Sunday, July 15, 2007

Blog History and Mission

But These Are Written was launched on July 15, 2007. This blog reflects my interest in apologetics with a current focus on exposing the errors of Roman Catholicism and promoting Sola Scriptura.

All of the material prior to July 2007 was transferred over from my previous blog Of Christian Women. I arbitrarily made up most of the posting dates.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to move over all of the comments associated with the previous blog although I did manually import the comments of the most recent posts. I hope to eventually establish links back to my old blog (for each post) so that past commentary can be accessed. Until then, older posts may refer to comments although there are none showing.

My mission here is two-fold.

First, I want to educate other Protestants on Roman Catholicism as I believe it is important to understand that the gospel of Rome is not the Gospel of Christ. This involves not only looking at what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, but also refuting the erroneous claims by Catholic e-pologists.

Second, this blog is a convenient place to document my research for future reference. I have Catholic family and friends and I want to gather as much information as I can to help in witnessing to them.

What this blog is not about is changing the minds of online Catholics. As such, I will not be forced to answer every refutation of what I post. Eventually I hope to make a list of common tactics by Catholic e-pologists so I don’t have to keep replying to the same rhetoric.

Note, I have created some commenting rules for interacting here. Please read through those rules before submitting a comment.

Thanks for stopping by.

9 comments:

Reginald de Piperno said...

Would you care to explain rule #8?

You do understand the meaning of the term, right? It refers to those who deny that a Catholic who believes everything that the Church proposes for belief can be Christian.

Any particular reason that term is objectionable?

Carrie said...

Where is that official definition located?

Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: anti
: opposed to : AGAINST

Main Entry: Catholic
1 : a person who belongs to the universal Christian church
2 : a member of a Catholic church; especially : ROMAN CATHOLIC


I am not opposed to people, I am opposed to the system.

And I see it not only as inaccurate but unnecessary.

Reginald de Piperno said...

Whatever. I'll grant that my definition isn't strictly according to Webster, although IMO you can certainly find traces of it here, and I think it legitimately applies to anyone who denies that the Catholic Church is Christian.

But it strikes me (and I'll wager I'm not the only one) as more than a little bizarre for your rules - which otherwise have to do with decorum and courtesy - to include a ban on a specific word. I can't help but wonder if it strikes a nerve somehow. But it's your blog.

BTW you might want to fix #5 (or else clarify it a bit): it refers to #2, but that doesn't make sense. Did you mean #4?

Carrie said...

I am trying to do you all a favor by not allowing the use of "anti-Catholic". Instead of trying to overcome your opponent with pejoratives, you can focus instead of the content of your argument.

Now I have to figure out a way to outlaw phrases like "I can't help but wonder if it strikes a nerve somehow".

Thanks for catching the numbering mistake - I fixed it.

Reginald de Piperno said...

But - as soon as you try outlawing every phrase that can be used in any loaded fashion, you're going to reduce the blog's commenters to grunts and squeals :-)

As for the use of pejoratives...well, if your purpose really is to aid us, I'm sure that it will be no trouble at all for us to watch for them being flung in our direction, too :-)

Carrie said...

I'm sure that it will be no trouble at all for us to watch for them being flung in our direction, too

I promise not to call you an anti-Protestant.

Elena said...

I'm going to do you a big favor Carrie and not bookmark the new site. Of Christian women had enough problems with the corrupted Blogging Chicks code that I doubt I'll want to wait the three minutes or so forthat blog to load for me to come to this one!

By moving your blog you just interupted your own traffic flow and that's good enough for me.

Have a nice life.

pilgrim said...

Good distinction on the anti-phrases.

It is very important to distinguish between the people and the system of belief.

I've done that for years, and will continue to do so as I discuss the differences between the RC gospel and the Biblical gospel

So far so good for here...

Leo said...

Carrie said... "exposing the errors of Roman Catholicism and promoting Sola Scriptura."

You mean attacking what you perceive is error, for you cannot in truth say that anyone is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, for they utilize scripture and their right to interpret it as they see fit - private interpretation.
You have no right to tell someone that their respective interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

"First, I want to educate other Protestants on Roman Catholicism as I believe it is important to understand that the gospel of Rome is not the Gospel of Christ."

You believe that the Church is wrong, you cannot say in truth that it is wrong, because you have no authority to deem such, you may leave us your opinion, but you may not say that my interpretation of scripture is error, for that is only in so far as it does not comply with yours, and what you believe is the gospel of Christ, others might not see the same way that you do.

"... erroneous claims by Catholic e-pologists."

What you believe are erroneous claims, for your interpretation of the scripture is not binding on everyone else, if I wish to believe that Ch. 6 of Matt. is literal, that is biblical, and that is my belief, and you cannot condemn it without condemning not only the Bible, but also your precious doctrine of private interpretation.

Also, it helps with the civility and and overall atmosphere if we don't run around saying to each other that someone is not christian based on individual interpretation of scripture with no real authority to say so.