Here at Visits To Candyland, we have spent quite a lot of time researching Candy's research. We provide a defense against her accusations, and we take the time to provide respected resources, often non-Catholic ones. This list provides a platform for a Greatest Hits of our Anti-Catholic Writers label.
Candy's Vatican vs. God- No less than 15 posts touched on this one, with seven in the VVG label
Answers To My Catholic Friends/Babylon Religion (Jack Chick)
Mystery Babylon the Great
Bible Study Charts
50 Years In the Church of Rome (Charles Chiniquy)
A Woman Rides the Beast- Must be an annual May event for Candy, we posted this in May of 2008 and 2009!
Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?- Another stellar illustrated history. I think my idea of a good illustrated Biblical read is a bit different.
So, if anyone was wanting more information on Candy's resources, now you have plenty to get you started. And if you'd like a sneak peek of what she might run next, check out the Anti-Catholic Writers label. Perhaps she's veer back into female territory with Sister Charlotte or Mary Anne Collins!
3 comments:
What puzzles me are the comments on her blog praising her for her research? Which makes me wonder about the sad state of education in our local public schools? Or did these ladies go to a substandard Christian school? I'm not sure any of them were old enough to be on the first wave of homeschoolers but it does encourage me to make sure my own children learn how to properly research a topic using good references.
Elena,
One of the basic tenets of good research is to use original sources. That is what I do when I am searching for the truth. That is also one of the reasons why I am so reluctant to quote other people's opinions as truth or evidence, because if they were not a witness, then what they say about an event is only an opinion. I mostly use opinion to corrobate evidence based on truth, much like a lawyer uses expert witnesses to make sense of physical evidence, even though the expert witness is not an eyewitness.
It is very easy to tell if a writer is promoting sound doctrine and teachings or just giving their own biased opinions, which may or may not be true. A writer with sound teachings will have factual evidence. The writer with fallaciious teachings will fill their work with quotes from 'experts' but very little by way of factual evidence.
For Biblical exegesis the facts are: the witness of scripture, and true historical accounts. Period. The opinions of Church Fathers show their understanding of the scriptures, give us a guide on how people thought back then, and also good historical background; however, as we have shown on this blog time and time again, even the Church Fathers were not all on the same page with certain doctrines, and there were many doctrinal controversies within the church. That was one of the reasons why my Christian education was not weighted heavily on quoting others, because the need to develop good sound Biblical forensic skills should be independent of preconceived biases and opinions which may slant the research. Thanks to this blog however, I have found value in the quotes of Church Fathers as they had addressed in the past some of the very same issues we struggle with today, and we can learn from them. We can also see from their writings the development of certain Christian doctrines.
For proper scriptural study, we just need to empty our minds of our prejudices, and let the word of God speak for itself, and allow the Holy Spirit to be our Teacher and Guide.
Peace.
Written in the product description of Daniels's book at Amazon:
"There is not one history of the Bible, but two. One is a history of God preserving His words through His people. The other is of the devil using the Roman Catholic church to pervert God's words through her 'scholars.'"
What is implied here? That God's people were some sort of code talkers? Akin to those folks who memorized entire literary classics in Fahrenheit 451?
I mean, I understand the tension between the different text traditions for the New Testament but this isn't about that. In fact, the RCC preserved the Byzantine text, that's the point James White makes in his book: if you're anti-Catholic, you ought to also be anti-KJV. Well, I'm putting his argument in more direct language but that's the gist.
Even as willing as I am to grant "underground true believers" - or whatever the theory is - in contradistinction to the Romish Church, if the RCC perverted anything, it perverted the manuscripts that became the King James.
Post a Comment