not be able to engage with you in an intelligent conversation on the top. The individual and state fall into differing genera with differing ends. As a result, Christ's command to "turn the other cheek" cannot be applied to the state in the same way that it can be applied to the individual . Since your opponent can't understand this, its best to shake the dust from your sandals and move on.

I ended up saying basically that. I told him we are talking circles and left it at that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#6
(01-07-2016, 04:21 PM)DeoDuce Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 04:20 PM)Papist Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 01:41 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: So Im in a debate with a neopagan. I had made a comment about how letting in millions of immigrants is dangerous to the state and the security of the native population and is not necessarily Christian. He then precedes to make the comment that because I said that I am not following my Gods command to love my neighbor and turn the other cheek. I attempted to explain to him that this commandment is a positive moral precept and although we must adhere to it, when and how to go about it falls under the context of prudential judgement and it is not prudent to allow such an influx of immigrants from a different culture and religion into our lands. Furthermore I tried to show that turning the other cheek means to put aside pride when personally insulted and not retaliate to petty insults and that loving your enemy is an act of the will, not accommodating or tolerating evil.  I also attempted to inform him that the duties of an individual are not necessarily the duties of the state, and the states duties are to safeguard its population. He just keeps responding with "so you don't follow your Gods commandments." I attempted to inform him that as a Catholic I am not a literalist and that the theological and moral philosophical teaching of scripture is usually deeper then he is implying. Obviously this is to no avail.

Anyway I am not attempting to win this argument because obviously he is not open to understanding my position. I was just going to ask if what I am saying is proper theologically?

What you are dealing with here is an individual who cannot make distinctions between differing genera, and as a result, will not be able to engage with you in an intelligent conversation on the top. The individual and state fall into differing genera with differing ends. As a result, Christ's command to "turn the other cheek" cannot be applied to the state in the same way that it can be applied to the individual . Since your opponent can't understand this, its best to shake the dust from your sandals and move on.

I ended up saying basically that. I told him we are talking circles and left it at that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's probably the best thing you can do. A lesson I have learned from studying philosophy and sharing with unbelievers is that most of them are not capable of engaging in a rational conversation when it comes to ethics, politics, or religion. Everything is emotion for them, and we can thank Rousseau for that.
Reply
#7

(01-07-2016, 04:24 PM)Papist Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 04:21 PM)DeoDuce Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 04:20 PM)Papist Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 01:41 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: So Im in a debate with a neopagan. I had made a comment about how letting in millions of immigrants is dangerous to the state and the security of the native population and is not necessarily Christian. He then precedes to make the comment that because I said that I am not following my Gods command to love my neighbor and turn the other cheek. I attempted to explain to him that this commandment is a positive moral precept and although we must adhere to it, when and how to go about it falls under the context of prudential judgement and it is not prudent to allow such an influx of immigrants from a different culture and religion into our lands. Furthermore I tried to show that turning the other cheek means to put aside pride when personally insulted and not retaliate to petty insults and that loving your enemy is an act of the will, not accommodating or tolerating evil.  I also attempted to inform him that the duties of an individual are not necessarily the duties of the state, and the states duties are to safeguard its population. He just keeps responding with "so you don't follow your Gods commandments." I attempted to inform him that as a Catholic I am not a literalist and that the theological and moral philosophical teaching of scripture is usually deeper then he is implying. Obviously this is to no avail.

Anyway I am not attempting to win this argument because obviously he is not open to understanding my position. I was just going to ask if what I am saying is proper theologically?

What you are dealing with here is an individual who cannot make distinctions between differing genera, and as a result, will not be able to engage with you in an intelligent conversation on the top. The individual and state fall into differing genera with differing ends. As a result, Christ's command to "turn the other cheek" cannot be applied to the state in the same way that it can be applied to the individual . Since your opponent can't understand this, its best to shake the dust from your sandals and move on.

I ended up saying basically that. I told him we are talking circles and left it at that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's probably the best thing you can do. A lesson I have learned from studying philosophy and sharing with unbelievers is that most of them are not capable of engaging in a rational conversation when it comes to ethics, politics, or religion. Everything is emotion for them, and we can thank Rousseau for that.

The funny thing was me an him are in much of agreement on political issues when it come to safeguarding our nations from outside forces, his point I think was the Christians are hypocrite for wanting to keep them out. Which was led me to attempt to show him otherwise with proper understanding of scripture interpretation. He apparently didn't get it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#8
(01-07-2016, 04:28 PM)DeoDuce Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 04:24 PM)Papist Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 04:21 PM)DeoDuce Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 04:20 PM)Papist Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 01:41 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: So Im in a debate with a neopagan. I had made a comment about how letting in millions of immigrants is dangerous to the state and the security of the native population and is not necessarily Christian. He then precedes to make the comment that because I said that I am not following my Gods command to love my neighbor and turn the other cheek. I attempted to explain to him that this commandment is a positive moral precept and although we must adhere to it, when and how to go about it falls under the context of prudential judgement and it is not prudent to allow such an influx of immigrants from a different culture and religion into our lands. Furthermore I tried to show that turning the other cheek means to put aside pride when personally insulted and not retaliate to petty insults and that loving your enemy is an act of the will, not accommodating or tolerating evil.  I also attempted to inform him that the duties of an individual are not necessarily the duties of the state, and the states duties are to safeguard its population. He just keeps responding with "so you don't follow your Gods commandments." I attempted to inform him that as a Catholic I am not a literalist and that the theological and moral philosophical teaching of scripture is usually deeper then he is implying. Obviously this is to no avail.

Anyway I am not attempting to win this argument because obviously he is not open to understanding my position. I was just going to ask if what I am saying is proper theologically?

What you are dealing with here is an individual who cannot make distinctions between differing genera, and as a result, will not be able to engage with you in an intelligent conversation on the top. The individual and state fall into differing genera with differing ends. As a result, Christ's command to "turn the other cheek" cannot be applied to the state in the same way that it can be applied to the individual . Since your opponent can't understand this, its best to shake the dust from your sandals and move on.

I ended up saying basically that. I told him we are talking circles and left it at that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's probably the best thing you can do. A lesson I have learned from studying philosophy and sharing with unbelievers is that most of them are not capable of engaging in a rational conversation when it comes to ethics, politics, or religion. Everything is emotion for them, and we can thank Rousseau for that.

The funny thing was me an him are in much of agreement on political issues when it come to safeguarding our nations from outside forces, his point I think was the Christians are hypocrite for wanting to keep them out. Which was led me to attempt to show him otherwise with proper understanding of scripture interpretation. He apparently didn't get it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh, then he's just a classic sophist.
Reply
#9
IV; Honour thy father and thy mother... is a Commandment against treason... not just with reference to one's physical parents but also to patrimony of culture, society, nation etc. It is a commandment to promote due good and oppose harm in the whole world... starting at home.
Reply
#10
LOL

No apologies for another "drive-by shooting".
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)