Pages

Sunday, January 4, 2009

Blogging on the Early Church

Do not blog without caffeine
Do not blog without caffeine

I goofed and double posted something, but Clare left a message here that I thought was particularly pertinent to our struggles with Candy at wwwkeepingthehome.com, so I wanted to leave it up.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

9 comments:

Clare said...

Since this comment has just resulted in a ban from commenting at candys blog i thought I would share it with you here.
Even though I have been pretty blunt, I don't think that it is in any way meeting the banning criteria of 'abuse, hate or just plain ridiculousness' that she cites.
I've also posted this at CIAL.


Candy
Your comment about disagreement at the end seems to be saying that although free to disagree, anyone who did so would be wrong because they haven't studied it enough.
Do you know, there are many who have made this study their lifes work and who would disagree with you? Of course you do, but this is not a site for a fair and respectful discusion of the truth. It is a site for the promulgation of your strange religious ideas.
I'm sorry you have spent over 10 years purposefully seeking out information that supports your flawed beliefs and ignoring the rest. That isn't scholarship, that's wilful ignorance.
I'm sure you know that, in this, you are NOT pleasing God, but satisfying yourself.
God is not afraid of the truth, he is the author of it. You have nothing to be afraid of in dissenting veiws if you have the truth. The fact that you haven't published the intelligent objections you have received thus far, tells me you are very afraid that you may be adrift. Hence the need to keep shoring up your position with constant reminders of your 'years of study'.
The truth is the truth Candy, whichever way you bend it, slice it and dice it.

I sincerely hope you open your heart to find it.It will set you free.
BE NOT AFRAID!

Jennie said...

Clare,
I wonder if Candy's reasons for banning you and others may be because she is confused by the fact that you are so sincere and Christian in your beliefs and way of speaking and doesn't know how to deal with it. She may think that if someone is wrong (as she believes) then they must be knowingly wrong and evil, and that it should be obvious to them (and to her) that their beliefs contradict the truth. So when someone is polite and sincere and loves the truth (as they see it) she feels threatened (I am only conjecturing).
As you may remember, I am 'protestant' and have many objections to Roman Catholic teachings and practices. It IS hard to understand that very sincere and loving people don't see the truth as I see it, that the Bible as God's Word stands alone, and man's word will pass away.
There are many who have studied both sides and come away confirmed that Roman Catholicism is not the true church (as I have been doing) and many more who have left the Roman Catholic church for the same reason. Of course there are also many who have become Roman Catholic after long study. So both are sincere, though both cannot be right. There is only one truth.
This is all to say that even if Candy may be naive and not understand that people can be sincerely wrong, it doesn't mean that Bible Christians are wrong or that they are all insecure.

Dr MikeyMike said...

As I've mentioned earlier, it's no wonder you come to the conclusions about the RCC and possess many objections. I would probably feel the same way if I read the same stuff that you do. Expand your horizons. To quote Martha Stewart, "It's a good thing".

Elena said...

She may think that if someone is wrong (as she believes) then they must be knowingly wrong and evil, and that it should be obvious to them (and to her) that their beliefs contradict the truth

I use to think like that - in about 5th grade.

Jennie said...

DrMikeyMike,
I read many things, but I filter everything through God's Word, and don't believe everything I read.

Dr MikeyMike said...

That's funny, because you sure put a lot of stock into all these websites that you post. So far, it seems you only filter out the stuff that doesn't agree with your bleak worldview on Christianity and its history.

Jennie said...

DrMikeyMike,
I assume you are filtering your reading through some system of belief, if not the Bible, so are you actually reading both sides as you think I should (and I am) or are you too afraid you might learn something that would shake up your world? However only a born again Christian can have the foundation of God's word to stand on and keep from being shaken.

Elena said...

out of curiosity Jennie, what Catholic sources have you read exactly?

Jennie said...

Elena,
Here are some catholic sources I have read recently:
Many of your blog archives;
historicalchristian.com archives;
Other catholic blogs you have linked to;
Following are the sources I have read and saved on my computer (I've also read some I did not save so don't have a record of unless I wade through my history file and find them):
http://www.zeitun-eg.org/ecfidx.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/s2.htm

http://archive.salvationhistory.com/online/intermediate/course2_lesson3.cfm#The%20Annunciation

http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/appdisce/montfort.html

http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5.asp

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marymenu.htm (some of it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id249.html

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum4&recnu=1&number=442714

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/May2006/traditions.asp

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_6.htm

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/biblical-theological-primer-on-mary.html

http://www.intermirifica.org/Mary/ark.htm