Why do RCs not respond to the op?

[balshan]

I am finding debating and discussing topics concerning the RCC difficult. There seems to be a fear among RCs of the opening topic, it is so great that they go to great lengths to change it to their well beaten paths like you should be thankful that we gave you the bible. Which is a blatant furphy.

They use the same tactics over and over again. Is it taught some where? The tactics are as follows:

1. Deflect from the op as quickly as possible.
2. Change the subject often to Peter is the rock, we gave you the bible. We all know that Peter would have nothing at all to do with the RCC.
3. Pretend no one has answered their questions. Even though they have been answered over and over again, thread after thread.
4. Ignore what we posted or twist the post to mean something other than what it did.
5. Fall back on tradition or the ECFs and ignore what the scriptures tell us, even if it is not appropriate to the op. We have established that the ECFs are just fallible men. There was a thread on their attitude to women which shows how fallible they were.
6. Use the look over there, don't look at us. This attitude shows how far from Jesus the institution is. Jesus said look here. By the way this is the RC forum, not the over there forum.
7. Falsely accuse posters of ad hominens and hate even though the poster has just posted the facts about the institution and their actions throughout the centuries.
8. The most ridiculous response of Jesus selected Judas. There was a purpose in God's plan of selecting Judas, he was the exception and not the norm. He had a purpose which is not needed today.
9. Trying to make jokes, that is really sad and shows how they cannot defend the beliefs and false doctrines of their institution.

I think if you cannot defend your beliefs then you need to look deeply into why you are just blindly following them. Is there another reason for RCs being unable to defend the teachings of their institution?

 

[Hibernian]

I am finding debating and discussing topics concerning the RCC difficult. There seems to be a fear among RCs of the opening topic, it is so great that they go to great lengths to change it to their well beaten paths like you should be thankful that we gave you the bible. Which is a blatant furphy.

They use the same tactics over and over again. Is it taught some where? The tactics are as follows:

1. Deflect from the op as quickly as possible.
2. Change the subject often to Peter is the rock, we gave you the bible. We all know that Peter would have nothing at all to do with the RCC.
3. Pretend no one has answered their questions. Even though they have been answered over and over again, thread after thread.
4. Ignore what we posted or twist the post to mean something other than what it did.
5. Fall back on tradition or the ECFs and ignore what the scriptures tell us, even if it is not appropriate to the op. We have established that the ECFs are just fallible men. There was a thread on their attitude to women which shows how fallible they were.
6. Use the look over there, don't look at us. This attitude shows how far from Jesus the institution is. Jesus said look here. By the way this is the RC forum, not the over there forum.
7. Falsely accuse posters of ad hominens and hate even though the poster has just posted the facts about the institution and their actions throughout the centuries.
8. The most ridiculous response of Jesus selected Judas. There was a purpose in God's plan of selecting Judas, he was the exception and not the norm. He had a purpose which is not needed today.
9. Trying to make jokes, that is really sad and shows how they cannot defend the beliefs and false doctrines of their institution.

I think if you cannot defend your beliefs then you need to look deeply into why you are just blindly following them. Is there another reason for RCs being unable to defend the teachings of their institution?

Avoiding the issue while claiming to believe in it simply means that they are incapable of defending themselves, but they have to say some kind of nonsense because silence is self-incriminating. Their most common kind of defence is anachronistic, where they quote something said after the event and treat it as though it was always the case. The immaculate conception, definitively declared in 1870, is a classic example. They can now tell us 1870 years later that Mary, 1870 years previously, was conceived without sin. Without batting an eye.

 

[balshan]

Avoiding the issue while claiming to believe in it simply means that they are incapable of defending themselves, but they have to say some kind of nonsense because silence is self-incriminating. Their most common kind of defence is anachronistic, where they quote something said after the event and treat it as though it was always the case. The immaculate conception, definitively declared in 1870, is a classic example. They can now tell us 1870 years later that Mary, 1870 years previously, was conceived without sin. Without batting an eye.

It is like the only place they can find any support for the PV is the false gospel the Protoevangelium of James.

 

[mica]

Avoiding the issue while claiming to believe in it simply means that they are incapable of defending themselves, but they have to say some kind of nonsense because silence is self-incriminating. Their most common kind of defence is anachronistic, where they quote something said after the event and treat it as though it was always the case. The immaculate conception, definitively declared in 1870, is a classic example. They can now tell us 1870 years later that Mary, 1870 years previously, was conceived without sin. Without batting an eye.

yet they have no problem remaining silent on topics. I do think there is a catholic online guidebook somewhere, just like there is one for Mormons (that's probably the same as they go by going door to door). they roll thru their common replies over and over again, using phrasing from the ccc.

 

[balshan]

yet they have no problem remaining silent on topics. I do think there is a catholic online guidebook somewhere, just like there is one for Mormons (that's probably the same as they go by going door to door). they roll thru their common replies over and over again, using phrasing from the ccc.

It is as if they go into a trance and just chant the programmed responses. I see they are avoiding this op, maybe they don't like to see that we can see through their tricks.

 

[mica]

It is as if they go into a trance and just chant the programmed responses. I see they are avoiding this op, maybe they don't like to see that we can see through their tricks.

it is what they've been taught and what was the example set for them growing up. They are taught not to question things (much). And they don't know enough scripture to dig deeper. they don't yet see that the circle of beliefs of the RCC starts with a man and circles back to a man, not God.

 

[balshan]

it is what they've been taught and what was the example set for them growing up. They are taught not to question things (much). And they don't know enough scripture to dig deeper. they don't yet see that the circle of beliefs of the RCC starts with a man and circles back to a man, not God.

I am so blessed that the Lord took me away from the false doctrines and blindly following a man and not Jesus.

 

[Hibernian]

It is like the only place they can find any support for the PV is the false gospel the Protoevangelium of James.

Of course they need one lie to support another lie but the important thing that they don't seem to realise is that the lie itself is coming from the Pope - the one that they admire so much

 

[mica]

Of course they need one lie to support another lie but the important thing that they don't seem to realise is that the lie itself is coming from the Pope - the one that they admire so much

yes, the one they think is infallible, that they bow to and believe in.

 

[Hibernian]

yes, the one they think is infallible, that they bow to and believe in.

So it's circular reasoning, because it starts with the Pope, so the Pope makes them think that the Pope cannot be wrong. Their faith in the pope is explicit, but their faith in God depends on the Pope, so while they believe in the pope without question, whatever they believe about God they must first consult their Pope because they believe that because the Pope is infallible and his infallibility is exclusive to him and his church alone, therefore God, according to the individual Roman Catholic, cannot communicate personally with them the same as he apparently does with the Pope, which is the same as saying that according to the Pope God is limited in whom God himself might communicate with. In other words, their faith is in the pope, not in God.

 

[Buzzard]

Ancient History
Charles Alexander Robinson, Jr. page 683

"To take a more important example, in accepting the new faith many
converted pagans felt that the infinite God was too great and too
distant to pray to directly. There grew up, accordingly, the practice
of praying for the intercession of the saints - certain great and good
christians who, having lived especially pure lives, were now
with God. It was through the help of the saints that men hoped to
receive an answer to their prayers. Statues of the saints and of
Christ and the Virgin were set up in the churches, and to them the
faithful prayed. By the use of such simple means the Church was able
to get and retain a hold on those people to whom some outward symbol
seemed essential."

 

[RayneBeau]

I am finding debating and discussing topics concerning the RCC difficult. There seems to be a fear among RCs of the opening topic, it is so great that they go to great lengths to change it to their well beaten paths like you should be thankful that we gave you the bible. Which is a blatant furphy.

They use the same tactics over and over again. Is it taught some where? The tactics are as follows:

1. Deflect from the op as quickly as possible.
2. Change the subject often to Peter is the rock, we gave you the bible. We all know that Peter would have nothing at all to do with the RCC.
3. Pretend no one has answered their questions. Even though they have been answered over and over again, thread after thread.
4. Ignore what we posted or twist the post to mean something other than what it did.
5. Fall back on tradition or the ECFs and ignore what the scriptures tell us, even if it is not appropriate to the op. We have established that the ECFs are just fallible men. There was a thread on their attitude to women which shows how fallible they were.
6. Use the look over there, don't look at us. This attitude shows how far from Jesus the institution is. Jesus said look here. By the way this is the RC forum, not the over there forum.
7. Falsely accuse posters of ad hominens and hate even though the poster has just posted the facts about the institution and their actions throughout the centuries.
8. The most ridiculous response of Jesus selected Judas. There was a purpose in God's plan of selecting Judas, he was the exception and not the norm. He had a purpose which is not needed today.
9. Trying to make jokes, that is really sad and shows how they cannot defend the beliefs and false doctrines of their institution.

I think if you cannot defend your beliefs then you need to look deeply into why you are just blindly following them. Is there another reason for RCs being unable to defend the teachings of their institution?

What an eye-opening excellent posting this is!
Basically, the Roman Catholic makes a choice to keep the mind set they have acquired from the masterfully planned systematic indoctrination of the Roman Catholic Church. Sadly, most Roman Catholics don't realize that they have the capacity to stop choosing a religious system that is actively working to keep them from knowing and enjoying the Truth and the ultimate authority found only in Jesus Christ, and so they methodically choose to employ 'tactic' #1.

 

[LifeIn]

I am finding debating and discussing topics concerning the RCC difficult.

Dear balshan, mica, and others who share this difficulty:

You should not find it surprising that it is difficult to get the kind of respectful civil debate that you desire. For people to engage in debate, they must first of all respect each other and their beliefs. Otherwise it is no debate, but rather various gangs shouting schoolyard insults at each other. It is notable that not even Jesus was willing to engage in endless debates with Satan when he was tempted in the desert. If you want, I can quote numerous statements from this very forum, but I think you know when you are being disrespectful.

 

[balshan]

Dear balshan, mica, and others who share this difficulty:

You should not find it surprising that it is difficult to get the kind of respectful civil debate that you desire. For people to engage in debate, they must first of all respect each other and their beliefs. Otherwise it is no debate, but rather various gangs shouting schoolyard insults at each other. It is notable that not even Jesus was willing to engage in endless debates with Satan when he was tempted in the desert. If you want, I can quote numerous statements from this very forum, but I think you know when you are being disrespectful.

Well you want respect, as I told my children you earn respect by your behaviour. All these tactics show us is that you do not respect your beliefs and cannot defend them. You are going to an institution started by the father of lies and its fruit is foul, throughout the centuries. It is not a schoolyard and acting like children just shows how little respect most RCs have for their beliefs and their sources.

Jesus did debate with Satan in the desert, He clearly said it was written and quoted the old testament. Most RCs cannot do that because most of their beliefs are not found in scripture. So it shows they are not debating Satan, if they were they would say it is written....

I just love the ways most RCs accuse others of doing what they are experts at doing. It is amazing how easy it is for most RCs to feel disrespected and that happens when they cannot support their institution against the facts. To state facts to RCs seems to be a sign of disrespect. I also can quote the number of times I have had ad hominems thrown at me for just stating facts. Any post taken out of context means absolutely nothing. By the way you also know when that happens and it would be a total waste of time when that happens.

You in this post just proved the fact that it does not matter what most RCs post, deep down there is still the believe RCs are the only ones going to heaven and other believers are being used by Satan to drag them from the one true blah, blah. It is the biggest lie we were taught at school. I haven't found others trying to drag me away from the one true blah, blah...I have found them showing the true light of the gospel.

By the way your response is just one big ad hominem.

 

[balshan]

Well you want respect, as I told my children you earn respect by your behaviour. All these tactics show us is that you do not respect your beliefs and cannot defend them. You are going to an institution started by the father of lies and its fruit is foul, throughout the centuries. It is not a schoolyard and acting like children just shows how little respect most RCs have for their beliefs and their sources.

Jesus did debate with Satan in the desert, He clearly said it was written and quoted the old testament. Most RCs cannot do that because most of their beliefs are not found in scripture. So it shows they are not debating Satan, if they were they would say it is written....

I just love the ways most RCs accuse others of doing what they are experts at doing. It is amazing how easy it is for most RCs to feel disrespected and that happens when they cannot support their institution against the facts. To state facts to RCs seems to be a sign of disrespect. I also can quote the number of times I have had ad hominems thrown at me for just stating facts. Any post taken out of context means absolutely nothing. By the way you also know when that happens and it would be a total waste of time when that happens.

You in this post just proved the fact that it does not matter what most RCs post, deep down there is still the believe RCs are the only ones going to heaven and other believers are being used by Satan to drag them from the one true blah, blah. It is the biggest lie we were taught at school. I haven't found others trying to drag me away from the one true blah, blah...I have found them showing the true light of the gospel.

 

[LifeIn]

Well you want respect, as I told my children you earn respect by your behaviour. All these tactics show us is that you do not respect your beliefs and cannot defend them. You are going to an institution started by the father of lies and its fruit is foul, throughout the centuries. It is not a schoolyard and acting like children just shows how little respect most RCs have for their beliefs and their sources.

Jesus did debate with Satan in the desert, He clearly said it was written and quoted the old testament. Most RCs cannot do that because most of their beliefs are not found in scripture. So it shows they are not debating Satan, if they were they would say it is written....

I just love the ways most RCs accuse others of doing what they are experts at doing. It is amazing how easy it is for most RCs to feel disrespected and that happens when they cannot support their institution against the facts. To state facts to RCs seems to be a sign of disrespect. I also can quote the number of times I have had ad hominems thrown at me for just stating facts. Any post taken out of context means absolutely nothing. By the way you also know when that happens and it would be a total waste of time when that happens.

You in this post just proved the fact that it does not matter what most RCs post, deep down there is still the believe RCs are the only ones going to heaven and other believers are being used by Satan to drag them from the one true blah, blah. It is the biggest lie we were taught at school. I haven't found others trying to drag me away from the one true blah, blah...I have found them showing the true light of the gospel.

By the way your response is just one big ad hominem.

If all you want is an opportunity to rant about Catholics, you will never get that debate that you lamented. So don't act surprised when you don't get it.

I will say that the position that you have taken vis a vis Catholics is very rare among Christians. I have known many non-Catholic Christians over my 72 years, and I have never encountered so much animosity as I have encountered here. I have to believe that this is an aberration, and that most Christians that disagree with many of the points of Catholic doctrine are able to do so respectfully.

Since you said what puzzles you, I will say what puzzles me. I am puzzled by the fact that on those occasions when I have attempted to determine what position you and mica and some others are coming from, such as what church you belong to, I get the run-around. I and other Catholics have our doctrine on display for all to see. It is in the Catechism and the Code of Cannon Law and many other documents you can and have picked apart mercilessly. But that is OK, because we are not ashamed of our beliefs and don't mind them being stated as a matter of record. But when pressed for similar details on the faith of those who attack the Church in this forum, all I get is "we believe in the Scripture" or "we believe in Christ". Well, that's nice. But when it comes to delving into what that really means, such as identifying with some specific band of similarly-minded individuals (sometimes called a "church"), I get crickets. Will you go on record as saying you identify with the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod? Or the Baptist Church? Can you give an address I can look up on Google maps to see where your church is? I can give you mine. It is right here.

So where you do worship on Sunday? Of course there is a risk to revealing your church. I might be able to look it up and research it and find out lots of embarrassing things about it - just like you have done for the Catholic Church. Are you willing to take that risk for your faith?

 

[balshan]

If all you want is an opportunity to rant about Catholics, you will never get that debate that you lamented. So don't act surprised when you don't get it.

I will say that the position that you have taken vis a vis Catholics is very rare among Christians. I have known many non-Catholic Christians over my 72 years, and I have never encountered so much animosity as I have encountered here. I have to believe that this is an aberration, and that most Christians that disagree with many of the points of Catholic doctrine are able to do so respectfully.

Since you said what puzzles you, I will say what puzzles me. I am puzzled by the fact that on those occasions when I have attempted to determine what position you and mica and some others are coming from, such as what church you belong to, I get the run-around. I and other Catholics have our doctrine on display for all to see. It is in the Catechism and the Code of Cannon Law and many other documents you can and have picked apart mercilessly. But that is OK, because we are not ashamed of our beliefs and don't mind them being stated as a matter of record. But when pressed for similar details on the faith of those who attack the Church in this forum, all I get is "we believe in the Scripture" or "we believe in Christ". Well, that's nice. But when it comes to delving into what that really means, such as identifying with some specific band of similarly-minded individuals (sometimes called a "church"), I get crickets. Will you go on record as saying you identify with the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod? Or the Baptist Church? Can you give an address I can look up on Google maps to see where your church is? I can give you mine. It is right here.

So where you do worship on Sunday? Of course there is a risk to revealing your church. I might be able to look it up and research it and find out lots of embarrassing things about it - just like you have done for the Catholic Church. Are you willing to take that risk for your faith?

I have not ranted against RCs I responded to your post which was a rant against 3 posters. I have many friends who are RCs and I have been to a bible study with a great older RC lady. The animosity you encounter is all in your mind. I do not feel animosity towards RCs, so that is a false statement. I dislike false teachings and that is biblical stand to take. I had years of RC schooling, so find insults like I was a poor student, or the nuns did not know RC theology surprising and insulting. The insults thrown at ex RCs are scathing but apparently we are great fodder for most RCs. But of course this is normal response from most RCs.

I have to believe your attitude is the status quo for RCs. I am tired of telling RCs I don't belong to a denomination, Jesus didn't start them, the RC is just another denomination. It is not the church He founded, it has so many different beliefs. I am a follow of Jesus and do not follow man. It seems that is hard for those that follow man to understand. Jesus did not take me out of the RC to follow another man made religion, one can go to churches of various denominations but not follow them or belong to them. Only an idiot would give an address on a forum, it is an unsafe practice.

As I said the tu quoque fallacy is loved by RCs but just shows the inability to defend your institution and its beliefs. You can go to any of the other forums for the denominations and state their flaws to them.

It is summed up thus:

The Childish Response​

"Of all human instincts, not even the urge to say 'I told you so' is stronger than the response called tu quoque: 'Look who's talking.' To judge from children, it is innate ('Cathy says you took her chocolate,' 'Yes but she stole my doll'), and we don't grow out of it . . .

"France has led calls for pressure to be put on the Burmese junta at the security council and through the EU, where foreign ministers discussed the issue yesterday. As part of the push, it has tried to enlist a recalcitrant Russia which, conscious perhaps of Chechnya, has no great wish to be seen criticizing anyone else's internal affairs. Hence a Russian minister's response that the next time there were riots in France he would refer the matter to the UN.

"This reply was at once childish, irrelevant, and probably very gratifying."—Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Guardian, October 16, 2007

Learn More About Tu Quoque (Logical Fallacy) Ad Hominem Argument

Tu quoque is a type of ad hominem argument in which a person turns a charge back on his or her accuser: a logical fallacy. Learn more here.

www.thoughtco.com

But it is the response most RCs like to use.

You made this a personnel matter. By naming posters.

 

[balshan]

To show that we should speak out against false teachings, just read what Peter said:

2 Peter 3:17

You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

Paul says:

Romans 16:17-18

Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

1 Tim 1:3-4

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.

 

[mica]

Dear balshan, mica, and others who share this difficulty:

You should not find it surprising that it is difficult to get the kind of respectful civil debate that you desire.

I don't see that as a problem that was listed in Balshan's post. If for you that falls under #7, then that is what comes from catholics. Not answering questions, dodging them or replying with something that makes no sense (such as the name of a fiction character, a movie line etc.), or continually asking the same question over and over (that has been answered many, many times) like a small child on a trip asking 'are we there yet?'. I expect better from an adult catholic. or repeatedly claiming 'the 'Church' says while claiming to be a Christian. The truth for a Christian is found in scripture, not from man. Claiming they believe in scripture while overriding God's word with words (teachings) made up by men clearly shows that they don't know scripture, don't understand it and don't want to understand or follow it.

For people to engage in debate, they must first of all respect each other and their beliefs.

Catholics here continually show no respect for God or His word. They also consider not believing in their men leaders and teachings as the truth to be disrespectful. So did the Jewish leaders in the NT - that didn't silence Jesus or the apostles.

Otherwise it is no debate, but rather various gangs shouting schoolyard insults at each other.

yes, and it is sad that catholics have no biblical grounds (support) for what they believe, (what the RCC teaches them). That should give them a shove to dig into scripture and get into a biblical bible study (not catholic), but it doesn't. Instead they just go into circular mode, the pope says because this or that man one day mega yrs ago said... and Christians have always believed x,y,z. No, they haven't - catholics believe those teachings, Christians haven't and still don't.

It is notable that not even Jesus was willing to engage in endless debates with Satan when he was tempted in the desert.

yes, and He replied from scripture (not words of the RCC, pope or ecf). He also said 'It is written...' and 'have you not read ' and He was not referring to something written by an ecf, a pope or Mary (or what people claim she said). He was directing them to His truth found in scripture, not words (teachings / beliefs) made up by men.

If you want, I can quote numerous statements from this very forum, but I think you know when you are being disrespectful.

for catholics that means anything we'd say, post or believe that isn't taught by or supported by the RCC. That would be to deny the truth of scripture, to deny Christ as Lord and Savior - contrary to what scripture does teach.

choose this day who you will serve - God or man?

 

[RayneBeau]

Dear balshan, mica, and others who share this difficulty:

You should not find it surprising that it is difficult to get the kind of respectful civil debate that you desire. For people to engage in debate, they must first of all respect each other and their beliefs. Otherwise it is no debate, but rather various gangs shouting schoolyard insults at each other. It is notable that not even Jesus was willing to engage in endless debates with Satan when he was tempted in the desert. If you want, I can quote numerous statements from this very forum, but I think you know when you are being disrespectful.

Generally Roman Catholics are very uncomfortable with hearing and/or reading the infallible teachings of the Word of God. They are uncomfortable with Holy Scriptures demands, principles, authority, repentance of sins, and the submission of their mind, will and heart to Jesus Christ, instead of submitting themselves to some mortal religious figurehead who pompously calls himself the Supreme Pontiff of the RCC - the Vicar of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Godhead, on earth.