I don't like to misrepresent my opponents

My dialogues are not fictional, though sometimes they are slightly fictionalised as to order of presentation (thematic over chronologic), and if you are an Atheist who feels misrepresented by an Atheist I debated or a Protestant who feels misrepresented by a Protestant I debated or a Muslim who feels misrepresented by Yahya Snow, whom I answered (because he's on the web), take it up with these guys.

So, if from such examples or from someone else complaining about the examples, that I continually relish strawmanning positions not my own, here is a video on the topic, not by me, and under it are some comments of mine.

Four Groups You Might be Misrepresenting
5.IX.2022? | Ready to Harvest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGUloMqpywc

2:08 I suppose that you do not believe that a) Christ founded a Church, b) it always believed what it believes now with very secondary variations, c) it always was visible and therefore in the case of past centuries historically verifiable and d) its past positions, when consistent over centuries are so to speak "supreme court jurisprudence" of the original revelation of Christ (except better than a Supreme court which just recently caught up on a horrible error previous judges made 49 and a half years ago).

If I misrepresented the Catholic position that you don't believe the totality of (you'd probably believe part a), you are free to correct me.

Now, would you agree that it is a pretty ridiculous misrepresentation if someone counters "the Church doesn't mean a building"?

Come to think of it, both Christ and Peter called it a building, though. Matthew 16:18 and I Peter 2:5.

3:53 Arminians and Catholics here agree.

As I have seen many Protestants (presumably not Arminian) tell me more than one OSAS proof text, I would adress these as:

• most of them refer to the Church collectively, not to the individual regenerate Christian
• "blessed is he whose sins are forgiven" doesn't mean you have to have security to not go to Hell for future sins : while you remain in a state of grace you are indeed blessed - even if it is a blessing that you can still lose
• "nothing can separate us from" - one Catholic commenter stated "no but we can separate ourselves - by sinning" and another stated "St. Paul was not adressing those who fall away for pressures and worldly or carnal concerns, he's speaking of the stalwart in a solemn moment"

4:40 There is a difference between "whenever you sin" and "whenever you commit mortal sin" - 1) against a commandment, 2) in an important matter (not shoplifting because you're hungry or saying "c'mon dad" because you are tired); 3) with full deliberation and choice.

That's one reason why Reformers rejecting the distinction (at least hinted in 1 John 5:16) is an occasion for confusion.

9:11 Feeneyists - not the dogmatic position of Catholicism, despite what looks like such a dogma in Trent - would answer "thief on the cross" with that thief dying before the Resurrection and Great Commission, therefore before Baptism became the means of salvation.

9:53 Actually, the faith necessary for baptism can be exercised by the sponsor or sponsors.

The parents are normally out, since representing Adam and Eve, the root of the problem.

The point made by St. Augustine is, Christ's work cannot be less powerful than the First Adam's.

And when the child is baptised, God does work habitual faith, not actual acts of faith, necessarily, but habitual faith, in the child. Hence the necessity for Christian educators, since non-Christian ones would be very prone and have the power to deform this faith already begun.

This was the rationale why Edgardo Mortara was taken away from his Jewish parents. As you may know, these had and wavered a right to visit him from time to time, but when Italy conquered the Papal States, they tried to legally kidnap an already adult son to get him away from Catholic priesthood.

He died in 1940, in Belgium, before it was taken by the NS German invaders.

11:17 I used to think that (only very few, with translation - I Cor 14:27), but when Sid Roth spoke of "personal prayer language" I realised the situations are very different, see my essay "A Reflection on Glossolalia" from Aug. 5th 2022 on the blog "Creation vs. Evolution" - it doesn't in itself thematically belong there, but is in a series which does in previous two parts (1. a Catholic young earth creationist not comparable to mega church pastor, 2. a requirement of young earth creationism - indirectly since other creationist positions have been invalidated - is not comparable to a pseudo-requirement of - glossolalia).

Fortunately, I never made I Cor 14:27 a big part of written apologetics against Pentecostals.