Keeping the flock faithful (Catholic priests in battle with Evangelicals for their flock)

WIMAUMA - Father Demetrio Lorden walks into the garage of a concrete block house, slips on his robe and vestments, and unpacks a gold chalice.

He tests a microphone, and as dogs howl nearby, a small group of Hispanic workers and their families launches into a discordant song of praise.

Lorden calls this his "evangelism Mass," the one he has every Monday night in houses and mobile home camps of the Wimauma immigrant community.

Like other Catholic priests with Hispanic members, Lorden is trying to fend off competitors for the parishioners in his pews.

Protestant evangelists - people just as dedicated as he is, but with a quite different approach to Christianity - are aggressively recruiting on his turf. Some target workers as they labor in the fields; others approach them in their homes or at local bodegas, grocery stores.

Catholic priests like Lorden are responding with outreach and Bible studies, hoping to hold on to this large and growing population.

"Hispanic immigrants need to know someone is there caring for them," said Lorden, pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe church. "But one of the things that pushed me to do that fervently and constantly was because ... other churches and denominations are visiting them and proselytizing them."

Sometimes Lorden's home-based Masses are the only contact workers have with the Catholic church, said Alejandro Lopez, 34, a construction worker who attended Lorden's service on a recent Monday night.

For those who can't make Sunday Mass because of work, Lorden's service helps sustain their faith, especially during hard times, Lopez said.

The majority of Hispanics in the United States, or 68 percent, still call themselves Catholics. Of those who leave the Catholic church, most become Pentecostal or evangelical Christians or they leave religion all together, according to a national study released this year by the Pew Hispanic Center.

Some Catholic priests acknowledge that Protestant sects like the Pentecostals have responded faster and more aggressively to immigrants with aid and tight-knit worship circles in Spanish.

On a recent Saturday afternoon, the Rev. Jose Luis Correa, a Pentecostal pastor in Dover, handed out pamphlets with some church members as they walked through the parking lots of small Hispanic grocery stores or food stores with Hispanic patrons.

Then, they visited a mobile home park nestled between strawberry fields and railroad tracks. Many residents did not answer the door or weren't home. Others politely took the pamphlets and said they would come to church.

Sometimes, Correa said, he approaches them in the fields with water. Often he brings them clothes and food.

"We tell them we believe God will provide for their needs," said Correa, of Assembly of God or Templo Cristiano. "You're not going to reach them by being on a pulpit or sitting in an office."

Correa tackles their personal problems: marital disputes, alcoholism - a service sometimes lacking in the Catholic church.

For some immigrants like Edin Gonzalez, a 25-year-old Guatemalan carpenter who left most of his family behind, the church has become an instant community.

When Hispanic converts from the Catholic church join Protestant sects, they let go of their attachment to the saints, religious images and Mary, the mother of Jesus, Correa said.

Catholic priests bristle at the accusation and say Protestant evangelizers are tearing Hispanics away from their culture and faith.

"There's almost like a whole campaign to bring down the blessed Mother like she's the anti-Christ," said Father Carlos Rojas of St. Clement Catholic Church in Plant City.

Rojas, of Puerto Rican decent, said Hispanic Catholics, particularly Mexican Catholics, are very devoted to Mary.

They believe Mary, known as Our Lady of Guadalupe, appeared to a Mexican Indian peasant named Juan Diego in 1531. Juan Diego's story contributed greatly to Catholicism's spread in Mexico.

Recently, in a mix of religion and culture, St. Clement held a three-day festival and a two-day vigil to mark the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe that included Aztec dancers, mariachi bands and statues of the Virgin Mary.

The festival, which took place at the Plant City Stadium, drew 3,000 people, the first time it was held on such a large scale.

And it was yet another effort to cement the Catholic church's historical presence in the Hispanic community.

St. Clement, like other Catholic churches, started a Bible study for its Hispanic members in part to counter Protestant evangelizers, shifting from a tradition that left Bible readings and interpretations to priests.

"When you are entering into dialogue with other religions and people who are attacking the Catholic church, there is a need to have Bible studies," Rojas said. "If you are asked this question, here is a way you can respond."

Juan Gomez, pastor of the Church of God, a Protestant church in Wimauma, said his members don't attack Catholics. They just worship differently.

"We believe that (Mary) was a beautiful woman of God, but in terms of redemption, Christ is the one in terms of intercession, Christ is the interceder, not Mary, as they believe," said Gomez, who converted from Catholicism to the Church of God at 15 after immigrating to Ruskin from Mexico.

Gomez said he questions the Juan Diego story and the Catholic blending of religion with Hispanic culture.

But ultimately, newcomers aren't forced to stay in his church. If they don't like the spirited form of worship and Bible study, they go elsewhere.

"We try to bring people to a deeper relationship with Christ," he said. "It will always be up to the people."

The battle for Hispanic faithful continues to brew between Catholics and Protestants, with both sides increasingly stepping up their recruitment efforts. Among the Protestant denominations, the Pentecostals have been particularly aggressive. Here are some major differences between Catholics and Protestants.

No Protestant denomination which holds with orthodox Christian teaching such as the Divinity of Jesus, The Holy Trinity, that Christ is both fully God and fully man would want to claim some kind of relation with people who broke away from the early Church.

You're correct no Protestant denomination because those Christian Churches broke away during the Reformation and thus have been labeled Protestant (protesting what they broke away from). However, there have always been Christian Churches that were not a part of the RCC, or EO.

Even during Jesus' ministry on Earth we see in Scripture churches that were not under the authority of the Apostles, but were acceptable to Jesus.

Luke 9:49-50 Now, John answered and said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us."

But Jesus said to him,"Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side."

The Didache, which was only discovered around 150 years ago reveals the local autonomy of early Christian Churches. Prior to the Reformation the Donatist's left. The Montanists, Novatians, Paulicians, Albigenses, Paterines, Petrobrussians, Henricians, Waldenses and Anabaptists all existed prior to the Reformation. Our understanding of these various Christian Churches is limited because during this period the RCC had emerged as the dominant State sponsored church. It was never in the RCC best interest to keep accurate records of these various Christian Churches and if they became large enough they were treated as a threat to the State.

Emerging from the Anabaptists you have Baptists, Quakers and Mennonite churches today.

Not quite correct. Each of his bullets made a hole that was connected to the hole that she had made. That's why I said, "double hole" & talked about his accuracy based on a center to center measurement.

Ah, OK. Now I see what you meant. Then the second shooter wasn't perfect either. However, he still came closer to "perfection" than the first shooter did, because his shots landed closer to his intended targets (the first shooter's bullet holes) than her shots did to her intended target (the bullseye).

He hit dead center of the target no more accurately than she had.

But the center of the target isn't his standard for accuracy, becuase that's not what he aimed for.

Precision is about replication. But, you say, he replicated all of her shots. That is true, but in doing so he failed to replicate any of his own.

It doesn't matter, because it wasn't his goal to repeatedly hit a single point; he was trying to replicate HER shots, one by one. Again, I'm talking about the precision of his aim: The distribution of his shots is a measurement of that precision. But instead of comparing his bullet holes to the bullseye, we compare them to their intended targets, i.e. the first shooter's bullet holes.

A shot is accurate if it hits its mark, i.e. if it hits where the shooter wants it to. This depends on the precision of the shooter's aim, but is also affected by things like the calibration of certain parts of the gun. However, if the aim is imprecise, then the shots will tend to deviate from their intended marks (one may land a bit to the right, another up and to the left, etc.), and thus be inaccurate.

***

All true, but you're just throwing extra noise at me. Accounting for the throw of the weapon makes attaining accuracy & precision more difficult, but we're only dealing with the end results here.

See post 91 for the analogy describing accuracy and precision in an empirical sense.

If you're talking about measuring many things, the precision of your standard wouldn't be knowable.

Not necassarily. Like I said above, for this current example we can compare the second shooter's bullet holes to to his intended targets (i.e. the bullet holes of the first shooter) to obtain a measurement of his precision and accuracy.

in logic, it is meaningless to say that a statement is accurate if it is not defined precisely.

***

Meaningless or not knowable?

Perhaps not knowable, but also meaningless. We've switched to talking about logic now (instead of empiricism), and if a statement is not defined precisely enough then it is automatically false. Let's go back to your "The ball is round" statement and make it universal: "All balls are round." Now there are lots of round balls, but this statement is false due to its generality. On the other hand, if we've never seen anything like an American football, then we might not know that this statement is false, but then all we could say is "Every ball I know of is round."

The accuracy of something is unknowable unless tested against a precise standard, but something could be accurate without that test.

But I'm talking about the accuracy of the test itself. In the shooting example, we already know exactly where the bullseye is before shooting at it, but that's different than what I'm talking about. When making measurements, it's other way around: You're trying to find the bullseye by shooting at it! :)

I'm splitting this up, cuz I hate ever growing posts.

Ah, OK. Now I see what you meant. Then the second shooter wasn't perfect either.

Whether he was "perfect" or not is an unknown. Measurements from the centers of her holes & his holes could possibly prove perfect, as her holes were only a "suggested" target for him. As I said, if he had put all of his bullets through the holes she had made, totally missing the target would have been a possible conclusion. His real targets were her holes + a distance of X from them.

However, he still came closer to "perfection" than the first shooter did, because his shots landed closer to his intended targets (the first shooter's bullet holes) than her shots did to her intended target (the bullseye).

Correct.

But the center of the target isn't his standard for accuracy, becuase that's not what he aimed for.

Doesn't matter what his standard was, as this is my hypothetical, not his. I set up the parameters in order to communicate a concept, not to discuss our shooters, their thinking or their skill. I think they used a target with a human form, so there wasn't actually a "center", but I needed a center for the purpose of my hypothetical, so I put one in.

I said, "Precision is about replication. But, you say, he replicated all of her shots. That is true, but in doing so he failed to replicate any of his own."

It doesn't matter, because it wasn't his goal to repeatedly hit a single point; he was trying to replicate HER shots, one by one.

Come up with your own hypothetical. This one's mine. Cue evil dictator laughter, "bwhahaha". Since he is my tool, I tell you his intent was exactly what I say it was, to hit the imaginary center of that target... man, did he get lucky, as he proved himself at least as good as the woman. ;o)

A graph for precision charts density. The more density you have, the more precise your standard. I was trying to get you unstuck from thinking it was only about spread by giving you an exception to that "rule", so I gave him an extra bullet. :o)

Again, I'm talking about the precision of his aim: The distribution of his shots is a measurement of that precision. But instead of comparing his bullet holes to the bullseye, we compare them to their intended targets, i.e. the first shooter's bullet holes.

I already told you that his true accuracy & the precision of his shots were better than hers. How would we know if his precision was better if she had not set standards for him first? His shots raised the shot density by each of her shots. Now, picture his shots without hers. His shot density could then be seen as the same as hers had been & we'd be talking about the spread of his shots.

I'm splitting this up, cuz I hate ever growing posts.

No kidding, this is getting intractable! :)

I assumed that he has aiming for her bullet holes, because given the example you provided, it seemed a reasonable assumption to make. Under this assumption, we know he wasn't "perfect" because his shots deviated ever so slightly from their intended targets. You are correct that had he been absolutely "perfect", we would have no way of knowing this by simply looking at the target; we would need some other way of tracking his shots.

Now, when you say "His real targets were her holes + a distance of X from them" do you mean that it made no difference where his bullets hit, as long as their holes overlapped the holes made by the first shooter; or do you mean that he was actually aiming for points slightly off the centers of the first shooter's bullet holes? If the former, I would say that it is true that he succeeded in "doubling" the hole in each case, thus demonstrating his precision; but still, pairs of holes with a large overlap would indicate more precision than pairs of holes with a small overlap. If the latter, then since we don't know X (nor do we know which side of the holes he was aiming at) then this makes the example somewhat ambiguous; however, X cannot be more than the diameter of a bullet hole, so although we don't know exactly where he was aiming we can still put an upper bound on his imprecision.

This is your hypothetical, so of course you may set the parameters. However, you're using it as an example to discuss MY claim about certain uses of the words "precision" and "accuracy", so the example should speak to that, and not to other senses or definitions of the words. Now, the underlying assumption is that the second shooter was somehow trying to replicate the the first shooter's shots, unless...

Since he is my tool, I tell you his intent was exactly what I say it was, to hit the imaginary center of that target... man, did he get lucky, as he proved himself at least as good as the woman. ;o)

Now that's just uncanny! :)

A graph for precision charts density. The more density you have, the more precise your standard.

Yes, and here's what we can do with this example to measure his precision--that is, if you'll let me assume that he was aiming for the first shooter's bullet holes. ;) Imagine moving each one of the first shooter's bullet holes to this imaginary "center" while keeping the relative positions of the second shooter's bullet holes with respect to these holes intact. Then we obtain ONE bullet hole from the first shooter, and a very tight cluster from the second shooter, all overlapping the original hole. That's pretty darn precise!

I already told you that his true accuracy & the precision of his shots were better than hers. How would we know if his precision was better if she had not set standards for him first?

Strictly speaking, we don't know anything other than the information given in the example. However, since he was aiming at the first shooter's bullet holes--and we pretty much have to assume this if you want to say that his shots were more accurate and precise than hers--then we can pretty safely infer that if the second shooter had aimed at the same spot with each shot, then he would have made a pretty tight cluster (see above).

Now, picture his shots without hers.

Why? Since he was aiming at the first shooter's bullet holes, it is meaningless to consider the overall spread of his shots without hers there as a reference. It doesn't tell us anything about his accuracy and precision if we don't consider what he was shooting at.

No kidding, this is getting intractable! :)

I'd rather kick this around than do some of the stuff that I should be doing instead.

You realize we keep proving the first half of the statement you made back in post #48, right? A statement can be precise without being accurate, but it cannot truly be accurate without being precise. I've always been in agreement with the first half of your statement. It's the second half of the statement that I have a problem with.

Let's go back a little, to Mad Dawg's post #50 & then your response in post #63. The answer of your difference has to do with the standard each of you used. Zero Sum used the planet earth as the standard, while MD used the imaginary zero (PM @ equator) on a graph with imaginary lines we know as latitude & longitude.

Remember what I said earlier about common ground & talking past each other? One of you was shooting at the center of the target & the other was shooting at the bullet holes. Failure to recognize the other guy's standard doesn't affect the accuracy of the statements, only the ability to understand them.

I assumed that he has aiming for her bullet holes, because given the example you provided, it seemed a reasonable assumption to make.

Yes, it would be a reasonable assumption to make, but would it be the best assumption to make? If he'd replicated the holes she'd made, we would have to consider a couple of possibilities. 1) All of his shots were "perfect". 2) All of his shots missed the target. With the results we would have, there'd be no way to determine which of those two options was correct.

Under this assumption, we know he wasn't "perfect" because his shots deviated ever so slightly from their intended targets. You are correct that had he been absolutely "perfect", we would have no way of knowing this by simply looking at the target; we would need some other way of tracking his shots.

True.

No. I was giving "X" a value, but made it a variable, since I didn't know the exact value. Also, his targets could have been (center of her bullet holes) + X or (edge of her bullet holes) + X.

or do you mean that he was actually aiming for points slightly off the centers of the first shooter's bullet holes?

Yes, tho I would qualify it by saying that the edge of her bullet holes could have also been his real targets. Whether it was the center or edge would be an unknown. If he had used an edge of each bullet hole as his target, the value of X could be zero & it would be less than the radius of the bullet hole his shot would make. If it was the center of her holes, X could be the radius of the hole his bullet would make & it would be less than the diameter of his bullet holes.

If the former, I would say that it is true that he succeeded in "doubling" the hole in each case, thus demonstrating his precision; but still, pairs of holes with a large overlap would indicate more precision than pairs of holes with a small overlap.

False. Precision would be determined by the consistency of center (her holes) to center (his holes) measurements.

If the latter, then since we don't know X (nor do we know which side of the holes he was aiming at) then this makes the example somewhat ambiguous; however, X cannot be more than the diameter of a bullet hole, so although we don't know exactly where he was aiming we can still put an upper bound on his imprecision. You are correct about the upper bound, but only if he was shooting at the center of her bullet holes. Since you spoke of which "side" he was aiming for, that upper bound would be a radius & a diameter would show two unconnected holes.

Without the ability to talk about "any other senses", I'm forced into accepting your usage, as I'd be left with nothing to challenge it. Heads, you win. Tails, I lose.

Now, the underlying assumption is that the second shooter was somehow trying to replicate the the first shooter's shots, unless...

I said, "Since he is my tool, I tell you his intent was exactly what I say it was, to hit the imaginary center of that target... man, did he get lucky, as he proved himself at least as good as the woman. ;o)"

Now that's just uncanny! :)

Calculating the odds of it... his luck was astronomical!

I said, "A graph for precision charts density. The more density you have, the more precise your standard."

That was a great way to express what I was saying!

I said, "I already told you that his true accuracy & the precision of his shots were better than hers. How would we know if his precision was better if she had not set standards for him first?"

Without her standards (**), there wouldn't be anything to gather together. That almost supports the second half of your statement in post #48, cept there you were talking about accuracy instead of precision. A statement can be precise without being accurate, but it cannot truly be accurate without being precise.

Can a statement be accurate without requiring it to be "true/false"?

I said, "Now, picture his shots without hers."

Why?

See (**) above.

A statement can be precise without being accurate, but it cannot truly be accurate without being precise. I've always been in agreement with the first half of your statement. It's the second half of the statement that I have a problem with.

And I still don't know why, since you keep using different definitions for those words than I am, so we keep talking past each other. See (*) below.

That's a good way to put it, but note the little smiley I gave in post 63: That was my little way of saying that he was correct, but that I was talking about a different definition of the word (see post 67). Don't you just love how we dragged you back into this, MD? :)

"I assumed that he has aiming for her bullet holes, because given the example you provided, it seemed a reasonable assumption to make." Yes, it would be a reasonable assumption to make, but would it be the best assumption to make?

Given my misreading of what you meant by "doubled" hole, yes. Of course I should have realized what you meant in the first place, but that's beside the point. ;)

"If the former, I would say that it is true that he succeeded in "doubling" the hole in each case, thus demonstrating his precision; but still, pairs of holes with a large overlap would indicate more precision than pairs of holes with a small overlap." False. Precision would be determined by the consistency of center (her holes) to center (his holes) measurements.

When I said, "If the former," I was referring to the hypothesis that "it made no difference where his bullets hit, as long as their holes overlapped the holes made by the first shooter." Again, it's your example so you may set the parameters, but I wasn't sure what you meant. That's why I qualified it with "if".

"If the latter, then since we don't know X (nor do we know which side of the holes he was aiming at) then this makes the example somewhat ambiguous; however, X cannot be more than the diameter of a bullet hole, so although we don't know exactly where he was aiming we can still put an upper bound on his imprecision." You are correct about the upper bound, but only if he was shooting at the center of her bullet holes. Since you spoke of which "side" he was aiming for, that upper bound would be a radius & a diameter would show two unconnected holes.

I meant with respect to the center. The second shooter could have been aiming for the edges, or he could have been aiming somewhere inside or outside the edges--talk about splitting hairs! Using center-to-center measurements, a hole with a center one diameter (2 radii) away from the center of another hole would just barely be touching the other hole. Now it's unlikely that he would aim this far away from the center since even the slightest error to the wrong side would result in a miss, but he could aim no further away if his intent was to overlap the holes.

Without the ability to talk about "any other senses", I'm forced into accepting your usage, as I'd be left with nothing to challenge it. Heads, you win. Tails, I lose.

Yes, that's the general idea. :) Actually, I already conceded in post 103 that you might be correct with respect to different meanings of the words, so why is this still a point of contention? (*)

Without her standards (**), there wouldn't be anything to gather together.

Correct. However, it is also true that without her standards the second shooter would not have aimed as he did, which is why it is meaningless to consider the overall distribution of his shots without hers there as a reference.

Now, if you want to define the "precision" of his shots by their overall spread and their "accuracy" as how close they came to their intended targets, then yes you are correct. However, in the case of his "accuracy" you take into account his intent, while in the case of his "precision" you don't, so this isn't a useful comparison--but maybe that was your point all along? Anyway, I was trying to be consistent and consider his intent in both cases. We could also be consistent and ignore it in both cases! :)

Can a statement be accurate without requiring it to be "true/false"?

Logically speaking, no it cannot. A statement is either true or false, not both (law of the excluded middle). However, a false statement can be "almost true" in the sense that it may be possible to define the statement more precisely in order to make it true.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.