Quote:Techniques of the Apologist
When I started my website, I debated anyone who requested debate.
I was excited to share the Bible with Catholics so that they may know the Truth
it contained that freed me from the damnable lies of Catholicism.
After a few debates, I found that the certain subsection of Catholics known as the Catholic Apologist didn't care how clear or indisputable the facts were, they were only concerned with winning the argument and defending Catholicism. The fact is the doctrines of Catholicism can not be derived from Scripture. Catholic apologists may start out presenting some Scripture verses in their "proof" but when the Christian demonstrates the actual context of the verse and brings out its true meaning, the Catholic will quickly jump to a combination of the techniques below.
I've never debated a Catholic apologist who did not quickly run over to these techniques. It didn't matter how thoroughly proven wrong they were when faced with scripture, the goal was not Truth but instead defending Catholicism.
Sadly, I soon found out that a lot of research and thought-out responses would be responded to with just a flippant, illogical, 2-second reply. I would just receive more accusations of lies and misrepresentations, although my points were never addressed, let alone refuted. I would receive just another load of propaganda and I again would take much time gathering the scriptures to show them their error. And repeatedly, their responses would be quick, cheap, thoughtless answers, unconcerned with the facts clearly given by God through scripture. I soon began to realize my hard work and research was being spent replying to those who were only skimming my articles and regurgitating the same old propaganda with no concern to what evidence or logic shows.
This brought me to my policy not to debate Catholic apologists any longer. My site is intended for the sincere Catholic who cares about what God really says and who remains lost by ignorance. There are many out there, who when faced with the Truth of God's word, will, like myself, will repent and rejoice in the salvation freely given by God paid for by the finished work of Christ's shed blood. My site is for these.
However, all the Catholic apologists I have met, can not claim that they were deceived. They have been shown their error repeatedly from the authority of God's word. They know the truth of God's word yet have rejected it. In their apologetic journeys, they have been countered with God's word time and time again, but yet they choose Catholicism and its many worldly rewards.
I have not met a Catholic apologist yet who could give me any substantial reason for their belief in Catholicism. Scripture and facts are against them. Apologetically, they haven't got a leg to stand on, which forces them to rely on extremely low quality techniques of debating. The techniques of the Catholic apologist are given below. I haven't encountered a Catholic apologist yet that used a technique other than those that I have listed below.
* 1: Rubberstamp technique
Regurgitate Catholic doctrine without providing any scriptural proof,
Otherwise, known as propaganda.
* 2: Cut-and-paste technique
Find the closest doctrinal defense on an "Catholic Answers" website,
stick it into your clipboard and post away.
Upon receiving a scriptural rebuttal,
switch the topic to Catholic infallibility
and then utilize the rubber-stamp technique.
* 3: Accusation of hate technique
Insist vehemently that your opponent is full of hate.
It is always advisable to paint your opponent as hateful.
This technique should always contain a reference,
to your extreme caringness and the limitless bounds of your great humility.
* 4: Mystery interpretation technique
Any text can mean anything when interpreted under the
mystical interpretation technique.
Use this to your advantage then utilize the rubber-stamp technique.
Most often used with Eucharistic defenses.
Symbolic? No! Literal? No! Mysterious?
What else can you do?
* 5: Words without meaning technique
If you are receiving any roadblocks by any particular word
you previously gave in your apologetic,
or if what you've described is the definition of a word
detrimental to your defense,
simply deny the basic word meaning of the troubling term.
Due to its effectiveness,
this apologetic has become so popular
that it has been adopted by the President.
* 6. Bait and Switch technique
If your apologetics are being shot down repeatedly,
it is because you are staying on one topic for too long.
In the Catholic apologetics arena,
it is always a good idea to present a moving target.
If your perpetual virginity defense is becoming an embarrassment,
switch it to a virgin birth defense,
pretend your opponent has denied it
and act outraged at his heresy.[/list]
* 7: Attack Sola Scriptura technique
Put forth that scripture is only one of the sources of God's revelation.
However, due to the overwhelming levels of contradictory doctrines,
Of the Early Day Church Fathers
this will usually have to be accompanied
with the rubber-stamping technique.
* 8: Attack Martin Luther technique
This can be used as a companion apologetic to the
Attack Sola Scriptura technique.
Always refer to your opponent as a Protestant to imply
that Biblical Christianity began with the "Reformation."
Insist the opponent is a follower of Martin Luther,
or one of the other Reformers,
Do not accept any denials of this.
Rubber-stamp him as a follower of Heresy if they deny this accusation.
* 9: Stalking technique
Harass the Christian until he becomes a Catholic.
Can utilize any of the other above methods.
The object is to fill their e-mail and guestbooks daily with Catholic apologetics.
When your opponent will no longer respond to you,
insist that he is afraid to debate you.
Continue to harass them until they denounce speaking out against Catholicism
or you are at risk of losing your ISP account for a second time.
If you are about to lose your ISP a second time,
pass the baton over to a fellow Catholic apologist.
* 10: Babbling technique
Remember when you were a kid.
If you closed your eyes, danger would go away.
This technique is a variation on that theme.
When backed into a corner,
begin babbling about anything remotely related to the topic on hand and the opponent may forget
that you were ever engaged in a debate in the first place.
With all the other fine Apologetic techniques available,
this one is usually not advised.
End Quote
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
::::::::Added by Buzz::::::
.
* 11: Build a Strawman technique
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see they overlooked a few;
I'll have to add more as time allows
As Your Teachers are;
Ye shall become;
Quote:~{Luke 6:39}~
He also told them this parable
Can a blind man lead a blind man???
Will they not both fall into a pit?????
A Student is not above his teacher,
but everyone who is fully trained,
will be like his teacher
NIV
Chose your Teachers wisely,
Very Wisely
God Bless Your "Bible" Studies;
Buzz:
Edited by: 1st Buzzard at: 1/12/04 12:25 am
recoveringcatholic
Posts: 309
(4/7/04 9:36 pm)
Reply Catholic Responses 101
This link has often been copied, but will never be duplicated:
Quote:WELCOME TO Catholic Responses 101, the final word on how to answer Protestant and anti-Catholic objections to the faith of the One True Church! When discussing issues of authority with a Protestant, keep in mind the following guidelines:
1. The Roman Catholic Church is infallible!
2. All of the writings of the church fathers that can be marshaled in support of Roman Catholic beliefs should be marshaled in support of Roman Catholic beliefs. These church fathers, although perhaps not infallible in everything they teach, must be viewed as making up the ordinary magisterium.
3. All the writings of the early church fathers that seem to contradict these teachings fall under one of the following categories:
a. They are fallible.
b. They are heretical.
c. They are misunderstood and misinterpreted by Protestants (assume this last category unless one of the other two doesn't call into question Rome's infallibility).
4. No official Roman Catholic teaching has ever changed, and all Roman Catholic dogmas have been held unswervingly by the true Church throughout the centuries.
5. In the case of a Roman Catholic teaching that can't clearly be found in the early church, that teaching was nevertheless "held from the beginning" anyway; and, amazingly enough, it simultaneously "developed" over time.
6. Roman Catholics today who disagree with Rome's "official" teachings are in disobedience or apostasy. "Official" is always to be defined by the conservative minority branch of Roman Catholicism.
7. Just because there are disagreements among modern Roman Catholics as to the meaning of these "official" teachings, this does not imply that any official Roman Catholic teaching has ever changed. Always assume that the conservative minority interpretation of "official" Roman Catholic teaching is the correct one.
8. Not all popes were infallible in all they taught. Some teachings of popes were stated by them while they were speaking as "private theologians." Hence, any papal teaching that apparently contradicts current Roman Catholic teaching must have been made by a pope who was speaking as a "private theologian," rather than in his official role as pope.
9. Reiterate #1 above as many times as is necessary.
Catholic Responses 101
When I started my website, I debated anyone who requested debate.
I was excited to share the Bible with Catholics so that they may know the Truth
it contained that freed me from the damnable lies of Catholicism.
After a few debates, I found that the certain subsection of Catholics known as the Catholic Apologist didn't care how clear or indisputable the facts were, they were only concerned with winning the argument and defending Catholicism. The fact is the doctrines of Catholicism can not be derived from Scripture. Catholic apologists may start out presenting some Scripture verses in their "proof" but when the Christian demonstrates the actual context of the verse and brings out its true meaning, the Catholic will quickly jump to a combination of the techniques below.
I've never debated a Catholic apologist who did not quickly run over to these techniques. It didn't matter how thoroughly proven wrong they were when faced with scripture, the goal was not Truth but instead defending Catholicism.
Sadly, I soon found out that a lot of research and thought-out responses would be responded to with just a flippant, illogical, 2-second reply. I would just receive more accusations of lies and misrepresentations, although my points were never addressed, let alone refuted. I would receive just another load of propaganda and I again would take much time gathering the scriptures to show them their error. And repeatedly, their responses would be quick, cheap, thoughtless answers, unconcerned with the facts clearly given by God through scripture. I soon began to realize my hard work and research was being spent replying to those who were only skimming my articles and regurgitating the same old propaganda with no concern to what evidence or logic shows.
This brought me to my policy not to debate Catholic apologists any longer. My site is intended for the sincere Catholic who cares about what God really says and who remains lost by ignorance. There are many out there, who when faced with the Truth of God's word, will, like myself, will repent and rejoice in the salvation freely given by God paid for by the finished work of Christ's shed blood. My site is for these.
However, all the Catholic apologists I have met, can not claim that they were deceived. They have been shown their error repeatedly from the authority of God's word. They know the truth of God's word yet have rejected it. In their apologetic journeys, they have been countered with God's word time and time again, but yet they choose Catholicism and its many worldly rewards.
I have not met a Catholic apologist yet who could give me any substantial reason for their belief in Catholicism. Scripture and facts are against them. Apologetically, they haven't got a leg to stand on, which forces them to rely on extremely low quality techniques of debating. The techniques of the Catholic apologist are given below. I haven't encountered a Catholic apologist yet that used a technique other than those that I have listed below.
* 1: Rubberstamp technique
Regurgitate Catholic doctrine without providing any scriptural proof,
Otherwise, known as propaganda.
* 2: Cut-and-paste technique
Find the closest doctrinal defense on an "Catholic Answers" website,
stick it into your clipboard and post away.
Upon receiving a scriptural rebuttal,
switch the topic to Catholic infallibility
and then utilize the rubber-stamp technique.
* 3: Accusation of hate technique
Insist vehemently that your opponent is full of hate.
It is always advisable to paint your opponent as hateful.
This technique should always contain a reference,
to your extreme caringness and the limitless bounds of your great humility.
* 4: Mystery interpretation technique
Any text can mean anything when interpreted under the
mystical interpretation technique.
Use this to your advantage then utilize the rubber-stamp technique.
Most often used with Eucharistic defenses.
Symbolic? No! Literal? No! Mysterious?
What else can you do?
* 5: Words without meaning technique
If you are receiving any roadblocks by any particular word
you previously gave in your apologetic,
or if what you've described is the definition of a word
detrimental to your defense,
simply deny the basic word meaning of the troubling term.
Due to its effectiveness,
this apologetic has become so popular
that it has been adopted by the President.
* 6. Bait and Switch technique
If your apologetics are being shot down repeatedly,
it is because you are staying on one topic for too long.
In the Catholic apologetics arena,
it is always a good idea to present a moving target.
If your perpetual virginity defense is becoming an embarrassment,
switch it to a virgin birth defense,
pretend your opponent has denied it
and act outraged at his heresy.[/list]
* 7: Attack Sola Scriptura technique
Put forth that scripture is only one of the sources of God's revelation.
However, due to the overwhelming levels of contradictory doctrines,
Of the Early Day Church Fathers
this will usually have to be accompanied
with the rubber-stamping technique.
* 8: Attack Martin Luther technique
This can be used as a companion apologetic to the
Attack Sola Scriptura technique.
Always refer to your opponent as a Protestant to imply
that Biblical Christianity began with the "Reformation."
Insist the opponent is a follower of Martin Luther,
or one of the other Reformers,
Do not accept any denials of this.
Rubber-stamp him as a follower of Heresy if they deny this accusation.
* 9: Stalking technique
Harass the Christian until he becomes a Catholic.
Can utilize any of the other above methods.
The object is to fill their e-mail and guestbooks daily with Catholic apologetics.
When your opponent will no longer respond to you,
insist that he is afraid to debate you.
Continue to harass them until they denounce speaking out against Catholicism
or you are at risk of losing your ISP account for a second time.
If you are about to lose your ISP a second time,
pass the baton over to a fellow Catholic apologist.
* 10: Babbling technique
Remember when you were a kid.
If you closed your eyes, danger would go away.
This technique is a variation on that theme.
When backed into a corner,
begin babbling about anything remotely related to the topic on hand and the opponent may forget
that you were ever engaged in a debate in the first place.
With all the other fine Apologetic techniques available,
this one is usually not advised.
End Quote
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
::::::::Added by Buzz::::::
.
* 11: Build a Strawman technique
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see they overlooked a few;
I'll have to add more as time allows
As Your Teachers are;
Ye shall become;
Quote:~{Luke 6:39}~
He also told them this parable
Can a blind man lead a blind man???
Will they not both fall into a pit?????
A Student is not above his teacher,
but everyone who is fully trained,
will be like his teacher
NIV
Chose your Teachers wisely,
Very Wisely
God Bless Your "Bible" Studies;
Buzz:
Edited by: 1st Buzzard at: 1/12/04 12:25 am
recoveringcatholic
Posts: 309
(4/7/04 9:36 pm)
Reply Catholic Responses 101
This link has often been copied, but will never be duplicated:
Quote:WELCOME TO Catholic Responses 101, the final word on how to answer Protestant and anti-Catholic objections to the faith of the One True Church! When discussing issues of authority with a Protestant, keep in mind the following guidelines:
1. The Roman Catholic Church is infallible!
2. All of the writings of the church fathers that can be marshaled in support of Roman Catholic beliefs should be marshaled in support of Roman Catholic beliefs. These church fathers, although perhaps not infallible in everything they teach, must be viewed as making up the ordinary magisterium.
3. All the writings of the early church fathers that seem to contradict these teachings fall under one of the following categories:
a. They are fallible.
b. They are heretical.
c. They are misunderstood and misinterpreted by Protestants (assume this last category unless one of the other two doesn't call into question Rome's infallibility).
4. No official Roman Catholic teaching has ever changed, and all Roman Catholic dogmas have been held unswervingly by the true Church throughout the centuries.
5. In the case of a Roman Catholic teaching that can't clearly be found in the early church, that teaching was nevertheless "held from the beginning" anyway; and, amazingly enough, it simultaneously "developed" over time.
6. Roman Catholics today who disagree with Rome's "official" teachings are in disobedience or apostasy. "Official" is always to be defined by the conservative minority branch of Roman Catholicism.
7. Just because there are disagreements among modern Roman Catholics as to the meaning of these "official" teachings, this does not imply that any official Roman Catholic teaching has ever changed. Always assume that the conservative minority interpretation of "official" Roman Catholic teaching is the correct one.
8. Not all popes were infallible in all they taught. Some teachings of popes were stated by them while they were speaking as "private theologians." Hence, any papal teaching that apparently contradicts current Roman Catholic teaching must have been made by a pope who was speaking as a "private theologian," rather than in his official role as pope.
9. Reiterate #1 above as many times as is necessary.
Catholic Responses 101
