[ - ] Reunto 1 point 2 monthsApr 12, 2025 19:35:42 ago (+1/-0)
Zero of them are behaving as Christians are called to behave.
If "none" and "zero" are hyperbole, I can see that as a criticism of people not living up to the doctrines they preach.
But the measure of how closely one fits inside the parameters of doctrines counts for less than the willingness and drive to try to be better and realign (cf parable of the Pharisee and Publican). Like a kid doing chores to try to make their parents proud, it's not the number of dishes the parent is observing, it is the effort within the context of their abilities.
The question comes down to whether the doctrine they are trying to asymptotally approach is good.
Criticisms of the hearts of people is one thing. It's hard or altogether impossible for us to knows the hearts of others in some cases (especially in the absence of observed fruit, good or bad). But the soundness of doctrine is something we can explore, by rational thinking and by discerning feeling.
I agree that there are false Christians pretending to be Christian. But for those that earnestly seek after Christ within a framework of sound doctrine, I would hold these individuals as Christian.
From the perspective of Catholicism, I propose a nonconcurrence to your statement "none of them are actually Christian" based on two premises:
1) The hearts of at least some individuals earnestly seek Christ
2) The earnest search for Christ within sound doctrine makes them Christians
3) Catholic doctrine is sound. Catholic doctrine should not be confused with any and every word uttered by clergy or even the Church fathers, but may instead be loosely captured by a) the CCC, b) the Code of Canon law, c) episcopal (regional) edicts, d) the Traditions
My sense of your argument is that you were presenting hyperbole, meaning you agree with premise 1. I assume that you agree in principle with premise 2. The remaining question would come back to whether you have a standing criticism for Catholic doctrine. If you do, your criticism is either going to be a rational objection or an objection based on feeling. Either kind of argument has the potential to be compelling. I'm just not sure exactly what leads you to take the position you do.
Genuinely curious, you've been a user for a long time since old voat.
If "none" and "zero" are hyperbole, I can see that as a criticism of people not living up to the doctrines they preach.
Yes.
But the measure of how closely one fits inside the parameters of doctrines counts for less than the willingness and drive to try to be better and realign (cf parable of the Pharisee and Publican).
This is basically what I mean. It’s not about “doctrine to the letter.” It’s about so much as actually trying whatsoever in any respect. The Bible says very, VERY specific things–to do and not to do–and no one’s doing a goddamned one of them.
It's hard or altogether impossible for us to knows the hearts of others in some cases (especially in the absence of observed fruit, good or bad).
The fruit is bad. There are zero revolts against the genocide of Christendom anywhere on Earth.
My sense of your argument is that you were presenting hyperbole, meaning you agree with premise 1. I assume that you agree in principle with premise 2.
I have to have an addendum about “within sound doctrine.” You’re not going to have an easy time of actually finding Christ if literally nothing around you reflects Him, least of all institutions claiming to be his.
The remaining question would come back to whether you have a standing criticism for Catholic doctrine.
Yes, but that’s not precisely part of this discussion.
I'm just not sure exactly what leads you to take the position you do.
The last 80 years of human history, in which every white person just gave up and admitted genocidal defeat while pretending otherwise.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 2 monthsApr 12, 2025 07:25:10 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 1 point 2 monthsApr 12, 2025 12:49:05 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 2 monthsApr 12, 2025 13:02:40 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 1 point 2 monthsApr 12, 2025 19:35:42 ago (+1/-0)
If "none" and "zero" are hyperbole, I can see that as a criticism of people not living up to the doctrines they preach.
But the measure of how closely one fits inside the parameters of doctrines counts for less than the willingness and drive to try to be better and realign (cf parable of the Pharisee and Publican). Like a kid doing chores to try to make their parents proud, it's not the number of dishes the parent is observing, it is the effort within the context of their abilities.
The question comes down to whether the doctrine they are trying to asymptotally approach is good.
Criticisms of the hearts of people is one thing. It's hard or altogether impossible for us to knows the hearts of others in some cases (especially in the absence of observed fruit, good or bad). But the soundness of doctrine is something we can explore, by rational thinking and by discerning feeling.
I agree that there are false Christians pretending to be Christian. But for those that earnestly seek after Christ within a framework of sound doctrine, I would hold these individuals as Christian.
From the perspective of Catholicism, I propose a nonconcurrence to your statement "none of them are actually Christian" based on two premises:
1) The hearts of at least some individuals earnestly seek Christ
2) The earnest search for Christ within sound doctrine makes them Christians
3) Catholic doctrine is sound. Catholic doctrine should not be confused with any and every word uttered by clergy or even the Church fathers, but may instead be loosely captured by a) the CCC, b) the Code of Canon law, c) episcopal (regional) edicts, d) the Traditions
My sense of your argument is that you were presenting hyperbole, meaning you agree with premise 1. I assume that you agree in principle with premise 2. The remaining question would come back to whether you have a standing criticism for Catholic doctrine. If you do, your criticism is either going to be a rational objection or an objection based on feeling. Either kind of argument has the potential to be compelling. I'm just not sure exactly what leads you to take the position you do.
Genuinely curious, you've been a user for a long time since old voat.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 2 monthsApr 12, 2025 20:49:03 ago (+1/-0)
Yes.
This is basically what I mean. It’s not about “doctrine to the letter.” It’s about so much as actually trying whatsoever in any respect. The Bible says very, VERY specific things–to do and not to do–and no one’s doing a goddamned one of them.
The fruit is bad. There are zero revolts against the genocide of Christendom anywhere on Earth.
I have to have an addendum about “within sound doctrine.” You’re not going to have an easy time of actually finding Christ if literally nothing around you reflects Him, least of all institutions claiming to be his.
Yes, but that’s not precisely part of this discussion.
The last 80 years of human history, in which every white person just gave up and admitted genocidal defeat while pretending otherwise.
I’m just… I’m at the end.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 0 points 2 monthsApr 13, 2025 19:11:46 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 2 monthsApr 13, 2025 19:15:26 ago (+0/-0)
K, die.