Posted on 12/30/2013 9:35:20 AM PST by RnMomof7
I see most of your typical assertions in lieu of an argument as not worthy of response, and as actually not wanting one, but blindly rant, but this spurious one is especially outrageous. And one which you have already tried to pass off before and was exposed and reproved for.
A meaningful comparison between Catholics and Prots as regards who is most conservative or liberal, or responsible for the election of either, can only be on the basis of percentages, and between all of both, not the number of Catholics versus any single denom.
While you may disagree, God hates a false balance, and using your weighted scale method, then since Catholics are the largest single "church," they can be painted as more conservative than S. Baptists, even though it is safe to say the latter vote more conservative than Catholics (of course, per usual, you provided zero data on the voting of each Prot. denomination).
And as asked before but with no answer yet, would you use this same method, versus percentage, for how many clerical pedophiles a church has provided?
In contrast to your method, by using polling percentages of all Catholics versus all Protestants, the latter (black and white) voted 57%/42% for Romney/Obama, versus Catholics voting at 48%/50% for Romney/Obama (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx).
Thus more Catholics needed to vote like most Prots.
Moreover, unlike RCs who must remain in their church in which Rome treats liberals as members in life and in death, we can and do separate from liberal Prot churches, and defend a basic faith, not one church, making your comparison even less relevant. But relevant to that, white Evangelicals supported Mr. Romney 79% to 21% over Mr. Obama (an even higher % than Mormons did!) - http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/#rr
You also invoked black Prots, which make up 6.9% of Prots. (9% of the electorate, versus white Evangelicals at 23% of the electorate, and Catholics at 25%), and do indeed vote very liberal (95% Obama).
Yet if we are going to look at ethnicity by weight, Latinos make up about 40 percent of all U.S. Catholics (70 percent of Latinos are Catholic), and 73% of Latino Catholics said they were supporting Obama versus 19% for Romney (pre-election). - http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/18/latinos-religion-and-campaign-2012/
15% of Hispanics overall identified themselves as evangelicals, and 50% of Latino evangelical Protestants (who accounted for 16% of all Latino registered voters) favored Obama, and 39% were for Romney. - http://www.nhclc.org/news/latino-religion-us-demographic-shifts-and-trend .
Meanwhile, those in mainly black Catholic churches only make up 5% of Catholics (mainly in the West), and political affiliation or leaning in 2007 was 17%/74% Republican/Democrat, and 11%/76% for black evangelical churches. Opposition to homosexuality was 37% by black Catholics and 58% by black evangelicals. Opposition to abortion was 35% by black Catholics and 53% by black evangelicals. 66% of black evangelicals and 36% of black Catholics say they attend services at least weekly. http://www.pewforum.org/A-Religious-Portrait-of-African-Americans.aspx
Thus while black Prots are by far the most liberal, those of the Evangelical faith you are attacking are by far the most conservative, more so than even weekly Catholics (i have stats on that also, by God's grace) and which is the point in any debate here.
In addition, the percentage of liberal Catholics is likely to increase since a greater percentage are Latino, which vote heavily liberal. And it is actually the change in demographics that made a difference in the 2012 election, and is likely to do likewise. And foreign-born adult population, Catholics outnumber Protestants by nearly a two-to-one margin (46% Catholic vs. 24% Protestant). - http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
In addition, although there are about half as many Catholics in the U.S. as Protestants, the number of Catholics nearly rivals the number of members of evangelical Protestant churches and far exceeds the number of members of both mainline Protestant churches and historically black Protestant churches.
Meanwhile, the focus of the real body of Christ should be on being like Jesus in a fallen world and post-Christian country, which is headed to Hell, and thus the need to live and preach the evangelical gospel that effects manifest regeneration, not institutionalized religion.
Talking about RAW NUMBERS. No protestant denomination in the country that voted for the Republican candidate last year, comes close to the votes casts by Catholics for the Republican. Try to spin it anyway you want. Fact is fact.
If the majority of Roman Catholics leaving are homosexual why then did your church produce so many?
“Opposition to homosexuality was 37% by black Catholics and 58% by black evangelicals”
Opposition to homosexuality??? The 95% cited above voted for the homosexual “marriage” loving Obama, whether they call themselves Catholic or Evangelical.
They are hypocrites. They threw God under the bus to support a politician because of the color of his skin.
I never said the majority leaving the Catholic Church are homosexuals. I said the majority that leave the Church were never devout Catholics to start with, and that certainly includes homosexuals that despise the Catholic stance on homosexuality and will never cave in to their immoral lifestyle. There are plenty of protestant churches that will make them feel right home and “marry” them if that’s what they want.
You responded in the affirmative that most departing Catholics are homosexual.
Any church which ordains women, sodomites and performs the sodomite union have fallen into error and disobeying God and His Words.
Give it a few years and Rome will start doing the same.
Forgiven repentant thief! First declared saint by Christ himself.
I absolutely didn’t say that most departing the Catholic Church are homosexuals. They are all lumped together. People that want to do their way and not God’s way.
The Catholic Church will never accept as normal that which is a sin. Abortion will never be permitted, marriage will always be one woman, one man, and there will be no women priests. It’s been that way for 2,000 years.
You replied in the affirmative what another poster claimed. You are also ignoring the facts the posted article affirms that the majority who depart Rome are faithful Christians. You dismiss the data with an assertion which means you offer no facts, stats etc. to support your claim.
50 Catholics out of 48 throw water on a fire, versus 7 out of 10 from an evangelical church, but which also has many more churches doing the same, and so the Catholics are the most conservative! You think arguments like this even help your church?
You addressed this post to yourself, but as meant for one of us evangelical types, you really don't it, or if you do then you the reason you resort to such sophistry is because you are forced to in order to defend your liberal "church."
Those who debate here such as myself, are not promoting a church or whatever is placed under the tent called Protestantism, much of which denies some very basic core distinctives that made them Protestants, but those as myself are manifest here as contending for a basic faith of upholds core truths such as the supremacy of Scripture as the wholly inspired word of God, and the basically literal interpretation it examples, and salvation by grace thru faith, not earned by works or gained on the basis of interior holiness, though saving faith results in sanctification, as well as such truths as expressed in the apostles creed (though "the communion of saints" not meaning PTDS )
Thus we seen are contending against liberalism overall in theology and morality. And which manner of affirmation of and contention was what defined the modern evangelical movement. And which fellowship of Spirit was and is based upon a shared personal conversion to the Lord Jesus, and Scripture based relationship with Him, and attendant common core beliefs.
This would be akin to you defending the faith of conservative Catholics, who likewise uphold Biblical morality, and have fellowship as baptized members of one church, and receiving the Catholic Eucharist, and upholding other traditional Catholic beliefs.
However, RCs as yourself are not simply defending the common beliefs of Catholics in essential communion with each others, but are driven to defend a particular church. Thus while we have conflict with you over some of those beliefs, one of them is that Rome is the one true church. And thus you promote and defend it, and thus the nature of that church, esp. as seen in what it effects, becomes an issue.
And unlike us who separated from liberal Protestantism if we were in it (and many, from Catholicism before that), you are part of a church that manifestly treats liberals as members in life and in death, even notorious public examples. And which manifests what your church really believes. For as James 2 teaches, "I will shew thee my faith by my works."
And Rome is shown as effectually fostering liberalism overall wherever she predominates, in contrast to evangelical faith. (Though both are in declension overall in these latter days.)
Your recourse may be to basically excommunicate all those who are liberal, but which makes you more Catholic than your church, which does not even see Hugo Chavez as fitting the class of souls which canon law (1184) forbids ecclesiastical funerals to. Perhaps because they no longer cause "public scandal of the faithful."
While i post testimony to what evangelical faith effects, in substantial contrast with Catholicism, and as it impugns Catholicism, your recourse is to invoke Protestantism, but which (in one example) still voted more conservative.
Yet going further, you focus on the most negative manifestation (openly homosexual priests) of that which is commonly called Protestant (yet which is actually closest to Catholic), but which is simply irrelevant to the issue, as again, we are neither defending a church or all of what is called Protestant faith. And in fact, consistent with the care faith we are seen defending, we condemn Protestant liberalism as well. Yet they are not the ones daily advertising themselves here, or claiming to be the one true church to whom all are to submit. But you are, and thus you invite the heat of the kitchen.
Of course, i realize attempting to reason with you has never resulted in a reasonable reply, but any are welcome.
Trying your hand at mind reading, now? Where did I even mention ANY website in my comment to you? Is this the tactic-de-jour for FRoman Catholics now...attack imagined sources rather than actually ever having to address a point? It IS telling, however, that the point can't be rationalized away and even the indignant will have to admit facts sooner or later - that is if they want to retain any semblance of relative coherence worthy of reading.
[NKP_Vet] Exactly. Read my post above.
[NKP_Vet]The only Catholic that would consider becoming a protestant are those Cafeteria catholics that never lived their faith to start with. They want to be able to do it “their way” instead of God’s way, whether that means aborting their children or “marrying” someone of the same sex. This is not possible in the Catholic Church, but alive and well in countless protestant denominations.
You dismiss the data with an assertion which means you offer no facts, stats etc. to support your claim.
You mean actual surveys, and the evidence of evangelicals and even Prots being more conservative? And shows that supporting aborting children or “marrying” someone of the same sex is not simply possible, but such souls that do so can be held as members, and even receive cordial correspondence from a pope, invoking blessings and appreciation for their prayers.
The negative stats are dealt with by the spin he has twice resorted to, and even defended, in which the rich man who went to Hell could be saved to be more charitable than the widow who gave what she had, if the rich man gave more than her penny! Desperate, yes, honest, no. Another example of what reactionary loyalty to Rome can effect. Reasonable exchange is discouraged
“I never said the majority leaving the Catholic Church are homosexuals. I said the majority that leave the Church were never devout Catholics to start with”
Please post a link to research that proves your baseless assertion.
“There are plenty of protestant churches that will make them feel right home and “marry” them if that’s what they want.”
Of course, they could have stayed catholic and become part of the Vatican Gay Mafia.
At least we agree on that. But not simply the skin color, but the victim-entitlement mentality they bought from the devil. Very subtle..
This is all sophomoric reading of Scripture. One simply cannot crack open a Bible and take quotes without reading of text, context, history, revelation, and tradition. These are the usual norms of Scriptural interpretation and we have One Church established by the Christ to do this. Not some 35, 000 Christian sects where just about each person is a “Christian “unto himself. This makes nonsense of the injunction to Peter to go forth and teach a single Truth. The single teaching was the “Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.” This is the Church that grew from a mustard seed to cover the corners of the world. That Truth is found in the “Catholic Catechism” with no room for Cafeteria Catholics to pick, choose, and pull apart. Again, go read Hillaire Belloc’s “The Great Heresies.”
Thank you.
When the Bereans searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was truth, what history and tradition did they employ?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.