Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

I provide my response here for the simple reason that once again we have an excellent example of why comboxes are antithetical to meaningful theological exchange.

As soon as I posted the link to that blog discussion, Phil Porvaznik saddled up his donkey and meandered on over, dumping a pile of his tired, worn-out, "I will keep saying this, but run for the hills and never defend myself because I know I can't" garbage into the thread, producing a flood of "go look at this link and I refuted White over here and look at this by this guy" stuff.

Hence, it is simply not worth the effort for folks to try to fight their way through all the spam produced by the Porvazniks of the Internet.



More . . .

---

25 Tactics for Truth Suppression

1. Hear no Evil	6. Hit & Run	11. Fake Confess.	16. Lose Evidence	21. Subvert
2. Incredulous	7. ? Motives	12. Too Complex	17. Change Subject	22. New Truth
3. Rumormonger	8. Authority	13. False Logic	18. Antagonize	23. O.J.
4. Straw Man	9. Play Dumb	14. Not Enough	19. Ignore Proof	24. Silence Opp.
5. Ridicule	10. Old News	15. Twist Facts	20. False Evidence	25. Vanish
Spot the Freeper

Link

Portray anyone who dares to question the RCC and RCism as being negative, bigoted, uninformed, prejudiced, axe-grinding, deliberately misrepresenting, full of hate. . . or even anti-Catholic?

. . . while posing as the poor, downtrodden, victimized Catholic defender.

There are several ways that the Catholic Church misrepresents the Bible:

• Error by Exclusivity This is where a church will use scriptures to try to prove a point of view and claim verses exclusively for their own church, when in fact they are scriptures that are followed by Bible believing Christians.

• Error by Conjecture This is where a church will imply something, basing their conclusions on incomplete evidence.

• Error by Exclusion This is where a church will pull a scripture out of the Bible to prove their point of view and ignore the preceeding or following verses.

• Error by Inclusion This is where a church attempts to include themselves in the Jewish faith by practicing Old Testament rituals that God reserved solely for the tribe of Levi.

• Error by binding God to the word "catholic" This is where the Catholic church uses the excuse that the word "Catholic" which means "universal" binds God to remain faithful to the practices of their church.

• Error by Insertion, Addition or Change This is where a church inserts, adds or changes the words of scripture to fit their doctrines.

• Error by Subjugation This is where a church will make up a doctrine and try to use the words of scripture to prove it.

More . . .

METHOD #1: Sure, this is standard fare. But let's really explore the subtleties here. Take some idea you don't like (maybe because you don't understand it). No one wants to go spend hours at a library just so they can argue a point. Besides, that might end up changing your mind about something, or telling you facts you didn't already know. No, the quick, easy way is to find some non-Christian with a well-publicized seedy lifestyle who supports the idea in question. Then read a quote to your flock from his book or whatever, PROVING that accursed secularists such as your example are behind the idea. Christians will abandon it without even asking whether or not it's true! (Of course, we know it isn't!)

METHOD #2: This works best when your audience wants to think the answer is a simple one. Here, I'll show you. Take the word "feminist." What comes into mind, a woman committed to biblical truth and concerned with excesses on both sides of a real issue, or a lesbian battle-axe interested in legalized abortion and using the men's room? See how easy it is?

METHOD #3: . Take a lesson from the humanists on this one. They take popular causes like opposing racism or feeding the hungry and connect them with the rest of the liberal agenda; "Christian homosexuality," "a woman's right to choose [to kill her baby]," and on and on and on. It's an easy way to guarantee yourself an audience. Now someone might say we should avoid total acceptance of agenda from left or right, that Scripture condemns much of both. That's those wishy-washy theologians again. Some liberal New Ager named C. S. Lewis warned Christians not to get entangled with "Christianity AND . . ." because the "and" will end up taking over. Well, in the case of Americanism and the right wing, would that really be so bad? They even dress like Christians. Remember, as far as getting a big bunch of believers, "It's easier to seal a package deal."

METHOD #4: This one's important. I heard one guy get so upset at the humanist menace he began swearing up a storm right there in the pulpit! I thought he'd get in trouble, but no, his congregation understood that while his actions were wrong, "his heart was right." This not only works for mundane stuff like cursing, but for more important things like moral purity or material wealth. When in Rome, do as the Romans do . . .

METHOD #5:. You must be convinced yourself that this is so, and if God has indeed called you, how can it be otherwise? I don't give the poor dolts an option; this world can confuse them so easily it's much better for us who understand to guide those who don't. Otherwise they will end up compromising, ignoring our wisdom in favor of their own. So don't mince words. Tell them to toe the line, or else. Where this comes in real handy is in you defining what "meaningful action" is. It might be the wholesale rejection of other leaders, or it could be the donation of twenty-five dollars to your God-ordained television ministry.

METHOD #6:. I am a firm believer in all sorts of hidden demonic influences being part of modern culture. Never mind the obvious gross stuff; I'm talking about secret messages and satanic symbols. I have many dislikes in art and science, and it's amazing what I find in some of those things. Rock music weakens the body and excites sexual urges, while the computer revolution is preparing the way for the antichrist. (Sure, I use a word processor to write, but that's different.)

METHOD #7: What a great way to silence all discussion! Armchair philosophers won't have a chance when your followers short-circuit the conversation with GGMTM. No proofs are needed; just radiate sincerity and charm from the pulpit, screen, or printed page. And be earnest! Who can argue with, "The LORD told me."

METHOD #8:. Christians love the "money changers in the temple" approach. Never mind that Jesus used the whip once in a three-year ministry; this is an angry age. People are confused, and confusion leads to frustration, which leads to anger. Tap into that rich source of unity and you'll have a huge following overnight. I can't overstress the importance of this. No matter how wild your theories, how nonsensical your logic, no one cares if you are prophetically angry. Speaking of which . . .

METHOD #9: Never underestimate the mental flabbiness of Christians. They don't like to think; aerobic praise is more fun. My findings, for some reason, have never been well received by the Bible student types. But for those who need me to think for them, one rule applies: they will believe whatever I as God's prophet tell them to IF . . . "It's loud enough, long enough, and large enough."

METHOD #10: Christians want to FEEL as though they are doing God's will. By showing them how to battle Satan in these ultra-important areas, we help them experience a warm glow of satisfaction. These good feelings prove that what I'm telling them is the truth, no matter what some half-baked theological "semetary" graduate says. "If you feel right about it, go ahead and spout it."


More . . .

Here is a buffet of Catholic apologist techniques in action:

Well, frankly Doug, I would not respond at all. This person is an obvious bigot and fool and will not be convinced by the facts.

In cases like this I think it is prudent to be reminded of the advice of Proverbs 26:4-5 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

This is very good advice since to argue with a fool gives the fool the idea that his assertions are worthy of debate. Also we run the risk of making fools out of ourselves by getting into unproductive argumentation.

St. Paul repeatedly advises us to avoid unproductive argumentation.

So, my advice is to ignore this person, do not respond, and walk away from him.

If you want to have an idea of how to answer these sorts of accusations when there is a productive possibility, the answer lies in the fact that the Church does not, and never has, approved of molesting children. Yes, there has been individual priest, and even bishops, who have molested children or covered it up. This is an EXCEPTION to the norm. Those priests and bishops are sinning against God and what the Catholic Church teaches. To indict the entire Catholic Church on the basis of what a few may do is nothing more than stupidity and bigotry.

We cannot judge the entire profession of mental health on the few who molest children; we cannot blame the entire denomination of the few clergy in their ranks who molest children; nor can be blame the entire Catholic Church for what an extremely small number of priests and bishops may have done.

This is common sense and logical reasoning among anyone who is not a bigot.

I might add that the American Bishops already had a sex abuse of children policy for about 15 years. The Church DID address the issue, it is just that some bishops refused to follow those 15 year old directives. Again, that is the SIN of those bishops, not of the Church herself.

Anyway, there are more arguments that could be made, but from the tone of the letter you posted I would say that the writer is not interested in listening to facts.

I would ignore him.

More . . .

This post is a classic for describing the Catholic apologist's response to any examination of the RCC and RCism

It does NOT say what it means and it does NOT mean what it says.
It is just a bunch of ANTI-catholic propaganda.
Those former catholics were NOT well catachised.
That is NOT what the rcc teaches.
It is taken OUT of context.
We (rcc) have the fullness of truth and this is NOT representative of what the rcc teaches.
It is an attack on the ONE TRUE CHURCH by mis-led people.
We do NOT worship Mary or saints
We did NOT change or alter the 10 commandments.
The whole thing is one big LIE to try and discredit the ONE TRUE CHURCH!
You really don't KNOW what catholics believe.
We have SACRED tradition which teaches us all things (although we really don't know what those tradititons are) but we KNOW they are real, cuz we SAY SO!
You are just mean-spirited for posting this!
It is a PERSONAL attack by anti-catholics who don't know better.
We (cat 0 licks) are always the victim of made up lies and distortions.
The bible may say one thing, but our TRADITIONS say another, and our TRADITIONS trump the bible, cause the pope (head water buffalo), and the maghisterical SAY SO!
You don't KNOW what the bible says because you don't have the authority to interpret the bible.
And 94,873 other denials, excuses, rantings, ravings, and hissy fits..........

Link