Tag: Quick Apology

Quick Apology: You don’t believe in Thor, do you?

5 comments

Up until now, all of the “Quick Apology” posts have dealt with Catholic-Protestant disputes. Today I would like to address a Theist-Atheist issue. I wrote this post several weeks ago, but I heard this specific objection was just a few days ago…

Objection

Probably as a result of the writings of the “New Atheists”, I’ve heard with increasing regularity the statement:

“You don’t believe in Thor do you? You’re almost an atheist – I just believe in one less god than you”

Response

The suggestion here is that Christians are, in fact, basically atheists since they don’t believe in the gods of other religions. The atheist is just like the Christian except that she rejects the Christian God as well.

There’s the suggestion that, since Thor doesn’t exist, then neither does the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, this doesn’t really follow, does it? After all, does the existence of counterfeit money mean that real money doesn’t exist? I hope not, otherwise I’ve worked 40 hours this week for nothing! Does the existence of counterfeit love mean that real love doesn’t exist? The recently dumped may think so, but I think generally we can agree that counterfeit love doesn’t disprove real love.

So, in conclusion, the non-existence of Thor has no bearing on the existence of Yahweh. The evidence for each must be weighed independently…

Thor-the-Dark-World

captain-american-one-god

Quick Apology: Chained Bibles

5 comments

In today’s Quick Apology post I wanted to turn to the subject of history…

Objection

When speaking about the Catholic approach to Scripture, some Protestants will make the following accusation:

“The Catholic Church used to chain up Bibles!”

Response

The statement is absolutely true; it was not uncommon prior to the Reformation for Bibles to be chained up. When I am told this in a discussion I concede the point, but I then ask the person speaking if they know why this was done…

It is not uncommon to receive as a response, “They chained them up to stop people reading the Bible!”. While the initial statement was true, this explanation as to why Bibles were chained is completely incorrect. In fact, Bibles were chained for completely the opposite reason. Bibles were chained up so that more people had access to the Scriptures!*

You see, prior to the Fifteen Century and the invention of the movable type printing press, Bibles were hand-written. This was an colossal undertaking and therefore extremely costly. This meant that Bibles were expensive items liable to be stolen by thieves. Therefore, in an attempt to provide people with access to the Scriptures, it was common for a Bible to be made available in or around a church building, but to prevent theft, it was chained to a heavy object. If you had a Bible worth tens of thousands of dollars, would you want to leave it unsecured and unattended in a public building?!

If you visit a post office or a bank, you will often see pens chained to immovable services. Do these institutions chain these pens because they don’t want you to use them? Of course not! They want you to use the pens, but they want to make sure nobody steals them! Why? Because if they are stolen then other people won’t have the opportunity to use the pens. It is the same logic at work concerning the chaining of Bibles.

Chained Bible

* It is probably worth pointing out that literacy rates were also extremely low even until the 19th Century. It is for this reason that the most common way of learning the Bible throughout Christian history has been the hearing the Scriptures proclaimed at the Eucharistic liturgy.

Quick Apology: Is Mary “Mother of God”?

5 comments

Objection

In today’s post I’d like to offer a quick apology to the following objection:

“Mary is the mother of Jesus, she’s not the ‘Mother of God'”

The idea being expressed here was championed by Nestorius in the 5th Century and condemned at the Council of Ephesus (AD 431). Unfortunately, this is a sentiment often expressed by many Protestants when they hear Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians refer to Mary as “Mother of God”.

Response

In responding to this objection, I simply put forward a few logical statements:

1. Jesus is God

2. Mary gave birth to Jesus

3. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God

I then ask the person with whom I am speaking to identify the perceived error. Does he deny that Jesus is God? Does he deny that Mary gave birth to Jesus? If Jesus is God and Mary gave birth to Him, doesn’t “Mother of God” seems to be an appropriately descriptive title?

To put it in terms of Scripture, in Luke’s Gospel, St. Elizabeth says to Mary “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43). Is Elizabeth’s “Lord” God? Yes or No? If her “Lord” is God then Mary is “the mother of [her] Lord[/God]”.

One might also consider the Deuteronomic command to “Honour your father and mother” (Deuteronomy 5:16). As we all know, Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly. So, in fulfilling this command, whom did He honour?

Contrary to what is often proposed, Mary being “Mother of God” does not make her greater than Jesus. It simply establishes her relationship with her Son and Saviour and, like the pronouncements of the Council of Ephesus, safeguards the Church’s teaching concerning the divinity of Christ.

Mother of God

1 2