direct answers to a direct questions

[1Thess521]

In an effort to improve the likelihood of Catholics clearly answering direct questions: what would Catholics like to see in the posts?
Catholics; here’s your chance to improve a process.

Would you like the questions to be bolded, highlighted, capitalized, underlined, italicized with a large font, and an arrow?
Would you like examples of possible answers?
Do you prefer “yes or no” questions; or more open ended questions?

IOW: what will it take to get a direct answer to a direct question?

 

[balshan]

In an effort to improve the likelihood of Catholics clearly answering direct questions: what would Catholics like to see in the posts?
Catholics; here’s your chance to improve a process.

Would you like the questions to be bolded, highlighted, capitalized, underlined, italicized with a large font, and an arrow?
Would you like examples of possible answers?
Do you prefer “yes or no” questions; or more open ended questions?

IOW: what will it take to get a direct answer to a direct question?

This should be interesting. I am slowly coming to the conclusion they twist, divert and misrepresent our posts because they cannot answer simple questions. I would be happy to be proved wrong.

 

[balshan]

Trying not to divert but adding to you questions. Is can they provide evidence for their claims. It is a normal practice, even my grandchildren can do it. I brought my kids up okay you claim this why, evidence.

 

[RiJoRi]

IOW: what will it take to get a direct answer to a direct question?

I think the deafening silence is your answer.

--Rich

 

[1Thess521]

In an effort to improve the likelihood of Catholics clearly answering direct questions: what would Catholics like to see in the posts?
Catholics; here’s your chance to improve a process.

Would you like the questions to be bolded, highlighted, capitalized, underlined, italicized with a large font, and an arrow?
Would you like examples of possible answers?
Do you prefer “yes or no” questions; or more open ended questions?

IOW: what will it take to get a direct answer to a direct question?

to @dingoling.

 

[Kirby]

In an effort to improve the likelihood of Catholics clearly answering direct questions: what would Catholics like to see in the posts?
Catholics; here’s your chance to improve a process.

Would you like the questions to be bolded, highlighted, capitalized, underlined, italicized with a large font, and an arrow?
Would you like examples of possible answers?
Do you prefer “yes or no” questions; or more open ended questions?

IOW: what will it take to get a direct answer to a direct question?

What would really improve the discussion would be for the non-Catholics to realize that their underlying presuppositions, whatever they may be, precede their understanding of Scripture and of Catholic teaching. Secondly, since this is a forum for disproving the Truth of the Catholic Faith the burden of proof is on the non-Catholic to prove Catholic teaching wrong. Thirdly, when a question is asked, at least have the grace to humbly clarify what one means when the Catholic asks for clarification. None of this “if you really were a Bible-believing Christian, soul-saved Christian you would understand what I’m talking about” smack-talk. And this relates to my fourth suggestion - keep the discussion on Catholic teaching and not Catholics.

 

[PeanutGallery]

What would really improve the discussion would be for the non-Catholics ...

How would a Catholic-Christian explain the difference between non-Catholic and non-Christian?

... Secondly, since this is a forum for disproving the Truth of the Catholic Faith the burden of proof is on the non-Catholic to prove Catholic teaching wrong.

The onus is on the Catholic to prove the assertion of 'two sinless mediators and advocates'; not on the non-Catholic to prove the negative.

 

[Kirby]

…

The onus is on the Catholic to prove the assertion of 'two sinless mediators and advocates'; not on the non-Catholic to prove the negative.

That’s not how this works. I’m perfectly fine believing the Catholic Faith. If you want me to see how it’s false (according to you) you’ll have to show proof. Not only will you have to show proof, you’re going to have to accurately represent Catholic teaching.

 

[PeanutGallery]

That’s not how this works. I’m perfectly fine believing the Catholic Faith. If you want me to see how it’s false (according to you) you’ll have to show proof. Not only will you have to show proof, you’re going to have to accurately represent Catholic teaching.

Accurately representing RCC's uninspired unwritten Sacred Tradition: teaches 'two sinless mediators and advocates'.
Accurately representing God's inspired written Holy Bible: neither scripture, Jesus, nor his apostles taught 'two sinless mediators and advocates.

 

[RiJoRi]

That’s not how this works. I’m perfectly fine believing the Catholic Faith. If you want me to see how it’s false (according to you) you’ll have to show proof. Not only will you have to show proof, you’re going to have to accurately represent Catholic teaching.

Except you will reject any and all proof presented, just as we've seen Catholics on here do repeatedly. Who determines what is "proof" - you. Sorry, but you have shown your bias in your second sentence.

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

 

[1Thess521]

What would really improve the discussion would be for the non-Catholics to realize that their underlying presuppositions, whatever they may be, precede their understanding of Scripture and of Catholic teaching.

1) then point out the presupposition that is in error (that is not the same as avoiding the question)

Secondly, since this is a forum for disproving the Truth of the Catholic Faith the burden of proof is on the non-Catholic to prove Catholic teaching wrong.

2) when claims are made by Catholics i.e. "Christ effectively died at the Last Supper"; or the "Lord of the Rings is a God-breathed writing"; the burden of proof is on the Catholic

Thirdly, when a question is asked, at least have the grace to humbly clarify what one means when the Catholic asks for clarification. None of this “if you really were a Bible-believing Christian, soul-saved Christian you would understand what I’m talking about” smack-talk.

3) asking for a clarification on the meaning of words used is not the same as avoiding the question: one a word or phrase is clarifed: he expectation is that the question should be answered.

And this relates to my fourth suggestion - keep the discussion on Catholic teaching and not Catholics.

4) IN THE SAME WAY; please focus on what the Scripture teachs and not on non-Catholic Christians
Also; only one time in my many years on these forums have I ever witnessed a Catholic correct another Catholic on Catholic teaching.
Many Catholics here go beyond what their Church teaches and make outrageous statements. (see point #2)

 

[Theo1689]

None of this “if you really were a Bible-believing Christian, soul-saved Christian you would understand what I’m talking about” smack-talk.

I forgot... Only Catholics are allowed the "smack-talk".

And this relates to my fourth suggestion - keep the discussion on Catholic teaching and not Catholics.

I forgot... Only Catholics are allowed to make it personal.

 

[Kirby]

Except you will reject any and all proof presented, just as we've seen Catholics on here do repeatedly. Who determines what is "proof" - you. Sorry, but you have shown your bias in your second sentence.

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

I admit my bias. I am Catholic. I believe Catholic teaching. I don’t do so blindly. Do you admit you also have a bias (which is that your whole system of belief (all your theology, all your philosophy, all your metaphysics) is the true one)?

And there’s a reason there is no way to disprove Catholic teaching.

 

[1Thess521]

In an effort to improve the likelihood of Catholics clearly answering direct questions: what would Catholics like to see in the posts?
Catholics; here’s your chance to improve a process.

Would you like the questions to be bolded, highlighted, capitalized, underlined, italicized with a large font, and an arrow?
Would you like examples of possible answers?
Do you prefer “yes or no” questions; or more open ended questions?

IOW: what will it take to get a direct answer to a direct question?

Hey @dingoling.

here's a tip for you
Put the Question in the Answer!!

"As a third grade teacher, I have always started the year, from Day 1, requiring my kids to use PQA (put the Question in the Answer) to restate the question in their responses. It is a great skill to instill in first and second grades, and can be reinforced and built upon in second and third grades as students .

Ideas to help kids Restate the Question in the Answer

Ideas and resources for teaching students to Restate the Question in the Answer: PQA, TTQA, RACE acronyms are included.

www.talesfromoutsidetheclassroom.com

 

[Stella1000]

Do you prefer “yes or no” questions; or more open ended questions?

It's tiresome when we get the loaded question fallacy all the time.

"Mr Brown, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No"

 

[balshan]

It's tiresome when we get the loaded question fallacy all the time.

"Mr Brown, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No"

Oh more false claims and bearing false witness. No one has said what you posted for a start. Reply to these supposed loaded questions.

 

[Nondenom40]

In an effort to improve the likelihood of Catholics clearly answering direct questions: what would Catholics like to see in the posts?
Catholics; here’s your chance to improve a process.

Would you like the questions to be bolded, highlighted, capitalized, underlined, italicized with a large font, and an arrow?
Would you like examples of possible answers?
Do you prefer “yes or no” questions; or more open ended questions?

IOW: what will it take to get a direct answer to a direct question?

We can always ask them what their favorite flavor of ice cream is. Seems to work in politics.

 

[Nondenom40]

That’s not how this works. I’m perfectly fine believing the Catholic Faith. If you want me to see how it’s false (according to you) you’ll have to show proof. Not only will you have to show proof, you’re going to have to accurately represent Catholic teaching.

So whats the excuse when we cite verbatum your own ccc? When the hem hawing starts and the diversion begins what then? Whose to blame for not continuing a reasonable discussion?

 

[Kirby]

So whats the excuse when we cite verbatum your own ccc? When the hem hawing starts and the diversion begins what then? Whose to blame for not continuing a reasonable discussion?

My personal experience has been that when nCCs quote the CCC they cherry pick paragraphs and ignore the larger context. IOW, they treat each paragraph as independent of any other paragraph.

 

[Nondenom40]

My personal experience has been that when nCCs quote the CCC they cherry pick paragraphs and ignore the larger context. IOW, they treat each paragraph as independent of any other paragraph.

Sure, its still our fault. Thats why we can't have a decent discussion here. Nothing we say or post even when its official catholic teaching will spawn a discussion. And fwiw your ccc isn't the bible. We can cite different parts of the bible on one topic because its internally consistent. Your ccc isn't. Thats why we use it against you. It contradicts scripture and it contradicts itself.