Non-Catholics, a question

[freedomwriter]

As a former Catholic i am not surprised how catholics defend their faith. Sadly i strongly defended the catholic faith like many others without really knowing what i was defending. If that makes any sense. What surprises me more than anything is that many lack the knowledge of God’s Word. Many go by what the Pope, church or councils say more than the Word of God.

 

[Eleve]

Catholics recognize Sacred Tradition — teachings of the Pope, Church, and ecumenical councils — as part of the Word of God. Seriously, this is like Catholicism 101.

 

[dianaiad]

So you’re condemning all because you’ve read others.

No, I’m making an informed prediction because I HAVE read others. I’ve also, since I wrote this last post, managed to peek at Bennett’s books “Inside Mormonism” and “When Mormons Call” (Amazon.com has a copy that I can sort of preview…) and guess what?

I was right.

I was pleasantly surprised at the language he used; it is very academic, far more accurate than some of his fellow “Mormon exposers” and not nearly as polemic as I expected it to be. His education shows. However…here is a quote from page 352 of the book: “Though a chief tenet of Mormon belief, members do not often discuss eternal progression. Perhaps this is because much of the teaching is new and, understandably, offensive to Christians. Perhaps, too, it’s because the theme is a central concern of the temple ceremony, which must be kept hidden from the unworthy. Or perhaps it’s because discussing one’s ambitions to godhood is not a fit topic for polite conversation…”

While his musings about why ‘members do not often discuss eternal progression’ beg all sorts of questions and are thus not exactly helpful, the whole thing is based on an inaccuracy; that is, that ‘members do not often discuss eternal progression.’ Eternal progression is a basic doctrine. It may be dogma (though I’m not quite certain of the difference between the two to Catholic understanding; forgive me if I have it wrong.) As such it is taught at the first and basic levels–if it isn’t the first missionary lesson, it’s certainly second. The whole idea weaves around our beliefs like the weft of a tapestry.

In fact, in the very next sentence Bennett contradicts himself, remembering a talk about this very thing in an Elder’s Quorum meeting, and commenting in that paragraph about the common occurrence and acceptance of what was said there.

So he begins with a statement that we don’t speak about Eternal progression among ourselves (a statement that he himself proves false in less than a page…) and then muses upon the reasons we don’t–insulting and false ones.

It was like reading this: “Mr. Bennett doesn’t speak to his wife much; perhaps the reason he does not is because he is ashamed of her, or because her voice hurts his ears…or because he is so guilty about leaving the priesthood and marrying her that he is pretending that she doesn’t exist.” and in the very next sentence reading: 'We were out to dinner with the Bennetts last night, and during their very stimulating conversation we heard how much they enjoyed their second honeymoon together, in a place where they could be alone and just enjoy each other’s company."

So, while he’s not nearly as bad as some, I didn’t predict incorrectly.

I’m not commenting on the books that are advertised because I haven’t read them. I am commenting on your complaint which is invalid.

I clicked on the Muslim book link.

"Catholics have a duty to meet the challenge of Islam. We need to know our own faith well so we can show our Muslim brothers that the Catholic Church, not Islam, is the true fulfillment of Abraham’s prophetic line.

Of course. But that book isn’t about CATHOLICISM, is it? It’s attacking ISLAM…and that’s different.

Beginning Apologetics 9: How To Answer Muslims examines Islam’s major beliefs, and shows how to charitably refute them using Christian teaching - the Scriptures, history, and, of course, common sense"

It seems to be a very fundamental glimpse at Islam and a whole lotta Catholic Catechism. This isn’t about bashing Islam. It’s about defending the faith when challenged by Muslims. It gives, I think, answers to common challenges to the faith that are posed by Muslims.

Hardly a sinister book.

I wonder if a muslim, reading it, would agree with you?

I am in no position to judge, of course, but I wonder if a Muslim, reading it, would recognize his own faith in this book’s presentation of it?

No sir…on a pragmatic level, one should not write books like this for one good reason: if you are incorrect in even the smallest thing about the religion you are examining, you are giving the target religion a reason to call foul–and even more important, you are leaving your own people unarmed–you have trained them to attack strawmen. What if one of the readers of this book uses one of these answers–and it turns out that Muslims don’t really believe whatever it is that the Catholic is defending against? Where does the Catholic go then?

If you spend the same amount of time concentrating exclusively upon your own faith, then they will be prepared to defend against attacks, because they WILL be defending, not attacking.

 

[JonNC]

I had the very same happen to me when I joined I was immediately assulted by a fundycat and came out all scratced and torn up from that one sided feline fight

Welcome to CAF!

I assume by “fundycat”, you mean a fundamentalist. My impression is that the moderators here at CAF are not fond of those kinds of names. You’re new here and I thought you might benefit from knowing that.

Jon

 

[zerinus]

In reading another thread, I see that some non-Catholics who post here are annoyed at the vigor with which Catholics defend the faith.

I’m wondering, were you surprised (when you first came here) that Catholics defend the faith? Were you surprised that Catholics aren’t really that open to the evangelical efforts of those outside the CC? Did you expect Catholics to be more willing to compromise on doctrine?

Does that mean that you are surprised by the vigor with which Mormons defend their faith? Or do you think that the vigor with which Mormons defend their faith is any less than the vigor with which Catholics defend their faith?

 

[kalt]

No, I’m making an informed prediction because I HAVE read others. I’ve also, since I wrote this last post, managed to peek at Bennett’s books “Inside Mormonism” and “When Mormons Call” (Amazon.com has a copy that I can sort of preview…) and guess what?

I was right.

I was pleasantly surprised at the language he used; it is very academic, far more accurate than some of his fellow “Mormon exposers” and not nearly as polemic as I expected it to be. His education shows. However…here is a quote from page 352 of the book: “Though a chief tenet of Mormon belief, members do not often discuss eternal progression. Perhaps this is because much of the teaching is new and, understandably, offensive to Christians. Perhaps, too, it’s because the theme is a central concern of the temple ceremony, which must be kept hidden from the unworthy. Or perhaps it’s because discussing one’s ambitions to godhood is not a fit topic for polite conversation…”

While his musings about why ‘members do not often discuss eternal progression’ beg all sorts of questions and are thus not exactly helpful, the whole thing is based on an inaccuracy; that is, that ‘members do not often discuss eternal progression.’ Eternal progression is a basic doctrine. It may be dogma (though I’m not quite certain of the difference between the two to Catholic understanding; forgive me if I have it wrong.) As such it is taught at the first and basic levels–if it isn’t the first missionary lesson, it’s certainly second. The whole idea weaves around our beliefs like the weft of a tapestry.

In fact, in the very next sentence Bennett contradicts himself, remembering a talk about this very thing in an Elder’s Quorum meeting, and commenting in that paragraph about the common occurrence and acceptance of what was said there.

So he begins with a statement that we don’t speak about Eternal progression among ourselves (a statement that he himself proves false in less than a page…) and then muses upon the reasons we don’t–insulting and false ones.

It was like reading this: “Mr. Bennett doesn’t speak to his wife much; perhaps the reason he does not is because he is ashamed of her, or because her voice hurts his ears…or because he is so guilty about leaving the priesthood and marrying her that he is pretending that she doesn’t exist.” and in the very next sentence reading: 'We were out to dinner with the Bennetts last night, and during their very stimulating conversation we heard how much they enjoyed their second honeymoon together, in a place where they could be alone and just enjoy each other’s company."

So, while he’s not nearly as bad as some, I didn’t predict incorrectly.

Of course. But that book isn’t about CATHOLICISM, is it? It’s attacking ISLAM…and that’s different.

I wonder if a muslim, reading it, would agree with you?

I am in no position to judge, of course, but I wonder if a Muslim, reading it, would recognize his own faith in this book’s presentation of it?

No sir…on a pragmatic level, one should not write books like this for one good reason: if you are incorrect in even the smallest thing about the religion you are examining, you are giving the target religion a reason to call foul–and even more important, you are leaving your own people unarmed–you have trained them to attack strawmen. What if one of the readers of this book uses one of these answers–and it turns out that Muslims don’t really believe whatever it is that the Catholic is defending against? Where does the Catholic go then?

If you spend the same amount of time concentrating exclusively upon your own faith, then they will be prepared to defend against attacks, because they WILL be defending, not attacking.

Maybe you didn’t do such a good job of picking examples of what you disagreed with. The book is designed to help Catholics respond to Mormons who come calling. What the author was saying in your first quote, it seems, is that a Mormon coming to your door isn’t likely to talk to you about “eternal progession”. He goes on to say that it might be because it’s offensive to Christians. By Christians he didn’t mean fellow Mormons, but those to whom the Mormon at the door is speaking.

By Elder’s Quorum, I assume he means a Mormon Elder’s Qourum. Obviously fellow Mormons talk about eternal progession between themselves.

What the author was saying was that Mormons aren’t likely to bring it up to a Catholic, because a Catholic would find it offensive and would shut the door.

Unless you can find different examples in the book, or quote more than you did here of the same section, your complaint is still invalid. The author didn’t say what you said he said. Your complainging about something the author didnt’ say - that Mormon’s don’t talk about eternal progression among themselves.

If you can post a longer sample and show that that’s what the author was talking about in that section, I’ll take a 2nd look.

I have no reason to defend this author. I have not stake in it. And though you said “you” are advertising the book, I have no connection to the advertising on CAF. I’m merely a user like you are.

 

[kalt]

Does that mean that you are surprised by the vigor with which Mormons defend their faith? Or do you think that the vigor with which Mormons defend their faith is any less than the vigor with which Catholics defend their faith?

No. Why do you ask?

 

[kalt]

No, I’m making an informed prediction because I HAVE read others. I’ve also, since I wrote this last post, managed to peek at Bennett’s books “Inside Mormonism” and “When Mormons Call” (Amazon.com has a copy that I can sort of preview…) and guess what?

I was right.

I was pleasantly surprised at the language he used; it is very academic, far more accurate than some of his fellow “Mormon exposers” and not nearly as polemic as I expected it to be. His education shows. However…here is a quote from page 352 of the book: “Though a chief tenet of Mormon belief, members do not often discuss eternal progression. Perhaps this is because much of the teaching is new and, understandably, offensive to Christians. Perhaps, too, it’s because the theme is a central concern of the temple ceremony, which must be kept hidden from the unworthy. Or perhaps it’s because discussing one’s ambitions to godhood is not a fit topic for polite conversation…”

While his musings about why ‘members do not often discuss eternal progression’ beg all sorts of questions and are thus not exactly helpful, the whole thing is based on an inaccuracy; that is, that ‘members do not often discuss eternal progression.’ Eternal progression is a basic doctrine. It may be dogma (though I’m not quite certain of the difference between the two to Catholic understanding; forgive me if I have it wrong.) As such it is taught at the first and basic levels–if it isn’t the first missionary lesson, it’s certainly second. The whole idea weaves around our beliefs like the weft of a tapestry.

In fact, in the very next sentence Bennett contradicts himself, remembering a talk about this very thing in an Elder’s Quorum meeting, and commenting in that paragraph about the common occurrence and acceptance of what was said there.

So he begins with a statement that we don’t speak about Eternal progression among ourselves (a statement that he himself proves false in less than a page…) and then muses upon the reasons we don’t–insulting and false ones.

It was like reading this: “Mr. Bennett doesn’t speak to his wife much; perhaps the reason he does not is because he is ashamed of her, or because her voice hurts his ears…or because he is so guilty about leaving the priesthood and marrying her that he is pretending that she doesn’t exist.” and in the very next sentence reading: 'We were out to dinner with the Bennetts last night, and during their very stimulating conversation we heard how much they enjoyed their second honeymoon together, in a place where they could be alone and just enjoy each other’s company."

So, while he’s not nearly as bad as some, I didn’t predict incorrectly.

Of course. But that book isn’t about CATHOLICISM, is it? It’s attacking ISLAM…and that’s different.

I wonder if a muslim, reading it, would agree with you?

I am in no position to judge, of course, but I wonder if a Muslim, reading it, would recognize his own faith in this book’s presentation of it?

No sir…on a pragmatic level, one should not write books like this for one good reason: if you are incorrect in even the smallest thing about the religion you are examining, you are giving the target religion a reason to call foul–and even more important, you are leaving your own people unarmed–you have trained them to attack strawmen. What if one of the readers of this book uses one of these answers–and it turns out that Muslims don’t really believe whatever it is that the Catholic is defending against? Where does the Catholic go then?

If you spend the same amount of time concentrating exclusively upon your own faith, then they will be prepared to defend against attacks, because they WILL be defending, not attacking.

To another source, obviously.

Since people are constantly knocking on Catholics’ doors and informing them of what Catholicism “really is”, we know exactly how that works. An error is an error. So long as you don’t insist on presisting in it, there really is no problem. (Like those on the forum who insist that Catholics worship statues, regardless of how many posters–catholic and others–tell them that they’re all wet.

When someone points out the error to the author, he should make the correction (assuming it’s not merely a complaint about how the truth is presented) in future editions.

Wouldn’t it be nice if those who go door to door peddling their religion to Catholics would do the same on their appointed routes? If they come to my house and I correct them on a point (like Mary, statues, the pope or Tradition), and prove it from a valid source like the Bible or the Catechism, shouldn’t they take that tidbit out of their repertpoire before the next door? But we all know how that works.

Anyway, if you have a longer quote so I can see exactly what the author was saying, I’ll read it.

 

[zerinus]

No. Why do you ask?

Because your question seemed odd to me. Do you know of anyone who does not defend their faith with vigor—assuming they are religious at all?

 

[dianaiad]

Maybe you didn’t do such a good job of picking examples of what you disagreed with. The book is designed to help Catholics respond to Mormons who come calling. What the author was saying in your first quote, it seems, is that a Mormon coming to your door isn’t likely to talk to you about “eternal progession”. He goes on to say that it might be because it’s offensive to Christians. By Christians he didn’t mean fellow Mormons, but those to whom the Mormon at the door is speaking.

Excuse me, but the book I quoted from was NOT 'When Mormons come calling," but from “Inside Mormonism,” As I mentioned, his claim that we do not discuss ‘eternal progression’ is false, given that it is one of the first two discussions we have with investigators. We not only discuss it, we emphasize it; it’s sorta important. Therefore his claim that we are somehow embarrassed by it, or seek to hide it, is ludicrous. When I was on my own mission, that particular lesson was my favorite one to begin with, and I’m not the only missionary for which this is true by a very long shot.

By Elder’s Quorum, I assume he means a Mormon Elder’s Qourum. Obviously fellow Mormons talk about eternal progession between themselves.

Indeed, we do…and we talk about it with everybody else, too.

What the author was saying was that Mormons aren’t likely to bring it up to a Catholic, because a Catholic would find it offensive and would shut the door.

No, he was making some very snide comments about why we would not discuss something we absolutely DO discuss. I found it disingenuous, frankly.

Unless you can find different examples in the book, or quote more than you did here of the same section, your complaint is still invalid. The author didn’t say what you said he said. Your complainging about something the author didnt’ say - that Mormon’s don’t talk about eternal progression among themselves.

If you can post a longer sample and show that that’s what the author was talking about in that section, I’ll take a 2nd look.

I have no reason to defend this author. I have not stake in it. And though you said “you” are advertising the book, I have no connection to the advertising on CAF. I’m merely a user like you are.

That’s a general ‘you,’ not a specific one; it is the ‘you’ that belongs to an organization that publishes such books, and the you who are defending the nature of it.

As well, given that the book sample Amazon gives prospective buyers, finding other samples is difficult at best…hitting the ‘surprise me’ button is as likely to get an index page as it is a list of scripture references. I went with what was there, and it was sufficient for the purpose.

 

[promethius]

threads like this are generally the reason I avoid posting in the non-catholic religions forum. I figure that unlike the lusenet forum (Rest In Peace) this has a nice area for protestants to go, leaving free an apologetics section for the catholics to debate issues amongst themselves. For the evangelist types, they can hang out here, but I’m here as one who is fascinated by apologetics and as such spend my time there. I respect the non-catholics here: this is your guest room in our house, but when you step into the apologetics section, be prepared to discuss respectfully or we’ll take the gloves off and slug it out.

 

[dianaiad]

To another source, obviously.

And in the meantime, they are confounded… I suggest that they go to their own catechism for information about what their beliefs are, and to the true believers of the religion they are battling for information about what THEIR beliefs are. No third party can possibly get it right.

Since people are constantly knocking on Catholics’ doors and informing them of what Catholicism “really is”, we know exactly how that works. An error is an error. So long as you don’t insist on presisting in it, there really is no problem. (Like those on the forum who insist that Catholics worship statues, regardless of how many posters–catholic and others–tell them that they’re all wet.

Well then, you know how annoying it is to be insulted for a belief you don’t actually hold, don’t you? I restricted my exhortations at doors to telling people what Mormonism really is. I figured that they knew their own beliefs far better than I ever could.

When someone points out the error to the author, he should make the correction (assuming it’s not merely a complaint about how the truth is presented) in future editions.

Like that’s going to happen. Never does, y’know.

Wouldn’t it be nice if those who go door to door peddling their religion to Catholics would do the same on their appointed routes? If they come to my house and I correct them on a point (like Mary, statues, the pope or Tradition), and prove it from a valid source like the Bible or the Catechism, shouldn’t they take that tidbit out of their repertpoire before the next door? But we all know how that works.

Indeed. Don’t look now, but I actually agree with you on this. Going door to door? Fine…but let’s be practical if nothing else; one does not sell the lady of the house new perfume by telling her how bad she smells. You give her a whiff of what you are selling and let her choose.

Anyway, if you have a longer quote so I can see exactly what the author was saying, I’ll read it.

Wish I did. That’s the problem with the way I was examining it. As I said earlier, from what little I DID see, I thought he was more academic than most, more complete–but his bias shines pretty brightly there.

 

[freedomwriter]

Catholics recognize Sacred Tradition — teachings of the Pope, Church, and ecumenical councils — as part of the Word of God. Seriously, this is like Catholicism 101.

Seriously did you not understand what i said. Tradition doesn’t have anything to do with God’s Word. Only the catholics use it as such. Read what Jesus said about tradition

 

[elts1956]

Thanks for your kindness and encouragement.

Appreciatively,
Mick

You are quite welcome.

 

[Eleve]

Seriously did you not understand what i said. Tradition doesn’t have anything to do with God’s Word. Only the catholics use it as such. Read what Jesus said about tradition

Of course I understood what you said. You’re speaking from a sola scriptura framework that has no relevance to the Catholics you’re trying to talk to. It’s as if I tried to refute a Christian with a quote from the Qur’an, or a Buddhist with a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. And when you say “only the Catholics,” you are firstly wrong, and secondly speaking of over half of Christians.

As for Jesus on Tradition, the following quotes are what come to my mind, but feel free to enlighten me.

Matthew 16:18-19: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:17-18: If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[freedomwriter]

Of course I understood what you said. You’re speaking from a sola scriptura framework that has no relevance to the Catholics you’re trying to talk to. It’s as if I tried to refute a Christian with a quote from the Qur’an, or a Buddhist with a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. And when you say “only the Catholics,” you are firstly wrong, and secondly speaking of over half of Christians.

As for Jesus on Tradition, the following quotes are what come to my mind, but feel free to enlighten me.

What are you talking about. lol sola scriptura was never mentioned though i do believe in it. As for the scriptures that we looked at, I stand by what i wrote.

 

[kalt]

And in the meantime, they are confounded… I suggest that they go to their own catechism for information about what their beliefs are, and to the true believers of the religion they are battling for information about what THEIR beliefs are. No third party can possibly get it right.

Well then, you know how annoying it is to be insulted for a belief you don’t actually hold, don’t you? I restricted my exhortations at doors to telling people what Mormonism really is. I figured that they knew their own beliefs far better than I ever could.

Like that’s going to happen. Never does, y’know.

Indeed. Don’t look now, but I actually agree with you on this. Going door to door? Fine…but let’s be practical if nothing else; one does not sell the lady of the house new perfume by telling her how bad she smells. You give her a whiff of what you are selling and let her choose.

Wish I did. That’s the problem with the way I was examining it. As I said earlier, from what little I DID see, I thought he was more academic than most, more complete–but his bias shines pretty brightly there.

Then you will understand that your complaint is invalid. Until you actually read the book, any judgement you make on it has no real value. It’s merely an opinion based on previous experience with similar books that are written by other authors.

I also this you point about a non-Catholic (for example) being unable to “get it right” (writing about the Catholic faith) is invalid. Of course someone outside the particular faith can get it right.

 

[kalt]

Because your question seemed odd to me. Do you know of anyone who does not defend their faith with vigor—assuming they are religious at all?

Yes.

 

[kalt]

Excuse me, but the book I quoted from was NOT 'When Mormons come calling," but from “Inside Mormonism,” As I mentioned, his claim that we do not discuss ‘eternal progression’ is false, given that it is one of the first two discussions we have with investigators. We not only discuss it, we emphasize it; it’s sorta important. Therefore his claim that we are somehow embarrassed by it, or seek to hide it, is ludicrous. When I was on my own mission, that particular lesson was my favorite one to begin with, and I’m not the only missionary for which this is true by a very long shot.

Indeed, we do…and we talk about it with everybody else, too.

No, he was making some very snide comments about why we would not discuss something we absolutely DO discuss. I found it disingenuous, frankly.

That’s a general ‘you,’ not a specific one; it is the ‘you’ that belongs to an organization that publishes such books, and the you who are defending the nature of it.

As well, given that the book sample Amazon gives prospective buyers, finding other samples is difficult at best…hitting the ‘surprise me’ button is as likely to get an index page as it is a list of scripture references. I went with what was there, and it was sufficient for the purpose.

I’m going to Amazon to check the sample myself.

You say that it was a universal you. That is not how a universal you is used. I believe that by “you”, you meant Catholics, or CAF, or me, as a Catholic member of CAF, and most likely all of the above.

When someone uses you in a universal case, it’s something like, “When you advertise a book to Catholics…”

Saying, "Don’t look now by you are advertising a book… " is not a universal you case.

 

[kalt]

Excuse me, but the book I quoted from was NOT 'When Mormons come calling," but from “Inside Mormonism,” .

You wrote ealier.

"No, I’m making an informed prediction because I HAVE read others. I’ve also, since I wrote this last post, managed to peek at Bennett’s books “Inside Mormonism” and “When Mormons Call” (Amazon.com has a copy that I can sort of preview…) and guess what?

I was right.

I was pleasantly surprised at the language he used; it is very academic, far more accurate than some of his fellow “Mormon exposers” and not nearly as polemic as I expected it to be. His education shows. However…here is a quote from page 352 of the book: “Though a chief tenet of Mormon belief, members do not often discuss eternal progression. Perhaps this is because much of the teaching is new and, understandably, offensive to Christians. Perhaps, too, it’s because the theme is a central concern of the temple ceremony, which must be kept hidden from the unworthy. Or perhaps it’s because discussing one’s ambitions to godhood is not a fit topic for polite conversation…” "

It seems that you were saying that you were looking at “When Mormons Call”.
I checked out Amazon. It shows only pages 21-26 or so of “Inside Mormonism”.

Since I don’t have access to the quote (Do you own the book?), there really isn’t much I can say. From what you posted, I stand by my statement. And also because I read the review from the publisher which states that the purpose of the book is to give Catholics information to defend the faith against Mormon challenges.

Hidden from the unworthy. Obviously he’s not talking about the elders talking amongst themselves in this passage.