Catholic Problems

[One Bad Pig]

Better yet, why not every believer as an earthly representative of Christ, as the Bible teaches? We are a nation of kings and priests! That is not to deny the existence of leaders within Christ's Church, but it does locate actual power within the whole church, as Jesus teaches in Matthew 18, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 5.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO to be their own shepherd; bishops are overseers appointed to watch over their flock. On the other hand, the bishop is to be a servant leader, and he is held accountable for his actions. There are mechanisms for laymen to air grievances with their bishop. Also, the decrees of councils are subject to lay approval (the reunification of East and West at the Council of Florence was overwhelmingly rejected by the laity, for example).

[RBerman]

Dunno; you asked me what I thought of a term, and I told you. I find "Queen of Heaven" similarly prone to abuse, but with that one I do not even see biblical warrant for the reality it intends to affirm.

[RBerman]

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO to be their own shepherd; bishops are overseers appointed to watch over their flock. On the other hand, the bishop is to be a servant leader, and he is held accountable for his actions. There are mechanisms for laymen to air grievances with their bishop. Also, the decrees of councils are subject to lay approval (the reunification of East and West at the Council of Florence was overwhelmingly rejected by the laity, for example).

"Shepherd" can be a helpful metaphor to the extent that it describes the guidance offered by some Christians to other Christians. It could be problematic if used to foster a sense of Otherness and inherent superiority, since the human shepherd is a whole 'nother animal from the sheep he rules.

[RBerman]

Of course. But metaphors and similes are different from names and nicknames that do take the gender of the person referred to. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but those do not function as names for him.

1) Jesus' followers were in fact known originally as "Followers of the Way," which suggests that they may in fact have used that word as an epithet.

2) As we have noted, the actual nickname given to Simon was Cephas.

3) Even if it is a reference to Simon Peter, "I will build my church on this rock" could mean any number of things beyond the doctrine of Papal supremacy which eventually emerged.

[robrecht]

Dunno; you asked me what I thought of a term, and I told you. I find "Queen of Heaven" similarly prone to abuse, but with that one I do not even see biblical warrant for the reality it intends to affirm.

Rhetorical questions do not require answers.

[robrecht]

1) Jesus' followers were in fact known originally as "Followers of the Way," which suggests that they may in fact have used that word as an epithet.

2) As we have noted, the actual nickname given to Simon was Cephas.

3) Even if it is a reference to Simon Peter, "I will build my church on this rock" could mean any number of things beyond the doctrine of Papal supremacy which eventually emerged.

I was merely correcting your grammar, not discussing papal primacy or infallibility.

[TimelessTheist]

All persons are gendered, but that is irrelevant when comparing them to non-persons. For instance, in his poem #5, the Roman poet Catullus famously referred to his female lover as passer, "sparrow," a masculine word.

Okay...seriously, I have to ask, what are you even arguing for? We've already established that both words can mean the exact same thing, so you can't make the argument that Jesus was contrasting the two, and, in fact, in the original Aramaic, they would have been the same word. I don't get it, what case are you trying to make here?

[Darth Xena]

TT, I would like a source for your claim that White compared his critics to terrorists or something similar. I also think you should be a bit more self reflective on your accusation that he acts like a jerk to his opponents. I agree sometimes he does, of course that has zero to do with whether or not he is right, but I have read the way you have attacked very irenic people on this thread and oddly enough it reminded me of when he does that. Glass house meet rock.

[TimelessTheist]

TT, I would like a source for your claim that White compared his critics to terrorists or something similar. I also think you should be a bit more self reflective on your accusation that he acts like a jerk to his opponents. I agree sometimes he does, of course that has zero to do with whether or not he is right, but I have read the way you have attacked very irenic people on this thread and oddly enough it reminded me of when he does that. Glass house meet rock.

Well, I should've been a little more clear about that. You see, there were these people who were urging him to be a little nicer while dealing with one of his opponents, and so, he compared them to radical Muslim protestors, who want to behead people for insulting them. It's right here, with the pictures White made, and everything:

http://jimmyakin.com/2007/08/james-white-has.html

As for your second point, well, I suppose a little rhetoric is fine, however, James White goes way beyond that. You see, he has this John Loftus-esque tactic of challenging his detractors to an oral debate, then claiming victory through tacit admission if they decline, for whatever reason.

Also, when have I ever been mean to someone who didn't deserve it? I don't remember doing such things.

[Darth Xena]

Well, I should've been a little more clear about that. You see, there were these people who were urging him to be a little nicer while dealing with one of his opponents, and so, he compared them to radical Muslim protestors, who want to behead people for insulting them. It's right here, with the pictures White made, and everything:

http://jimmyakin.com/2007/08/james-white-has.html

First, sorry but I have seen too many RCC apologist mischaracterize what he actually said and the link there to the original source is invalid. I want an original source, not Akin's analysis. Akin may be right, I want to see it for myself. I find it ironic though that you would be offended by this in such a way that you are bringing it up seven years later when you are a fan of JP Holding's rhetorical style. Do you also call him a jerk at times? So please get me the source, and I would hope you have things a tad bit more current before defaming a man's whole work and ministry.

For the record: I do think JP can be a jerk at times, as can I-- and JP is well aware of this. I completely support his ministry I actually think there are times when it is perfectly fine to be a jerk, but I don't go around dismissing whole ministries by saying they are jerks. I deal with the substance. I suggest you do likewise otherwise it seems very hypocritical and dependent upon whether the accused jerk agrees with you on the point in question. Not. Good.

As for your second point, well, I suppose a little rhetoric is fine, however, James White goes way beyond that. You see, he has this John Loftus-esque tactic of challenging his detractors to an oral debate, then claiming victory through tacit admission if they decline, for whatever reason.

I agree wholeheartedly with you there on that point. I think he is absolutely wrong to do that. So? I am probably absolutely wrong in the way I handle some things as well, but I wouldn't be too keen on someone defaming my whole ministry based on that.

Also, when have I ever been mean to someone who didn't deserve it? I don't remember doing such things.

Seriously? Try when you kept accusing robrecht of simply thinking something based on ooshy gooshy feelings or things you said to One Bad Pig who has been nothing but very kind and civil (and I disagree with the positions of both men btw).

When someone opposes your position, such as White, it looks imminently bad to sling mud. The arguments are what matter.

I did a critique on White myself, but I did it from a position of agreement. I believe (and demonstrated in detail) that White has a blind nasty spot when it comes to William Lane Craig. I personally agree with White's theology against Craig. I personally get rubbed very much the wrong way by Craig's glad-handing approach. But White is unfair to him.

The fact that you are not self-aware that outside readers might have thought you were jerky in this thread is a problem. Ironically, White has the very same problem. He honestly doesn't see when he acts rudely. Some might say that is better than I am as when I am a jerk, it is usually very premeditated (as it is with JP).

BTW, I do hope you condemn the RCC apologists' use of White's sister in this whole thing. It is repulsive.

[TimelessTheist]

1) JP Holding does not compare people who tell him to be a little nicer, to terrorists who want to cut people's heads off.
2) I don't remember using this as an ad-hominem attack to refute his arguments. As you can see, I actually 'did' respond to his arguments.
3) I also don't remember defaming his entire ministry based on that, I just think James White is a jerk, is all. The other people in his ministry I barely even know about, much less would categorize as a jerk.
4) I wasn't being mean to robrecht, I legitimately thought that was his position, and, even now, I still can't figure out what he was actually basing his argument on.
5) OneBadPig was being civil? Oh, come on! It took me three posts to get him to respond to the points in the Catholic Legate article, instead of just laughing at it, not to mention he did the exact same with the second article I linked.
6) So, you're actually saying that White didn't realize that comparing people asking him to be nicer to violent terrorists was a rude act?

[Darth Xena]

I lead it to the reader to see if you actually engaged with the points. Shame.

1) JP Holding does not compare people who tell him to be a little nicer, to terrorists who want to cut people's heads off.

Actually in doing me a tremendous favour JP compared an internet stalker to someone who walked around with his penis hanging out of his pants asking everyone to admire it. The stalker was pretty offended by it. I am not mentioning names as everyone reconciled at the end of the incident and the articles were deleted at my request. I am sure people can come up with other examples that taken in isolation would invoke the shock and awe you are trying to smear with here from seven years ago. Let me be clear. Merely playing the emotive OMG!!!!! card is unhelpful. I want the original context.

Where is that original link? Why did you ignore my question about White's sister? Man, you are being very transparent here, and it isn't pretty.

2) I don't remember using this as an ad-hominem attack to refute his arguments. As you can see, I actually 'did' respond to his arguments.

No, actually you didn't. You responded to a few points but the crux was that he was a big jerk, and as such, had no credibility. I am truly sorry you can't see you are acting as if you are cut out of the same cloth.

3) I also don't remember defaming his entire ministry based on that, I just think James White is a jerk, is all. The other people in his ministry I barely even know about, much less would categorize as a jerk.

Gee, what does he do well?

4) I wasn't being mean to robrecht, I legitimately thought that was his position, and, even now, I still can't figure out what he was actually basing his argument on.

Yet you jumped to the worst possible conclusions. AFTER he told you that wasn't his position.

5) OneBadPig was being civil? Oh, come on! It took me three posts to get him to respond to the points in the Catholic Legate article, instead of just laughing at it, not to mention he did the exact same with the second article I linked.

The reader can judge that. The Pig is imminently civil. I doubt many people will take your side on this one.

6) So, you're actually saying that White didn't realize that comparing people asking him to be nicer to violent terrorists was a rude act?

Wow, way to twist. First, I don't know whether his comparison was off-base, or he merely has a bad sense of humour. He claimed it was humour. You and Akin are choosing to interpret it otherwise. I want the original article.

Second, White has a blind spot in recognizing his own rudeness. As do you. Funny that.

[TimelessTheist]

I lead it to the reader to see if you actually engaged with the points. Shame.



Actually in doing me a tremendous favour JP compared an internet stalker to someone who walked around with his penis hanging out of his pants asking everyone to admire it. The stalker was pretty offended by it. I am not mentioning names as everyone reconciled at the end of the incident and the articles were deleted at my request. I am sure people can come up with other examples that taken in isolation would invoke the shock and awe you are trying to smear with here from seven years ago.

Where is that original link? Why did you ignore my question about White's sister? Man, you are being very transparent here, and it isn't pretty.




No, actually you didn't. You responded to a few points but the crux was that he was a big jerk, and as such, had no credibility. I am truly sorry you can't see you are acting as if you are cut out of the same cloth.



Gee, what does he do well?



Yet you jumped to the worst possible conclusions. AFTER he told you that wasn't his position.



The reader can judge that. The Pig is imminently civil. I doubt many people will take your side on this one.



Wow, way to twist. First, I don't know whether his comparison was off-base, or he merely has a bad sense of humour. He claimed it was humour. You and Akin are choosing to interpret it otherwise. I want the original article.

Second, White has a blind spot in recognizing his own rudeness. As do you. Funny that.

1) You...can't really be comparing what JP did, to comparing Roman Catholics to violent terrorists, can you?
2) Well, I'll admit I can't give you the original link, as the article has been deleted, however, the fact that James White's fans are attempting to defend his actions in the comments section of said article I linked to, should lend the idea that he actually did write it a little credence. Not to mention, I'm not sure what 'other' context those pictures could be taken in.
3) I never said that, because he was a big jerk, his arguments were invalid. You're just putting words in my mouth, now.
4)"Gee, what does he do well?" He completely destroyed KJV Onlynism, Open Theism, Utilitarianism, so on, and so on. He's also, quite excellently, railed against Islamic apologists a few times, as well as flooring Bart Ehrman in his debate with him
5) No, I made the conclusion, and 'then' he told me it wasn't his position.
6) I take the act of laughing at sources instead of answering them, multiple times, to be uncivil.
7) Well, there's no doubt it was humor, however, there's a limit...or at least I think there is. I don't know, maybe you're right, and White didn't actually recognize that he was crossing the line there.

[Darth Xena]

[B]Well....I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think an article by James White would show up in this debate. I'll have to get back to you on this, as it'll take me a while to sift through his typical brand of arrogant jackassery.

[TimelessTheist]

You know I quickly recanted doing that in the next post, right?

P.S.: Okay, maybe I was a little too mean to him with that response, but still, the points I made stand.

However, I never really said I was being civil in reference to James White to begin with, although, yeah, I guess I went a little too far with that first one. Geez, I mean, if I knew someone would get 'this' upset over it, I wouldn't have said anything at all.