Arguments against catholics

[Evanescence]

Hi I’ve come across people from other christian religions who mentions things that they think are wrong that catholics do.

One was: Jesus was baptized as an adult and yet catholics baptize babies or young children. Shouldn’t people be able to choose for themselves which religion they want to be in? but in the catholic religion the parents bacicly decide for them.

A second argument raised by a Jehovah’s witness was about christmas,
The fact that celebrating christmas was never mentioned in the bible
This is what the jehovah’s witness said " we see that many people use that star that guided the magi in their christmas stories etc and even this should be scrutinised, coz magi were astrologers and God condemned these practices so why would he guide them specifically, also the star lead them in a round about way and not straight to Jesus but instead to herod first who wanted Jesus killed, also in the stories Jesus is still a baby however by this time Jesus was almost 2yrs of age and that was calculated and that was the reason why herod ordered all the children below 2yrs to be killed. So the star seems to have been produced by Satan an enemy not by God himself. when it comes to tradition, all the christmas stuff like even the pudding and mistletoe that is used comes from pagan origins (that was in a article in the Readers Digest) I don’t know if you guys get it there, but I was still in school then and remember reading it and was amazed. the date of the 25th is also taken from a false god as they celebrated the strengthening of the sun and gave gifts to eachother."
If you want more info coz this is getting long, there are many articles in the watchtower and awake aswell as the reasoning book to give any extras I may have left out. So yes we don’t celebrate it firstly because we don’t have a biblical basis but even more importantly because the traditions where it stems from(even though they have changed the name) is still coming from false gods and there is a case in the bible where the israelites had what they called " a festival to Jehovah" and yet they were engaging in wrong practices and Jehovah was angry at them and punished them.

A Third argument that was raised was also by a jehovah’s witness about birthdays,
“checking back to see what historians said, we find that they say that christians didn’t celebrate birthdays. There are however 2 accounts of Birthdays being celebrated in the bible and both a person dies and is celebrated by someone who did not serve the true God. In the one eg John the baptist was beheaded as a birthday present. Now please I am not saying that this normally happens at birthday parties although I guess some parties birthday or no birthday can get out of hand, but the point is that the bible puts it in a negative light.”

So what do you think of these?

Evanescence

 

[adstrinity]

Well, one, baptism replaces circumcision (new covenant with God, same purpose as the old covenant with God). Circumcision is typically done on baby’s. Though the Bible never SPECIFICALLY mentions infants, it DOES mention entire families/households…children can be assumed. The early Church Fathers mentioned baptising children and children too young to understand and HOW to do so.

Concerning JW’s, I thought they didn’t celebrate Christmas/birthdays because of the one passage in Revelation about the two prophets being beheadded & left in the street & people celebrating by gift giving.

Wait!!! So, they don’t think that the star was sent by God?!! Can the JW’s not see past their own humanity to think that God, Maker Of All Rules, may change those rules at anytime, OR, that even the sinners (the Magi/Astrologers) acknowledge this speacial birth, OR, that God has a reason for Herod? “3 [2] We saw his star: it was a common ancient belief that a new star appeared at the time of a ruler’s birth. Matthew also draws upon the Old Testament story of Balaam, who had prophesied that “A star shall advance from Jacob” (Numbers 24:17), though there the star means not an astral phenomenon but the king himself.” Did they not also know that the Magi learned in a dream to NOT GO BACK THE WAY THEY CAME?!!! ALSO, according to nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew2.htm , there is a possibility that the Magi were Kings.

One last thing, we get a LOT from Pagan sources/cultures. Name TWO places/people on this Earth that didn’t have paganism in their history at some point. Impossible because there is only one. Days of the week & months of the year are pagan in nature…

 

[Eden]

There are some great articles about the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the “Catholic Answers” homepage.

“It doesn’t take long, after browsing through a few issues, to learn that the Witnesses have a fixation with Catholicism. They devote an inordinate amount of space in their magazines to attacks on Catholic beliefs. On the whole, the debunking is done in a relatively inoffensive manner, but nonetheless it’s obvious which ecclesiastical organization is seen as the great enemy. (In the 1920s and 1930s—the era of “Judge” Rutherford, the second president of the WTS—the attacks on the Catholic Church were more virulent and direct, but the WTS has since toned down its approach.)”

1. INFANT BAPTISM:

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705frs.asp

There is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism. Christ himself proclaimed the suitability of infants for initiation into the kingdom (Luke 18:15-16), and Peter declared: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:38–39).

**The apostolic Church practiced the baptism of whole households, with no exceptions mentioned for small children (Acts 16:16, 33, 1 Cor. 1:16). There is no record anywhere in the Bible of a child of a Christian first having to reach the age of reason and then being baptized. **

**As the New Testament initiation ritual, baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision or “the circumcision of Christ,” as Paul states: “In him you were also circumcised . . . with the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12). **Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “Baptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21).

catholic.com/library/infant_baptism.asp
**Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a “born again” experience—that is, after one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.” At the instant of acceptance, when he is “born again,” the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after “being saved,” goes to heaven anyway. **

**As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to “accept Jesus” in order to reach heaven. **

**Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons. **

Here are some great articles about Jehovah’s Witnesses:

catholic.com/library/Are_They_Awake_on_the_Watchtower.asp

catholic.com/library/Strategies_of_Jehovah_Witness.asp

catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Jehovahs.asp

catholic.com/library/Stumpers_for_Jehovah_Witnesse.asp

catholic.com/library/More_Stumpers_for_Jehovah_Wit.asp

 

[EA_Man]

**Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a “born again” experience—that is, after one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.” At the instant of acceptance, when he is “born again,” the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after “being saved,” goes to heaven anyway. **

**As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to “accept Jesus” in order to reach heaven. **

**Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons. **

Hi Eden.

For the most part this is a very good summary of the Evangelical position of Baptism. I would caution not using to broad a brush here though as there are Protestant denominations which have positions on Baptism that a very similar to the Catholic Church. However, most of the denominations that view baptism as regenerative don’t baptize infants and the ones that do baptize infants typically don’t view it as salvific.

Additionally, not all denominations teach Eternal Security as described above. Although many denominations do teach this. I’m not sure which teach automatic salvation for those that have not attained the age of reason.

I consider myself an Evangelical. I hold a symbolic view of Baptism as an outward or public confession of obedience to Jesus Christ.

The scriptures that I will offer in defense of the view that baptism is not a requirement for salvation are Luke 23:39-43.

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Implicit in this statement
Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

This man, despite a sinful life, comes to Jesus and seeks forgiveness in his last moments. He confesses his guilt and casts himself on Jesus’ mercy and saving power.

Romans 10:9-11
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

 

[Liberian]

EA_Man,

I once heard from an old priest that the Catholic Church considers three forms of baptism. There is the baptism of water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is the one that is most commonly done. The second is the baptism in blood: if an unbaptized person is killed doing something good (defending the Sacrament from being trampled on during a persecution was the example the priest gave), he is considered to have been baptized in the shedding of his blood and gets all the benefits of having been baptized. The third is the baptism of desire, where someone wants to get baptized but dies before he can get to it. Your example of the man on the cross would be the third form of baptism.

Incidentally, when we lived in West Africa in the 1960’s, my (Episcopalian) mother noticed that children who had been baptized as infants got “witched” less often than children who had not been baptized. It’s not scientific, but I have always considered it a data point.

Regarding whether baptism is necessary for salvation, I would submit that while water baptism is not strictly necessary, it is the way that our Lord gave us to join the church under normal circumstances, and we should under normal circumstances do it that way.

Let me offer a couple more “proof texts” about being saved: Acts 2:38, John 3:18, James 5:20, I Tim 2:15, Eph. 2:8, Matt 10:22. My point here is that the Bible can get very confusing and I will leave it to Mother Church to tell me what I need to do to be saved.

• Liberian

 

[Genesis315]

Shouldn’t people be able to choose for themselves which religion they want to be in? but in the catholic religion the parents bacicly decide for them.

This always makes me laugh. Do you think these non-Catholic parents teach their kids all about all the different religions unbiasedly and then let them choose whether they want to be Christian? Of course not. The kids are taught Christianity is the true religion from birth and then are baptized at the age of reason.

 

[Evanescence]

Is there anything you can say about birthdays and christmas?

 

[Naphali]

JWs don’t celebrate any holidays because they claim they weren’t in the Bible – which naturally isn’t true because Jesus celebrated the “Festival af light” aka. Hanukah which is in the Bible if you have a proper Bible.

There is nothing Pagan about celebrating birthdays. It’s the day of one’s birth – there is no significance on the fact that the Bible mentions two birthday parties and both were had by less than ideal people. The fact is, birthday’s were celebrated, and not all people are horrid.

Christmas is timed by the Pagan holiday surrounding solstice, that’s because we really don’t know when Jesus was born exactly but we do know when Hanukah and solstice were celebrated. So they put it right in there. Big deal.

Just because something is not IN the Bible doesn’t mean it’s evil to do – for instance: driving a car – going to college – having an office job – riding in an elevator – um, well it’s not IN the Bible but it’s not evil. Celebrating holidays that aren’t in the Bible isn’t evil either. Thanksgiving, St. Valentine’s Day, Independence day – well none of these things are IN the Bible yet they’re not evil.

If you celebrate Christ’s birth it should just be about that – I know it’s not always, but it should be. And to celebrate it on a traditional day (at this point even though we’re pretty sure he was born September-ish) with others you love is not evil.

JWs have so many other glaring errors in their theology I can’t imagine thinking anything they have to say makes a whole heck of a lot of sense.

 

[The_Eurasian]

Evanescence

  MARIAN APPARITION TO A "JEHOVAH WITNESS"

In the 1890’s, I heard from EWTN, there was a JEHOVAH WITNESS MAN NAMED BRUNO(?) who was planning to assassinate the pope.
One day, his daughters were playing with a ball and this ball rolled into a cave. One daughter went inside the cave to get the ball. She didn’t come back so the next daughter went in. Then the next daughter. Finally the father, BRUNO(?) was looking for the daughters and so he went into the cave. Then he realized why they didn’t get out of the cave ----- “THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY WAS INSIDE THE CAVE APPEARING TO HIS CHILDREN !!! THEN THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY SAID SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO THIS JEHOVAH WITNESS, BRUNO(?) , " ENOUGH OF THIS FOOLISHNESS!!! WELCOME TO THE TRUE CHURCH.”

The Jehovah Witness BRUNO(?) GAVE THE POPE HIS KNIFE AS A GIFT, THAT VERY KNIFE WHICH HE INTENDED TO USE TO ASSASSINATE THE POPE. HE AND HIS FAMILY BECAME CATHOLICS. HIS DAUGHTERS BECAME CATHOLIC NUNS.

If I am not mistaken, Bruno was Italian, and this MARIAN APPARITION TO A JEHOVAH WITNESS OCCURED IN ITALY. Since then, Jehovah Witnesses have had several predictions through the years where they said that the end of the world will occur in such and such a year. Two or three JEHOVAH WITNESS PREDICTIONS of when the world will end have already passed, YET THE END OF THE WORLD HAS NOT YET ARRIVED.

TO MOST CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS OF WHICH THERE ARE SOME 30,000 ALL OVER THE WORLD, THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL TO WHOM THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY APPEARED IN AN APPARITION. ONE OF THOSE HANDFULS IS THE JEHOVAH WITNESS CHURCH. YES, I THINK JEHOVAH WITNESSES ARE SPECIAL TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. AND THROUGH BRUNO, I BELIEVE SHE IS LEADING YOU TO GOD!!! And though Catholics may be first with roots all the way to the apostles, REMEMBER, JESUS SAID, THE LAST SHALL BE FIRST, THE FIRST SHALL BE LAST. But that is alright, Jehovah Witnesses. You can be first, and us Catholics who were ahead of you can be last. But if that is the will of God, then welcome to the True Church where you can be FIRST, AHEAD OF US!!!

 

[Andy_K]

Eurasian, that was a very touching post.

I’m having problems with a Jehovah’s witness on another website (a video game website, of all places!) It started when this 14-year-old copied word for word a JV pamphlet word for word. I decided to post a comment about it, and the whole thing has turned into a war between four people: me, A roman Catholic high school seminarian, a Pentecostal (who didn’t know about the trinity, so I don’t think he knows much about his religion), an agnostic-type who thinks that only your motives matter and that nobody knows what the bible is saying anyway, and the Jehovah’s witness.

Anyway, we’ve been going back and forth about the trinity, holidays, etc, and he keeps posting watchtower stuff (he just copied and pasted it) and by the time I write something to refute him, he has already posted something else that refutes bible verses like “the father and I are one,” etc.

His latest attack is outrageous. He said that during WWII the Catholic bishops had “war prayers” for the german nazi soldiers.
Can anyone help me to steer him towards the true faith?

The guy’s last name is Garcia, and he said that he had cousins that used to be “hardcore” Catholics that now attende bible studies with him. JV’s are in my neigborhood, but everyone around here (whether Catholic or not) knows about the Jv stance
on the trinity and knows how to refute them. The Jv’s haven’t been doing so well in my town.

I’m really hoping that I can help him realize how he is part of a faith that was founded on questionable merits to begin with, not to mention faulty theology!

I need help! Can someone aid me here?

 

[deb1]

Evanescence:

decide for them.

A second argument raised by a Jehovah’s witness was about christmas,
The fact that celebrating christmas was never mentioned in the bible
This is what the jehovah’s witness said " we see that many people use that star that guided the magi in their christmas stories etc and even this should be scrutinised, coz magi were astrologers and God condemned these practices so why would he guide them specifically, also the star lead them in a round about way and not straight to Jesus but instead to herod first who wanted Jesus killed, also in the stories Jesus is still a baby however by this time Jesus was almost 2yrs of age and that was calculated and that was the reason why herod ordered all the children below 2yrs to be killed. So the star seems to have been produced by Satan an enemy not by God himself. when it comes to tradition, all the christmas stuff like even the pudding and mistletoe that is used comes from pagan origins (that was in a article in the Readers Digest) I don’t know if you guys get it there, but I was still in school then and remember reading it and was amazed. the date of the 25th is also taken from a false god as they celebrated the strengthening of the sun and gave gifts to eachother."
If you want more info coz this is getting long, there are many articles in the watchtower and awake aswell as the reasoning book to give any extras I may have left out. So yes we don’t celebrate it firstly because we don’t have a biblical basis but even more importantly because the traditions where it stems from(even though they have changed the name) is still coming from false gods and there is a case in the bible where the israelites had what they called " a festival to Jehovah" and yet they were engaging in wrong practices and Jehovah was angry at them and punished them.

A Third argument that was raised was also by a jehovah’s witness about birthdays,
“checking back to see what historians said, we find that they say that christians didn’t celebrate birthdays. There are however 2 accounts of Birthdays being celebrated in the bible and both a person dies and is celebrated by someone who did not serve the true God. In the one eg John the baptist was beheaded as a birthday present. Now please I am not saying that this normally happens at birthday parties although I guess some parties birthday or no birthday can get out of hand, but the point is that the bible puts it in a negative light.”

So what do you think of these?

Evanescence

It seems a bit illogical to say that if something is not mentioned in the bible that we shouldn’t do it. Don’t JWs use electricity and cars? Neither of those are mentioned in the bible.

As far as birthday parties, the JW seem to be reading to much into the text. If bdays are wrong wouldn’t the bible be more specific? In my opinion, you don’t have to read between the lines in the bible to know when something is wrong, God is pretty direct. I don’t think that the bible puts bday celebrations in a negative light. It would be much easier and obvious to get from the biblical story that marrying your brother’s wife, lusting after your stepdaughter, imprisoning a prophet and cutting off his heads are sins then that celebrating one’s bday are forbidden. Herod’s wife would have plotted and brought about John’s death no matter what day the celebration occured.

I have to admit, I am confused by their reasoning on the star. Let me make certain that I understand you. JW’s believe that the star and the three wise men are products of Satan?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Evanescence:

Hi I’ve come across people from other christian religions who mentions things that they think are wrong that catholics do.

One was: Jesus was baptized as an adult and yet catholics baptize babies or young children. Shouldn’t people be able to choose for themselves which religion they want to be in? but in the catholic religion the parents bacicly decide for them.

There’s a good deal to be said for adult baptism.​

1. That is how it was done in the first 3 or so centuries
2. Faith is a personal commitment, not something that can be inherited - so adult baptism is more appropriate than infant baptism
3. This mode of baptism has never quite died out in the Church
4. If people were free to choose for themselves, Confirmation would be in less danger of being seen as a mere “rite of passage” - as something that one does to mark the transition from childhood.
5. The Church ought to be made up of those who are believers by conviction; it should not be made up of those whose Christianity goes no further than the fact that once, when infants, they were dabbled on the head with some water.
6. A merely nominal Christianity is encouraged by infant baptism - but how can purely nominal Christians share the Gospel in a convincing way, as Christians are called to do by their baptism & confirmation ? ##

A second argument raised by a Jehovah’s witness was about christmas,
The fact that celebrating christmas was never mentioned in the bible
This is what the jehovah’s witness said " we see that many people use that star that guided the magi in their christmas stories etc and even this should be scrutinised, coz magi were astrologers and God condemned these practices so why would he guide them specifically, also the star lead them in a round about way and not straight to Jesus but instead to herod first who wanted Jesus killed,

This was to emphasise that Jesus is Messiah - that is one of St. Matthew’s main ideas. I think this JW is making too much of the detail of the route of the Magi - would he have preferred them to come down in parachutes ? The Magi symbolise the rulers in Psalm 72, Jesus being the “king’s son”; *that *is why they were guided; the evangelist is drawing on the psalm to show who Jesus is.​

also in the stories Jesus is still a baby however by this time Jesus was almost 2yrs of age and that was calculated and that was the reason why herod ordered all the children below 2yrs to be killed. So the star seems to have been produced by Satan an enemy not by God himself. when it comes to tradition, all the christmas stuff like even the pudding and mistletoe that is used comes from pagan origins (that was in a article in the Readers Digest) I don’t know if you guys get it there, but I was still in school then and remember reading it and was amazed. the date of the 25th is also taken from a false god as they celebrated the strengthening of the sun and gave gifts to eachother."

Parts of the OT have pagan origins too - but why does that matter ? God did not whip up a new world for Christians to inhabit, one free of all paganism; He sent them out into a non-Christian world so that they might make it His. Every word in the NT was pagan before it was Christian - some of the early Christians have pre-Christian names. Some seem to think that Christianity is such a weak and watery religion that it has no power to convert pagan men, feasts or places to the worship of Christ.​

As for mistletoe, bunnies, Father Christmas, reindeer, and the Christmas trees, none of that has any bearing at all on Easter or Christmas: if people are going to obsess about bunnies, or think that we worship Father Christmas at Midnight Mass: we don’t. Some people need to stop confusing the religious aspects of the feasts with the secular tat connected to it. ##

[continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

If you want more info coz this is getting long, there are many articles in the watchtower and awake as well as the reasoning book to give any extras I may have left out. So yes we don’t celebrate it firstly because we don’t have a biblical basis but even more importantly because the traditions where it stems from(even though they have changed the name) is still coming from false gods

And those gods are…?​

and there is a case in the bible where the israelites had what they called " a festival to Jehovah" and yet they were engaging in wrong practices and Jehovah was angry at them and punished them.

Exd 32:5 And when Aaron saw [it], he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow [is] a feast to the LORD.​

*If *that is the text intended - how is marking two feasts of Christ even remotely like worshipping the golden calf ? ##

A Third argument that was raised was also by a jehovah’s witness about birthdays,
“checking back to see what historians said, we find that they say that christians didn’t celebrate birthdays. There are however 2 accounts of Birthdays being celebrated in the bible and both a person dies and is celebrated by someone who did not serve the true God. In the one eg John the baptist was beheaded as a birthday present. Now please I am not saying that this normally happens at birthday parties although I guess some parties birthday or no birthday can get out of hand, but the point is that the bible puts it in a negative light.”

So those who do “serve the true God” can’t celebrate birthdays - not even the birthday of Christ ?​

What sort of reasoning is that ? It’s like saying that because the Bible nowhere mentions cheese, eating cheese must be a sin; or that because we nowhere read “Jesus laughed”, laughter is sinful. Or because asthma is nowhere mentioned, asthmatics do not exist. Nor do llamas, alpacas, baboons, lemurs, or duck-billed platypuses; nor does Australia. To be consistent, such people ought to live only in countries explicitly mentioned in the Bible; the people who insist on using only Hebrew month names are halfway there. ##

So what do you think of these?

I think JWS, like many others who take their faith seriously, need to cultivate a sense of proportion​

Evanescence

BTW - the JW movement is not Christian, though individuals may well be. Any more than Mormonism is, or the SDA Church, or Christian Science: all four movements are semi-Christian, & cults, unfortunately.​