Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical (view source)
Revision as of 16:45, January 11, 2017
, 16:45, January 11, 2017→Regarding the source The Two Babylons: suggestions, links, online searches, etc, encouragement
It does seem that ''The Two Babylons'' is, at best, unreliable. I read the article rebutting it, and it has convinced me of this. I'm sure the book must contain some degree of truth, however. It is very unlikely that everything in it is completely false. Note, for example, how the CRI article disproves the shape of the Eucharist cookie as a disk, but not that such a practice was done, or that transubstantiation was believed, or anything else about the point, for that matter. I do not know the accuracy of these. I have emailed Chick Publications, which not only sells the book, but uses it as a source for many of its claims. We'll see what they have to say. Rather than removing points based on the book entirely, I've noted in the footnotes that I cannot guarantee, and that I doubt, the accuracy of anything from the book. If anybody thinks this is still bad, they may remove the point entirely. I'm still working on adding sources to all points that require sources. --[[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 17:55, 9 January 2017 (EST)
It does seem that ''The Two Babylons'' is, at best, unreliable. I read the article rebutting it, and it has convinced me of this. I'm sure the book must contain some degree of truth, however. It is very unlikely that everything in it is completely false. Note, for example, how the CRI article disproves the shape of the Eucharist cookie as a disk, but not that such a practice was done, or that transubstantiation was believed, or anything else about the point, for that matter. I do not know the accuracy of these. I have emailed Chick Publications, which not only sells the book, but uses it as a source for many of its claims. We'll see what they have to say. Rather than removing points based on the book entirely, I've noted in the footnotes that I cannot guarantee, and that I doubt, the accuracy of anything from the book. If anybody thinks this is still bad, they may remove the point entirely. I'm still working on adding sources to all points that require sources. --[[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 17:55, 9 January 2017 (EST)
:Your article is not entirely bad. (Don't flog yourself.) I suggest that instead of removing particular points, your own ref-note disclaimer will be enough to establish your integrity as a contributor of ''information'' regarding this fundamentalist point of view. In several of my own articles I have given both sides of a controversy accordingly as each of their proponents argue their positions (See for example [[Great Apostasy]] and [[Sunday School]]). One side is presented without deviation or misrepresentation, and then the other is presented: "''however, so-and-so point of view, by such-and-such sources, strongly maintain instead that...''", together with providing external links as reliable sources of their own views. Frequently, I have posted one external link representing a position I might personally reject, immediately followed by another external link representing the opposing point of view, or one providing actual facts which disprove the assertions presented by an authoritative link reliably representing another group's stand in their own words, and sometimes obtaining and including a link which reliably ''critiques'' the controverted point or stand.
:What I would recommend—
:In your place, with this essay/article, I would simply link certain points in the list to Conservapedia articles dealing with those particular points, as another contributor has already done for you. If there are no relevant Conservapedia articles, then simply go to online sources of Roman Catholic [[apologetics|apologists]] by googling the topic: for example, neutrally research each point by entering (for example) "meaning of IHS" or "''Catholic'' meaning of IHS"—which by the way are the first three letters of the name of our Lord '''Jesus''', Latin '''IES'''US, Greek Ίησούν (Mt 1:21 ''[[Greek alphabet|iota '''Ι''', eta '''Η''', sigma '''Σ''']]''), and also represent the initials of the Latin words Constantine saw or heard in his vision of the Cross covering the sun "'''I'''n '''H'''oc '''S'''ignes"—"''In This Sign'' (Conquer)". After checking the sources, you could state truthfully and factually that no Catholic child or adult has ever been taught that the three letters represent Isis, Horus, Sed/Set. From the view of Egyptian religion, since Sed/Set is evil, it would actually have been IOH, Isis, Osiris, Horus (their son).
:I am personally convinced from what you have said here that you have already decided to "check your sources", which Alexander Hislop, to his discredit, failed to do. The [[Logical fallacy]] he committed, and often afflicts most beginner enthusiastic apologists (I've been one!), is called [[Confirmation bias]]. If you continue with your resolve to always do more checking, and look at all the evidence, as [[Josh McDowell]] did, I believe you have the makings of a very credible researcher in the field of [[Christian apologetics]] in defense of the truth of the [[Faith]] in this and other forums. I count myself privileged to have been of help to some small degree.
:I began where you are when I was sixteen. I am now seventy. The discoveries I made for myself out of my zeal for the Lord often overturned what I thought was the truth ("''Wow! I didn't know that!''"). In fact, this goes back to when I first went forward at the age of twelve to accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. I silently prayed, as I walked forward, "Lord, if you show me truth, which totally overturns what I think is the truth, then help me to drop that, and cling to what You give me. Amen." I simply wanted to be "honest to God". Always remember [http://www.biblehub.com/multi/matthew/7-8.htm Matthew 7:8].
:''Pax vobis'' Semper Fidelis! --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 11 January 2017 (EST)