Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Homemanagement binders
New section in the side bar: Alternative links for making home mangement binders!
Is there such a thing as an innocent bystander?
It seems some of the people complaining about this site feel that they should be able to visit Candy's site for all of the household and baking tips and that it's all okay because gosh... they don't agree with everything she says! So that doesn't make them anti-Catholic.
So I was wondering, is there any such thing as an innocent bystander?
In the 1960s, a woman was brutally raped and murdered in her apartment courtyard. It was estimated that a hundred people or more must have heard her screams for help, but nobody did anything to stop it.
Were they all innocent bystanders?
A gay man was taunted and beat up in a bar in the late 90s. His body was later found a few miles away totally disfigured.
Were all the bar patrons innocent bystanders?
Many leaders including British Prime Minister, watched Adolph Hitler march into country after country and pretended it wasn't happening so that they could "keep the peace." Of course that only enpowered Hitler and eventually lead to World War II.
Were those leaders only innocent bystanders?
I submit that the answer is no. Whenever we see or witness injustice, bigotry, hatred, and cruelty, and do nothing to stop it, we have lost our right to claim innocence. In fact, as Christians, it our responsibility to stand up and to speak out against such things. In that way, then I also submit that the women who read Candy's blog faithfully, post "atta girl" comments in her comment boxes, purchase her e-book, or say that they are just there for the homemaking tips, are just as guilty of hating, maligning, and persecuting Catholics as she is. In plain speak - it's a sin.
So I was wondering, is there any such thing as an innocent bystander?
In the 1960s, a woman was brutally raped and murdered in her apartment courtyard. It was estimated that a hundred people or more must have heard her screams for help, but nobody did anything to stop it.
Were they all innocent bystanders?
A gay man was taunted and beat up in a bar in the late 90s. His body was later found a few miles away totally disfigured.
Were all the bar patrons innocent bystanders?
Many leaders including British Prime Minister, watched Adolph Hitler march into country after country and pretended it wasn't happening so that they could "keep the peace." Of course that only enpowered Hitler and eventually lead to World War II.
Were those leaders only innocent bystanders?
I submit that the answer is no. Whenever we see or witness injustice, bigotry, hatred, and cruelty, and do nothing to stop it, we have lost our right to claim innocence. In fact, as Christians, it our responsibility to stand up and to speak out against such things. In that way, then I also submit that the women who read Candy's blog faithfully, post "atta girl" comments in her comment boxes, purchase her e-book, or say that they are just there for the homemaking tips, are just as guilty of hating, maligning, and persecuting Catholics as she is. In plain speak - it's a sin.
Erasmus
High desert had a good point Candy. I myself have started reading a different book on the topic. Interestingly, this book talks about a man named Erasmus, whose work was the basis for KJV. Interestingly Gipp in this edition does not mention him at all!
Here are my comments on the matter.
Here are my comments on the matter.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Do you see a pattern here?
Erika was kind enough to send me a link to her blog where she had her infamous discussions with Candy. Candy links to her side of the story on her blog, but she never really let Erika have her say.
Erika, in a way is like the pioneer of Visits to Candyland. She did what I am trying to do here - keep a documentation of her side of the discussion before it gets deleted, disposed of, twisted and lied about on Candy's blog.
Here is the link to Erika's archive.
I do want to say that I do not believe for a moment that Candy has some type of elaborate filtering system on her blogger/google comments. I think the people of Google are just a little bit smarter than she is and if they could offer that type of service, they'd have it up for every one now. I also do not believe she gets 2000 hits a day. I checked her blog with Technorati and Alexa and that just does not appear to be the truth.
Erika, in a way is like the pioneer of Visits to Candyland. She did what I am trying to do here - keep a documentation of her side of the discussion before it gets deleted, disposed of, twisted and lied about on Candy's blog.
Here is the link to Erika's archive.
I do want to say that I do not believe for a moment that Candy has some type of elaborate filtering system on her blogger/google comments. I think the people of Google are just a little bit smarter than she is and if they could offer that type of service, they'd have it up for every one now. I also do not believe she gets 2000 hits a day. I checked her blog with Technorati and Alexa and that just does not appear to be the truth.
Monday, July 16, 2007
My comment, which you probably have absolutely no intention of discussing, (even though it will probably be one of the only real attempts to discuss the chapter that you will receive) is here.
Welcome Erika
to the Candyland blogroll. Erika is probably familiar to most of Candy's readers. Here is her introduction:
I would love to be added to the Candyland Blog roll. I have had pervious debates with her. I am "the Catholic" that she has in her side bar under "Answers to a Catholic"
& "Discussion with a Catholic". During those debates she used all of her tactics that she normally uses. I have posted what I really said on my blog instead of her edited version. We must keep up the fight and put the truth about the Catholic Church out there! Thanks!
I agree Erika! Thanks for being part of the cause!
I would love to be added to the Candyland Blog roll. I have had pervious debates with her. I am "the Catholic" that she has in her side bar under "Answers to a Catholic"
& "Discussion with a Catholic". During those debates she used all of her tactics that she normally uses. I have posted what I really said on my blog instead of her edited version. We must keep up the fight and put the truth about the Catholic Church out there! Thanks!
I agree Erika! Thanks for being part of the cause!
The Candy Cult
I've been reading the blogs of ladies who leave comments on Candy's blog long enough to know that many of them seem to be drawn to her homemaking and motherhood posts. They put up with the Catholic bashing.
Their excuse goes something like:
"I dont agree with everything Candy says."
"I do not take Candy's word as gospel."
Then to sort of keep the peace and I guess to keep Candy blogging they ask those who find Candy's anti-Catholic bigotry offensive, "
" We are supposed to think about whatever is true, noble, just, good... not people's sinful rants."
"If you don't like it, don't read it."
What continues to amaze me is that if this blog was anti-black, anti-handicapped, anti-marriage, antisemetic, they would probably drop it like a hot potato. Likewise, if they found a Catholic blog that bashed fundamentalist Christin, KJV only Christians, they would have a big problem with that!
So essentially they are willing to turn a blind eye to the bigotry and injustice of the anti-Catholicism Candy propogates, just so they can get their homemaking tips served up on a doiley.
The truth is, there are bigger and better sites on the internet for this type of information. I can only surmise then that the reason they put up with the Catholic bashing, is they share it.
Their excuse goes something like:
"I dont agree with everything Candy says."
"I do not take Candy's word as gospel."
Then to sort of keep the peace and I guess to keep Candy blogging they ask those who find Candy's anti-Catholic bigotry offensive, "
" We are supposed to think about whatever is true, noble, just, good... not people's sinful rants."
"If you don't like it, don't read it."
What continues to amaze me is that if this blog was anti-black, anti-handicapped, anti-marriage, antisemetic, they would probably drop it like a hot potato. Likewise, if they found a Catholic blog that bashed fundamentalist Christin, KJV only Christians, they would have a big problem with that!
So essentially they are willing to turn a blind eye to the bigotry and injustice of the anti-Catholicism Candy propogates, just so they can get their homemaking tips served up on a doiley.
The truth is, there are bigger and better sites on the internet for this type of information. I can only surmise then that the reason they put up with the Catholic bashing, is they share it.
6 tips on how not to to witness to Catholic Christians
As I travel about the Protestant Christian blogosphere certain phrases and ideas keep popping up from our separated bretheren that just are not helpful in furthering the discussion! Sure, it's easy to persuade and compel an almost-ex-Catholic-wanna-be who has one foot outside of the church and the other on a banana peel to the Catholic faith! But where's the fun in that!
So for all of you Christian apologists who wish to enter into discussion and debate with catechized Catholics, here are some tips that will help keep both sides in the discussion!
1. Don't use terms like "whore of Babylon" or "come out of her." "Papist is a word you should probably retire too. First of all, it tips your hand. When you use those buzz words, we catechized Catholics then know EXACTLY where you are coming from and that gives us the advantage.
2. Don't link to sites like this or this. Any catechized Catholic who has ever been challenged in his/her faith has seen these and they don't come across as compelling or persuasive. They come off as being ridiculous and melodramatic.
3. Don't dump all of your problems with Catholicism out there at one time. Yea, we know you have problems with Mary, and the priesthood, and the Eucharist, and purgatory and the saints. However, dumping it all out there at once is overwhelming for the novice and time consuming for the experienced. A much better approach is to take one objection at a time and deal with it.
4. Don't say something like, "If you would only read the bible for yourself, your eyes would be opened!!" First of all, that assumes that we have not read the bible for ourselves. For many Catholics, it is reading the scriptures that has kept us in the Catholic Church. Many of the great converts to Catholicism, have been scripture scholars. Secondly, it's not a reading thing; it's a paradigm shift. Catholics can read John chapter 6 and see the formation of the Eucharist, and many Protestants don't see that at all, even if we're reading the same translation and the same words. It's the reader's paradigm that guides the interpretation, not the reader's reading comprehension skills.
5. Don't expect the first answer to your objections to be totally satisfactory. For examples there are libraries full of books on Mary, The Blessed Mother. It's very difficult to boil all of that down into one page or paragraph that will be totally understandable and acceptable. Which leads me to my last point...
6. Expect to dialogue for a while. Nothing is more frustrating than spending time answering objections to Catholicism, posting them or sending them in, and then getting a reply like, "This isn't up for debate," or "I'm done with you!" The Reformation is over 500 years old. You're not going to solve it in five hours of 500 words or less.
and as a bonus tip! Lots of times during debates I get comments like, "Well, it's not very Christian for both of you to go back and forth like that. If that's Christianity, then count me out!"
My response to that is, "we'll miss you!!"
Because discussion and debate are very much a part of Christian history and tradition. Be sure to read the introduction of Dave Armstrong's new e-book- Bible Conversations!
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.
Apologia is also a biblical word, and appears much in the same sense as with Socrates, with regard to St. Paul’s defense of himself during his lengthy trial (Acts 22:1, 25:16). It is also used with reference to Paul’s defense and confirmation of the gospel (Philippians 1:7,16 -- rendered defense in the RSV in all four instances).
The use of apologia in the imperative verse 1 Peter 3:15, with regard to the explanation of the hope of the gospel which resides in the heart of every Christian believer, makes apologetics a duty of every Christian, to some extent. But of course, people have different God-granted gifts and abilities, and the Christian or Catholic apologist is specifically called to that task as a matter of vocation and life’s work.
As I travel about the Protestant Christian blogosphere certain phrases and ideas keep popping up from our separated bretheren that just are not helpful in furthering the discussion! Sure, it's easy to persuade and compel an almost-ex-Catholic-wanna-be who has one foot outside of the church and the other on a banana peel to the Catholic faith! But where's the fun in that!
So for all of you Christian apologists who wish to enter into discussion and debate with catechized Catholics, here are some tips that will help keep both sides in the discussion!
1. Don't use terms like "whore of Babylon" or "come out of her." "Papist is a word you should probably retire too. First of all, it tips your hand. When you use those buzz words, we catechized Catholics then know EXACTLY where you are coming from and that gives us the advantage.
2. Don't link to sites like this or this. Any catechized Catholic who has ever been challenged in his/her faith has seen these and they don't come across as compelling or persuasive. They come off as being ridiculous and melodramatic.
3. Don't dump all of your problems with Catholicism out there at one time. Yea, we know you have problems with Mary, and the priesthood, and the Eucharist, and purgatory and the saints. However, dumping it all out there at once is overwhelming for the novice and time consuming for the experienced. A much better approach is to take one objection at a time and deal with it.
4. Don't say something like, "If you would only read the bible for yourself, your eyes would be opened!!" First of all, that assumes that we have not read the bible for ourselves. For many Catholics, it is reading the scriptures that has kept us in the Catholic Church. Many of the great converts to Catholicism, have been scripture scholars. Secondly, it's not a reading thing; it's a paradigm shift. Catholics can read John chapter 6 and see the formation of the Eucharist, and many Protestants don't see that at all, even if we're reading the same translation and the same words. It's the reader's paradigm that guides the interpretation, not the reader's reading comprehension skills.
5. Don't expect the first answer to your objections to be totally satisfactory. For examples there are libraries full of books on Mary, The Blessed Mother. It's very difficult to boil all of that down into one page or paragraph that will be totally understandable and acceptable. Which leads me to my last point...
6. Expect to dialogue for a while. Nothing is more frustrating than spending time answering objections to Catholicism, posting them or sending them in, and then getting a reply like, "This isn't up for debate," or "I'm done with you!" The Reformation is over 500 years old. You're not going to solve it in five hours of 500 words or less.
and as a bonus tip! Lots of times during debates I get comments like, "Well, it's not very Christian for both of you to go back and forth like that. If that's Christianity, then count me out!"
My response to that is, "we'll miss you!!"
Because discussion and debate are very much a part of Christian history and tradition. Be sure to read the introduction of Dave Armstrong's new e-book- Bible Conversations!
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.
Apologia is also a biblical word, and appears much in the same sense as with Socrates, with regard to St. Paul’s defense of himself during his lengthy trial (Acts 22:1, 25:16). It is also used with reference to Paul’s defense and confirmation of the gospel (Philippians 1:7,16 -- rendered defense in the RSV in all four instances).
The use of apologia in the imperative verse 1 Peter 3:15, with regard to the explanation of the hope of the gospel which resides in the heart of every Christian believer, makes apologetics a duty of every Christian, to some extent. But of course, people have different God-granted gifts and abilities, and the Christian or Catholic apologist is specifically called to that task as a matter of vocation and life’s work.
A Time Line of Church History
A Time Line of Church History
Not sure where the idea came that the Catholic church started in the 300s BC. Here is a more accurate timeline.
Not sure where the idea came that the Catholic church started in the 300s BC. Here is a more accurate timeline.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Saturday, July 14, 2007
PS - Beth, thank you for your kind comment. I didn't publish it, but kept it private. I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. ;-) I have been getting a lot fo private comments and emails from ladies who have had run-ins with said person. Said person needs to be in our prayers, she is a very mixed up woman. :-(
Mixed up about what exactly? I think I have been very clear, consistent and logical in all of my refutes.
Mixed up about what exactly? I think I have been very clear, consistent and logical in all of my refutes.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Thank you Zan!
Zan if you are reading this, thanks so much for your very logical defense on Amy's blog. Just in case it mysteriously disappears I am republishing it here.
Back to the fool comment. I was thinking that, if Elena was a fool for taking bits of your post and commenting on it, than I would love to know what you think Candy is? She does this all the time. She rarely puts up the entire blog comment and only posts snippets of it. She takes things down after putting things up. Just now, she didn't post Kitkats comment, but she "addressed" it on her blog. How can I know for sure what the comment really said? I don't trust anyone who doesn't atleast link to the original article (especially if they are opposed to it) If she doesn't have time to answer this stuff than she really shouldn't be talking about it.IMO. The liberal media uses these tactics all the time.
Elena linked to your article, so anyone with a brain could click on it and see what it said. Candy doesn't give this option. I remember a commenter actually asking Candy for the link to the anti-Candy blog and she said she couldn't in good conscience because of all the bad stuff there. (I'm paraphrasing here-she probably deleted the comment.) Well, I did a Google search and found the anti-Candy blog she was talking about and there was some stuff I didn't agree with, but nothing obscene like Candy wanted that commentor to think. She seems very "popish" to me. Very controlling and doesn't seem to think her readers have discerment. So, if Elena is a fool than Candy is X 10.
Hope I didn't floor you too much.
Thanks so much!
Back to the fool comment. I was thinking that, if Elena was a fool for taking bits of your post and commenting on it, than I would love to know what you think Candy is? She does this all the time. She rarely puts up the entire blog comment and only posts snippets of it. She takes things down after putting things up. Just now, she didn't post Kitkats comment, but she "addressed" it on her blog. How can I know for sure what the comment really said? I don't trust anyone who doesn't atleast link to the original article (especially if they are opposed to it) If she doesn't have time to answer this stuff than she really shouldn't be talking about it.IMO. The liberal media uses these tactics all the time.
Elena linked to your article, so anyone with a brain could click on it and see what it said. Candy doesn't give this option. I remember a commenter actually asking Candy for the link to the anti-Candy blog and she said she couldn't in good conscience because of all the bad stuff there. (I'm paraphrasing here-she probably deleted the comment.) Well, I did a Google search and found the anti-Candy blog she was talking about and there was some stuff I didn't agree with, but nothing obscene like Candy wanted that commentor to think. She seems very "popish" to me. Very controlling and doesn't seem to think her readers have discerment. So, if Elena is a fool than Candy is X 10.
Hope I didn't floor you too much.
Thanks so much!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
And for Candy's good friend Amy:
But you know what Amy, Sola Scriptura is not sound doctrine. And because SS makes no sense theologically, historically, or logically I can't accept it. Repeating it over and over again isn't convincing either. Doing so is an Argumentum ad Nauseum fallacy.
No offense Candy but as you have yet to raise a child to adulthood, let alone mid elementary, jr. high or high school. Perhaps you should wait a year or ten before trying to speak so authoritatively on the topic.
For example:
Also be consistent with your SW child in discipline. He needs to be punished for EVERY wrongdoing, bad attitude, etc. Don't let ANYTHING slide. If he thinks he has a 10% chance of getting away with something, he most likely will take that 10% chance.
That might work for a 2-year-old. But you need to pick your battles when they get a bit older or you're really going to face some serious rebellion. My oldest will be 18 next week and we still struggle with this but as he makes decent grades, participates regularly on a swim team and has held a job for over a year, I guess we've done some things right.
For example:
Also be consistent with your SW child in discipline. He needs to be punished for EVERY wrongdoing, bad attitude, etc. Don't let ANYTHING slide. If he thinks he has a 10% chance of getting away with something, he most likely will take that 10% chance.
That might work for a 2-year-old. But you need to pick your battles when they get a bit older or you're really going to face some serious rebellion. My oldest will be 18 next week and we still struggle with this but as he makes decent grades, participates regularly on a swim team and has held a job for over a year, I guess we've done some things right.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
I've gotta start hanging around ...
with a different group of Christians!. Check out the respectful, sophisticated and interesting discussion/debate going on over at Ukok's place on The One True Church- The Catholic Church. Gives me renewed faith that it actually is possible to discuss these things without name calling!
Here's a bit of truth Candy - I know that I am posting regular comments and challenges to your posts and probably others are as well. If you really had the truth, you would not be so afraid to post comments that disagree with you. In fact, you would be able to amply handle them. But you are afraid and the reason for that fear is that you have doubts that perhaps we might just be on to something.
Not allowing comments is a sign of fear and insecurity.
Not allowing comments is a sign of fear and insecurity.
I speak out, because I see a REVIVAL! I see people coming out of the fog, and into the glorious FREEING power of Christ.
Yea, well I see people findingthe glorious freeing power of CHrist in the Catholic church. You would too if you read a little more widely.
Yea, well I see people findingthe glorious freeing power of CHrist in the Catholic church. You would too if you read a little more widely.
My comments are here.
Might help if you ACTUALY READ the document. It is becoming clear to me Candy that doing actual research is not one of your strong suits.
Might help if you ACTUALY READ the document. It is becoming clear to me Candy that doing actual research is not one of your strong suits.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Here's the deal.
This is the post that I think offended Amy so much.
So let me explain.
I posted my answers to her original comments as a way of illustrating that Catholic Doctrine does have some basis in scripture. I prefaced those comments with:
So let me explain.
I posted my answers to her original comments as a way of illustrating that Catholic Doctrine does have some basis in scripture. I prefaced those comments with:
Again I do thank you for your gracious courtesy. I will be happy to
reply to your concerns if that is your wish.
And then I addressed them.
When Amy responded I wanted to make sure that she actually wanted to debate (which I was happy to do.) But before I went down that path I wanted to ask if it that was okay. Which I did. THere's no evidence of it because Amy didn't publish the comment.
Now, why would I do that? Because in the past I have taken a lot of time to type out replies only to have them NOT published. Candy and Amanda's blogs are examples. There are others as well. I was enjoying the discussion with Amy. I thought she would be different, but I wanted to see if she was willing to go on before I put the time into it. That's all. That was my big sinister plan!! bwahahahaha!!
In the meantime Amy did go on about how I was persecuting Candy with this blog.
I answered that too but again ,she did not allow the comment. I put a paraphrase of it here.
While I was waiting to see if Amy wanted to continue I did address the end of her comments. I posted a link to her blog so that my readers could see her comments in their entirety. IN NO WAY DID I INSINUATE THAT SHE DID NOT ANSWER!!
Neither did I invite hoards of people to go ther blog and see if she was wrong. What I did was reproduce the letter from Emily (wife with the Catholic husband) and Candy's reply and if I was wrong in my assessment that Candy's advice was wrong.
Amy then wrote this:
PS- What is persecution if not a blog devoted entirely to ripping apart a single person, such as your "Trip into Candyland"? If she were copy and paste pictures of your family, and call all Christians to attack you and boycott your blog, then I would take her to task for unbiblical behavior.
She did not reply that she wanted to go on with the discussion. I thought then that we were through and I decided not to try to come up with more argumentation because, frankly, I was just a bit disheartened. Sorry. I'm human.
She wrote her final comments about how the debate was over. ANd then she called me a fool.
Couple more things. Amy wrote:
As to why I opted out, again, I didn't appreciate that only parts of my comments were posted on Elena's blog. Putting as link to my blog in case anyone wanted to read what I really wrote was not fair in my opinion.
I totally don't get that. I post links to people all of the time! I love it when people link to me. When I started blogging back inthe dark ages (2003) that was considered a GOOD THING!
I also received comments form people who are 'regulars' at Elena's site, which is fine, exceott hat they were mean and threatening (don't worry about purgatory- you'll find out when you get there!!!). Too childish to be called an honest debate.
I agree and I am a big opponant of ad hominem attacks. I totally would not have supported that and I apologize for it.
A comment to Amy.
I directed my responses to Elena, she copied parts of them, took thme to her blog, and printed them with a request to her jury of peers to find me wrong.
That's a lie. I never did any such thing
As to the claims about the Catholic church, that was to illustrate good fruit as in "by their fruit you will know them" which was also in direct reply to another verse (forgive me, I can't remember the entire debate verbatim).
Amy, it's pretty clear that you were just looking to take offense where none was intended.
Oh, and BTW I am going to put this on my Visits to Candyland blog since it is also apparent that like your mentor, you have no intention of presenting both sides.
That's a lie. I never did any such thing
As to the claims about the Catholic church, that was to illustrate good fruit as in "by their fruit you will know them" which was also in direct reply to another verse (forgive me, I can't remember the entire debate verbatim).
Amy, it's pretty clear that you were just looking to take offense where none was intended.
Oh, and BTW I am going to put this on my Visits to Candyland blog since it is also apparent that like your mentor, you have no intention of presenting both sides.
My comment is here.
My comments from last week actually appeared before yours in a Google search. Interesting huh?
My comments from last week actually appeared before yours in a Google search. Interesting huh?
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Amy has abruptly ended our "dialogue" with these words:
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:
*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.
Friday, July 6, 2007
From Amy's blog.
PS- What is persecution if not a blog devoted entirely to ripping apart a single person, such as your "Trip into Candyland"? If she were copy and paste pictures of your family, and call all Christians to attack you and boycott your blog, then I would take her to task for unbiblical behavior.
This blog is not about ripping apart any person. It is for me to document my comments on the Keeping the Home Blog in case they are ever mischaracterized in content or number again.
I haven't copied or pasted any pictures of her family. DO any exist? Other than headless shots or distortions.
I never invited any one to attack or boycott her blog. I have boycotted her Home Management Binder. Boycotting is a very peaceful form of protest. Martin Luther King also organized boycots.
I'll be away from the puter for a few days for family stuff.
PS- What is persecution if not a blog devoted entirely to ripping apart a single person, such as your "Trip into Candyland"? If she were copy and paste pictures of your family, and call all Christians to attack you and boycott your blog, then I would take her to task for unbiblical behavior.
This blog is not about ripping apart any person. It is for me to document my comments on the Keeping the Home Blog in case they are ever mischaracterized in content or number again.
I haven't copied or pasted any pictures of her family. DO any exist? Other than headless shots or distortions.
I never invited any one to attack or boycott her blog. I have boycotted her Home Management Binder. Boycotting is a very peaceful form of protest. Martin Luther King also organized boycots.
I'll be away from the puter for a few days for family stuff.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
I guess I need to say one more thing before I let this go.
I find your comment about "non believing or Roman Catholic" husbands to be a not so subtle ad hominem attack.
My husband, my grandfather and my father-in-law would fall under that category. Both are/were Catholic men, strong in their faith. They fed the hungry, clothed the poor, looked after the less fortunate. My husband teaches the old testament to 6th graders every Sunday during the school year. They all taught their children about God, made sure we went to church, read the bible, and prayed to God.
My husband gets up every morning, just like your husband, to support his family, he honors me as his wife, he plays with his babies, he takes his kids swimming, he counsels his teenagers. More than anything he wants them to be Godly young men and women serving the Lord and he wants us all to be reunited in heaven one day.
How dare you look down your nose at the millions of Catholic men all over the world that live out the gospel in their daily lives, giving witness to the teachings of Jesus Christ daily and bearing good and Godly fruit.
And now you give counsel to defy these husbands? I pray for the forgiveness of your soul now Candy. For you "know not what you do."
I find your comment about "non believing or Roman Catholic" husbands to be a not so subtle ad hominem attack.
My husband, my grandfather and my father-in-law would fall under that category. Both are/were Catholic men, strong in their faith. They fed the hungry, clothed the poor, looked after the less fortunate. My husband teaches the old testament to 6th graders every Sunday during the school year. They all taught their children about God, made sure we went to church, read the bible, and prayed to God.
My husband gets up every morning, just like your husband, to support his family, he honors me as his wife, he plays with his babies, he takes his kids swimming, he counsels his teenagers. More than anything he wants them to be Godly young men and women serving the Lord and he wants us all to be reunited in heaven one day.
How dare you look down your nose at the millions of Catholic men all over the world that live out the gospel in their daily lives, giving witness to the teachings of Jesus Christ daily and bearing good and Godly fruit.
And now you give counsel to defy these husbands? I pray for the forgiveness of your soul now Candy. For you "know not what you do."
I put up my response here.
In regards to your other post today, I have my doubts that "Emily" is even a real person. Nonetheless, I will pray that she and your other conflicted female Catholic readers, submits to the spiritual authority of their husbands and allow the truth of the Holy Spirit to work on their minds and hearts.
A good first step to that in the case of the woman who reads your blog against her husband's wishes would be to get rid of the computer.
I find it highly amusing and more than a little hypocritical that you encourage her to defy her husband after all of the lip service you give to wifely submission. I guess this falls into the same realm as talking about good wholesome nutrition and buying baby formula. Somewhere Candy, there seems to be disconnect in what you say you believe and then what you actually do.
Happy Fourth.
In regards to your other post today, I have my doubts that "Emily" is even a real person. Nonetheless, I will pray that she and your other conflicted female Catholic readers, submits to the spiritual authority of their husbands and allow the truth of the Holy Spirit to work on their minds and hearts.
A good first step to that in the case of the woman who reads your blog against her husband's wishes would be to get rid of the computer.
I find it highly amusing and more than a little hypocritical that you encourage her to defy her husband after all of the lip service you give to wifely submission. I guess this falls into the same realm as talking about good wholesome nutrition and buying baby formula. Somewhere Candy, there seems to be disconnect in what you say you believe and then what you actually do.
Happy Fourth.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Of course judging from the comments you get from other readers, they aren't particularly interested in discussing this book anyway.
I did however put up some thoughts here.
I think in this next chapter Dr. Gipp has a hard time hiding his prejudice and bigotry. He is easily rebuked by better writers easily found on the internet and the library.
You can continue this if you wish. It might be better just to let it slide though as it really isn't helping your cause much.
I did however put up some thoughts here.
I think in this next chapter Dr. Gipp has a hard time hiding his prejudice and bigotry. He is easily rebuked by better writers easily found on the internet and the library.
You can continue this if you wish. It might be better just to let it slide though as it really isn't helping your cause much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)