Catholics in numbers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benedict16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Righteousone said:
If numbers meant nothing, there would certainly be a problem if there were 1 Billion Muslim and 1 Christian. We’d have a serious problem…come on LDN, you seem intelligent enough.
Click to expand...
What problems would we have? Obviously you are speaking from a corporal perspective. The Truth would not be harmed by a lack of numbers, although that one Christian MIGHT be in danger, though I doubt it.
 
Righteousone said:
There are NOT a Billion Hindu’s…geez, you simply do not know.
Click to expand...
No…but there are nearly 800 million. I’d still say thats a fair sized group wouldn’t you? First you say I seem intelligent, then you accuse me of not knowing. Make up your mind, you’ve judged my faith already, now make a decision about my intelligence.
 
LDNCatholic said:
What problems would we have? Obviously you are speaking from a corporal perspective. The Truth would not be harmed by a lack of numbers, although that one Christian MIGHT be in danger, though I doubt it.
Click to expand...
If you cannot see the problem with that, I cannot answer it for you. ALL CHRISTIANS ARE IN DANGER, no matter the numbers…please tell me you live in an area where there are news channels, EWTN…you are not in tune to your fellow Catholics in the world. They are being killed every day all over the world. Unless you are living under a rock, you must know this…
 
LDNCatholic said:
No…but there are nearly 800 million. I’d still say thats a fair sized group wouldn’t you? First you say I seem intelligent, then you accuse me of not knowing. Make up your mind, you’ve judged my faith already, now make a decision about my intelligence.
Click to expand...
You said over a Billion, now I am telling you numbers. Earlier you accused me of being off a number.
 
Righteousone said:
If you cannot see the problem with that, I cannot answer it for you. ALL CHRISTIANS ARE IN DANGER, no matter the numbers…please tell me you live in an area where there are news channels, EWTN…you are not in tune to your fellow Catholics in the world. They are being killed every day all over the world. Unless you are living under a rock, you must know this…
Click to expand...
OK, I am well aware of the persecution Catholics face. I am also aware of persecuted members of other faiths. This was NOT the point of this thread. The point was that numbers=truth. I disagreed, and you accuse me of not having the correct faith, then you accuse me of being unintelligent, now you assume I am ignorant and uncaring. Are you going to assess my physical fitness next?
 
LDNCatholic said:
OK, I am well aware of the persecution Catholics face. I am also aware of persecuted members of other faiths. This was NOT the point of this thread. The point was that numbers=truth. I disagreed, and you accuse me of not having the correct faith, then you accuse me of being unintelligent, now you assume I am ignorant and uncaring. Are you going to assess my physical fitness next?
Click to expand...
Gee LDN, you must be very insecure to say these things about yourself, the mere fact is that you have the truth is good enough for me. Nothing else matters anyway. I never accused you of being anything. I’m sure your a good man, just don’t know numbers…😛
 
Righteousone said:
Gee LDN, you must be very insecure to say these things about yourself, the mere fact is that you have the truth is good enough for me. Nothing else matters anyway. I never accused you of being anything. I’m sure your a good man, just don’t know numbers…😛
Click to expand...
I know the numbers. Thanks for your concern about my psychological wellbeing :rolleyes: , I’m very secure with myself, I just prefer to debate. Regardless of numbers Truth is Truth.
 
Throughout the Old Testament a faithful remnant of Israel was referred to by the prophets. It was not always very large and the majority of physical Israel were not always faithful. The same is true of the Church today. Large numbers does not guarantee correctness.
 
SyCarl said:
Throughout the Old Testament a faithful remnant of Israel was referred to by the prophets. It was not always very large and the majority of physical Israel were not always faithful. The same is true of the Church today. Large numbers does not guarantee correctness.
Click to expand...
This is true. In the early days of the Church when the number of Christians was small, the martyrs died for the Truth. They were not wrong because they were unpopular at the time.
 
Righteousone said:
Who else feels numbers are not important?? Is it me??
Click to expand...
Numbers are a tempting argument when one’s side is in the majority, but they simply do not work as any sort of proof of the correctness of a faith system.

When you argue from the “there are more of us so we must be right” position, you leave yourself open to the corollary—that if someone else either at one time had more supporters or gains additional supporters in the future, then they must have been or will be right and you wrong, simply because they have more numbers.

See if this makes it clearer
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20numerum
*Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it’s true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn’t necessarily make it true or right. Example: “At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions.” Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between the two, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief. The distinction is a fine one, and in general the terms can be used interchangeably in debate rounds. (I’ve found that ad populum has better rhetorical effect.)

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. For an example, see above. This fallacy is nearly identical to argumentum ad numerum, which you should see for more details. *

So if you base your argument that Christianity is the one true religion on the fact that there are more Christians than members of other religions, then the next logical questions are “at what point in its history did Christianity gain enough followers to become more true than other religions?” as well as “how many more followers does a religion need than its competitors to be the one true religion–one, five, five hundred, five thousand?” What happens if that margin narrows?

It is a very weak argument and you would do better to find a stronger basis for belief than mere popularity.
 
KarenNC said:
Numbers are a tempting argument when one’s side is in the majority, but they simply do not work as any sort of proof of the correctness of a faith system.

When you argue from the “there are more of us so we must be right” position, you leave yourself open to the corollary—that if someone else either at one time had more supporters or gains additional supporters in the future, then they must have been or will be right and you wrong, simply because they have more numbers.

See if this makes it clearer
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20numerum
*Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it’s true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn’t necessarily make it true or right. Example: “At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions.” Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between the two, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief. The distinction is a fine one, and in general the terms can be used interchangeably in debate rounds. (I’ve found that ad populum has better rhetorical effect.)

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. For an example, see above. This fallacy is nearly identical to argumentum ad numerum, which you should see for more details. *

So if you base your argument that Christianity is the one true religion on the fact that there are more Christians than members of other religions, then the next logical questions are “at what point in its history did Christianity gain enough followers to become more true than other religions?” as well as “how many more followers does a religion need than its competitors to be the one true religion–one, five, five hundred, five thousand?” What happens if that margin narrows?

It is a very weak argument and you would do better to find a stronger basis for belief than mere popularity.
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting this and providing the link. This is an excellent post. 👍
 
i think what these numbers can teach us is that out of the 2 billion Christians in the world, 1 billion of them are Catholic. a typical non-denominational church has what, 500 to 2000 members? so a church that claims to be the one church that Jesus established and has the fullness of His teachings for the 2000 years since Jesus established it, versus an independent church that claims that it has all of His teachings and teaches them correctly, for 50 to 100 of the past years.

take a non-biased person: not a Christian, or doesn’t even believe in God. ask that person which church most likely contains the all the correct teachings throughout history. hm, 1,000,000,000 and 2000 years old since the very beginning and throughout all of the history of Christianity, or 2,000 and 100 years old.

given just the pure numbers, it makes one who wants to follow Jesus wonder and want to seriously take a look at this Church and why the numbers are so. this sparked my curiosity when i was looking for the true and complete teachings of Jesus, and it is only the brink of the iceberg.
 
johnnydigit said:
take a non-biased person: not a Christian, or doesn’t even believe in God. ask that person which church most likely contains the all the correct teachings throughout history. hm, 1,000,000,000 and 2000 years old since the very beginning and throughout all of the history of Christianity, or 2,000 and 100 years old.
Click to expand...
One only has to go to a McDonald’s to see ‘billions and billions served’, but I don’t think it unreasonable to say that McDonald’s is far from the One True Restaurant. Popularity has nothing to do with truth, as Jesus himself noted many times.
 
Mirdath said:
One only has to go to a McDonald’s to see ‘billions and billions served’, but I don’t think it unreasonable to say that McDonald’s is far from the One True Restaurant. Popularity has nothing to do with truth, as Jesus himself noted many times.
Click to expand...
McDonald’s didn’t have God entrust it with His bread. Jesus entrusted His Church to Peter and promised it would last until the end of time, and so far, so 2000 years good. popularity indeed has nothing to do with it.

if your interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is all that stands between you and what could be the One, true Church, i suggest you make 100% sure you understand that verse fully. (learn about the prime minister in charge when a king is absent, the keys to the kingdom given to him, and what a name change means in the Old Testament).

if there was only 10 people in the Catholic Church, i would be there because it was 2000 years old (and no, age doesn’t matter, but in this case, 2000 years means all of Christianity from beginning to end), has Apostolic succession, and gave us the Bible, among other things.
 
johnnydigit said:
if there was only 10 people in the Catholic Church, i would be there because it was 2000 years old (and no, age doesn’t matter, but in this case, 2000 years means all of Christianity from beginning to end), has Apostolic succession, and gave us the Bible, among other things.
Click to expand...
I see what you’re getting at – thought you were trying a different angle :o

Matthew 16:18 is hardly the only thing standing between me and religion of any sort, but you have my sincere congratulations on achieving or hanging onto faith (whichever it is), and may your grasp continue to be firm 🙂
 
Mirdath said:
I see what you’re getting at – thought you were trying a different angle :o

Matthew 16:18 is hardly the only thing standing between me and religion of any sort, but you have my sincere congratulations on achieving or hanging onto faith (whichever it is), and may your grasp continue to be firm 🙂
Click to expand...
thanks. i’ve decided that either i am completely delusional beyond any reproach, in which case i at least have 2 billion crazy Christians behind me and 1 billion of them behind the Catholic Church; or i am right and i will be resting in eternal glory soon enough. in either case, there is no greater joy in this life than to know, love, and serve God.

regarding Matt 16, either you interpret it as Jesus giving authority to Peter, in which case as a Christian you are either Catholic or Orthodox and are called to believe in everything they have ever taught; or you interpret it as Jesus calling everyone the Church with no hierarchy so you are free to roam about to any denomination and believe whatever you want.
 
Ok the number game…

Ain’t buying it.

How many true Catholics, Catholics of conviction are there???

let us be honest, it is not that high.
And it is the new comers that are more convicted than the craddle Catholics (those born and raised in the Church).

Number game is a joke.

Salvation is not about numbers it is about conviction. It is about the heart and soul of humanity.

There are too many go through the motions Catholics.
There are too many Easter/Christmas may-be Ash Wednesday Catholics.

Consider the number of so called Catholics in the United States alone, how many are actually married by the Church, if they are married at all.

I am now and will always be Catholic, I will die Catholic. But I am honest, and will not sugar coat anything for my brothers and sisters.

At least the non catholics can say we did not know any better, what is the Catholic’s excuse?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top