Posted on 01/24/2013 1:15:11 PM PST by daniel1212
The report ranks the most and least “Bible-minded” cities by looking at how people in those cities view the Bible....
Regionally, the South still qualifies as the most Bible-minded. The top ranking cities, where at least half of the population qualifies as Bible-minded, are all Southern cities. This includes the media markets for Knoxville, TN (52% of the population are Bible-minded), Shreveport, LA (52%), Chattanooga, TN (52%), Birmingham, AL (50%), and Jackson, MS (50%). Other markets in the top 10 include Springfield, MO (49%), Charlotte, NC (48%), Lynchburg, VA (48%), Huntsville-Decatur, AL (48%), and Charleston, WV (47%).
The least Bible-oriented markets include a mix of regions, but tend to be from the New England area. Easily the lowest Bible-minded scores came from Providence, RI (9%) and Albany, NY (10%). To put this in perspective, the most Bible-minded markets are five times more likely to have residents who qualify as Bible-minded than is true in these two Northeastern cities.
Though these two cities are the most extreme, none of the cities in the bottom 10 break 20%, where even one in five people could be considered Bible-minded. The New England area is home to most of the markets in the bottom 10 Bible-minded cities, including Burlington, VT (16%), Portland, ME (16%), Hartford, CT (16%), Boston, MA (16%), Buffalo, NY (18%) and New York, NY (18%).
The remaining markets in the bottom 10 are primarily in the West and include San Francisco, CA (16%), Phoenix, AZ (17%), and Las Vegas, NV (18%). Cedar Rapids, IA (18%) being something of an outlier.
See where your city ranks. See all 96 cities here..
Interesting that NY is on the list because in both areas of the state that I’ve lived in, WNY and CNY, they are heavily religious.
There is a strong Catholic component in both areas. So although they are religious, they are not very Bible minded.
And it shows in the red/blue maps and voting patterns.
Oh, so it’s a “study” with lots of numbers, graphs and charts that mean nothing.
Darn good question. Protestant is a label which originates in the protests which led to the reformation in the era of Martin Luther, John Calvin and thereafter. Luther was not the first reformer, just the first who was successful.
Jan Hus, who proceeded him by about a century, is revered by many originalists who consider him the greatest of the reformers. I once attended a very originalist Baptist church who did not consider themselves Protestants because the original Anabaptists of whom Hus was considered a leader, never signed on with the State Church in Rome which was launched with the Nicean Creed in the 4th century. Some of them even consider modern Baptists to be sell-outs and other Protestants to be rebel branches of the Catholic church, which doctrines they also reject.
I have seen several similar surveys that flip Vermont and New Hampshire...neither is a position either state should covet.
Which is usually due to the incessant posts about Rome, often advertising her or defending her doctrine, which invites refutations,
You mean like this one from a few days ago:
"Pope: Historical Divisions Among Christians One of the Most Serious Sins that Disfigure Church"
Luther was a sinner for posting his 95 Theses on the door of Wittenburg Church, exposing Rome's sins, their indulgences, etc.? The rest of the Protestants are sinners in refusing to be subservient to the Pope of Rome?
I don’t know, but no one here seems to know either, yet this thread says that 13% of Christians who aren’t members of a church, are whatever it is.
10%, not 13%.
Interesting.
mr. mm and I aren’t members of a church although we affiliate with one which we attend regularly.
IMO, church membership is useful for having a say in church government, but that’s about it.
That’s interesting. I never knew that.
Catholics like to portray that there were never any Christians or Christianity outside the Catholic church and that if it weren’t for the Catholic church, none would exist and neither would Scripture.
Be careful of indigestion.
Well, you must understand that without the sanction of those who were the instruments and stewards of God's revelation, and were the inheritors of Divine promises, and could claim historical descent, then you simply have no authority.
And to dare to reprove such by Scripture, and establish your claims upon it, as if that was the supreme authority, but that those who sat in power did not possess assured veracity - which they had to have since writings were established as Scripture under them - marks you as a rebel. You simply cannot begin a church in dissent from such.
And which is why Rome would have dealt with a certain Itinerant Preacher from Galilee thusly:
"And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? " (Mark 11:27-28)
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=2789#2789 for more, and while Reformers come far short of being Jesus (much more Rome), the principle remains.
Worthy is the Lamb that wast slain to receive power...
No escaping!
of course there are none. If you are a Christian and not a Catholic, you are a protestant....there isn't a third catagory.
You need to get out more.....
There's a difference between people who merely call themselves "Catholic" and those who actually believe and practice the faith.
Visit a traditional Latin Mass parish sometime, go to coffee hour afterwards, and ask for a show of hands of the Obama voters. I almost guarantee that people will look at you like you have three heads, then try to pull you aside and explain that Obama is an apostate fiend from hell.
The Incarnate God-Man, Christ Jesus Our Lord, had an answer for their question.
The "reformers" do not, and never will. "Lest the Lord build the house, the builders labor in vain."
True.
I am a 'member' of the Wesleyan denomination.
We fall under the Methodist 'tradition'.
As a denomination, we practice 'open' communion; in that you do NOT have to be a member of our local church or even the denomination or even 'belong' to ANY church, to partake. It's between you and GOD. (Although we do want the younger folks to KNOW what they are doing; not just going along because most everyone else is.
Some churchs; not belonging to a denomination to guide them, have various other 'rules' that they follow in their government.
(We could get off on a tangent here and be gone for DAYS! ;^)
chuckle...
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.