Posted on 11/26/2001 2:49:05 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Rhetorical Questions to myself and other Catholic Apologists here:
After reading numerous threads of what I term the "Freeper Wars," I'm going to state an assumption (which might well be terribly wrong) then ask a few rhetorical questions.
If a "Freeper Wars" thread (you know the type, starts out as a thread of interest to Catholic freepers, then turns into the standard anti-Catholic posts with attempts to defend the faith by the regular Catholic Apologists here) is several days old and several hundred posts long, the "undecided" will be few.
Your apologetics are not intended to convert those whose hearts and minds are closed (although, by the Grace of God it does indeed happen). They are intended to illuminate the intellect and soul of those still open to Truth, and still willing to learn. I doubt that many of those make it to that point in threads here, i.e., when threads are 200 to 300 posts or longer, several days old, etc.
Therefore, your time is being spent only on those you are directly responding to, when they do their own self search.
Is that an effective use of your time and talent? Or would prayer, not words, be more effective at this point? Are we trying to win souls, or points of debate?
Just a few thoughts I ask myself constantly on these types of threads, i.e., where is my time better spent, reading to my kids and spending time with my spouse, or trying to convert those late on a thread whose minds and hearts are hardened? Are there enough lurkers late in a thread to make it worth the amount of time and intense effort to defend the faith that these threads usually entail late in their usual progression?
Thank you, but may I suggest slightly different wording for your post?
I am so glad to see that point of order coming from a Brother who is protestant.
I'd like to keep the focus where it belongs, Brother!
;)
Shalom.
One of those listed has, as a central belief, the teaching that "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man shall become." I think this qualifies as a false gospel. And I feel fully qualified to call it such. More examples could be cited.
I have read much CS Lewis, but not recently, and I cannot claim to be a Lewis scholar. He is a superb apologist for the Christian faith, in my opinion. (He even defended the idea of purgatory.) I am currently re reading the fiction of JRR Tolkien, very close friend of Lewis, and instrumental in bringing Lewis to Christ. Tolkien was a robust Catholic.
Please don't overlook Francis Schaeffer, either. He deals more directly with the role of Christianity in a post-modern world than does Lewis, and is just as easy a read. I would recommend his Trilogy for starters.
Yes, and context is everything, isn't it. That statement refers to our salvation in Christ, not to leadership in the church. :)
REPENT of Catholicism? Your bile is leaking.
Fear?
I fit into this category. I was raised Catholic, but have drifted away from any social religion. To me religion is personal.
Because of this I have never been flamed. Arguing with others about religion seems useless. The purpose of religion should be to lead a more spiritual life, not to convince others to, IMHO.
About the only thing I like to do to others who claim to KNOW the truth about God is to remind them that they are but one of billions of organisms on one planet out of trillions in a vast universe, and that they really don't know anything at all. A real, modern-day flat earth society...
FReegards...
Peace.
Only Jesus Saves
Question from Steve on 11-19-2001:I was in a Catholic chatroom posting bible quotes in a debate with a "Born Again" type proponent, and several Catholics in the room told me to stop quoting the bible like a Protestant and ignore those who come into the room challenging the Catholic faith. They told me Jesus alone saves and I should leave it to him. I was very disppointed and did not have any good repsonse. They also told me when Mormans and Jehovah's witnesses come to my door, I should ignore them too because my attempts to convert them is the job of Jesus and not me.
Answer by Catholic Answers on 11-19-2001:
Keep speaking the truth in love. Christ uses us, if we are willing, to introduce others to himself. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, 'that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life.' For lay people, 'this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world.'This witness of life, however, is not the sole element in the apostolate; the true apostle is on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" (§905).
Jan Wakelin Catholic Answers
In His Peace,
Dr. Brian Kopp
That was precisely my point. You interpret this passage to apply only to salvation. I interpret this passage to say that the rules do not apply differently to men or to women. We both know it doesn't apply to whether men can have babies or women can grow beards. We have to interpret what we read. This doesn't make Holy Scripture any less the enerrent Word of G-d. It's just that our imperfection allows us to misinterpret what G-d has said.
When we reconcile the two - the fact that in Christ there is neither male nor female but that Paul does not allow a woman to be in authority over a man, you have chosen to limit the context of the first. I chose to note that the 2 Timothy passage is based on Paul's preference "I do not allow" rather than a law of G-d. Given the number of women Paul greets as leaders of their own churches, and the woman who taught Apollos the Gospel, I don't accept that Paul insisted that women can not be leaders. We have each chosen our own way of reconciling the two passages, each chosen our own way to look at the context. That means we should be able to discuss the issue as reasonable adults who recognize our basic similarity rather than fight about our differences.
My mind is not closed on the issue. And I don't respect the RC church any less for its position.
Shalom.
How do you know this? And is this assertion of yours absolutely true?
I have to say that I find female leadership in the church totally impossible to reconcile with the totality of scripture. There is such a beauty in the picture of biblical man and womanhood that's just destroyed when you put women in charge.
You know, I recently watched a two part series on Victoria and Albert. (I highly recommend it, by the way.) Any Christian holding to traditional biblical views of gender roles would have immediately recognized the problem of a man having his wife for his queen. *G*
Ditto for "pastor".
God bless.
I do, exactly as Christ is the head of the church. "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransome for many."
My wife and I share the decisions in the home. In areas where I have more knowledge, I make the decisions, although I always run those decisions by her before making them so she will always know what is going on. In areas where she has more knowledge, I would be a fool to assume that responsibility. She makes those decisions and I trust her. Of course, she also runs them by me. What kind of fool would refuse a gift given to him by G-d such as a wife who makes excellent financial decisions?
So what do I mean by head? It is my responsibility to give my life for the family. Thankfully the requirement has only been to lay down my wants and desires for the good of my wife and children. But if it ever required giving up my physical life - that is still the requirement.
So, let's relate this practically to a church. I'll speak to a protestant church, but it will apply somewhat to a Catholic church as well. I have been in a protestant church where the person most gifted musically was a woman. She picked out the music, rehearsed the choir, made all the sound arrangements, arranged music, hired musicians, etc., etc. In fact, when Jonathan Settel came one Sunday as a guest he told me he assumed she was the Worship Leader. But, of course, she was not. A man had to stand at the microphone because women were not allowed to be leaders. I call this stupid, but in a nice way. She had the gift, and G-d had given her and her gift to the congregation. As long as the Pastor held the final authority (as he did with anyone, male or female) why should the church create a false veneer (sp?) of male leadership? In the same way, I have known many male pastors who were not up to the task, their wives did most of the work. Why hold to the veneer of male leadership. The woman was a gift from G-d. Why not allow the gift to be used?
That said, I know that a Catholic Priest is not a protestant pastor. Protestant pastors are primarily business administrators. Catholic's see the role of Priest as different and I will not argue the validity of the Priesthood. It makes sense that the Catholics, seeing the Priest as a representative of Jesus in the congregation, would require the Priest be male. But if the best person to run the associated school is a woman, let her be in leadership over the school, IMO.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.