Amy has abruptly ended our "dialogue" with these words:

*This debate is now closed. I could certainly continue to go back and forth (and believe me, I would love to!!!!!), but that would be answering a fool according to his folly.

(Note from me: Is it just me or was that kind of a bitchy little thing to say?)

As to the lies that the Catholic church was established by Christ (try 300 AD), that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible (they did make a CORRUPT Bible, but God spoke his words to Hebrew men of old and they were thus preserved for us), and that the Catholic Church is scripturally based (though they do not hold to the authority and infallability of scripture) you can easily find answers to all this and more through a Google search. And don't be afraid to read pages from both sides. They have nothing to say that makes a convincing argument against the Word of God.

I am sure this post will end up on Elena's blog as more fodder for her fire, but as the evidence shows, I was not closing my ears to her.

(note from me: The evidence shows the discussion is being unilaterally discontinued. I said I wouldn't mind continuing; she says she would love to continue. Curious then that she would end it without giving me a chance to respond. It doesn't have to lead to either person swaying the other but a mutual respect and understanding would be a worthy goal. Cutting it off in the name of "folly" is just another not so subtle ad hominem.)

I was one of the few (perhaps the only) who allowed her to post an opinion regardless of the fact that she is trying to lure those who comment on other blogs in order to get a fight going.

(note from me: I don't think "lure" is an accurate term. Rather, I mainly want to get the opposing view picked up by the search engines, and I have been very successful at it. So if Candy posts something that is anti-Catholic, Google picks up my counter view as well. )

She has given her view, it has not swayed me in the slightest, and all the good works in the world cannot make up for a heart that seeks to tear down others with unsolicited ferver.

(Note from me: I originally stated that I wasn't trying to "sway" her. I'm certainly not stupid enough to expect that a few hundred words from me are going to change someone's entire religious perspective over night. What I did write was:

ELENA:"Amy, I don't expect you to agree with this at
all. My purpose it simply show that the Catholic doctrines have reasons behind them, many of them scriptural. It is really more an interpretational or exegesis difference than anything else that I want to illustrate. Thanks!

I found the last part of the sentence a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. The entire purpose of Candy's blog is to tear down Catholics and the Catholic faith with "unsolicited ferver." My responses are to counter those attacks. As they are counters they certainly can't be deemed "unsolicited." )

To those who are catholic, know as always that I do not hold any hatred or anger against anyone. I simply do not see the doctrine of this church as cohesive to the definition of Christianity because it is ecclectic in its requirements of salvation. Christians follow Christ. Not Christ and Mary and the apostles and the Pope and whoever has been cannonized. The Bible says so, and if it is not enough authority on its own, it is completely worthless because then it is full of lies. If Christ's death was not enough, it was a pointless death. If God is not all-poweful enough to save us by faith and nothing else, He has no power at all.

As I wrote on My Domestic Church, I Get It! The last paragraph just reminds me of Fulton Sheen's famous comment at the very top of this blog. There are so many issues there to explain, but as she's not open to hearing them, I can't take the time to try and explain them. Better apologists than me have written reams on Sola Scriptura. I'll refer her to them.

I have known and fellowshipped with Protestant Christians most of my life. From the example of my grandparents and my mother, through my relationships with other Christians including my best friend I have had good relationships that have enriched my life and even deepened my Christian faith. Perhaps that is one reason the examples of Candy, Amanda and Amy have been so very stunning in their attitudes towards Christians in general who do not share their view of Christianity and definitely Catholics in particular. (I'm not exactly sure why this ire doesn't extend to Anglicans and Orthodox but it doesn't seem to.)

I want to make a few comments on Amy's final thoughts.

1. We did not really have a debate . She listed her problems with Catholicism. I engaged them. She countered. I offered further explanation and even did so on my blog, and she ends it as noted above. That's not a debate.

2. True, she has been much more generous than Candy in allowing me any voice of disagreement at all. Candy et al would probably benefit by sticking around some of the "born again guy blogs" and the Catholic Apologetics blogs Parableman and Challies.com as well as Dave Armstrong come to mind. The gentleman don't seem to have any problem with allowing challenging and rigorous debate and discussion. Maybe it's a guy thing but the gals at least in this part of the blogosophere just don't seem to be able to handle challenges at all.

3. It really ticks me off that she ends our encounter with even more challenges against the church, but without giving me a chance to respond. I don't think it's a very gracious way to go about it.

4. I did share this bit from Dave Armstrong's e-Book "Bible Conversations" in support of Christians engaging in lifely debate and discussion. Excerpt here:

The word dialogue appears in the Bible. The Greek dialegomai occurs 13
times in the New Testament, and refers to reason, rational argument, discussion,
discourse, debate, dispute and so forth. Particularly, we often see it
applied to the Apostle Paul as he reasoned and argued with Jews in the
synagogues (Acts 17:2,17, 18:4,19, 19:8) and Greeks and other Gentiles in the
marketplaces and academies of the time, where the exchange of ideas took place
(Acts 17:17, 18:4, 19:9-10).
St.
Paul’s evangelistic preaching wasn’t simply thrilling oratory and edifying,
“homiletic” exposition; it involved in-depth reasoning; even – at times,
such as on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34) --, literally philosophical
discourse.
Our Lord
Jesus, too, often engaged in vigorous, rational, scriptural argument, especially
with the Pharisees, much in the spirit of the ancient rabbis. One example of
this among many occurs in Mark 12:18-27, where He is said to be “disputing”
(Greek, suzeteo) with the Sadducees (cf. Acts 9:29, where the same word is
used).

Rational argument, thinking, or open-minded discourse and dialogue is altogether
permissible; indeed, required of all Christians who wish to have a robust,
confident, reasonable faith amidst the competing ideas and faiths of the
world and academia. Our Lord instructs us to love God with our minds as well as
with all our hearts, souls, and strength (Luke
10:27).

The word apologetics; that is, the defense of Christianity (or Catholicism in
particular, in the present instance) is derived etymologically from the
Greek apologia, which term was used by Plato as a title of one of his many
classic dialogues, in description of the philosopher Socrates’ lengthy and
elaborate defense or justification of himself against trumped-up,
politically-motivated charges in Athens, in 399 B.C.

I will note however that I do not expect to find that level of sophisticated discussion in this part of the blogosphere. Seeking to counter misunderstands and untruths is about the best I can expect to do here, and even then just have those represented in the search engines.