What would you say to this response?

[Lampo]

This is the last response I received from an individual I was having a discussion with. "Wow. I’ve always wondered where all the non-believers got all this stuff about Christians being brainwashed. I now understand. You are brainwashed and the saddest part of it is that you believe its OK. How many scriptures, all of which reenforce exactly what I’ve said, do you have to post before you open your eyes and actually read them?

Dude, I don’t bash anyone for what they believe no matter what that belief might encompass. You, however, are in deep, deep trouble. You quote scripture, put a spin on that which is stated straight out, and you think this is a good thing. Not only that, but the Church of which you are a part, condones this behaviour, in that they teach this behaviour as doctrine.

Wow, I’m speechless.

Done here.

Enjoy your delusion."

The topic was the Primacy of Peter and I feel I supported the Catholic view very nicely. This discussion has been going on for about two days. He/she kept claiming I wasn’t answering the question, and I felt I was answering it very adequately. Anyway, was just wondering what you think his last response is saying. Thanks.

 

[elijahson]

This is the last response I received from an individual I was having a discussion with. "Wow. I’ve always wondered where all the non-believers got all this stuff about Christians being brainwashed. I now understand. You are brainwashed and the saddest part of it is that you believe its OK. How many scriptures, all of which reenforce exactly what I’ve said, do you have to post before you open your eyes and actually read them?

Dude, I don’t bash anyone for what they believe no matter what that belief might encompass. You, however, are in deep, deep trouble. You quote scripture, put a spin on that which is stated straight out, and you think this is a good thing. Not only that, but the Church of which you are a part, condones this behaviour, in that they teach this behaviour as doctrine.

Wow, I’m speechless.

Done here.

Enjoy your delusion."

The topic was the Primacy of Peter and I feel I supported the Catholic view very nicely. This discussion has been going on for about two days. He/she kept claiming I wasn’t answering the question, and I felt I was answering it very adequately. Anyway, was just wondering what you think his last response is saying. Thanks.

Everyone puts a spin on scripture. The notion that scripture interprets itself is a spin. If one takes this line of reasoning most of the doctrines of the Christian Faith, like the Trinity, are a spin. So the question really becomes who has the Divine right or charism if you will, to definitively interpret scripture and proclaim what are the elements of True Christian Faith and Morals? The answer is found in Mt16 when Jesus, recognizing the spirit of revelation that is on peter and none of the others, tell him that he will be given the keys of the kingdom and whatever he (peter) binds on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever he (peter) looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. Since the “sola scirptura” cry of the Reformation, everyone has become their own pope, deciding for themselves what is and what is not revelation. So those without the charism (like you, me and your friend) in that we depart from what the Church teaches do the spinning…the Holy Father by virtue of the Charism received from Christ does not spin, but proclaims and that infallibly

pray for me

 

[Church_Militant]

Without actually seeing the exchange, there’s no way that anyone can offer much by way of critique.

Was this person a non-Catholic Christian? I’ve had some weird discussions with people from other churches that make you wonder just what they they are being taught when they read a passage and come up with something so far off the wall and outside of what the text says that I have to go back and look at the passage again to see if I’m in the right book or something.

I like what John Martignoni says about literal interpretation here.

Q: A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn’t…is that true?

A: Actually, there is no truth to that, whatsoever. Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?

The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.

If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.

Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation.

I hope that helps.
Pax tecum,

 

[Lampo]

Thank you. Yes, he’s a Protestant. Here’s part of our discussion. This is my response to him/her:

"Slac…I don’t mind trying this again. You say the Church is founded on ALL the Apostles. Peter is not singled out to lead. In a sense the Church is built on all the Apostles. But, Peter is the one chosen to “head” it. Yes, I know, Jesus is actually the Head of His Church on Earth.

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail."

I quote much more scripture, but I think this delivers the point.

 

[YinYangMom]

It’s possible the other person views your responses as evidence of brainwashing because you don’t use your own words to answer the questions…

it’s kind of how we view the LDS door-to-door-evangelists…hit them with something outside their script and they either clam up or change the subject to a different part of that script. To us, that
indicates conformed thought and not free will.

I would suggest you pray to the Spirit before responding to this post about brainwashing…ask the Spirit to guide your thoughts and words to reflect His truth He would like shared through your post - then start typing what comes to you. If nothing comes, hold off for another time…perhaps go to adoration or something, but walk away for a bit so as to clear your own thoughts to make
room for His. If still nothing comes, then perhaps that is the Spirit’s will…He’ll reach the fellow through someone else at a different time.

 

[FCEGM]

This is the last response I received from an individual I was having a discussion with. "Wow. I’ve always wondered where all the non-believers got all this stuff about Christians being brainwashed. I now understand. You are brainwashed and the saddest part of it is that you believe its OK. . . .

Lampo, you might point out to him that discovering truth does not require one to be original or inventive, but receptive to reality. To learn from the knowledge of others is called wise. Some, though, prefer to linger under this adolescent stance of “independent thinking”, rather than openness to the Truth found in the Tradition, especially in matters of religion.

There is a demand for reckless originality of thought, and a sparkling plausibility of argument. . .a demand for crude theory and unsound philosophy, rather than none at all. It is a sort of repetition of the “Quid nove?” [what’s new] of the aeropagus, and it must have an answer," John Cardinal Newman.

 

[Pax]

I noticed that your antagonist did not provide a refutation by way of exegesis to what you told him. Instead, the retort was merely filled with insults about your “spin” and the evils of your “church.” When this happens it is generally because the other party is either frustrated and out of ammunition.

Insist that your discussion partner address the points you have raised rather than telling you that you are simply “brain washed.”
It takes effort to logically analyze things and to present a well thought out argument. Somehow, your discussion partner seems uninterested in doing either of those things.

The only thing you can do is press forward in charity.

 

[Elzee]

Pax makes a good point. I was recently in an exchange with a Baptist friend of mine who asked if I believed everything the Church teaches, and, if I didn’t, ‘it’s okay, because there are so many traditions of men and the Catholic Church changes its teachings all the time’. We also talked briefly about the Eucharist.

When I asked for some examples of our ‘changing doctrine’ and if she could show me in the Bible where their type of ‘communion’ is taught, all I got was, ‘well, let me get back to you’. That was over 4 months ago.

People who say things like your friend (and mine) very often do not know the foundation for THEIR beliefs. I always thought evangelicals and fundamentalists knew ‘all the answers’ for why they believe what they do because they ‘know the bible so well’ - I’m gradually finding out very few understand the ‘whys’ behind what they claim, and while they may be able to quote quite a few verses, they have no knowledge of the context of those verses or the history behind them when questioned. They just ‘believe what they hear’ - exactly what they accuse Catholics of doing.

 

[Hubriss]

He/she kept claiming I wasn’t answering the question, and I felt I was answering it very adequately. Anyway, was just wondering what you think his last response is saying. Thanks.[/qoute]

Yeah, when I argue with you guys, it always seems like you don’t take anything I say into consideration at all. We make a point, and you respond with something that shows you either completely don’t understand anything we’ve said, or you just choose to ignore it and go along with the church any either way. Even when we make several points, you sometimes respond with something that we or even yourselves have said to the contrary earlier. And yes, when we do ask questions, we often never get a real answer back. Or maybe you pick out little points and try to condemn our argument with those without an understanding of it because you don’t understand the rest.

I noticed that your antagonist did not provide a refutation by way of exegesis to what you told him. Instead, the retort was merely filled with insults about your “spin” and the evils of your “church.” When this happens it is generally because the other party is either frustrated and out of ammunition.

Insist that your discussion partner address the points you have raised rather than telling you that you are simply “brain washed.”
It takes effort to logically analyze things and to present a well thought out argument. Somehow, your discussion partner seems uninterested in doing either of those things.

-Pax

Yes, then once you ignore everything we say and see only your way, you then *******ume something like this. I especially recall Pax and others for saying things like this.

I’m gradually finding out very few understand the ‘whys’ behind what they claim, and while they may be able to quote quite a few verses, they have no knowledge of the context of those verses or the history behind them when questioned. They just ‘believe what they hear’ - exactly what they accuse Catholics of doing.

Actually, it’s different. The Bible is supposed to be the word of God, God is what IS. What a pope or priest says is not what IS. There is no such thing as reading the Bible within “context” or the “history behind them.” Religions deal with Truth and Truth does not change, no matter what context. They believe what they hear/read from the founders of the faith/church. Even though I think you’re all wrong, this is basically one reason why I have more respect for some protestants like Lutherans or Calvanists than Catholics. But really, there are people who just believe what they’re told in any and every religion, not so much in Hinduism and Bhuddism than in the rest though.

 

[Liberian]

Lampo,

What his last response is saying is “I don’t have a good answer to your arguments so I will call you names instead.” At the risk of puffing you up, I will say with some confidence that you have won the argument hands down. Whether you have won your separated brother over to the truth is a different matter entirely, though. I suggest that we spend some time in prayer for our separated and antagonized brethren.

• Liberian

 

[YinYangMom]

The Bible is supposed to be the word of God, God is what IS. What a pope or priest says is not what IS. There is no such thing as reading the Bible within “context” or the “history behind them.” Religions deal with Truth and Truth does not change, no matter what context.

To whom was this Truth revealed, though?
To everyone who ever came in contact with Jesus while He walked the earth???
No.

The Truth was revealed on Pentecost to the Apostles and only the Apostles.

They were commissioned to take the Truth to all people so they established the foundations of the Church as they shared the Good News in Truth orally.

The Acts of the Apostles clearly shows the Apostles establishing a heirarchical structure for the administration of the Church. Jesus is the Head, the Church is the body, Peter holds the keys (Pope), he and the other apostles establish churches where they go, ordaining deacons to help minister to the communities, and so on.

The heirarchical structure of the Church did not come from Peter’s mind. It was not his will. It was revealed to all the apostles on Pentecost…not only did they receive all the Truth they would need in order to carry out their mission, but apparently blueprints were included. All the apostles were in agreement with this setup which is evidence that they, too, received the Truth.

Over the years, after the apostles were gone, Truth got watered down and turned upside down. People complained and we ended up with the Councils, one of which compiled the Bible thus preserving parts of The Truth revealed through the written word.

Keep in mind that Jesus did not instruct the apostles to write the books which ended up in the bible. The Holy Spirit guided people to put into writing that which God wanted preserved for the future. But even then the Bible writings do not contain everything Jesus and the Spirit revealed to the Apostles. What we have available to us in print is The Word, but it’s incomplete. What we have in the Eucharist is The Word but made flesh, not in written form, and so, complete. We receive The Word both ways.

Since we receive The Word, we can say we receive the Truth, but it still isn’t The Truth revealed to the original apostles. We are given what we need to do His will. The apostles were given what they needed to preserve and disemminate The Truth until He comes again. Thus, we believe, that Truth is what gets passed down to each Pope who is guided by the Holy Spirit as the Servant of Servants. It is that Truth which the body of bishops gathering together with the Pope to discern more fully a teaching of the original apostles have access to as they pray and discuss the matter. It is **that **Truth which constitutes the magesterium of the Catholic faith. That the Truth no other Church has claim to. Those who claim Truth revealed through Scripture can still only claim **limited **Truth.

The thing about the various councils is that even then, when asked to clarify matters, the basic setup of the structure of the church remained intact until the Great Schism. Writings of the Church Fathers/Doctors matter because they redirect the focus of the naysayers back to the original teachings of the apostles. This is why many converts to Catholicism from the Protestant faiths credit their reading of the writings of the Fathers as the key to their enlightenment.

 

[Jabronie]

This is the last response I received from an individual I was having a discussion with. "Wow. I’ve always wondered where all the non-believers got all this stuff about Christians being brainwashed. I now understand. You are brainwashed and the saddest part of it is that you believe its OK. How many scriptures, all of which reenforce exactly what I’ve said, do you have to post before you open your eyes and actually read them?

Dude, I don’t bash anyone for what they believe no matter what that belief might encompass. You, however, are in deep, deep trouble. You quote scripture, put a spin on that which is stated straight out, and you think this is a good thing. Not only that, but the Church of which you are a part, condones this behaviour, in that they teach this behaviour as doctrine.

Wow, I’m speechless.

Done here.

Enjoy your delusion."

The topic was the Primacy of Peter and I feel I supported the Catholic view very nicely. This discussion has been going on for about two days. He/she kept claiming I wasn’t answering the question, and I felt I was answering it very adequately. Anyway, was just wondering what you think his last response is saying. Thanks.

That means you won the argument.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is the last response I received from an individual I was having a discussion with. "Wow. I’ve always wondered where all the non-believers got all this stuff about Christians being brainwashed. I now understand. You are brainwashed and the saddest part of it is that you believe its OK. How many scriptures, all of which reenforce exactly what I’ve said, do you have to post before you open your eyes and actually read them?

Dude, I don’t bash anyone for what they believe no matter what that belief might encompass. You, however, are in deep, deep trouble. You quote scripture, put a spin on that which is stated straight out, and you think this is a good thing. Not only that, but the Church of which you are a part, condones this behaviour, in that they teach this behaviour as doctrine.

Wow, I’m speechless.

Done here.

Enjoy your delusion."

The topic was the Primacy of Peter and I feel I supported the Catholic view very nicely. This discussion has been going on for about two days. He/she kept claiming I wasn’t answering the question, and I felt I was answering it very adequately. Anyway, was just wondering what you think his last response is saying. Thanks.

It’s not easy - in fact, it’s impossible - to judge the merits of a debate if one does not know what was said on both sides. It’s perfectly possible to make wretched arguments for a good case ; and to make excellent arguments for a case which, taken as a whole, is not well-founded.​

So what did he say ? (It usually is “he” - hardly ever “she”) ##