A friend of mine facebook messaged me this question:

Do you ever question if the Catholic Church is the "correct" Church? How do we argue our documents weren't tampered with?

I'm not very good at apologetics, so I'm not sure how to answer her.
Can someone help me?

How do we know that the Declaration of Independence hasn't been tampered with? Or the Constitution? Maybe all the plays of Shakespeare were tampered with...or maybe the Bible itself was tampered with.....

How can you prove to me that you actually exist, and are not just a figment of my imagination? Or maybe the world was only created 30 seconds ago, and all your apparent 'memories' were implanted in your brain to fool you into thinking that you are older....

This kind of arbitrary skepticism ultimately refutes itself....

Ultimately, you can't 'prove that ANY document hasn't been tampered with'.....it is impossible to prove that kind of negative statement...all one can do is say that there is no evidence that they have been tampered with....

It is not up to us to 'prove that the documents haven't been tampered with', it is rather up to the critic to prove that they have been...

First rule of apologetics (well, one of the first rules): Never answer a vague question. Ask clarifying questions in return: What documents does your friend mean? What sort of tampering does she think might have happened? Who did the alleged tampering? What was the tamperer's motive?

Good advice, I would say the second rule is 'only allow discussion of one topic at a time', in general it is much easier to attack Catholicism than to defend it, because a critic can easily make a 2-3 sentence attack that contains half a dozen attacks, each of which would take at least a couple hundred pages to effectively answer....and one thing critics love doing is distracting you, when you are barely beginning your response to the first question they pummel you with a dozen more....

Actually, the second rule would be to ask them why they think so and so would be the case.

Actually, there are no RULES.

Actually, I'm really just referring to Koukl's Tactics--fabulous book. I highly, highly, highly recommend it. He starts by teaching the Columbo Method, which is essentially the same as Obi's suggestion. Ask what do they mean. "So you say that you're an atheist. Can you tell me what you mean by the term?" Or in this case, "You ask how I know our documents haven't been tampered with. Forgive me for being slow, but can you tell me which documents you are talking about? What do you mean by tampered?" If she were to say, "Well, you know, like how do you know various council's findings haven't been altered over the years?" You could reply with, "That's a fine question, but so I can make sure we're talking about the same thing, tell me . . . what makes you think that they might have been altered?" If she has something in mind, she'll tell you, and then you can have a specific conversation. If not, well then you're probably just dealing with a type of selective skepticism, which you could point out in follow up questions.

Such a good book.

edit:

But what you said is true, too, Doom!

Broken clocks and dog's lucky days I s'pose . . .

I would answer with a declaration of faith because without us having faith in God we have very little. Faith is a belief in things that you cannot see but believe in. I don't think it is wrong to question things nor is it wrong to question whether the Church is correct or not. It is fine to do this if you then go into a mode of study and prayer and then your faith will be built up. I would suggest that you come up with a specific question because there are those on this site that can answer almost anything you come up with. What specifically has been bothering you?

Okay, so how do I know that I exist and I'm not a figment of someone's imagination? Cogito ergo sum - and all that!
Document's tampered with? Which one's?
Those prior to the Protestant era perhaps... er... do you mean when the Catholic Church (with the Eastern rite) were the only Church around and there wouldn't be any reason to mess with documents?

Sorry but the question has me kinda

If someone ever were to ask me that question, my answer would be no. For me, I question things when I don't understand something or when something doesn't make sense to me. I have yet to ask a question that the Catholic Church hasn't been able to give me a satisfactory answer. When I put into practice the teachings of the Catholic Church, I find more peace, more love and more happiness in my life.

Lisa

I wondered the same thing! I read Early Christan Writings .. Penguin books... The students iof the apostles answered my questions.

Write her back and ask her if she knows what flouride is.

This is a question that can be answered by looking at specifics. The accuser has the burden of responsibility. They must tell you what document he thinks was tampered with? If he can't give you one then it is an empty accusation.
If he does have one in mind, then ask him What is the evidence that it was tampered with?

How do you know the Baptist Church isn't the Church Christ started? It's just common sense.

No, the Baptist church was founded by John the Baptist....that is why it is named after him....

Emphasis mine.

That might be a standard in a debate or philosophy class, but I find that it seldom applies in modern conversation. Where none of the rules of discourse and logic apply. Based upon, I believe, the contemporary belief that all standards are relative and that all opinions are equally and unarguably valid.

In my several contentious conversations I have had with others on the Church and my faith, I have found that the accuser refuses to accept any responsibility for their accusations. And they refuse to accept the basic truth that I choose to believe as the basis for my faith -- they insist that I "prove" to their satisfaction that my faith is irrefutable. Plus they seem to think that if they can trot out the list of gotchas (Why does God permit evil?, etc.), that they have advanced proofs that are indisputable.

So, I don't discuss religion with them anymore.

Which one? John the First Baptist or one of the others ... such as John the Second Baptist.

John the Park Street Baptist.

GKC

Ah, I knew I could count on you....to get it. Here we have John the Hoffman Town Baptist.

l think it was John Smyth, who founded the Baptist Church in Amsterdam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists