Methods in Defining Truth

[SpiritMeadow]

We all know that anyone can open a website and spout anything they wish. This is particularly annoying when you are searching for biblical analysis or theology issues. I find it hard to discern sometimes how trustworthy the site may be. Other than looking at it’s “about us” do anyone have any good tips they use in vetting websites that you may like, but have little information of things like, faith tradition, credentials, liberal/middle/conserv. outlook. etc?

I’m having difficulty especially at websites that look professional, and claim seminary or university training, but nowhere give me a hint on traditions or bent of mind.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We all know that anyone can open a website and spout anything they wish. This is particularly annoying when you are searching for biblical analysis or theology issues. I find it hard to discern sometimes how trustworthy the site may be. Other than looking at it’s “about us” do anyone have any good tips they use in vetting websites that you may like, but have little information of things like, faith tradition, credentials, liberal/middle/conserv. outlook. etc?

I’m having difficulty especially at websites that look professional, and claim seminary or university training, but nowhere give me a hint on traditions or bent of mind.

The rule of thumb that I go by which is the safest path is to take a look at how/when/if AUTHORITATIVE Church documents are quoted.

A person can say a lot of nice things and even many logical things, but if they are not basing their work off of Church documents (eg Catechism, encyclicals, etc) then you should be cautious.

The SECOND most important thing is to make sure, before you accept anything, that the web page you are reading has an online link to the SOURCE of any given quote.

If a person is quoting Saint XYZ from the year 12XX who “said” something scandalous or questionable and there is no link to the source then take that quote with a grain of salt. It is AMAZING how many apologetics pages out there are built off of such shallow foundations.

 

[ac_claire]

I’ve had the same concerns re: websites. Unfortunately there’s not any kind of standardized imprimatur on the 'net. What I do, in addition to the points already mentioned, I will check out the links the site offers (for some context).

You can also put the website in question in a google search, or search the CAF archives. More often than not I’ll find my questions already answered in some past discussion here
.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’ve had the same concerns re: websites. Unfortunately there’s not any kind of standardized imprimatur on the 'net. What I do, in addition to the points already mentioned, I will check out the links the site offers (for some context).

You can also put the website in question in a google search, or search the CAF archives. More often than not I’ll find my questions already answered in some past discussion here
.

What I have been running into lately is sites wherein the poster is a graduate of say the Dallas Theological Seminary…sounds Catholic right? wrong…its a baptist at best, so i have no idea how fundamentalist it is. Wish there was a dang list somewhere. Professional writers i find these days are not being very straightforward with their readers.

I guess what I’m really crabbing about is a recognize that I can find good exegesis from methodists and Luterans as well as Catholics, anglicans, episcopalians. I’m quite leery of the fundie christians and they seem very good at renaming themselves to sound “professional” and “scholarly”. There is a huge difference from apologetics to pure scholarship, and its the latter than I find difficult to be sure of. The second problem is that I am not interested in apologetics, and some of these sites as well, even Catholic, are not at all clear that that is what they are.

I raised the issue because of my own difficult and also because it seems to be of growing concern among legitimate academia as well.