Pages

Sunday, July 8, 2007

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.

5 comments:

motherofmany said...

OK, this really has to be my last reply.

I ended the discussion because you were NOT showing mutual consideration. I posted the entirety of your comments while you took bits and pieces of mine as suited your stand, and pretended I did not have answers for the questions posed. You were snippy and rude. I don't think you know how to debate without making it personal. And I now understand why Candy has refused to answer you at all. I have no problem with honest debate. But what you are doing is cat fighting under the GUISE of debate. And the more we go back and forth with that requisite, the more I would be swept into the style of argument that you employ, and I don't think it is profitable for anything.

I said I felt the Catholic Church was a false doctrine. You countered with how the Catholic Church is the biggest, oldest, most charitable, most conservative, etc. Not only were you giving opinions (because many churches hold to their roots being during the post-resurrection period and NOT from the Reformation), you were also changing the subject.

I said that your attacks were unsolicited, and you countered with how Candy's were. Yet how many times has she commented here about your logical fallacies? I didn't see any. And people come to her site and ASK for opinions. So her statements are solicited. You can't provoke her to answer, so you started a blog to get your friends to agree with you about how wrong she is. That is unsolicited ferver.

You said you could show me that the Catholic Church had scriptural backing, and when I countered your use of the scriptures (generally out of context or misinterpreted meanings) you cried foul that your original comment was being lost in 'biblical debate'. Wasn't that the point?

I am not catholic (that comment drives me crazy because of the presuppositions required for it). I am not a Protestant, so saying I am ruling out Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ while not also excluding others from my 'section' of Christianity is also false. I do not count anyone a fellow believer if they do not adhere to the truth of the Bible (and ONLY the Bible) and believe salvation comes from faith in Christ and nowhere else.

I also love apologetics, and delve into thick reading of this kind quite often, but that is not what I created a blog for. I created my blog because people were forever asking me about raising kids, especially foster kids. Had I nothing else to do, I would certainly enjoy hosting a theological debate site. But that is not the season of my life, except for specific instances such as defending my agreement that a woman ought to submit to her husband even though she no longer shares his faith. I think you chose to take on blogs by Christian women who discuss home-making and raising children because you assume they do not know anything about apologetics, and therefore it can appear that you are superior in knowledge. The problem is that they just don't want to debate it, and when they do not respond, you claim they have no answer.

I also do not wish to continue the discussion because I have found your site to be hostile, and I don't just mean to 'lost' fundamentalists. Your writing has a very jaded tone to it and always leaves me cold. You also discuss very ungodly things (like General Hospital) and I do not want to be linked to this kind of garbage. Other sites I read by Catholics where theology is debated (and yes, you were ASSUMING when you made the statements about how I do not read anything by Catholics, ordained or otherwise) are not as dark. I do not mind people disagreeing with me of they can do it respectfully. Also, my husband asked me to end the discussion because in his opinion, a woman who sends 14 comments in one day needs to focus more on important issues, like her family, and continuing it would be enabling her obsessions. (I do have his approval to answer this last note from you)

Have you ever heard the phrase "Me thinks she dost protest too much"? What are you trying to accomplish? You are angry at what you perceive to be attacks on your church, but you continue to go back and read the blogs of people who disagree with you. You claim to not be trying to sway anyone, but you mock anything said that is not in support of your opinion. Is the Catholic Church in so much trouble that they need you to single-handedly belittle anyone outside of its confines? You get angry at those you feel have false knowledge about Catholics, but you make sweeping generalizations about anyone who is a Christian outside of that faith. Pot calling the kettle black? Look in the mirror.

BTW- you posted your little quip about not feeling the need to post any more answers since I was obviously not dialoging, since that requires two people listening, BEFORE I closed my end of the argument. That was one of the many points about you not being honest with what you posted on your own blog and what you said on mine.

Elena said...

I ended the discussion because you were NOT showing mutual consideration. I posted the entirety of your comments while you took bits and pieces of mine as suited your stand, and pretended I did not have answers for the questions posed.

Are we reading the same debate? After your answers I specifically asked you if you wished to continue. Your answer was "fool to his folly."

I did however post a link to your blog so that my readers could read your answers in their entirety. While I was waiting to see if you wanted me to respond I only answered the last part while I was waiting to hear if you wanted to further discuss Mary, priests etc.



You were snippy and rude. I don't think you know how to debate without making it personal. And I now understand why Candy has refused to answer you at all.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I tried to stay on topic and answer all of your objections to the best of my ability.

I think the discussion turned when you brought up the purpose of this blog, Visits to Candyland. You didn't print my response and I only posted a synopsis, but I did not feel that I was rude to you at all. If you took it that way, I sincerely apologize.



I have no problem with honest debate. But what you are doing is cat fighting under the GUISE of debate. And the more we go back and forth with that requisite, the more I would be swept into the style of argument that you employ, and I don't think it is profitable for anything.

Um... I only replied to your objections once. You can find it here. Other then my other comment on why this blog exiss I'm not sure what you are referring to.

I said I felt the Catholic Church was a false doctrine. You countered with how the Catholic Church is the biggest, oldest, most charitable, most conservative, etc. Not only were you giving opinions (because many churches hold to their roots being during the post-resurrection period and NOT from the Reformation), you were also changing the subject.

Actually I was bringing it up as a response to your charge of false gospel. Jesus clearly says in the gospel, by the fruits you will know if something is true or not. I was putting up a brief resume of the Catholic Church so that you would evaluate those fruits in the light of what Christ said.

I said that your attacks were unsolicited, and you countered with how Candy's were. Yet how many times has she commented here about your logical fallacies?

She never has although she is certainly welcome. I did not expect that she would though. I think she is afriad of leaving an IP finger print. The purpose of this blog is to respond to her blog because she will not allow my comments. Therefore, I comment here. It is certainly up to her whether or not she wants to comment or not and I am more than open to it.


I didn't see any. And people come to her site and ASK for opinions. So her statements are solicited.

I don't think anyone asked for an all out frontal attack on the Catholic Church. I'm not sure who solicted that.

You can't provoke her to answer, so you started a blog to get your friends to agree with you about how wrong she is. That is unsolicited ferver.

Oh, I can provoke her to answer. I have several times. She just takes posts down mysteriously. I started this blog to keep the record straight about mistruths that she has said about me.

You said you could show me that the Catholic Church had scriptural backing, and when I countered your use of the scriptures (generally out of context or misinterpreted meanings) you cried foul that your original comment was being lost in 'biblical debate'. Wasn't that the point?

I didn't say you committed a foul at all. Heavens no! It seems to me now Amy that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and are just aching for a fight! What I said was that my original point was to 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. I didnot say that I expected you to agree with them! I can say that you have scriptural reaswons forwhat you believe as well. I do not agree with your interpretation of the scripture but I can concede that you are using scripture for your base. My hope was that you could grant me the same concession.

I am not catholic (that comment drives me crazy because of the presuppositions required for it). I am not a Protestant, so saying I am ruling out Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ while not also excluding others from my 'section' of Christianity is also false. I do not count anyone a fellow believer if they do not adhere to the truth of the Bible (and ONLY the Bible) and believe salvation comes from faith in Christ and nowhere else.

Well then amy, mo accusation is true! YOu do have issues with the orthodox and the Anglicans as well. Perhaps you were just unaware of it!

I also love apologetics, and delve into thick reading of this kind quite often, but that is not what I created a blog for. I created my blog because people were forever asking me about raising kids, especially foster kids. Had I nothing else to do, I would certainly enjoy hosting a theological debate site. But that is not the season of my life, except for specific instances such as defending my agreement that a woman ought to submit to her husband even though she no longer shares his faith.

Fair enough. Which is why I asked your opinion both times if you wanted to continue. We were also free to move the discussion to my blog or even here if you wish.

I think you chose to take on blogs by Christian women who discuss home-making and raising children because you assume they do not know anything about apologetics, and therefore it can appear that you are superior in knowledge.

Not at all. I first came to Candy's blog because she was nominated for a homeschool award . I saw her beautiful blog skin and some of her side board and was really interested. But then I saw an anti-Catholic post on the pope and thought she would like some more information on it. I sent her a link. She never posted it, she never said why she wasn't posting it. I thought perhaps I didn't send it correctly so I sent it again. Then I tried a differen tpost and after a while it just became clear that she simply was not allowing any of my posts through. Then I noticed the rest of the anti-Catholic things on her blog - and so it began. I have posted comments to some of her other readers when I have had questions, like how you could support her response to Emily when you also support wifely submission.


The problem is that they just don't want to debate it, and when they do not respond, you claim they have no answer.

Well I'm a bit older than most of you gals. I was raised to be gracious when someone is talking to you. At least give some sign of acknowledgement. And BTW, of the few of Candy's commenters I have talked to most have been very gracious.


I also do not wish to continue the discussion because I have found your site to be hostile, and I don't just mean to 'lost' fundamentalists. Your writing has a very jaded tone to it and always leaves me cold. You also discuss very ungodly things (like General Hospital) and I do not want to be linked to this kind of garbage.

Oh lighten up Amy. That's mainly a thing between my sister and me who remember watching the soaps when they were black and white and only ABC, NBC and CBS existed!

Other sites I read by Catholics where theology is debated (and yes, you were ASSUMING when you made the statements about how I do not read anything by Catholics, ordained or otherwise) are not as dark.

Oh, I bet you're not as well read on Catholic theology as you think you are Amy. Dark? I'm wondering if you are really reading my blog?



I do not mind people disagreeing with me of they can do it respectfully. Also, my husband asked me to end the discussion because in his opinion, a woman who sends 14 comments in one day needs to focus more on important issues, like her family, and continuing it would be enabling her obsessions.

I thought we agreed that we did not know how long the comment sections were on blogger? FOr that reason I broke up one large response into smaller chunks. You then reassembled them into one big response on the main page of your blog.


(I do have his approval to answer this last note from you)

Have you ever heard the phrase "Me thinks she dost protest too much"?

Actually it ran through my mind just now as I was reading your rather lengthy comment.

What are you trying to accomplish?

This

You are angry at what you perceive to be attacks on your church, but you continue to go back and read the blogs of people who disagree with you.


Because I am going to set the record straight on all of the mistruths that come out on Candy's blog. So I will continue to monitor it


You claim to not be trying to sway anyone, but you mock anything said that is not in support of your opinion. Is the Catholic Church in so much trouble that they need you to single-handedly belittle anyone outside of its confines? You get angry at those you feel have false knowledge about Catholics, but you make sweeping generalizations about anyone who is a Christian outside of that faith. Pot calling the kettle black?

No dear. That comment was specifically for you.

Look in the mirror.

BTW- you posted your little quip about not feeling the need to post any more answers since I was obviously not dialoging, since that requires two people listening, BEFORE I closed my end of the argument.

My bad. I just took your last comments to mean that you were done. I thought it was pretty clear before you ever posted your official "Debate over" comment.


That was one of the many points about you not being honest with what you posted on your own blog and what you said on mine.

I am being honest. I asked if you wanted to continue and received no reply. You made a big point of sticking up for Candy though. So I took that to mean it was over.

And now, it really is.

The Lady Of RFH said...

Elena, RUDE? Where?! I didn't think you were rude at all! I think she is saying this because she is way over her head on the issues! Whatever!

Elena said...

I think you are correct RHF. In my past experience when your debate opponant starts calling you names (fool) mentioning your rsponsibility to your family, complaining about how much time YOU spend on line, and complaining about the rest of your blog content outside of your debate, you know they are out of trump and are just hitting back as hard as they can with anything they can.

(For similar examples see Amanda's similar tactics here and here

The Lady Of RFH said...

Oh yes Elena I was following that when she posted it. I've seen those tactics before. :( A shame really.