G
goout
Guest
Can you reiterate your point? Seems you are just making an observation now.
- Status
B
Bradski
Guest
This was to Charles:
And I include all Catholics, not just those on the forum.
T
tonyrey
Guest
B
Bradski
Guest
Xray records from the 19th century?
L
LethalMouse
Guest
Yet it was Jesus who said the “Narrow Gate”
Every aspect of the religion though often overlooked suggests there will be FAR more heretics, lapse, and general bad Christians than good.
In fact isn’t that the point of no prevail over the church? When a SUPER DUPER majority of everyone Catholic and not all cry out for these things, the church stays true, the teaching doesn’t change and the church survives.
In fact the entire point of divine intervention is BEST represented in the fact that the numbers of those who hold to teaching are small.
IN fact technically if there were like 500 Catholics who were actually Catholic left and all others said against them, it would still quite frankly fit.
The logic of go with the crowd is why we have the prophesy. In the end, it is the super majority that “go with the crowd” and are then led to assault God. Foolishly and sadly.
So assuming ours correct for arguments sake
to find that there are more people than not being “bad” is actually exactly as was stated by The Man Himself.You actually essentially defend prophesy
A
Aloysium
Guest
X-rays serve as an extension of the visual sense. Tactile as well as direct visual perception are far superior. But, such findings are subjective and a tangible objective thing such as X-ray may be considered more real by those who have a relativistic view of what constitutes truth. FYI the shadows that appear on the screen require interpretation.
What are you trying to get at?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
There seems to be a persistent illusory allegation made here by the resident atheist that the majority rules in the Catholic Church. It does not. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy with Christ the King in charge and delegating authority to all who govern the Church.
Saint Paul was the first to note in several of his epistles that many of the early Christians were straying from what Christ had taught, and he exhorted them to return to the fold.
Today the problem is even worse because the media and academia collude to lead Catholics astray. Political correctness has run amuck, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the fact that Catholics are thoroughly conditioned and led by the nose to endorse the lies of the media and academia as if they were God’s truth.
Saint Paul was the first to note in several of his epistles that many of the early Christians were straying from what Christ had taught, and he exhorted them to return to the fold.
Today the problem is even worse because the media and academia collude to lead Catholics astray. Political correctness has run amuck, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the fact that Catholics are thoroughly conditioned and led by the nose to endorse the lies of the media and academia as if they were God’s truth.
G
goout
Guest
The word Catholic means something.
As a new poster here I am amazed at the amount of word twisting that goes on.
Originally the assertion was that Catholic is defined by the behavior and beliefs of various Catholics.
That is not true. But really I am not sure what Brad was asserting now.
The word Catholic has a specific content.
I’m getting dizzy now going round in circles.
As a new poster here I am amazed at the amount of word twisting that goes on.
Originally the assertion was that Catholic is defined by the behavior and beliefs of various Catholics.
That is not true. But really I am not sure what Brad was asserting now.
The word Catholic has a specific content.
I’m getting dizzy now going round in circles.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Welcome to the philosophy sub forum! You’ll encounter a lot of what might be labeled as “word twisting.” But some of that might be from people trying to be precise about their declarations as small nuances can makde differences in their arguments.
There is also something to be said about prescriptive and descriptive views or language and also connotations and decorations. But that is a topic for another thread.
T
truetofaith
Guest
The word catholic means…universal.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Where is that written down? It is not at least an occasion of sin?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
A deeply affectionate relationship between two people of the same sex cannot be condemned. The attraction may be real, but never immoral unless it culminates in sodomy.
The same is true of any man and woman living together without sexual relations yet in a deeply loving relationship.
L
Leifler
Guest
And the same is true like another thread discussing age differences. But in common tongue it is a rare thing indeed that we are seeing these things in oure innocent form. I am sure there exists those religious minded homosexuals who might live this, but how many people have you met that are non-actively gay while embracing their SSA?
Similarly does not the church denounce cohabitation as a sin of scandal? And such would apply to a gay “couple”? If two engaged people living together always implies more, then how does a homosexual couple not equally imply the same?
In fairness I am sure it is sort of technically possible as you put it, but such is to really walk a line indeed.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So far, so good.
Here us where you begin to go astray. No, someone who says they “don’t believe in God” may mean by that a number of subtle things.
They may not trust God, which is not necessarily the same as dismissing the existence of God, outright. They may, in fact, be convinced of the existence of God or be agnostic, either of which does not “by definition” make them a Christian, at the same time as they insist they have no “faith” in God – i.e., don’t trust him, whether or not he exists.
It is true that someone who does not believe that God exists cannot be, by definition, a theist, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are necessarily a Christian if they do believe that God exists. Belief or lack of belief in God’s existence does not mean the person is or is not a Christian, necessarily. It could be true, for example, that even if they don’t believe that God exists they may still be an unintentional “Christian.” What if they are living a life that emulates all the principles that Christ taught and are, whether consciously or not, acting as a follower of Christ? Why would they not be a “Christian,” despite their objections to being called one?
I would object to your negative characterization with regard to what makes someone a Christian or Catholic. AND I would still object that it isn’t simply a matter of self-identification because anyone could claim to being either Christian or Catholic for a number of illicit reasons, which renders the reality of what it means to actually be one, null.
I mean if you want to make self-identification the standard for actually being something, then I self-identify as a genius. Does that alone make me one? If it does, then it would, at the same time, render meaningless the actual meaning of what it means to be that thing.
Furthermore, you are attempting to make a negative case by claiming someone who doesn’t “believe” in God CANNOT, by definition, be a Christian, but that avoids completely the issue of what it actually means to be one. Again, a problem for your negative characterization.
If neither you nor I are in the position to determine whether someone is a Christian or Catholic, I would suppose that would mean, that neither is the one claiming to be Christian or Catholic “in a position to determine” whether they themselves actually are. I mean what makes them any more competent than either you or I if the task is so completely beyond either of us – in particular, beyond the capacity of rational rats to make the relevant determinations?
At the very least, we ought to be asking why these self-ascribed individuals think they are Christian or Catholic and if they show sufficiently good cause to be considered either, then we can use their justification to then make a proper assessment with regard to everyone else. Shouldn’t the claimant need to demonstrate their competency, beyond yours or mine, to make the determination before we agree to put them in the “position to determine” without possible embarrassment whether they are or are not?
Which is my position, essentially. I wouldn’t suppose any of us can make such a claim about anyone else, or about ourselves, which is why I suggest the best judge of whether someone is or is not a Christian or Catholic is God alone.
I would also suggest that it is possible to lay down clear Christian or Catholic principles for what it would take to be one or the other. Otherwise, both terms are essentially meaningless. Now whether or not anyone happens to fit perfectly all of those principles I would willingly leave to God and insist is beyond my paygrade, even with regard to self-identification.
Ergo, we can be competent to compile a set of principles for what it means to “be” Christian or Catholic (the CCC, for example,) all the while expressing complete reticence regarding determining who specifically meets those principles to a degree sufficient to be called or call oneself, for that matter, one or the other.
In short, if you or I are not competent to use the labels Christian or Catholic with regard to any specific individuals, then neither are self-described “Christians” or “Catholics” necessarily any more competent to apply either label to themselves.
Personally, I would be far more comfortable with the majority or people actually being Christian or Catholic, even while renouncing claims to being either, than having a bunch of pretenders walking around calling themselves either while flaccidly or “loosely” following what it actually means to be either.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Agreed. I don’t think it is an occasion of sin if two loving members of the same sex live together but live a chaste life together, and I can envision the possibility that this is more common than we know.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
As to whether self proclaiming Christians are really Christian, the ultimate criterion is whether they not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. In both cases, humility and obedience to the word of God are paramount.
L
Leifler
Guest
I would not personally put any money on it, but I can’t know either way.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The Church doesn’t have to teach that homosexual unions are wrong because it is self-evident that platonic relationships are not wrong and need not be an occasion of sin. Otherwise all platonic relationships between members of the same sex (including those of the saints) would have been condemned…
L
Leifler
Guest
So you are taking the stance that when people speak of homosexual relationships it is the same thing as every same sex friendship? That is a pretty big bunch of word plays
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I don’t speak for tonyrey, but i suppose homosexuals can live a chaste life, even as heterosexuals can live a chaste life living in platonic friendship with a person of the opposite sex. Such relationships needn’t lead inevitably to sodomy, though some or many may.so you are taking the stance that when people speak of homosexual relationships it is the same thing as every same sex friendship? That is a pretty big bunch of word plays
But none of this has anything to do with the thread topic.
I repeat what I said earlier: there is no best argument for atheism.
All the arguments are deeply flawed, some perhaps more deeply flawed than others.
So the best one can ask for is the least deeply flawed.
If I was an atheist, I’d be embarrassed to offer the least deeply flawed argument.
On the other hand, none of the arguments for God are deeply flawed, though some might be more plausible than others.
- Status