Apologetics for the Masses - #277

Topic

Don't Waste Your Time With Folks Like This...

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

If you did not sign up for this newsletter and you would like to be removed from our distribution list, just click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe, then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,

For those of you in the Oklahoma area, I'll be speaking at the Cathedral ("Wednesday at the Cathedral") in Tulsa on Wednesday, June 8th. I'd love to see you there if you can make it, so mark your calendars...

Please share this newsletter on Facebook, Twitter, and the other places represented by the links at the top and bottom of this newsletter...thanks!

Introduction

This newsletter is not so much about how to do apologetics, as it is about how not to waste your time when you're doing apologetics...at least, with certain people. I am going to give you examples of folks that you really should not bother with in terms of trying to convince them of the truths of the Catholic faith. Below I have two examples of emails that were sent to me that demonstrate just how absurd some people can be. You need to keep in mind that people like this do not have any kind of claim on your time that requires you to spend hour upon hour responding to them to try and convince them of the truths of the Catholic faith.

My general rule when engaging in a discussion about the faith is to respond three times, and if you don't get an intelligible response to your arguments/questions after three attempts, then simply say, "Sorry, but you're either unwilling or unable to answer my questions/arguments, so there is no point in continuing this conversation." Sometimes, though, you can reach that conclusion after one email, as you'll see below.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Example 1

In this example, I am going to highlight an exchange I had with a guy named Zod Cranards. This is how he introduced himself to me:

Zod

Howdy---

I just read about you in Isa. 32.5-7. Out of respect for Matt. 7:6 I'll cast no more.

Zod

Comments

Isaiah 32:5-7, "The fool will no more be called noble, nor the knave said to be honorable. For the fool speaks folly and his mind plots iniquity, to practice ungodliness, to utter error concerning the Lord, to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied, and to deprive the thirsty of drink. The knaveries of the knave are evil; he devises wicked devices to ruin the poor with lying words even when the plea of the needy is right."

Matthew 7:6, "Do not give to dogs what is holy and do not throw your pearls before swine..."

So, the first thing this person ever says to me is to call me a fool, a knave, a dog, and a swine, and to say that I am ignoble, dishonorable, evil, a liar, ungodly, and wicked. When you receive something like this, where right off the bat the person is insulting you rather than presenting arguments as to why they think what you believe is wrong, or asking you questions about why do Catholics believe this or that, there is absolutely no reason to respond. I can guarantee you that responding to someone who starts off a conversation this way will end up doing nothing other than wasting your time...as I will demonstrate. When someone leads with name-calling, it is a sign of a mind that is less than stellar in its capacity to make logical, coherent arguments. 1 Tim 2:4 tells us that God desires that all men are saved, but Zod simply desires to cast aspersions.

However, I responded to him because I wanted to see if I could get something useful for this newsletter...so, here was my response:

John

Hey, Zod, I think you must have forgotten about Matthew 7:1-2...

[Matthew 7:1-2, "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."]

Zod

I didn't forget----Pls note vs 15-27. Context is always helpful Psa 119:160.

Comments

I'll let you guys read Matthew 7:15-27 yourselves, but basically he is calling me a false prophet who bears bad fruit. Psalm 119:160, "The sum of thy word is truth; and every one of thy righteous ordinances endures for ever." I have no idea how either passage applies to him apparently being given some sort of immunity from Matt 7:1-2, and I really have no idea how the verse from Psalm 119 applies here.

John

Context is indeed important, and in the context of your initial email, that passage from Matt 7:15-27 does not somehow provide you with a personal exemption from having Matt 7:1-2 applied to you. So you will indeed be judged with the judgment you pronounce. You seem to think Jesus contradicted Himself within the space of a few verses in Matthew 7, which tells me a great deal about your ability to interpret Scripture.

By the way, please tell me by what authority you judge me? And please tell me by what authority you judge the fruit of my works to be evil? Are you some sort of infallible interpreter of Scripture - Zod the Magnificent before whom all should yield to his infallible interpretations of Scripture?

Finally, it's real easy to throw out insults, but do you have an actual argument to make against anything that I teach? Of course not. That would require a little bit of thought, wouldn't it? And so far you haven't demonstrated a capacity for too much of that...

Zod

1 Jn 4:6 is the authority to judge as is Mt 7:15-27 and other passages. Jesus was talking about hypocritical judgement in vv1,2. You deny one must be baptized to be saved don't you? Re 1Jn 4:6 you don't hear the Apostles and Christ who said it's necessary. '8 souls were saved BY WATER---the like figure whereunto baptism now saves you.

Zod

Comments

1 John 4:6, "We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." So, what do we see here? Apparently Zod is "of God," and whoever knows God listens to Zod. I did not bring that up in my response to him, however, as I wanted to focus on the complete and total ignorance he demonstrated with his statement about Catholics (or maybe just me) not believing that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

John

Well, Zod, it seems I was right about your ability to judge and interpret - your thinking and your decision-making abilities are pretty skewed. This is evidenced by the fact that you would claim I deny one must be baptized in order to be saved. Haven't you ever read anything I've written? Do you know anything at all about the Catholic Church? Apparently not, as the Church teaches that one must be born again of water and the Spirit (Baptism) in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3-5).

So, you just thought you would write me and throw out insults even though you apparently have never read anything I've written and don't know anything about the Catholic Church - or maybe you don't even know that I'm Catholic. Hmmm...wouldn't that qualify as "hypocritical judgment"?

Zod

John, I saw your website-----how do you think I wound up with your address? On your website you talk about Campbelites which is actually blasphemy. Infant baptism is not even in the Bible, nor is original sin, the Pope, dioceses, cardinals, or holy water. So no, I'm not being hypocritical. I can usually spot you gents a thousand yards out. Hopefully you'll reconsider your position----it's adults that have to be baptized to be saved---totally immersed in water. From your website you don't believe that.

Comments

So, he first attacks me because he thinks I don't believe Baptism is necessary for salvation, then he attacks me because I do believe Baptism is necessary for salvation - even for infants. This is the gist of why trying to carry on a conversation with someone like this is usually a complete waste of time. They don't address your arguments, they don't answer your questions, and there is little if no semblance of rational coherent thought. It's almost as if they have completely forgotten what it was they said to you in their last email.

Also, notice his objection to my use of the term "Campbellite" when referring to the church of Christ - he says that is "blasphemy." In doing so, he identifies himself as a member of the Campbellite church of Christ. I have found with these folks, that logic and Scripture have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I even had one coC preacher tell me, "Logic has nothing to do with the Bible." Awfully difficult to have a rational conversation with someone who tosses logic out the window right at the beginning fo the conversation.

John

Oh, so now your changing your tune - at first, you said that I "deny one must be baptized to be saved." Now, you're saying the problem is that I believe in infant Baptism. So, which is it: Do I deny one must be baptized to be saved, or is the problem that I believe everyone (including infants) must be baptized? Will you admit that you were wrong with your first statement?

Zod

Your affectations are unavailing----belied by all the grunts, snarls, squealing, barking and howling.

Comments

He's back to trying to belittle me. Why? Because I have tied him in a knot with his own words and has no way out of it. So, since he's not honorable enough to admit he was wrong in what he said about me, he has to fling mud.

John

Just as I thought. You can't respond to even the simplest of arguments. It took very little effort for me to get you to contradict yourself. Here are your arguments as you presented them:

1) You are wrong and you are a fool because you don't believe Baptism is necessary for salvation for anyone.

2) You are wrong and you are a fool because you believe Baptism is necessary for salvation for everyone, even infants.

So which is it, Zod? Am I a fool because I don't believe Baptism is necessary for salvation for anyone, or am I a fool because I believe Baptism is necessary for salvation for everyone? It can't be both, yet you have accused me of both. Does Jesus want His followers falsely accusing others? Does Jesus want His followers to spread lies about the beliefs of others? You don't have a clue what I believe or what I don't believe, yet you judge me and hurl insults at me. Who is the fool, Zod? And who is the hypocrite?

If you're interested in an actual conversation about what is and is not authentic biblical Christianity, I would be happy to engage you in such. But you really don't have the ability to make logical, cogent, biblically-based arguments, do you? You are limited to hurling insults and baseless accusations...

Just so you know, I will be including this exchange, with your email address, in my newsletter - which goes out to 30,000+ other fools and idiots like myself. I hope you will enjoy corresponding with all of them...

Zod

Sounds good!---Hopefully some will have a noble and good heart--I welcome all comers.

Zod

Comments

He is eager to correspond with people who "have a noble and good heart." I assume he believes he has the same, regardless of the abusive, unjust, and malicious nature of his emails to me. I was going to publish his email address so as to let anyone correspond with him who wanted to do so, but then I thought better of it as the whole point of this newsletter is about not wasting your time with folks like this, so why tempt you to correspond with him by publishing his email address!?

John

You didn't answer my question. Which is it: Am I a fool because I believe Baptism is not necessary for salvation for anyone; or am I a fool because I believe Baptism is necessary for salvation for everyone?

And do you believe you have demonstrated a "noble and good heart" in your dealings with me?

Zod

1) A: If you agree with Jesus ---that 'he who believes AND is baptized will be saved', Peter 'repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins', & 'baptism NOW SAVES YOU'---Mk. 16.16. Ax 2.38, 1Pt. 3.21 ----your not a fool. Otherwise.....

2) A: Yes.

Comments

So, since I believe that one has to believe AND be baptized, I guess I'm not a fool after all. I'm sure, thought, that I'm still a fool because of my belief in infant baptism. Anyway, that was the last of my correspondence with Zod.

I'm considering sending him one more email simply to see how he responds to something. He stated in one of his emails that holy water, among a few other things, is "not even in the Bible." Well, actually, it is. In Numbers 5:17 it says this, "And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel..." So, holy water is mentioned directly in the Bible. For someone to say that it isn't shows their ignorance of the Bible. How could someone claim to have the authority of 1 John 4:6, when they are so obviously ignorant of Scripture. If I were to listen to Zod, then I would have to believe that holy water is not in the Bible, but I would be believing something that is contrary to God's Word. Zod cannot, therefore, have any authority over anything to do with Scripture, when he is teaching something that is contrary to Scripture. So, I just want to see how he responds to that. Do you think he will admit that he was wrong? Fat chance.

Example 2

I got this email in the last week or two:

Jim

"Elton John is God."

Comments

That's all it said. With something like this, it's usually the case that someone thinks they're being clever and they are trying to provoke a response. Or, they are simply trying to shock or scandalize you with their statement. My first thought was that Jim was an atheist, as the atheists can be quite a provocative lot. Ordinarily, this kind of email deserves no response, and would get no response. But, I decided to respond because I had this particular newsletter in mind. So, this was my response:

John

I thought Elvis was God? After all, numerous people have claimed to see him since his death.

Comments

The purpose of this response was to simply let Jim know that he will have to do a lot better than that to "shock" or otherwise scandalize me. I will not play his game or take his bait. If he wants to get a rise out of me, he will have to come up with something a lot better than that.

When you get into a conversation with someone, whether it's with someone like Jim - or Zod - or even if it is someone with whom you can have a decent dialogue, you need to learn to control the conversation. You set the tone, you steer the conversation to where you want it to go. Do not let the other guy dictate the direction the conversation goes in and do not let them get you to where you are simply reacting to what they put out there. You need to be proactive in your conversations - asking questions, putting forth coherent arguments - rather than simply being reactive where all you're doing is trying to answer whatever nonsense they put out there. If you give the other guy the opportunity, he will lead you around by your nose for as long as you let him.

After I responded to Jim, he started sending me all sorts of weird emails. He even cc'd me on emails he was sending to his doctor - a mental health professional. Turns out that Jim is apparently bipolar. So, in this instance, the person has genuine mental health issues.

In either case, with Jim or with Zod, there was nothing that obligated me to respond. And I would feel no guilt whatsoever if I had not responded. Just because someone sends you an email in which they are questioning and/or attacking the Catholic Faith, you do not have a responsibility to respond. Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not saying you never have a responsibility to respond. I'm just saying that some of the time, when dealing with certain types of people, there is no responsibility on you. Even so, I know that most of you will want to respond, because you want to hopefully plant seeds of truth with the person who emailed you, you want them to have an opportunity to know the truth about the Catholic Faith, and you want to maybe do something that will help save a soul - or, at the least, to help dispel ignorance. All of that is good and noble sentiment. But, if it is obvious to you that the person who has contacted has no intent to actually listen to what you have to say, or that they are simply trying to antagonize you and play games with you - as was the case in these two examples - then, again, you have no obligation to respond.

But, if you do respond to someone like this, no need to give them 3 strikes to prove they can engage in a rational and productive conversation - I would say it's one strike and you're out if some sort of coherent response is not immediately forthcoming from them. But, do add their names to your prayer list...

Closing Comments

Just some practical apologetics advice that I hope proved to be of some use to you. Have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!