someone pleaseargue against this

[justfran]

sry but I have no debating skill at all...

it's an excerpt from this book called Conversations with Catholics. Some dude emailed me with the link


[url="http://www.gnfc.org/cwc_chap5.html"]http://www.gnfc.org/cwc_chap5.html[/url] It's a long read. I need to know what to say in reply to the guy who emailed me, I need backup for "I just don't agree with this". I don't exactly have the patience to go through textbooks or spend ages looking up Bible passages for the sake of debate. And whoever does argue please e-mail the webpage w/ your arguments, there's an email right at the bottom of the page, that way I know these ppl will get the message.

[justfran]

also there's this site, [url="http://goodseed.com/theprophetsenglish.aspx"]http://goodseed.com/theprophetsenglish.aspx[/url], and they have a forum and their email is info@goodseed.com (for branches in different countries it's info.countrycode@goodseed.com) where you can debate, try and get them to see the truth. you'll have to read what they offer for download though and i don't have much time to do that since uni starts in a few days.

Edited February 18, 2005 by justfran

[theculturewarrior]

You've got to pick your battles, and stick to em.

First, the whore of Babylon argument...

1. The Vatican is not built on any one of the seven hills of rome.

2. I think I remember reading in Pope Fiction that several cities are built on seven hills, including Jerusalem.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]Harry got the point. Why return to a church that hadn't been able to help him or introduce him to the Lord?[/quote]

As a Catholic, I'm on such intimate terms with the Lord that I often unite myself literally to his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]"Don't tell me you were born a Catholic," one Filipino Christian is quick to correct his countrymen. "You were born a sinner; you were baptized a Catholic. It doesn't make any sense to give your dying allegiance to a religion simply because your family belongs to it. Had you been born in the southern region of the Philippines," he reminds them, "in all likelihood you would have been born a Muslim, not a Catholic. Would that make Islam the right religion for you?"

Still other Catholics, driven by misguided loyalties, remain in the Catholic Church convinced that, despite its faults, it's Christ's church. They know that the Church doesn't preach the gospel, that the Mass is not what the Church says it is, and that a priest cannot absolve sins. Nevertheless they remain, thinking that Christ is there.

But Christ is not there. He is not in the Eucharist. He is not in the tabernacle of the main altar. He is not hanging on the life-size crucifix suspended by cables over the priest's head. Christ does not dwell in buildings, but in the hearts of the redeemed. And where the gospel is not preached, the people remain dead in their sins, void of the life of God.

"Why do you seek the living One among the dead?" (Luke 24:5), the angel asked the women looking for the Lord in a graveyard on the morning of His resurrection. The same question might be asked of these born- again Catholics looking for the Lord Jesus in the Catholic Church. "He is not here, but He is risen!" (Luke 24:6), the angel told the women. These Catholics need to realize that the same is true of the Church of Rome. Christ is not there.

[/quote]

This is a statement and not an argument. The only argument I gleaned from it is that Catholics need to choose. And we do. We need to choose Christ and His Church.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]Despite the miraculous circumstances under which Lyne found Matthew 19:29, some would say that she made a terrible mistake, that all the family friction was unnecessary. "Work within the system," they advise. "Share with others what you have found. If everyone leaves, how is the Catholic Church ever going to change?"

Such advice is both misinformed and unbiblical. Born-again Catholics staying within the Church are not going to change it. Rome's history over the past 500 years shows that it is moving away from the truth, not toward it. When in the sixteenth century several of the Church's theologians and priests called for reform, the Church responded with the sword and the stake. At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), Rome's bishops turned errors into unchangeable dogmas, and pronounced solemn judgment upon anyone who taught otherwise. Most significantly, Trent formally rejected the doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ alone. Since then the Church has been steadily moving further from the truth. In 1870, 533 Roman Catholic bishops proclaimed that the pope was infallible, immune to error in His official teaching. This placed the words of a man on the same level as the words of God in inspired Scripture. In 1854 the Vatican formally declared the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception and in 1950 her Assumption into Heaven. These two doctrines fueled the modern Marian movement in which many Catholics have come to regard Mary almost as a goddess. Catholicism is getting worse, not better.
[/quote]

Most of the doctrines he so blithely rejects are demonstrably compatible with the deposit of Faith, and many Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox pro-west theologians would tell you that things like the Assumption of Mary and even the Immaculate Conception can be understood in Eastern terms and as compatible with Eastern Theology. This is the deposit of Faith. We change for it, not it for us.

On the other hand, where are his doctrines in the Fathers? Where does his Church dialogue with other Apostolic Churches? Protestantism marks a departure from the Christianity that always was. Read the Fathers, justfran. You will see your Church staring at you.

[theculturewarrior]

basically, what he has listed is hard to debate, because theirs no argument. Just unsupported opinion.

[JP2Iloveyou]

I agree with theculturewarrior. This guy has given nothing but statements. I would like to see an argument from him. As it stands right now, you have nothing to attack. The proper way to debate is to look at your opponents arguments, premises and conclusions, and then determine which premise is wrong. This guy has only given conclusions, no premises. he claims Jesus isn't in the Eucharist. I say he is. He gives no argument. Here's my argument:

P1. The Bible is the inspired Word of God.
P2. Everything inspired by God is infallible.
P3. The Bible says in John 6 as well as in Mathew, Mark, and Luke's account of the Last Supper, as well as First Corinthians that the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood.
C1. Therefore, the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood.

This is just one example. I would really strongly recommend that everyone, especially those interested in defending the Catholic faith take an introductory philosophy course, especially logic. So many people today do not know how to do good philosophy; the end result is that often times we talk past each other and get nowhere in our discussions.