Why don't Catholics fight for a law agianst non-believers recieving communion?

[michelleds]

You can refer to the thread for my reply to his claims. I don’t intend to have the same conversation twice.

No thanks. I actually was hoping to see you two move beyond the stalemate and continue the mathematical proof of prophecy part of all of this.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

That is nonsensical. The population is clearly not “too big” to live in an area the size of Texas at the density of New York City. That’s exactly what the math says.

You should already know by now that the math suggests the population size is too big to be supported by the resources surrounding such a small area.

No, I am not denying the undeniable empirical evidence, you are. You may not want to admit the contradiction in that, but its plain to see. We can clearly produce and distribute goods globally. We do it every day.

I’ve told you several times that this hypothetical could be a completely different reality, without colonization of the other continents it may be impossible to effectively import any goods, that’s why I need the assumptions of the hypothetical cleared up. Perhaps it will support your claims, perhaps not.

See here? You claim that you are not denying the math or the evidence, but in this very post you do both. In the red print you resort to a nonsensical statement to deny the math, and in the black print you deny the empirical evidence that we see every single day. You have been arguing in circles for a while now.

You’ve been ignoring what i’m saying for a while now and subsequently I’ve had to repeat it over and over again in the last 20 posts and you still have not once addressed the resource concerns or bothered to clear up the assumptions, you just keep telling me that while everybody does not live in Texas we can import and export efficiently so therefore if everybody did live in Texas nothing would change. This is nonsense, why do you think everything would be the same if everybody was crammed into such a small space?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You should already know by now…

I am not ignoring you, I keep answering you. I will do so yet again. ** The math and the empirical evidence proves you wrong. ** Clearly the math verifies that everyone in the world can live in an area the size of Texas at the population density of New York City. The empirical evidence clearly shows that we can and do produce and distribute goods globally. You are clearly wrong.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You should already know by now that the math suggests the population size is too big to be supported by the resources surrounding such a small area.

I’ve told you several times that this hypothetical could be a completely different reality, without colonization of the other continents it may be impossible to effectively import any goods, that’s why I need the assumptions of the hypothetical cleared up. Perhaps it will support your claims, perhaps not.

You’ve been ignoring what i’m saying for a while now and subsequently I’ve had to repeat it over and over again in the last 20 posts and you still have not once addressed the resource concerns or bothered to clear up the assumptions, you just keep telling me that while everybody does not live in Texas we can import and export efficiently so therefore if everybody did live in Texas nothing would change. This is nonsense, why do you think everything would be the same if everybody was crammed into such a small space?

The empirical evidence proves that we can and do produce and distribute goods globally. You are obviously wrong.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

No thanks. I actually was hoping to see you two move beyond the stalemate and continue the mathematical proof of prophecy part of all of this.

I did actually create a separate thread for the prophecy claims here but he neglected to respond to my last post and we never agreed on the criteria used to judge the prophecy. I also never received any information on the mathematical proof, he only referred me to a book that apparently had it in there.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Call it what you will - organic bodily union, vaginal intercourse, etc. - but you must admit that physically - and, unless you take an anthropologically dualist view, therefore spiritually and socially - vaginal intercourse is quite objectively distinct from other kinds of sexual activity - oral sex, anal sex, no matter the gender of the parties involved.

As concrete evidence of this, let me point out something unrelated to gay issues: legally speaking, in the majority of legal/social traditions, only vaginal intercourse was/is considered consummation for a marriage.

After all, no other sexual expression can result in new human life. It’s always made sense to treat as different the kind of relationship whose physical consummation and expression is exclusively that type of act… please note that everything I said in my “conclusion/summary” above (about this not being as mechanical as it might seem) applies here, too.

Agreed, it should be treated differently and it is different, I don’t see why this should prevent people incapable of this action from getting married though.

I guarantee you that this reasoning does not lead to denying marriage to infertile couples, and I encourage you to read the section that addresses this exact objection in the article I linked to.

If I get time, I will have a crack.

Again, for the above reasons I don’t think this is a matter of equality vs. inequality.

But you’re not wrong: we as a society can legally change the institution of marriage (otherwise this debate wouldn’t be happening), and I agree that it doesn’t make sense to set up an entirely separate institution whose legal characteristics parallel those of marriage.

Rather, I maintain that the kind of rights (hospital visitation, etc.) that gay couples want for each other really ought to be available between any consenting adults or sets of adults. I suppose that these practical matters then actually are a matter of freedom: of states and organizations’ dictating things that should be left to the judgment of mature adults.

So hang on, you are opposed to the notion that homosexual relationships should be permitted to become married, correct? Yet you are quite happy for them to have the same rights as married heterosexual couples, correct? But you don’t think that a separate institution should be set up that grants all of the same benefits as marriage, correct?

So do you want homosexual couples to be able to receive the same benefits as married couples or do you think they should receive different benefits? Because if all of the above premises are true then you would be fighting for gay marriage.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. Changing the structure of marriage wouldn’t dilute every heterosexual relationship but rather the legal - and therefore social - uniqueness of the exclusive and permanent union of one man and one woman. But again, I think I misunderstand your question.

The concept of a “permanent union” as proposed by marriage is already diluted with quite a high divorce rate. Why should it be exclusive? I don’t understand why marriage should be as exclusive as it is? Why do you consider that a good thing or something worth fighting for?

 

[lazydaisy67]

The answer to your question is a simple one. This country was founded on the premise of religious freedom. The Pilgrims were trying to get away from a monarchical form of government that was telling them how, where and when they could worship God. They didn’t want that to be the case so they fled that form of tyranny and, over time, sought to form a government that would be separate from religion. We have seen the effects of that form of government slowly evolve over time. No prayer in schools, no ten commandment plaques in front of courthouses, etc. Would you really want the government to dictate to the people of this country what they could and couldn’t do in their own churches with regards to communion or any other form of worship? You assume that those laws (if it ever happened) would be decidedly pro-Catholic, but what if they weren’t? By giving the government the power to dictate laws about religion, you’re putting your Catholic beliefs on the chopping block as well.
As a more practical consideration, you’d have to have full approval by both the House of Representatives AND the Senate before any federal law was passed (assuming this country’s constitution had been changed) in addition to having a practicing and conservative Catholic president behind the resolute desk. Pretty much the same thing would have to happen at the state level, which would again mean that a state would have to change it’s constitution to allow for the state government to dictate religious practices. I really don’t think you’d want that to happen.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Of course. The comparison I am drawing does not contradict this point: that just as eHarmony was not denying its services to gay men and lesbians, so too traditional marriage, legally preserved, does not deny marriage to them if marriage means the faithful, exclusive, and permanent (until death) union of one man and one woman.

Of course they weren’t denying their services to them, they just weren’t offering a service that woman wanted. That’s all I am saying. Homosexuals are not fighting for the right to enter into a legal marriage with a person of the opposite sex. There would be no debate if that is what they were asking, which brings us to the second point.

As with my previous analogy, the failure to sell a certain brand of milk I want does not mean they have stopped selling milk altogether.

One can, of course, deny that that definition of marriage should continue to be our society’s, but the facts remain that in most states and at the federal level that is the definition now, and that by that definition a gay person is not legally excluded - it’s just that entering a marriage could never make them happy due to the fact that they’re not sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Not to sound petty, but this brings to mind the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… The only thing I will say is that as an American, I value freedom, for all. Even if that means that others exercise of freedom involves them doing things I don’t like, or even find morally objectionable. Heck, to enjoy worshipping how I choose, I have to allow people to be able to teach outright heresy in their churches.

Yes, I agree. It is sad that we - at least, I’ll speak for my own church here - don’t do a good enough job at making them feel welcome and loved. While the Catholic Church, at least, does ask more of gay people than it does of most other people in society, and while that fact makes it harder to see the love that lies in Christ’s call to welcome suffering and death (take up your cross, lose your life for My sake, etc.), the fact nonetheless remains that our obligation to show that love to them is in no way mitigated.

So on a personal/cultural level, I agree that culture wars are not spiritually productive or helpful. As an orthodox Catholic with plenty of gay friends (though admittedly I myself am heterosexual), I truly believe that the Catholic Church - not to mention Christ - loves and wants to welcome gay people as with everyone. When gay people feel differently, that is my failure - the failure of everyone in my church - as a Catholic and a Christian.

You don’t come across as a bigotted person to me at all. I can see you do care about people and are only concerned about the truth. I concur with these feelings, you did a good job describing how I feel as well.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I did actually create a separate thread for the prophecy claims here but he neglected to respond to my last post and we never agreed on the criteria used to judge the prophecy.

I didn’t know you had posted. I thought you had realized that that this issue had to be settled first. After all, if you refuse to recognize any evidence that you wish wasn’t there, it kind of makes the whole thing pointless. You believe what you want to regardless of the evidence as this thread has so masterfully demonstrated.

I also never received any information on the mathematical proof, he only referred me to a book that apparently had it in there.

Yes you did. I referenced the book and the methodology. You know I did. Just as you know I keep answering your farcical, reality denying claims here. You just don’t like the answer because it publicly demonstrates that you cannot admit you are wrong even when presented with incontrovertible evidence.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I didn’t know you had posted. I thought you had realized that that this issue had to be settled first. After all, if you refuse to recognize any evidence that you wish wasn’t there, it kind of makes the whole thing pointless. You believe what you want to regardless of the evidence as this thread has so masterfully demonstrated.

You have ignored what I’ve written, until you actually bother to challenge my argument then you cannot claim victory honestly.

Yes you did. I referenced the book and the methodology. You know I did. Just as you know I keep answering your farcical, reality denying claims here. You just don’t like the answer because it publicly demonstrates that you cannot admit you are wrong even when presented with incontrovertible evidence.

I demonstrated and referred you several times to the fact that mathematics and probabilities are disciplines and not methodologies. Another point you happily ignored.

Referencing the book is not good enough, when you cite something, the page number and quotes are necessary, this is the way universities work, this is the way citation works and always has.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You have ignored what I’ve written, until you actually bother to challenge my argument then you cannot claim victory honestly.

**The math and the empirical evidence prove you wrong.
**See the large print here? It is my response to what you have written. There is no victory, the fact you think so explains why you are unwilling to admit that you are wrong. There is no point in having much ego here, its going to get hurt. Nature of the beast.

I demonstrated and referred you several times to the fact that mathematics and probabilities are disciplines and not methodologies. Another point you happily ignored.

The *fact *is that they are methodologies. Look in a dictionary. I am ignoring your repeated attempts to make me change my answer, just as I am in this thread.

Referencing the book is not good enough, when you cite something, the page number and quotes are necessary, this is the way universities work, this is the way citation works and always has.

The page number and quotes were posted with the paragraph that I posted. If you want more information than read the book. In all the universities that I have ever been to, that’s exactly how it works. Sonmeone cites a passage from a book, if you want to know more you go to the library and check it out.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

**The math and the empirical evidence prove you wrong.
**See the large print here? It is my response to what you have written.

And it is an assertion that is yet to contain any evidence. Support this claim because all of the math you presented I’ve happily accepted, I even presented some math of my own and so has another poster that both suggest your conclusions are false.

The *fact *is that they are methodologies. Look in a dictionary. I am ignoring your repeated attempts to make me change my answer, just as I am in this thread.

I quoted a dictionary that said the exact opposite, and just for you, I’m going to do it again.

“Probability theory is the study of random events and processes. A mathematical discipline in its own right.”
Source

“Mathematics is the only discipline capable of explaining…”
SourceThe page number and quotes were posted with the paragraph that I posted.

The quote is of his conclusions, not his work, his work was not cited at all.

If you want more information than read the book. In all the universities that I have ever been to, that’s exactly how it works. Sonmeone cites a passage from a book, if you want to know more you go to the library and check it out.

Yes, you cited a passage but what you didn’t do is give me any reason to believe that passage holds any truth. You didn’t cite his work when asked and that is what would be required to support your claims.

 

[jmcrae]

Special according to whom? How does permitting relationships that do not produce children have any effect on the relationships that do? Why should we value the ones that do more than the ones that don’t?

Um - because children are the future of society - they are the reason we exist, to begin with. Our primary, most important job on this earth is to produce them and take good care of them.

Without children, we will die out as families, and as a species. Children are the most valuable people on earth, because they will take whatever we give them and use it to create a future that we will not live to see. They are the people who will remember us when we are gone. They are the people for whom we go to work every day - whatever we do at our jobs is for the purpose of building a world for them to live in. That’s the whole point of everything.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And it is an assertion that is yet to contain any evidence…

No one has demonstrated a problem with the math I presented. Nor can you claim that we do not produce and distribute goods globally. It is an assertion evidenced by the contents of everyones cupboard as I have already pointed out. You are clearly wrong.

 

[michelleds]

No one has demonstrated a problem with the math I presented. Nor can you claim that we do not produce and distribute goods globally. It is an assertion evidenced by the contents of everyones cupboard as I have already pointed out. You are clearly wrong.

except that if ALL the people are living in Texas, how will you utilize the necessary acreage for farming? will people have to commute to kansas every day in order to live with everyone else in texas? we do produce and distribue goods globally, and people live everywhere except antarctica.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

except that if ALL the people are living in Texas, how will you utilize the necessary acreage for farming? will people have to commute to kansas every day in order to live with everyone else in texas? we do produce and distribue goods globally, and people live everywhere except antarctica.

You can refer to the thread for my reply to his claims. I don’t intend to have the same conversation twice.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

except that if ALL the people are living in Texas, how will you utilize the necessary acreage for farming? will people have to commute to kansas every day in order to live with everyone else in texas? we do produce and distribue goods globally, and people live everywhere except antarctica.

I’m glad someones beginning to get just as frustrated with me over the ignorance displayed from Petey. Perhaps if enough people jump in and enlighten him on how much he has ignored he might realise it because he has ignored everything I’ve brought up about him ignoring my arguments.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

No one has demonstrated a problem with the math I presented.

There is no problem with the math you presented.

Nor can you claim that we do not produce and distribute goods globally.

Indeed we do and while everybody is spread around the globe evenly it is probable that this will occur.

It is an assertion evidenced by the contents of everyones cupboard as I have already pointed out. You are clearly wrong.

Perhaps you could respond and clear up the assumptions of the hypothetical so that you can actually demonstrate that I am wrong.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Um - because children are the future of society - they are the reason we exist, to begin with. Our primary, most important job on this earth is to produce them and take good care of them.

Taking good care of them and others requires many other kinds of important jobs and you will find that the whole cycle is dependent on many different factors, which one is more important is not something I can conclude on. So whether the production or care of children is more important is really up to you.

Without children, we will die out as families, and as a species. Children are the most valuable people on earth, because they will take whatever we give them and use it to create a future that we will not live to see. They are the people who will remember us when we are gone. They are the people for whom we go to work every day - whatever we do at our jobs is for the purpose of building a world for them to live in. That’s the whole point of everything.

Indeed, why does this make child producing relationships more important than ones that don’t produce children? Valuing the children is still the primary concerns but the relationships that produce them are not under any kind of threat, they dominate the globe, why should we value them over others and give them exclusive rights? I find if we want to protect the children that are growing removing discrimination and prejudices would be very valuable.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m glad someones beginning to get just as frustrated with me over the ignorance displayed from Petey. Perhaps if enough people jump in and enlighten him on how much he has ignored he might realise it because he has ignored everything I’ve brought up about him ignoring my arguments.

Yes, its me that is the problem. I am the one who is so intellectually dishonest, that I refuse
to admit that both the empirical evidence and the mathematical evidence prove me wrong. I am the one lying about being replied to. I figure if I just lie, refuse to recognize the actual evidence, and cry that I am being ignored, in the same post that I really received my replies, than I won’t have to admit that my cherished belief is wrong. Yeah, that’s me. I have so much riding on the idea that Texas could be a thriving metropolis that it would change my world view. You caught me…