"What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you're discussing. Don't hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there. If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out- I don't see any problem, as long as you're doing it in private correspondence."
"Another thing to keep in mind, is that you should be asking more questions than you answer. Asking a question takes a lot less time than writing an explanation. Don’t feel like you have to answer every single argument the other guy makes all at the same time. Narrow your discussion down to just one or two and deal with those before moving on to one or two others. If they ask a question that you don’t answer, and they ask it a second or third time, then just tell them you’ll get to that question once they answer this or that question that you asked which has gone unanswered by them."
Source: Apologetics for the Masses – Issue #77
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
May we all understand the terrible irony and implications of attempting to testify to the truth by deceptive means, whether that deception is in dishonest strategy, partial revealing of truth, disingenuous manipulation, quoting (or misquoting) with inference intended to convey something other than the intent of the quote, false representation, presenting the exception as the rule, presenting the violator as the conforming, mischaracterization, capitalizing on an unintended ambiguity or outright lying.
Oh Lord, have mercy on all who so practice, that their deceit might not harm the Gospel or its hearers and doers. Have mercy on me, a sinner.
Few acts are more overtly diabolical than to lie for truth. The House of God is not made of such building blocks.
Humbly submitted, I remain,
Your brother in Christ,
--Theo
Apologetics for the masses, Issue #77
Comments by John Martignoni in reply to Doug B.
Doug B.
I wanted to send a note thanking you for your apostolate. I, too, cringe at your tone sometimes, but you are defending the faith. How does it go, all evil needs [to prosper] is for good men to do nothing.
I just started e-mail apologetics, earlier I attempted the message board route at Catholic Answers and CARM, but they are too fast paced for me. Once you get involved in a thread you need to monitor closely and if you can’t for a couple of days it may be gone and you didn’t reply to an important point.
COMMENTS
I really don’t like those discussion forums, either. You do have to constantly keep up with them and it’s almost impossible to stay on a particular line of argumentation. I tried once or twice, way back when, to discuss something with non-Catholics on some forum, and every time I would ask a setup question (hoping to follow-up with another question after the first one was answered), before the other guy could respond there would be 8-10 folks chiming in with questions that went off in different directions or they would try to answer my questions for him or some such thing and I could never set up my line of argumentation. It just didn’t work for me.
Doug B.
Anyway, I have someone on the line right now and I am having trouble getting him to even realize that he has an interpretation of the Bible. He seems to believe that his opinion is actually what the Bible says. Wow. Probably not new for you to hear.
COMMENTS
Someone who has a problem with Catholic teaching and they seem to think their opinion is what the Scripture actually says…nope, never run into that before.
One question that I like to ask folks is: “Are you an authentic interpreter of the Bible.” Issue #38 of the newsletter has 42 questions that I asked Pastor Matt Johnson (and which, by the way, he never answered). The last 4 questions (#39-#42) are in this particular line of questioning – about being an authentic interpreter of the Bible. Check them out and the other questions as well. Most of these 42 questions can be used on anyone. And, they put folks in a little bit of a bind as to how to answer because it is very obvious that answering either “yes” or “no” to these questions leads to some problems for the person providing the answers.
For example: If someone says they are an “authentic interpreter” of the Bible, then that leads to the question of infallibility. If they are an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then they must be infallible. Yet, most Protestants (with the exception of Rich) will never claim to be infallible. So, that puts them in a predicament. Plus, if they claim to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then the logical question is: Who appointed you to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible? If they say the Bible did, then you ask them for chapter and verse as to where their name appears so that you might believe them. If they say anyone else, then you ask by what authority that person or persons appointed them authentic interpreters of the Bible.
If they don’t claim to be an “authentic interpreter” of the Bible, then that means their interpretation of the Bible must necessarily be fallible – in other words, they have to admit their interpretation could be wrong. And, if they could be wrong, then why should you, or anyone else, risk the salvation of your soul on what this person is saying?
Also, if they claim to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then why can’t you claim to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible? How can they say that you aren’t an authentic interpreter? In other words, this line of questioning leads folks into some very difficult positions.
Now, in regards to showing someone that what they are saying is indeed an intepretation, simply take the words that they write, put them in quotation marks, and ask them where these words within the quotation marks appear in the Bible. Quote the Bible verse they were commenting on and say, “These words are in the Bible.” Then, again, quote their words and say, “These words are not in the Bible.” In other words, their words are coming from them, not from the Bible, and that means they are interpreting the Bible. We all interpret the Bible every time we read it – some of us realize that and acknowledge it, some of us don’t.
Doug B.
Part of the reason, is I am too nice. I am starting to get firmer with him. On the message boards, I used to be a smiley face user. Thanks to you I have completely eradicated that from my repertoire.
COMMENTS
I’ve brought him over to the “dark side.”
Doug B.
Anyway, this guy has a master’s in Biblical studies and 20 years experience (sure proud of the resume), I on the other hand am a “dumb Catholic” with no college degree who listened to “some guy from Alabama” a couple of years ago who said that the Bible is a Catholic book written by and for Catholics and there is nothing to fear in there. THANK YOU. I truthfully was afraid of the Bible because these Protestants always seemed to know more about it and weren’t Catholic so I used to avoid it out of fear of what I would find. Anyway, it doesn’t really seem fair, he doesn’t stand a chance ;) (Had to do at least one)
COMMENTS
He’s been taken off the “easy pickin’s” list.
Doug B.
The only problem I have now (other than I need keep studying) is it takes me hours to formulate a response to these. If I am going to be effective, I think I have to get more efficient in my responses. With everything you do you still manage to come up with these long well reasoned responses in what must be much less time then I put together a short one. I usually end up writing the thing 2 or 3 times. Any advice? Is it just as simple just hitting send sooner? Did you ever go through this and it just gets easier?
COMMENTS
Sometimes it takes me a few hours to come up with my responses as well. I can easily spend 3-4 hours writing one of the responses that you see in my newsletters. And, I quite often read over them several times, making minor adjustments here and there, before ever sending them off.
What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you’re discussing. Don’t hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there. If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out – I don’t see any problem, as long as you’re doing it in private correspondence.
I’m not talking about borrowing verbiage from folks and then publishing your own book or something, but just using what other people have written in a private conversation where the intent is to save someone’s soul. If you are constantly saying, “John Martignoni said…” or “Scott Hahn said…” or “Tim Staples said…” it could distract from the main point of the conversation. However, if you quote from someone without reference, and then give the person a link to the article or newsletter you quote from so that they can “read more” on that particular subject – well, that’s works fine by me.
I don’t know of any Catholic apologist who would mind if you quote them without citation – not for the purpose of self-aggrandizement or for profit – but for the purpose of saving a soul. After all, I don’t know of any Catholic apologists who are coming up with original stuff. These arguments have been out there for hundreds of years. I always tell people that if there is anything original in any of my stuff, it’s quite by accident.
By doing that, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel each time. Another thing to keep in mind, is that you should be asking more questions than you answer. Asking a question takes a lot less time than writing an explanation. Don’t feel like you have to answer every single argument the other guy makes all at the same time. Narrow your discussion down to just one or two and deal with those before moving on to one or two others. If they ask a question that you don’t answer, and they ask it a second or third time, then just tell them you’ll get to that question once they answer this or that question that you asked which has gone unanswered by them.
Doug B.
I don’t need a personal response, I am not going to quit, but perhaps a topic for a newsletter?
COMMENTS
There you go…
Context is always helpful.
Thanks Richard. I've noted your clarification over on my blog.
Context is always helpful.
Thanks Richard. I've noted your clarification over on my blog.
Well, I'm not exactly sure how the "context" helps at all. The methods suggested by John Martignoni are flawed. If this is the type of methodolgy that is acceptable e-pologetics for Roman Catholics, if I were Roman Catholic, I would be embarrassed.
I sincerely apologize, on behalf of all Catholics, for having roughly 2000 years of other people's material to draw upon and 2000 years worth of people who'd rather we used it than were silent. We don't have to make new theological arguments. In fact, it's pretty dang hard - the best ones have generally already been made very very well hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Oh well. As I said, I apologize.
James Swan wrote:
Well, I'm not exactly sure how the "context" helps at all. The methods suggested by John Martignoni are flawed. If this is the type of methodolgy that is acceptable e-pologetics for Roman Catholics, if I were Roman Catholic, I would be embarrassed.
Dear James, brother in Christ and beloved of God, you misunderstand.
Please know that I am by no means giving a pass to deceptive methods, nor consider them acceptible. I had thought my first combox statement made my thoughts quite clear on that; however, we sometimes get lost in the comboxes.
By the context making a difference, I refer to your representation of this. The title of the article "catholic e-pologist methodology," the presentation of the two paragraphs out of context and again, your statement above imply with a broad brush that deception and disingenuous tactics are typical Catholic strategy: the rule rather than an aberration.
What the full context reveals is one individual giving his own personal, bad advice to another on how to take "shortcuts" and evade questions he finds difficult. Bad? Yes. "Catholic Methodology? No.
I would no more describe this as Catholic Methodology (e-pologist or otherwise) than I would describe misguided prayers that men should commit gross blasphemy as Reformed Methodology (e-pologist or otherwise). Neither would I describe the citing of individual Protestant's sins as "Protestant e-pologest Methodology.")
Please tell me James, how would you react were your own failings heralded as the "methodology" by which all who hold your tenets live? Would you consider that assessment honest? Would you call it "truth," by any stretch of the imagination?
I hope and pray this allays your concerns and disabuses you of misconception. I do not wish to give anyone the false impression that Catholics are somehow immune to the requirement that we testify to the truth with truth.
As for me, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ as presented by the Church, even when some (me among them--and all too often) fail to live it fully; however, of my own sins, I am indeed ashamed. May God help me repent.
Neither should any Reformed believer be ashamed of the dishonest portrayal of one man's fault as Catholic methodology, except he who did so. May God help him repent.
This I offer with sincere prayers that my own--and your own imperfections and temptations to present things in a manner that does not fully convey the might be overcome in grace.
We are ALL required to testify to the truth with truth.
Your bro,
--Theo
Dear Theo, brother in Christ and beloved of God, you misunderstand.
Please know that I am by no means giving a pass to deceptive methods, nor consider them acceptable.
In your last set of comments you described comments from my newsletter (Issue #77) as being "deception and disingenuous tactics." You further stated that the "full context reveals one individual giving his own personal, bad advice to another on how to take 'shortcuts' and evade questions he finds difficult. Bad? Yes."
I think maybe you were not paying close attention to what you read, much the same as Mr. Swan apparently did not pay close attention when he read what I wrote. I have nowhere, ever, advised anyone to "evade questions," any questions. Quite the contrary. I advise them to not only answer the questions, but to ask questions of their own. In other words, to continue the dialogue. You will see that quite plainly stated in Issue #77 if you read it carefully.
If you read the newsletter closely, you will see that Doug B.'s concern was "to get more efficient in [his] responses" - in other words, take less time to develop a response to a question. Nowhere does he say, "How do I avoid these difficult questions," and nowhere do I tell him to do such a thing. My advice to this person was simply to use what has already been written by those more experienced than he, in order to more efficiently (use less time) provide answers to those who question and attack the Catholic Faith. In other words, I was telling him he didn't have to reinvent the wheel each time someone asked him a question about the Catholic Faith. That is somehow evil in your eyes? How so?
What's wrong with taking shortcuts? A shortcut is simply a more efficient way of getting where you want to go? Shortcuts are a priori bad? Do tell?!
So, please, after re-reading what I wrote, tell me how I was using, or even advocating using, deception and disingenous tactics? I believe your comments are filled with deception, but I will assume that it was done out of ignorance rather than out of a genuine attempt to deceive.
You appear to be someone who is genuinely interested in knowing truth. If so, then I suggest you go to the "Newsletter" page of my website and read Issue #78 of my newsletter - http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter_details.php?id=120. It is my answer to Mr. James Swan's comments. I think it might better inform you as to my "tactics." If, after reading the newsletter, you still consider asking legitimate questions to be using deceptive tactics, then such is life. But, I would ask that you at least read the newsletter. It would be the Christian thing to do, would it not?
In Christ,
John Martignoni
Dear John, true brother in our Lord and beloved of the Most High God:
I have visited your site and I thank you for providing a link to the full context of the newsletter. It is enlightening.
It appears to me that the full context reveals no ill intent or deception, but merely a generally light-hearted exchange about how to deal with much more input than can reasonably be handled. Please forgive my incorrect inferring from the previous portions I'd examined. I had indeed incorrectly derived that you were advising someone to deceptively evade questions.
Regarding "shortcuts" I only deplore them if the "shortcut" is to employ deception or other immoral means. I was not referring to your allowing others to use your writing without citation.
Please also know that my addressing the general topic of deception and other misbegotten methodologies is not intended to apply to your conversation. When I note that "deception is in dishonest strategy, partial revealing of truth, disingenuous manipulation, quoting (or misquoting) with inference intended to convey something other than the intent of the quote, false representation, presenting the exception as the rule, presenting the violator as the conforming, mischaracterization, capitalizing on an unintended ambiguity or outright lying," this is not a statement directed at the snippet of conversation reported here, but the means and purpose of its reporting. As I asked James Swan (who has not answered, for reasons that are assuredly not to employ the same tactics he repudiates), "… how would you react were your own failings heralded as the "methodology" by which all who hold your tenets live? Would you consider that assessment honest? Would you call it "truth," by any stretch of the imagination?" With acknowledgement that this report by James does not even qualify as a report of another’s failure, so much as a misunderstanding (I pray—as opposed to deliberate misrepresentation), his depiction of “Catholic Methodology” is demonstrated to be badly misguided at best, fraudulent at worst.
My own repudiation of the use of "dishonest strategy, partial revealing of truth, etc." remains in full force--and may God forgive me for any and all of my own hypocrisy born of human frailty, and may He grant us all the wisdom to recognize it in ourselves and the grace to expunge its practice from our lives.
I hope, pray and humbly ask that you forgive my drawing a conclusion without a truly full grasp of the context.
To all of the above I attest as your servant and brother in Christ out Lord,
--Theo
Post a Comment