Rhetorical Questions to myself and other Catholic Apologists here

[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?

[Petronski]

Thanks for the welcome junior, but I've been here longer than you and I know you well enough to recognize you as FreeRepublic's leading Catholic-baiter. But I do love irony, and accusations of 'baiting' coming from you are certainly rich in irony.

[logos]

To be sure, I wasn't trying to be confrontational either. I think my comments will make a little more sense if read in the context of the poster who was questioning me, and also admit that we may very well be using somewhat differing definitions of the words faith and religion. That said, I generally try to overlook the "exclusive" tone of many of the Catholic Church pronouncements, and think of you all as by brothers/sisters in Christ. :-)

I've always thought of religion as the organized practice of one's faith, which would certainly include the Catholic Church (and many others, for that matter, Christian or not).

By the by, are you aware that Dietrich Bonhoeffer had been working on a theology of "religionless Christianity" prior to his arrest and execution by the Nazis toward the end of WWII? He was never able to flesh out his ideas, and so far as I know, no one has yet picked up on his thoughts and added to them, but loosely understood, I believe he was intrigued by the example of Christ's ministry as presented in the Gospels; i.e., he walked out from wherever he had spent the night, "walked" his ministry through the day, and spent the following night wherever he happened to have arrived, only to repeat the process the next day. I must admit I find that idea somewhat intriguing myself, if only for its simplicity.

I assure you I meant no offense, but you do leave me in somewhat of a quandary ... if I call you folks "the Church," what do I call myself?

[So ... here I stand, arms spread wide open, waiting, having offered you carte blanche as to your reply...:)]

[martian_22]

Defend Catholic people first.
Defend isms second.

I hope that helps.

[Unbeliever]

Thank you for lumping me, a committed Catholic Christian who has accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and a published pro-life author, homeschooling father, and physician, in with homosexuals and lefties. It says much about the version of the "gospel" that you claim to represent.

Seems like a natural place actually, given the number of "catholic-demoCCCPrats" as there are at the pols every election and the frequency with which your cult is sued over priests pedophilia.

Oh, by the way, jumping threads (like you are doing here) is just as much an offense against the FR guidelines as posting a 7646 word spam to a thread. Even scripture quotes can indeed be used as spam, to purposely take up bandwidth, purposely make a thread too long to load, and purposely substitute for valid,reasoned,rational thought, especially when they fail to support your position.

Given how much catholic drivel you insist on posting I think any reasonable individual would consider what you're doing is spam. What I've posted has been succinct as possible and germaine in ALL aspects. The fact that you cannot honestly answer and want to keep crying to moderators shows you to be as intellectually corrupt as your cult is theologically corrupt.

[Tribune7]

Ever notice how the most virulent anti-Catholic protestant ministers end up in some form of national disgrace?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Ad hominem. Go to bed; maybe your debating skills will be sharper in the morning.

God bless you and have a good night's rest. Be assured of my continued prayers for you.

---Dr. Kopp

[Brian Kopp DPM]

What I've posted has been succinct as possible and germaine in ALL aspects

Brevity is the soul of wit. No 7000 word post is either succinct or germaine.

You do not fail to amuse, and you rarely disappoint in fulfilling your role as the house anti-Catholic bigot.

Keep up the good work. With every insult and bigoted remark, you show your true nature and the moral bankruptcy of your personal [mis]interpretation of scripture.

[Romulus]

You STILL haven't ever shown me where Jesus or any of the Apostles taught anyone to "venerate" images.

"at the name of Jesus every knee should bow"

This is veneration not of Jesus, but of a thing -- his name -- that represents him. It is not idolatry, of course, because it's understood that the veneration passes to its prototype. The Church's veneration of images derives from the Incarnation, in which God himself, through the cooperation of the Virgin Mary, made his own image.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

It is not idolatry, of course, because it's understood that the veneration passes to its prototype. The Church's veneration of images derives from the Incarnation, in which God himself, through the cooperation of the Virgin Mary, made his own image

Unfortunately, the unibeliever already knows this. On other threads he has posted the CCC excerpt that says essentially what you said to him. That just is not good enough for him here. He wants to see "veneration of images" spelled out word for word in scripture.

Of course it is not spelled out word for word in scripture, any more than "Trinity," as we understand it today, is spelled out LITERALLY in scripture.

He does not realize that his manner of debating veneration is the same as the JW's manner of debating "Trinity."

If he were consistent in his scriptural demands, he would be a JW, denying the reality of the Trinity as Christians understand it today. But he does not let logical inconsistency cloud his anti-Catholic bigotry.

[independentmind]

assure you I meant no offense, but you do leave me in somewhat of a quandary ... if I call you folks "the Church," what do I call myself?

I wish I knew how to answer that.:o)

[Romulus]

if I call you folks "the Church," what do I call myself?

You call yourself "logos." Some of us may wonder if that isn't over-reaching, but naturally we're too polite to mention it. ;-)

[Romulus]

Unfortunately, the unibeliever already knows this.

I know. I'm not really talking to him or the others whose cults are founded on an anti-theology of rebellion, rather than on faith, but to those who are already open to the truth. They're not as noisy, but they're out there, and they read what we write.

[Unbeliever]

"at the name of Jesus every knee should bow"

This is veneration not of Jesus, but of a thing -- his name -- that represents him.

In case you haven't noticed a name is NOT an idol or anything physical that can be created by human hands.

It is not idolatry, of course, because it's understood that the veneration passes to its prototype. The Church's veneration of images derives from the Incarnation, in which God himself, through the cooperation of the Virgin Mary, made his own image.

You people mindlessly repeat that man made doctrine, yet nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of the "veneration" of images of Jesus or anyone else. In fact, ACTS 19:21-41 chronicles how the idol makers of Ephesus nearly rioted because the spread of the Gospel meant the end of their business.

ACTS 19:21 ¶ After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome.
ACTS 19:22 So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.
ACTS 19:23 And the same time there arose no small stir about that way.
ACTS 19:24 For a certain [man] named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;
ACTS 19:25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.
ACTS 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
ACTS 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
ACTS 19:28 And when they heard [these sayings], they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great [is] Diana of the Ephesians.
ACTS 19:29 And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.
ACTS 19:30 And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not.
ACTS 19:31 And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring [him] that he would not adventure himself into the theatre.
ACTS 19:32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.
ACTS 19:33 And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defence unto the people.
ACTS 19:34 But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great [is] Diana of the Ephesians.
ACTS 19:35 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, [Ye] men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the [image] which fell down from Jupiter?
ACTS 19:36 Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.
ACTS 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
ACTS 19:38 Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.
ACTS 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
ACTS 19:40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
ACTS 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

[Unbeliever]

Unfortunately, the unibeliever already knows this. On other threads he has posted the CCC excerpt that says essentially what you said to him. That just is not good enough for him here. He wants to see "veneration of images" spelled out word for word in scripture.

There is not the slightest hint to support you but plenty of condemnation of idolatry.

Of course it is not spelled out word for word in scripture, any more than "Trinity," as we understand it today, is spelled out LITERALLY in scripture.

I JOHN 5:6 ¶ This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
I JOHN 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
I JOHN 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
I JOHN 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

[Romulus]

What is this idol of Diana that fell down from Jupiter? A meteorite? There are many idols that aren't made by human hands. It isn't the agency of manufacture that's key; it's the confusion of the thing with its symbol. The name of God is not God in itself, yet we venerate it because it represents him.

You DO venerate the name of God, right? Why?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Here is a valid argument from a protestant source that the doctrine of the Trinity is not scriptural:

What About Trinity "Proof Texts"?

IT IS said that some Bible texts offer proof in support of the Trinity. However, when reading such texts, we should keep in mind that the Biblical and historical evidence does not support the Trinity.

Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible. Very often the true meaning of such a text is clarified by the context of surrounding verses.

Three in One

THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such "proof texts" but also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19."

In those verses the three "persons" are listed as follows in The New Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together in this way: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." First Corinthians 12:4-6 says: "There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; there are many different ways of serving, but it is always the same Lord. There are many different forms of activity, but in everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all." And Matthew 28:19 reads: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one.

This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor.",/b>

Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14): "We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature." And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity."

When Jesus was baptized, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also mentioned in the same context. Jesus "saw descending like a dove God's spirit coming upon him." (Matthew 3:16) This, however, does not say that the three are one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numerous times, but that does not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named together, but that does not make them one either. Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, showing that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time. This being so, how could he be part of a Trinity where he had always been one with the holy spirit?

Another reference that speaks of the three together is found in some older Bible translations at 1 John 5:7. Scholars acknowledge, however, that these words were not originally in the Bible but were added much later. Most modern translations rightly omit this spurious verse.

Other "proof texts" deal only with the relationship between two—the Father and Jesus. Let us consider some of them.

*****

So, if scriptural proof texts are inadequate to prove the doctrine of the Trinity as you and I accept it, then what authority DID define the doctrine of the Trinity as you and I understand it. It clearly is NOT clear from a reading of scripture alone.

By the way, after I left Catholicism for your type of Christianity, the lack of scriptural proof texts for the doctrine of the Trinity helped bring me back home. If you are intellectually honest and take a literal interpretation of scripture, ignoring Catholic development of doctrine, you should be a JW.

[logos]

Small 'l', Romulus, small 'l'... :)

[Although about two years ago, I got a ping to this question, "You're not him, are you?" Really.]

[Brian Kopp DPM]

"You're not him, are you?"

LOL

Not long ago, a question was asked whether priests could hear confessions electronically. The answer was in the negative.

I have to wonder...Today confession is done either "face-to-face" or "behind the screen."

Would cyberspace confessions be "in front of the screen?"

[Brian Kopp DPM]

They're not as noisy, but they're out there, and they read what we write.

True. And they read the words of the unibelievers, and see clearly. Here's parts of two of many private comments I treasure:

Re: Freeper Wars: Bible Christians Versus Roman Catholic/Orthodox: A Question For All	READ
********	2001 22:30:12
Beautiful conversion story! I was a semi-regular reader of the Neverending Story threads, the first 50 anyway :-) I ...had the crummy Sunday school where we sang kumbaya and all the kiddie songs. I learned bible stories, but not much else by the 7th grade. I became really lost and basically . . . I went away to college, and was miserable. By the end of the year I joined The Navigators, a campus christian group. Was "converted" then. . . . Which is how I met my husband. I believe God always gives us a "good alternative" even in the worst of times . . . ('93). Fast forward to '98... Free Republic! I had been attending a ******* church until the substitute preacher "dissed" most of my family by bashing Catholics from the pulpit. I was disgusted and stopped going altogether. I was shocked by the ignorance of folks about Catholicism (my neighbor thought we didn't believe in the Trinity?? Come on!), and I myself knew I was pretty ignorant as well. These threads starting popping up all over, so I *had* to read a couple. If the cogent, well reasoned Catholic posters weren't enough to buttress my faith, the vile attacks certainly were. I began reading a bit more outside of FR, staying up all night some nights. I haven't yet found a bit of Catholic doctrine or dogma I disagree with! We've joined our local Church. Joyfully, **

Re: Over 8000 Bible Christian ministers learn---Being Catholic Means Losing Everything --Thread 2	REPLIED
*****	2001 18:47:07
Thank you for your posts. I attended Catholic schools and come from a Catholic family, although I never personally practiced Catholicism. I'm 31 and didn't really believe in Jesus until about 3 years ago. After reading the articles you've posted, the responses to them and much prayer and personal study, I am now talking to a Priest about Conversion into the Catholic Church. ****

What more can we ask for?