What was the criteria for inclusion in the “Catholic” category? I meet Catholics who call themselves Catholic because they were raised in a Catholic household and made to attend church as a Catholic. Genetic Catholics, I guess you could call them. You know that both of us are referring to spiritual, every Sunday Mass-attending Catholics, as I specified this earlier.
Related to 5. Where are the stats for Catholics who attend Mass every week? I want to see those. Catholicism naturally has a stronger and more rich culture than any Protestant religion, so those who grew up in a Catholic household but no longer attend church are more likely to identify as Catholics than Protestants in a similar situation. This will wildly skew results if not corrected for.
Show me a poll that compares regularly Mass attending, Eucharist receiving Catholics with a Protestant group of similar zeal and I will look a little more closely at how they hold up next to some of your silly assertions.
Remember, you’re saying things about a group of people you don’t really know, and I do, and I’m supposed to see one thing, and then believe you that the opposite is true. I’m not just some blinkered dupe being led by the nose by my Satanic church. I’m actively involved in two parishes, one of them a very large one with an associated Jr. High and High School. I do overseas student exchanges, communications, letter writing and homestays for my students with that parish and its schools. I know a LOT of people in that community. And trust me, what you’re claiming…it aint true.
Then there’s Chris. He knows more people than I do. Guess he and I and all of them are all liars. Or all those Hispanics in California that were vehemently against Proposition 8. Was that a bunch of Mexican Calvinists? Whom should we believe, really? The people who ARE that Church, or someone who actively, zealously promotes his hatred for her day after day, for years on end?
Sorry Tirib. It ain’t true and incessant repetition will never make it true.
I’m no Christian by any means, biblical scholar, nor homosexual, so I won’t pretend to be otherwise. Neither am I one who hates Christians or followers of other belief systems, so long as they are peaceful. All the same, I find it odd that homosexual interactions would be called “unnatural”. It is a phenomenon that has been documented in a wide range of non-human animal species. You definitely have full right to believe that it is sinful and an abomination, but how can that which occurs in nature be considered unnatural?
On a side note, there’s something I want to know. According to Christian tradition, how do non-penetrative sexual acts like foreplay or oral sex stack up? They certainly aren’t procreative in nature. This isn’t an attack. I’m just curious.
@Cortes
Here’s another hint. I don’t believe that most western Catholics are faithful to the teachings of their own Church. I know this. I spent almost a year reading and posting less than reading, but posting too at the largest most authoritative Catholic forum website on earth. Don’t BLAH BLAH BLAH me. There’s vaaast multitudes of Catholics there. Including clergy, seminary personnel, canon lawyers, and apologists like Scott Hahn. I mean no insult to you personally man. You just have to believe me, but I COULD NOT TAKE IT anymore. If there was a microscopically fluttering possibility that I wasn’t aware of of me returning to Catholicism, that time there especially, cured me FOR EH VER.
[quote]You said:<<< those who grew up in a Catholic household but no longer attend church are more likely to identify as Catholics than Protestants in a similar situation. This will wildly skew results if not corrected for." >>>[/quote] Why do you figure it is that they feel they are still Catholics? (I don’t btw) It couldn’t be because nobody ever did anything so ridiculous as actually obeying 1st Corinthians 5 in their case could it?
[quote]You said:<<< “Show me a poll that compares regularly Mass attending, Eucharist receiving Catholics with a Protestant group of similar zeal and I will look a little more closely at how they hold up next to some of your silly assertions.”[/quote]Show me a parish in the western world where non “regularly Mass attending, Eucharist receiving Catholics” are excommunicated and refused fellowship and you’ll be at least one step toward getting my point.
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:<<< On a side note, there’s something I want to know. According to Christian tradition, how do non-penetrative sexual acts like foreplay or oral sex stack up? They certainly aren’t procreative in nature. This isn’t an attack. I’m just curious.[/quote]Start another thread if you really wanna know. Please? Just wait til you hear the Catholic version of this.
I’ll get to the rest later, but there is absolutely nothing in the methodology of that survey as to how claims of Catholicism, Protestantism, Theism or otherwise were determined, to what degree, or even how it was determined that a particular respondent’s religion or lack thereof was determined.
If the two of us were arguing this case before a court of law, I’d have actual eyewitness testimony, while you’d have nothing but hearsay, conjecture and leading.
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
On a side note, there’s something I want to know. According to Christian tradition, how do non-penetrative sexual acts like foreplay or oral sex stack up? They certainly aren’t procreative in nature. This isn’t an attack. I’m just curious.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter where you start, it matters where you finish.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Here’s a hint back at you: There are zero, zilch, as in not one supporter of gay marriage in either of my parishes.
Quit making shit up. You are genuinely starting to lose credibility in my eyes now.
[/quote]I had credibility? I don’t think I’m up to a proper answer tonight. I do apologize. Things took longer than I thought. I never make anything up though. Let’s just say Gallup is off by a bit.
There is no way I can promise you I’ll read a 1500 page document Chris. The Westminster Larger Catechism is 27, but that’s not the point. Even if they were the same size I just can’t commit that kind of block time.[/quote]
I didn’t ask for you to read all 846 pgs. in one night. What I do is I read a few passages a day.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Let’s just say Gallup is off by a bit.[/quote]
I don’t believe Gallup polled just his Parish, now did it poll just my parish or the my current parish. This is like saying Arizona voted for Obama because Obama won.
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I’m no Christian by any means, biblical scholar, nor homosexual, so I won’t pretend to be otherwise. Neither am I one who hates Christians or followers of other belief systems, so long as they are peaceful. All the same, I find it odd that homosexual interactions would be called “unnatural”. It is a phenomenon that has been documented in a wide range of non-human animal species. You definitely have full right to believe that it is sinful and an abomination, but how can that which occurs in nature be considered unnatural?[/quote]
In nature does not mean natural, it doesn’t matter how much the hippie chicks who don’t shave their legs say that it is. If something is unnatural it means it is not according to its proper end. Food has a proper end, if you don’t eat…you have a disorder. If you eat so much that you have to throw up…you have a disorder. One is called anorexia the other is called binge eating or bulimia.
Sex has a dual end, as I like to phrase it: bonding and babies. Sex is procreative, but it’s also made so that the husband can be a self gift to the woman and the wife can be a self gift to her man. This is called love. It’s natural end also includes babies. Let’s look at “homosexual interactions” and see if it is ordered to our natural end.
Does it fulfill love part? Well, what is love? Desiring the greatest good for the other. What is the greatest good? Heaven. Can you get into Heaven if you’re a practicing homosexual? No, so though two people may have a fascination for each other and baser loves below agape, and affection in general. The relationship and actions within that relationship lacks that deep love for the other. Now, can it make babies?
No, it cannot. No logical philosophy is needed to prove this, it takes an egg and sperm to create a baby, two men or two women together cannot create a baby, no matter if they are straight, gay, &c. It requires that a man and woman together to bring sperm to egg.
As long as the marital act is intended on being finished in the vaginal canal there is nothing inherently wrong with them. This is assuming that it is in marriage.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Here’s a hint back at you: There are zero, zilch, as in not one supporter of gay marriage in either of my parishes.
Quit making shit up. You are genuinely starting to lose credibility in my eyes now.
[/quote]I had credibility? I don’t think I’m up to a proper answer tonight. I do apologize. Things took longer than I thought. I never make anything up though. Let’s just say Gallup is off by a bit.
There is no way I can promise you I’ll read a 1500 page document Chris. The Westminster Larger Catechism is 27, but that’s not the point. Even if they were the same size I just can’t commit that kind of block time.[/quote]
I didn’t ask for you to read all 846 pgs. in one night. What I do is I read a few passages a day. [/quote]
OK
EDIT: By which I mean that I’ll do that the best I can Chris. The one a the Vatican website I assume?
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Here’s a hint back at you: There are zero, zilch, as in not one supporter of gay marriage in either of my parishes.
Quit making shit up. You are genuinely starting to lose credibility in my eyes now.
[/quote]I had credibility? I don’t think I’m up to a proper answer tonight. I do apologize. Things took longer than I thought. I never make anything up though. Let’s just say Gallup is off by a bit.
There is no way I can promise you I’ll read a 1500 page document Chris. The Westminster Larger Catechism is 27, but that’s not the point. Even if they were the same size I just can’t commit that kind of block time.[/quote]
I didn’t ask for you to read all 846 pgs. in one night. What I do is I read a few passages a day. [/quote]
OK
EDIT: By which I mean that I’ll do that the best I can Chris. The one a the Vatican website I assume?[/quote]
Not sure which is the best one. I think the one on the Vatican website has links to the documents references (making it easier to look at what it is referencing), so if you want to read the actual document they are referring to get context it is much easier.