Why Debate?

[thessalonian]

[quote]For myself, I've feel I've benefitted from debate. I think I've grown up a bit.[/quote]

AMEN BROTHER. A point I forgot to mention. Another good reason for debate. Augustine in an unpolitically correct way states this in City of God where he says the heretics are allowed for our benefit so that we will not rest on our laurelel's and will continue to study and grow deeper in our faith. It's quite true.

Edited May 1, 2007 by thessalonian

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1261796' date='May 1 2007, 03:02 PM']And then there is that word Truth. This would be the question I would start with. If some religions claim to have the Truth, why would someone need to practice faith or come up with statements such as "I beleive that I have the Truth". If one has the Truth than there is no reason for faith or belief. You cant believe or hope something to Truth.[/quote]

Nobody has faith in something they possess no knowledge in. That would be absurd. Faith begins with knowledge that is a promise, a seed if you will. It contains within it Truth that you aren't fully aware of. Faith is reasoable, because the knowledge that you have and the promise that you've been given is reasonable. It's true that not every aspect of Faith has been explored and made real. It is also true that if every aspect of Faith had been explored and made real, then we wouldn't call it Faith anymore. It would simply be. However, this doesn't give us permission to alter the essential character of our Faith or abandon it altogether. True Faith is organic. It adds to itself, but still maintains the essential sameness that it had in the beginning. Otherwise, you've abandoned that faith in favor of something else.

[carrdero]

[quote]carrdero writes: some religions claim to have the Truth, why would someone need to practice faith or come up with statements such as "I beleive that I have the Truth". If one has the Truth than there is no reason for faith or belief[/quote][quote name='thessalonian' post='1261813' date='May 1 2007, 03:17 PM']
In this life we will never had certainty or complete understanding that allows for that certainty. If we are to go beyond what our limited intellect and will are capable of we must have faith.[/quote]

That is to be understandable but do not pass it off as something that it is not. If you have a belief in something then say it is a belief. Do not color or season it with faith. It does not make the belief anymore attractive, acceptable, trusting or believable. As I mentioned in another thread, there is no shame in honestly admitting that one does not know.

[quote]thessalonian writes: But truth goes beyond our capacity to reason and that is why faith is neccessary. That we don't understand does not mean that something is not true either.[/quote]If one is claiming something to be True one better have the evidence and understanding to back it up, especially if someone is going to try to convince another person. If one is not interested in persuading another person in this “certainty” it is probably safe to assume this this idea resides in the realm of one’s own personal faith. In other words the person who is accompanying this faith hasn’t necessarily proven this to be a Truth, they hope it is True, which is not the meaning of Truth. That is essentially the nature of what faith is. Faith is an excuse bestowed on people by themselves or another individual who is supposed to K(NOW), but doesn't.

Example 1:
Child: Pastor, how can we know if the Bible is the Truth?
Pastor: You will just have to take my word for it.

This is the concept of faith. It is not Truth

[quote]thessalonian writes: Truth that is beyond our reason has been revealed in scripture. We assent in faith to such truth.[/quote]Scripture is collection of proposed beliefs in which many have interpreted differently (read:faithfully). If the scriptures were a collection of revealed Truths than at the most everyone would be convinced that these are indeed Truths and at the very least some would claim that yes, that they are indeed True but unnecessary for their own personal lives or purpose. The scriptures have not been able to convince everyone of this claim to Truth or trust or authority.

Edited May 1, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Mateo El Feo: As far as the effectiveness of debate, the Catholic religion is not exclusively based on Faith or Reason. It is a religion of Truth, which includes both Faith and Reason. So, debate can be useful.[/quote]
This is the reason I debate. It is an opportunity for me to learn other people’s beliefs and a chance to understand why they believe and also affords the ability to challenge my own beliefs. If someone is leading a debate with their faith I am at loss of what to do with this. It is a very distracting disturbance to the debate process.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1261832' date='May 1 2007, 06:32 PM']If I could sum up the point, there is a big difference between Our Catholic Faith and apologetics.[/quote]

Apologetics is at the service of Sacred Theology. Brumley's text is quite good actually, most of those 7 deadly apologetical sins run a muck at PM and other debate boards. My post is in response to the first question - debate is fine, but it cannot consume our lives or all we are left with is unsubstantiated opinion, not debate.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1261878' date='May 1 2007, 05:14 PM']This is the reason I debate. It is an opportunity for me to learn other people’s beliefs and a chance to understand why they believe and also affords the ability to challenge my own beliefs. If someone is leading a debate with their faith I am at loss of what to do with this. It is a very distracting disturbance to the debate process.[/quote]A basic problem of debate is one of differing assumptions. From a philosophical perspective, we can't be certain whether the entire material universe actually exists; think of the Matrix. Yet, we won't get very far if we don't make some basic assumptions.

This problem of assumptions isn't exactly new. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the [i]Summa Theologica[/i] with Christian readers in mind; and he made liberal use of Holy Scriptures and Church Fathers. In contrast, his [i]Summa Contra Gentiles[/i] is written for non-Christians (i.e. gentiles), and leans heavily on Greek Philosophy (particularly Aristotle).

Back to the world of Phatmass debate: each poster has his own set of assumptions. If someone is "leading a debate with their faith", it may simply mean that he has a different set of assumptions. In such a situation, I would think the best response would be to describe where my assumptions differ from my partner in dialogue. If there is a key difference in assumptions that cannot be easily resolved (or some alternative found), then this can be a "debate killer."

[carrdero]

[quote]The Joey –O writes: Nobody has faith in something they possess no knowledge in. [/quote]What I am after is the belief and the knowledge. I am not interested in how much faith one professes in it. I am not impressed in what organization one is affiliated with, I just want to examine the belief. If someone wants to tell me where they found this belief that is fine but their faith and trust in the source is not going to overwhelm me.

[quote]The Joey-O writes: That would be absurd. Faith begins with knowledge that is a promise, a seed if you will.[/quote]
Faith begins with individual hope. Hope is not knowledge. The difference between a belief and faith is that the belief can stand alone. You do not have to appy faith to support it.

[quote]The Joey-O writes: It contains within it Truth that you aren't fully aware of. [/quote]It can also may contain Untruth that one refuses to acknowledge.

[quote]The Joey-O writes: Faith is reasoable, because the knowledge that you have and the promise that you've been given is reasonable.[/quote]
Promises can be broken, wishes sometimes don’t come true and Faith can also betray and disappoint. If one is going to practice faith then one should also be aware of these aspects? Faith and doubt are belief abuses and it is not reasonable to abuse your beliefs.

[quote]The Joey-O writes: However, this doesn't give us permission to alter the essential character of our Faith or abandon it altogether. [/quote]Faith usually abandons the practicioner before the individual is ready to relinquish it.
[quote]The Joey-O writes: True Faith is organic.[/quote]
True faith is an oxymoron.

Edited May 1, 2007 by carrdero

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1261906' date='May 1 2007, 06:04 PM']True faith is an oxymoron.[/quote]Actually, it is not. I have faith that my posts are being sent out by Phatmass to the information superhighway. Is that not true?

[thessalonian]

[quote]That is to be understandable but do not pass it off as something that it is not. If you have a belief in something then say it is a belief. Do not color or season it with faith. It does not make the belief anymore attractive, acceptable, trusting or believable. As I mentioned in another thread, there is no shame in honestly admitting that one does not know.[/quote]

"does not know"? Ah but we do know for we walk by faith and not by sight and so far the walk has been good. It is the evidence of the walk that lets us know that the teachings of the Catholic Church are true. Catholicism, further is not a shopping cart full of beliefs we have extracted from the Bible as is protestantism but it is a total package of revelation. There are not parts we are certain of and parts we are not. It is all a certainty. Only a lack of faith would say otherwise. A watering down of our belief as you would have us do would say otherwise.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Promises can be broken, wishes sometimes don’t come true and Faith can also betray and disappoint.[/quote]

Faith is in no way connected with promises or wishes. Faith is a verb, an activity that requires radical trust, and trust has never disappointed anyone yet. I am not talking about 'trust' that the shops will be open or 'trust' that you won't get a parking ticket - the kind of superficial examples that are often thrown up by squabbling sceptics - but trust that no matter what happens to you or to the world, your ability to love and to be loved will remain untouched. Faith is a [i]response[/i] to an invitation to live as Jesus did, not a possession or an attitude.

[Mateo el Feo]

Faith is a noun, not a verb.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[Guest T-Bone]

I faith
You faith
He, She, It faiths
We faith

?

[Mateo el Feo]

O.K. So C.A. is taking some poetic license...we're just being immature and giving her a hard time about it.

Just to up the ante of nerdiness, if we conjugated the spanish word for faith, [i]fe[/i], first person singular would be: "[i]yo feo[/i]." Gives a whole new meaning to my screen name.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

I wasn't talking about grammar. I was trying to describe what faith [i]itself[/i] is rather than just making an observation on the grammatical nature of the word.

I was discussing this idea (faith as active) with the novice mistress at a Carmelite monastery when I made a discernment retreat there a few weeks before Easter. She has expressed it much more lucidly than I can in three of her books - [i]The Essence of Prayer[/i], [i]To Believe in Jesus[/i], and [i]Guidelines for Mystical Prayer[/i]. Beautiful writing. Shattering insights, but so simple. I recommend them whole-heartedly.

[prose]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1261911' date='May 1 2007, 04:11 PM']Actually, it is not. I have faith that my posts are being sent out by Phatmass to the information superhighway. Is that not true?[/quote]

Well, sometimes it isn't....