Good advice. I deal a lot with southern baptists who accuse me of worshipping statues and so on. Once I mention what our practices really are, they change the subject completely to avoid being proved wrong. Happened many, many times over the years. Frustrating for me.
I find it doesn't matter how many times you explain, in good faith, the true practices of the faith and their historical & Biblical bases. Most prots aren't genuinely seeking a truthful answer and just are looking to justify their presupposed assumptive position. They're usually simply arguing from a dishonest position and it's reflective in the bad faith arguments they make.
Knowledge says: I can address your points with facts and logic. Wisdom says: I can’t win an argument with someone’s OCD or control issues. Faith says: But I can pray for you.
Protestant here, and this must be the first time I've agreed with everything Jimmy had to say. These are good irenic behaviors and the marks of Christlike witness. Bravo!
I'm very guilty of "data dumping" I have so much knowledge on the subject of Christianity now and since I started studying Apostolic Christianity its been facts on top of facts, on top of facts. But in my own experience I studied all this on my own and tried to seek out the answers by myself and it came over time. As though God was revealing the information in stages. And I need to keep that in mind when I explain Christianity to people. Jimmy Atkin is awesome. Great apologest, author and he has a great podcast too.
When dealing with Evangelicals, I say two things: the conversation must remain civil, or it ends. Secondly, I listen to you, and you listen to me. I have no interest in winning the conversation, but conveying what I know and believe.
Great info! I'm an ex-atheist and used to debate atheists online endlessly. Debates hardly ever work. Arguments never work either. When they argue I just say "You are free to have your own beliefs."
People love to argue like they love to complain. Good idea, not to feed the mentality. I find the Socratic method of simply asking questions tends to work if you keep them simple and brief, but doesn't change the fact they won't change their mind. Only exposes the issues in their current views.
@@extract8058 “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” ~Matthew 6:34 Jesus clearly tells us not to worry about tomorrow (future), today (present) has enough trouble of its own.
I try to go one step..at a time. There’s so much misinformation about the Catholic Faith. What I do is say let’s do one issue that we DO agree on, then focus on the one thing we can gently address.
@@ironymattIn trying to keep the quote accurate I think I created confusion. The mistake is rather lack of trust in God. Corrected in the original. Does it read right with the change?
@@lemonpepperdry5818 It's a question Christian's answer with ease. Skeptics--I am one--struggle with it. The answer is pretty much the same as with Mormonism. After Joseph Smith was killed Mormonism continued. Like Christianity the founder was dead, but the followers still had things to gain. With the Apostles it was mostly fame and some money.
Great video. I do enjoy online debates with protestants because even though most (that I have encountered) do commit the errors you laid out it allows me to do research on their objections of the church, and I always come out the better for it because I leave with new knowledge to better understand our history and faith.
As an inquirer, something that I think is frequently ignored, but that I find essential, is how debater's religious beliefs, what they are preaching, reflect their actual behavior. For example, in the case of Christian debaters, I believe it is relevant to see how compassionate, graceful, or kind they are (generally speaking of course, because we should always consider the particulars of each situation), especially towards those who disagree with them. Unfortunately, what we frequently witness is not even just an obvious desire of victory for the pure sake of self-gratification, but also the unhealthy intention of ridiculing the 'opponent', and all in the name of God, who ends up being 'instrumentalized' for that purpose. Members of some groups or denominations definitely display more of these tendencies and attitudes, but in general we can see them all over the place. Being an apologist, it seems, has become, for many, just another activity that can be totally unlinked from faith (if there is some still in that person).
Agree. James 3:8-9 comes to mind. But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father, and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. I have been guilty of this myself.
I love these points! So often, these are frustrations I've come across from those attacking my beliefs, but I wasn't able to clearly name their approach. The fact that you've named these helps me to not fall into those same techniques.
I took this course when it was first offered. This is a great clip to share with catechists too in how they present the Catholic faith especially to teens and adults.
Very good discussion of some typical ways people undermine themselves when making arguments or presentations. The concerns you raise apply much more broadly than just apologetics and counter-apologetics. I would just add one more principle: people like having honest conversations where they feel both sides are listening to the other person and both sides are willing to learn something from the other person. If you go into a conversation “knowing” you are right about everything, the other person will pick up on that really fast, and most likely write you off. Intelligent, well-educated, and well-mannered people know that they don’t know everything, and they enjoy learning things from other people as well as teaching things to other people.
James 3:1said "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." Our God-fearing lives speak louder than words.
My least favorite is the premature victory dance. I hope to not do a victory dance just because I think I won an argument...but ONLY if/when the other person RECEIVES the correction and INCORPORATES the change into their theology. Not one second before
I've found that people data dumping bible verses don't even explain the reason the verses prove their point and I end up thinking they didn't understand the first couple of verses they used and move on from reading anything else. That's my experience.
I find that when having these type of discussions with people, they will try to shift the topic if they don't have a good response to what you are saying. Thanks for the good advice Jimmy!
I hope Sam Shamoun watches this video, especially the part about not being adversarial. I find that his knowledge of scripture is very impressive, and with a somewhat more charitable disposition towards those he debates he could become a real force in apologetics. Prayers for him.
The a priori decision on the part of the other party to be adversarial is a given in that forum, almost to the point of certainty. There's a small handful of occasions where I've been pleasantly surprised though, ad majorem Dei gloriam
As a non-catholic christian, I loved this video. I do get into debates about God and religion online and I think I will have to change my approach. Thank you for your experienced advice my brother in Christ 👏👏
I’m a Catholic Christian and over the years I’ve learned to implement some of these practices in apologetics online. It’s really helped me to guide a subject to a single topic and so I can be concise with my answers.
These are all good points, and I would add that trying to trap someone in their words is also a bad idea. As in, asking them leading questions until you get them to say what you want. People will spot it instantly, and it comes off as kind of scummy and cheap. And like you're not interested in what they're actually saying, just what you think someone of their position SHOULD be saying.
Is Karlo Broussard guilty of "word trapping" during his argument against moral relativism? _If a skeptic believes in relativism, they have disproved relativism by their own belief._ Karlo seems to label anyone in disagreement _a moral relativist._ This tricky phrase gives Karlo the ability to avoid a comprehensive and thoughtful discussion on morality.
@@SergeantSkeptic686 I am not very familiar with Karlo Broussard (I'm actually not Catholic, I'm Eastern Orthodox) or the context in which he said this. What I'm thinking of, though, is not specific arguments, but more of a rhetorical technique that I often see employed in live debates. During the cross-examination section, some debaters will start to ask a series of questions in which they are clearly trying to get their opponent to give a specific answer. The Reformed apologist James White, for example, seems fond of this kind of tactic. What you're criticizing seems more like a thought-teminating cliche than what I'm talking about. It does not strike me as a particularly good argument against moral relativism, anyway (at least without additional qualitifications--again, I'm not familiar with Broussard, so I don't know what else he has to say about this).
@@ThreeQuartersCrazed _“Thought-Terminating Cliche.”_ A perfect explanation. I come from an atheist bias and listen to Catholic Answers frequently. Jimmy is their most knowledgable apologist and Trent Horn is the one who engages with atheists most often. The BEST apologists -IMHO- are everyday Catholics who smile warmly, great everyone, and genuinely ask “Hey, may I help you with that?” Who's your favorite debater?
@@SergeantSkeptic686 I don't watch debates particularly often anymore, as I'm leaning more and more towards the opinion that they're not the best way of hashing out disagreements. Debates are antagonistic by their nature, and it's difficult for most people to want to listen to someone who they perceive as an opponent or an enemy. When I do watch debates these days, I do think that Trent Horn is good for Christianity vs. Atheism subjects. He's thoughtful and respectful, though sometimes his presetation sounds a bit too rehearsed and his arguments can be a bit canned. Michael Jones (a.k.a. InspiringPhilosphy) is also good and makes some more innovative arguments, though he also has a greater tendency to show frustration during debates. For debates on Orthodoxy vs. other Christian traditions, I like Seraphim Hamilton. There aren't too many English-speaking Orthodox debaters around right now, and it's unfortunate that many of them are not gentelmanly, but Hamilton definitely is. My main issues with him are that he's inexperienced (I think he's only done about five debates or so, though he performed well in each one that I've seen) and he's a YEC.
@@ThreeQuartersCrazed I’ll check out Michael Jones! I don't know about Seraphim Hamilton. I believe Young Earth Creationists are mistaken. I stopped listening to them in favor of more realistic arguments. I think the Catholic Church as a realistic viewpoint on evolution. Years ago, maybe 2018, I was on Trent Horn’s podcast. He was just getting started and would take anybody. He was cordial in person and I got the impression he is very busy. I recently had a debate with Catholic Author John DeRosa, it’s on RUclips. We we were very polite to each other. We debated Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and whether the captive bride passages are immoral.
I have a friend who is Oneness Pentacostal, and we have regular theological debates which we both really enjoy. But he really does utilize the buckshot technique a lot. We'll be debating the Trinity, and then all of a sudden when he'll jump to debating speaking in tongues. I enjoy the dialogues so I will follow the debate shift, but then I'll also try hawking back to the previous debate. Sometimes then he will jump to arguing how it was the Trinitarians who drove out the Onenesses. It's something that definately gets noticed and feels like a means of changing the conversation when he's losing. But I still enjoy our conversations together.
1. As a Catholic, I attempt apologetics on youtube, and each encounter is different depending upon what the other person's position is. 2. I consider their positions according to the criteria of No.14 & 15 of Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, in the categories of non-Catholic Christians & non-Christians, respectively. 3. My initial premise is that religious truth is something that is abstract and cannot directly be proven empirically, but that ultimately must rely on an appeal to authority, which for a Catholic is the Magisterium. 4. As a result, my approach is one of advocating for the probability of the Catholic position by asking questions of the other person. 5. I attempt to discover as much common ground as is possible with the other person regarding religious truth. 6. However, there are certain persons who I am compelled to take a battering ram to in providing them with a preponderance of evidence. Many of these are Calvinists who have miniscule knowledge about John Calvin but base their Calvinism entirely upon Loraine Boettner's 20th century TULIP acrostic teaching tool. Therefore, they have no idea that (A) their 16th century Reformation founder claimed to the oracle of God and therefore (B) he directed that his writings were to be divine prism by which the Bible is read and interpreted. 7. An example of my making common cause is that I endorse Southern Baptist Dr. Leighton Flowers of Soteriology 101, a refugee from Calvinism, whose testimony inspired me to research and then become an advocate for his position of heightened engagement with what I agree with him is something spiritually unhealthy. 8. Quoting from the conclusion of 20th century historian Will Durant's Reformation chapter on John Calvin from his book series The Story of Civilization, available in audio form on youtube as Durant---Calvin: "... but we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense."
As a former Protestant in several different traditions over 30 years, I can tell you that I am embarrassed with some of the arguments I used to use. The biggest issue, to me, is operating under a false premise of justification by faith alone. James 2 is massaged and explained away. Not to mention all of the commands in the NT as well as admonitions that those who commit heinous offenses will not see the kingdom of God. An open mind and humility is essential. America very much favors Protestantism because that is how the US was founded, formed and shaped. It is very individualistic, and lends itself to that type of theology very easily. I also think congregational government causes tons of strife. I've seen so much politics and difficulties in the local Protestant churches of all varieties that it almost seems built in to their system of individualism and control of agendas. Thankfully, the Catholic Church has polity that is more realistic given human nature's tendencies.
I don't know. Sometimes you have to have the periphery and context right, before you can understand the answer. I see that a lot. Atheists want an answer, but if you gave it to them, they wouldn't understand it, first of all. There needs to be a context behind it. It's like a Rosetta Stone. You're never going to read Egyptian, unless you have the knowledge of how language works first. Nothing is isolated in a vacuum. It's all related to each other. And while people understand things in short, concrete statements, it's not always good to provide short, concrete statements. They will question it. They have to know why, and that divulges into a periphery topic, that has to circle into the main point. That's building premises, to support a conclusion. If you just gave the conclusion, even if true, the person you're talking to would think it were false. It's like explaining a math problem to someone. Just giving them the answer--which can sometimes be difficult on its own--isn't going to help them understand the process. Like, faith is a good comparison to mathematics, that we have faith in Calculus. Almost nobody understands why it works. Faith is the same way. Sometimes you have to bypass reason, because some people just cannot understand it.A certain amount of good faith always needs to be present. Like, I can learn the Quadratic Formula, but not understand it. Christianity is not like a quadratic formula, as it's not something everyone agrees with, and therefore everyone trusts it. But, you have to get into the reasons why the Quadratic Formula works, that's hundreds of hours of research, and while it is relatively simple once you know it, there's other concepts that are way more difficult. And quite frankly, some of the reasons people want you to provide for the faith, they can't understand it. Just like not everyone is going to understand even some basic maths concepts; as fundamentals can be more difficult than high concepts, when you get into their proofs. And then, there's people no matter how much information you gave them, no matter how much time you spend, will not believe. As they're like Roman Highways. The birds will come and steal the seed. So, just dealing with those kinds of people, you sometimes have to know when enough's enough.
I’ve had Muslims data dump Bible verses in an attempt to disprove Jesus’s divinity. I call it out to them and then systematically address each topic represented by those verses with a couple of verses, but without data dumps.
Jimmy, you are wrong on your recent description of Pachamama. Listen to Fr. Pacwa. he tells it like it is. It is a pagan deity! Even a local priest in Cin. commented how wrong you are on this issue. Any correction?
I missed Jimmy's description of Pachamama. Did he refer to it as an Amazonian deity? I did see Fr Pacwa's segment on the topic a few months ago where he described the mudslide wiping out the city in Peru, well elucidated
Church buildings can and have gotten bigger in size. I’m in a growing area and many of the churches in the area are building new worship spaces because of the growing population. Not enough seats in Church is a blessing if it is because there are so many Christians and not enough space to seat everyone.
Appearances do matter, it's true, but you can't seriously think that how he looks discredits what he says. This may be an occasion to examine your conscience... ...and please don't shoot the messenger
I lost my faith 10 years ago. I come to videos to challenge my faith and see if I could go back to the Church. Ever since I laid eyes on James I could not believe this was the obtuse voice I had heard all those years on EWTN radio. I don’t need a nice suit or 100 dollar haircut. But Geez… try a little. He should examine the mirror
Good advice. I deal a lot with southern baptists who accuse me of worshipping statues and so on. Once I mention what our practices really are, they change the subject completely to avoid being proved wrong. Happened many, many times over the years. Frustrating for me.
How do you reconcile the 2nd commandment with your practices ?
@@kilervgmmm easily. Just because Southern Baptists call it worship doesn't make it true
@@kilervgmmmThe Church considers Idolotry to be part of the First Commandment.
@@kilervgmmmwhat practices are you referring to anyway?
Also- have you ever attended a Catholic mass or viewed a livestream of one?
I find it doesn't matter how many times you explain, in good faith, the true practices of the faith and their historical & Biblical bases. Most prots aren't genuinely seeking a truthful answer and just are looking to justify their presupposed assumptive position. They're usually simply arguing from a dishonest position and it's reflective in the bad faith arguments they make.
Knowledge says: I can address your points with facts and logic.
Wisdom says: I can’t win an argument with someone’s OCD or control issues.
Faith says: But I can pray for you.
I'm stealing this from you
@@PhillipCummingsUSA Cheers! I stole the idea from “Knowledge tells me that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom tells me not to put ketchup in a smoothie.”
Protestant here, and this must be the first time I've agreed with everything Jimmy had to say. These are good irenic behaviors and the marks of Christlike witness. Bravo!
Me too
I'm very guilty of "data dumping" I have so much knowledge on the subject of Christianity now and since I started studying Apostolic Christianity its been facts on top of facts, on top of facts. But in my own experience I studied all this on my own and tried to seek out the answers by myself and it came over time. As though God was revealing the information in stages. And I need to keep that in mind when I explain Christianity to people.
Jimmy Atkin is awesome. Great apologest, author and he has a great podcast too.
I feel like this advice came to me at the right moment
I feel like I should've listened to this a few years ago but better late than never
When dealing with Evangelicals, I say two things: the conversation must remain civil, or it ends. Secondly, I listen to you, and you listen to me. I have no interest in winning the conversation, but conveying what I know and believe.
Great info! I'm an ex-atheist and used to debate atheists online endlessly.
Debates hardly ever work. Arguments never work either.
When they argue I just say "You are free to have your own beliefs."
its like a tight pair of pants: " never worn either ".
People love to argue like they love to complain. Good idea, not to feed the mentality.
I find the Socratic method of simply asking questions tends to work if you keep them simple and brief, but doesn't change the fact they won't change their mind. Only exposes the issues in their current views.
@@kriegjaeger Amen
That should not stop you from trying.
If you’re not persuaded by arguments, I’m curious what convinced you of theism.
"Just live in the moment, and do what you can to be helpful, and trust God with the results."
Amen. ❤
"Live in the moment" is an attitude I have often seen condemned by Christians
@@extract8058
“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” ~Matthew 6:34
Jesus clearly tells us not to worry about tomorrow (future), today (present) has enough trouble of its own.
@@extract8058because most people use it to mean let go of your inhibitions.
I try to go one step..at a time. There’s so much misinformation about the Catholic Faith. What I do is say let’s do one issue that we DO agree on, then focus on the one thing we can gently address.
Jimmy’s fit looking 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Really good video. Thank you, Catholic Answers.
There is a Fifth hidden "mistake" presented in the closing: "trust God with the results". We often miss doing that.
And that is the most important!!!
I'm not sure I follow, are you saying it's a mistake to trust God with the results?
@@ironymattIn trying to keep the quote accurate I think I created confusion. The mistake is rather lack of trust in God.
Corrected in the original. Does it read right with the change?
@@CesarScur yes, crucial detail!🙂
Man, now I know why my friends don't like to talk about Christianity with me. I just info dump all the time!
it's good to be self aware
I'd suggest having one good argument. _Why did Christianity continue after the Crucifixion?_ That's a good one.
@@SergeantSkeptic686 I like that.
@@lemonpepperdry5818 It's a question Christian's answer with ease. Skeptics--I am one--struggle with it. The answer is pretty much the same as with Mormonism. After Joseph Smith was killed Mormonism continued. Like Christianity the founder was dead, but the followers still had things to gain. With the Apostles it was mostly fame and some money.
Except what you're dumping isn't information but garbage
Great advice
Great video. I do enjoy online debates with protestants because even though most (that I have encountered) do commit the errors you laid out it allows me to do research on their objections of the church, and I always come out the better for it because I leave with new knowledge to better understand our history and faith.
💯 I don’t force my beliefs I speak generally about my beliefs and show by example (action-how I live my life ) 🕊️🎼🙏
As an inquirer, something that I think is frequently ignored, but that I find essential, is how debater's religious beliefs, what they are preaching, reflect their actual behavior. For example, in the case of Christian debaters, I believe it is relevant to see how compassionate, graceful, or kind they are (generally speaking of course, because we should always consider the particulars of each situation), especially towards those who disagree with them. Unfortunately, what we frequently witness is not even just an obvious desire of victory for the pure sake of self-gratification, but also the unhealthy intention of ridiculing the 'opponent', and all in the name of God, who ends up being 'instrumentalized' for that purpose. Members of some groups or denominations definitely display more of these tendencies and attitudes, but in general we can see them all over the place. Being an apologist, it seems, has become, for many, just another activity that can be totally unlinked from faith (if there is some still in that person).
The very reason Alex O'Conner and Bart Ehrman are so successful. They are simply nice guys.
Agree. James 3:8-9 comes to mind. But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father, and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. I have been guilty of this myself.
I love these points! So often, these are frustrations I've come across from those attacking my beliefs, but I wasn't able to clearly name their approach. The fact that you've named these helps me to not fall into those same techniques.
Yes, indeed this knife cuts both ways. Atheists often argue in the same manner as Jimmy describes.
I took this course when it was first offered. This is a great clip to share with catechists too in how they present the Catholic faith especially to teens and adults.
My man, Jimmy Akin!
Very good discussion of some typical ways people undermine themselves when making arguments or presentations. The concerns you raise apply much more broadly than just apologetics and counter-apologetics.
I would just add one more principle: people like having honest conversations where they feel both sides are listening to the other person and both sides are willing to learn something from the other person. If you go into a conversation “knowing” you are right about everything, the other person will pick up on that really fast, and most likely write you off. Intelligent, well-educated, and well-mannered people know that they don’t know everything, and they enjoy learning things from other people as well as teaching things to other people.
James 3:1said "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." Our God-fearing lives speak louder than words.
How did you know I needed this?
Thank you so much!
Brother looks straight like a mad scientist, love you Jimmy.
Thank you for sharing this content.
Agreed. Both skeptics and apologists could benefit from Jimmy's comments.
Thank you for this Mr. Akin. A timely lesson for me.
My least favorite is the premature victory dance. I hope to not do a victory dance just because I think I won an argument...but ONLY if/when the other person RECEIVES the correction and INCORPORATES the change into their theology. Not one second before
Such a thoughtful discussion. I will abide by this advice when speaking with Protestants. Attend the Latin Mass.
Good
thank you Jimmy needed to hear this so much!
What Jimmy says is right and most of those mistakes are made by protestant street preachers. As Catholics, we have to be different
Oh my! I wish Jimmy made a full series like this!!!
I've found that people data dumping bible verses don't even explain the reason the verses prove their point and I end up thinking they didn't understand the first couple of verses they used and move on from reading anything else. That's my experience.
Don't make the other hate you, because nobody wants the person they hate to be right
with his white coat and tablet he looks like a church doctor! love it
I find that when having these type of discussions with people, they will try to shift the topic if they don't have a good response to what you are saying. Thanks for the good advice Jimmy!
I hope Sam Shamoun watches this video, especially the part about not being adversarial. I find that his knowledge of scripture is very impressive, and with a somewhat more charitable disposition towards those he debates he could become a real force in apologetics. Prayers for him.
3:50 So, basically, any online argument.
The a priori decision on the part of the other party to be adversarial is a given in that forum, almost to the point of certainty. There's a small handful of occasions where I've been pleasantly surprised though, ad majorem Dei gloriam
As a non-catholic christian, I loved this video. I do get into debates about God and religion online and I think I will have to change my approach. Thank you for your experienced advice my brother in Christ 👏👏
I’m a Catholic Christian and over the years I’ve learned to implement some of these practices in apologetics online. It’s really helped me to guide a subject to a single topic and so I can be concise with my answers.
These are all good points, and I would add that trying to trap someone in their words is also a bad idea. As in, asking them leading questions until you get them to say what you want. People will spot it instantly, and it comes off as kind of scummy and cheap. And like you're not interested in what they're actually saying, just what you think someone of their position SHOULD be saying.
Is Karlo Broussard guilty of "word trapping" during his argument against moral relativism? _If a skeptic believes in relativism, they have disproved relativism by their own belief._ Karlo seems to label anyone in disagreement _a moral relativist._ This tricky phrase gives Karlo the ability to avoid a comprehensive and thoughtful discussion on morality.
@@SergeantSkeptic686 I am not very familiar with Karlo Broussard (I'm actually not Catholic, I'm Eastern Orthodox) or the context in which he said this. What I'm thinking of, though, is not specific arguments, but more of a rhetorical technique that I often see employed in live debates. During the cross-examination section, some debaters will start to ask a series of questions in which they are clearly trying to get their opponent to give a specific answer. The Reformed apologist James White, for example, seems fond of this kind of tactic. What you're criticizing seems more like a thought-teminating cliche than what I'm talking about. It does not strike me as a particularly good argument against moral relativism, anyway (at least without additional qualitifications--again, I'm not familiar with Broussard, so I don't know what else he has to say about this).
@@ThreeQuartersCrazed _“Thought-Terminating Cliche.”_ A perfect explanation. I come from an atheist bias and listen to Catholic Answers frequently. Jimmy is their most knowledgable apologist and Trent Horn is the one who engages with atheists most often. The BEST apologists -IMHO- are everyday Catholics who smile warmly, great everyone, and genuinely ask “Hey, may I help you with that?” Who's your favorite debater?
@@SergeantSkeptic686 I don't watch debates particularly often anymore, as I'm leaning more and more towards the opinion that they're not the best way of hashing out disagreements. Debates are antagonistic by their nature, and it's difficult for most people to want to listen to someone who they perceive as an opponent or an enemy. When I do watch debates these days, I do think that Trent Horn is good for Christianity vs. Atheism subjects. He's thoughtful and respectful, though sometimes his presetation sounds a bit too rehearsed and his arguments can be a bit canned. Michael Jones (a.k.a. InspiringPhilosphy) is also good and makes some more innovative arguments, though he also has a greater tendency to show frustration during debates. For debates on Orthodoxy vs. other Christian traditions, I like Seraphim Hamilton. There aren't too many English-speaking Orthodox debaters around right now, and it's unfortunate that many of them are not gentelmanly, but Hamilton definitely is. My main issues with him are that he's inexperienced (I think he's only done about five debates or so, though he performed well in each one that I've seen) and he's a YEC.
@@ThreeQuartersCrazed I’ll check out Michael Jones! I don't know about Seraphim Hamilton. I believe Young Earth Creationists are mistaken. I stopped listening to them in favor of more realistic arguments. I think the Catholic Church as a realistic viewpoint on evolution. Years ago, maybe 2018, I was on Trent Horn’s podcast. He was just getting started and would take anybody. He was cordial in person and I got the impression he is very busy. I recently had a debate with Catholic Author John DeRosa, it’s on RUclips. We we were very polite to each other. We debated Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and whether the captive bride passages are immoral.
Thanks for this!
I have a friend who is Oneness Pentacostal, and we have regular theological debates which we both really enjoy. But he really does utilize the buckshot technique a lot.
We'll be debating the Trinity, and then all of a sudden when he'll jump to debating speaking in tongues. I enjoy the dialogues so I will follow the debate shift, but then I'll also try hawking back to the previous debate.
Sometimes then he will jump to arguing how it was the Trinitarians who drove out the Onenesses. It's something that definately gets noticed and feels like a means of changing the conversation when he's losing. But I still enjoy our conversations together.
Very helpful! Thank you:)
Hair's lookin' good, Jimmy!
1. As a Catholic, I attempt apologetics on youtube, and each encounter is different depending upon what the other person's position is.
2. I consider their positions according to the criteria of No.14 & 15 of Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, in the categories of non-Catholic Christians & non-Christians, respectively.
3. My initial premise is that religious truth is something that is abstract and cannot directly be proven empirically, but that ultimately must rely on an appeal to authority, which for a Catholic is the Magisterium.
4. As a result, my approach is one of advocating for the probability of the Catholic position by asking questions of the other person.
5. I attempt to discover as much common ground as is possible with the other person regarding religious truth.
6. However, there are certain persons who I am compelled to take a battering ram to in providing them with a preponderance of evidence. Many of these are Calvinists who have miniscule knowledge about John Calvin but base their Calvinism entirely upon Loraine Boettner's 20th century TULIP acrostic teaching tool. Therefore, they have no idea that (A) their 16th century Reformation founder claimed to the oracle of God and therefore (B) he directed that his writings were to be divine prism by which the Bible is read and interpreted.
7. An example of my making common cause is that I endorse Southern Baptist Dr. Leighton Flowers of Soteriology 101, a refugee from Calvinism, whose testimony inspired me to research and then become an advocate for his position of heightened engagement with what I agree with him is something spiritually unhealthy.
8. Quoting from the conclusion of 20th century historian Will Durant's Reformation chapter on John Calvin from his book series The Story of Civilization, available in audio form on youtube as Durant---Calvin: "... but we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense."
This is amazing advice, brother
Some really good advice I appreciate it. God bless you
I haven't watched your video content in a while- wow Jimmy! Congratulations on the weight loss! You look incredible!!!
Toward the end Cy Kellet was looking fit too. Jimmy may be passing on a healthier lifestyle over at CA. Congrats!
I agree 💯
Question: in your experiences , which churches teach their members to hate the Catholic Church ?
Always given the best advice Jimmy
Wanted to know more info about school of apologetics, but link it broken.
Thank you.
This is really great! I may enroll sometime.
Wonderful wonderful advice.😊😊😊
This was great
Thanks
Thanks 🙏
Jimmy looks great
Wisdom comes with age
As a former Protestant in several different traditions over 30 years, I can tell you that I am embarrassed with some of the arguments I used to use. The biggest issue, to me, is operating under a false premise of justification by faith alone. James 2 is massaged and explained away. Not to mention all of the commands in the NT as well as admonitions that those who commit heinous offenses will not see the kingdom of God. An open mind and humility is essential. America very much favors Protestantism because that is how the US was founded, formed and shaped. It is very individualistic, and lends itself to that type of theology very easily. I also think congregational government causes tons of strife. I've seen so much politics and difficulties in the local Protestant churches of all varieties that it almost seems built in to their system of individualism and control of agendas. Thankfully, the Catholic Church has polity that is more realistic given human nature's tendencies.
How about endless droning...on and on and on?
I got overloaded with his first point to not overload people. 😂
I don't know. Sometimes you have to have the periphery and context right, before you can understand the answer. I see that a lot. Atheists want an answer, but if you gave it to them, they wouldn't understand it, first of all. There needs to be a context behind it. It's like a Rosetta Stone. You're never going to read Egyptian, unless you have the knowledge of how language works first.
Nothing is isolated in a vacuum. It's all related to each other. And while people understand things in short, concrete statements, it's not always good to provide short, concrete statements. They will question it. They have to know why, and that divulges into a periphery topic, that has to circle into the main point. That's building premises, to support a conclusion. If you just gave the conclusion, even if true, the person you're talking to would think it were false. It's like explaining a math problem to someone. Just giving them the answer--which can sometimes be difficult on its own--isn't going to help them understand the process.
Like, faith is a good comparison to mathematics, that we have faith in Calculus. Almost nobody understands why it works. Faith is the same way. Sometimes you have to bypass reason, because some people just cannot understand it.A certain amount of good faith always needs to be present. Like, I can learn the Quadratic Formula, but not understand it. Christianity is not like a quadratic formula, as it's not something everyone agrees with, and therefore everyone trusts it. But, you have to get into the reasons why the Quadratic Formula works, that's hundreds of hours of research, and while it is relatively simple once you know it, there's other concepts that are way more difficult. And quite frankly, some of the reasons people want you to provide for the faith, they can't understand it. Just like not everyone is going to understand even some basic maths concepts; as fundamentals can be more difficult than high concepts, when you get into their proofs.
And then, there's people no matter how much information you gave them, no matter how much time you spend, will not believe. As they're like Roman Highways. The birds will come and steal the seed. So, just dealing with those kinds of people, you sometimes have to know when enough's enough.
I’ve had Muslims data dump Bible verses in an attempt to disprove Jesus’s divinity. I call it out to them and then systematically address each topic represented by those verses with a couple of verses, but without data dumps.
I perceive this as a tactic
Overload with scripture.
I said brow ask me one verse one by one than i will answer .
Jimmy’s beard is only accelerating the transition into Fall
Jimmy, you are wrong on your recent description of Pachamama. Listen to Fr. Pacwa. he tells it like it is. It is a pagan deity! Even a local priest in Cin. commented how wrong you are on this issue. Any correction?
😂 pachamama is an Inca goddess from the Andes in Peru.
Are you saying the Amazonians have an Peruvian Inca goddess?!?!
I missed Jimmy's description of Pachamama. Did he refer to it as an Amazonian deity? I did see Fr Pacwa's segment on the topic a few months ago where he described the mudslide wiping out the city in Peru, well elucidated
On Catholic Answers (CAlive | Jimmy Akin & Mark Brumley | August 10th, 2023) the caller asks around 13 minutes into the segment.@@ironymatt
@@tomsimon104 thanks!
Why shouldn’t we gish gallop? I have seen some Protestants do that to Catholics.
Is it wrong to not try to convert people because there is limited seats in the church and you don't want to sit in the commons?
Lol!
So very very very wrong!
um yes, especially if you would be able to convert enough people to cause that issue
@@catholiccom a good problem to have
Church buildings can and have gotten bigger in size. I’m in a growing area and many of the churches in the area are building new worship spaces because of the growing population. Not enough seats in Church is a blessing if it is because there are so many Christians and not enough space to seat everyone.
This is such a funny spoof!
Huh?
@@vinceschenden7349Pay attention!!
Perhaps make yourself looking a bit more presentable too? That’d be great.
I could never be an apologetic. 15 minutes in and I'm like YOUR MUM
Wow, Jimmy has been wearing a purple shirt and that white jacket for 30 years???😂 that's got to be some kind of record 😂😂😂😂
What makes you think he's been wearing that for 30 years?
Why can’t jimmy groom himself? It is tough taking you seriously.
Appearances do matter, it's true, but you can't seriously think that how he looks discredits what he says. This may be an occasion to examine your conscience...
...and please don't shoot the messenger
his beard is full of swag
I lost my faith 10 years ago. I come to videos to challenge my faith and see if I could go back to the Church. Ever since I laid eyes on James I could not believe this was the obtuse voice I had heard all those years on EWTN radio. I don’t need a nice suit or 100 dollar haircut. But Geez… try a little. He should examine the mirror
I'm not tryna serve them, I'm tryna ROAST THEM HERETICS
Jk, this was a good video
Catholism offers many distractions and hurdles, when all you need is personal relationship with Jesus!
boring...its true
Jimmy is not always right. He does not understand the Prophecy of the Popes.. . . . . . .
You're so right; all things boil down to charity and counting on God's grace. 🩵👏🕊️