Posted on 02/12/2017 2:20:29 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
According to any statistics class, “surveys” are the VERY least reliable source of information.
Since I've attending daily Mass for so many decades the readings are ALWAYS explained. And, if I ever had any questions I always asked our local priest. THEY learn the Catholic Church's interpretation in their Seminary studies.
I just wondered WHY Iowa. The article DIDN’T “explain” that at all.
Why do you say that? Are you certain the racial makeup cited in the article is not a factor? Or the corporate/educational institutions? The apparent larger than expected homosexual community? The presence of a declining mainline Protestantism (as opposed to a more Bible based evangelical one)?
Why did you not find these factors, all cited in the piece as present in Cedar Rapids, convincing?
So where is the OFFICIAL Catholic church approved interpretation of Scripture that Catholics uniformly, lockstep adhere to with no dissent?
Please post the link so that people can find it and read it for themselves so we know how all Catholics think on each verse of Scripture.
Non-Catholics may also IGNORE God's Words like they do about the sin of divorce-remarriage=adultery: The Teaching of Jesus on Divorce — (Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12).
Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
It's a good thing no Catholic ever looked on a member of the opposite sex with lust in their hearts.
Otherwise, there'd be Catholics committing adultery all the time while married.
Non-Catholics may also IGNORE God's Words like they do about .........
Matthew 23: 8-10 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.
I forgot. There is NOT 100% “daily” Mass since the Church does NOT have a Mass on Good Friday.
DON'T believe me. Look it up on ANY site. The SURVEY method is notoriously flawed.
Survey takers CHOOSE the city/town/burg.
They choose the part of town to survey and the part of town to ignore.
They choose the gender, age and race of their sample...and the same to ignore.
They might even decide to choose folks who are walking a dog or pushing a baby stroller.
They choose the questions, the TYPE of questions, to ask.
They do or do NOT do follow-ups the next day in that same area.
I cannot recall ALL the flaws of the "survey method" but it IS the MOST flawed. The reasons are pretty simple as well.
I assume that it's been a while since you took stat classes. FReegards.
Madison, WI is a 3-hour drive. But, the other one, Iowa City, is less than a half-hour away. And for this survey, Iowa City was lumped in with Cedar Rapids (along with Waterloo and Dubuque).
Clearly, Iowa City is the only reason Cedar Rapids perenially makes any headlines with this list.
So then you reject the demographic information cited in the article as incorrect? What makes you conclude that Barna would publish what you conclude is poor research?
The information MIGHT be true to some extent. The lamestream media COUNT on folks, perhaps like you, to unquestioningly believe whatever is on the printed page and comes from the mouths of whatever "news anchor."
Poor research is also INSUFFICIENT research and when folks have a deadline to meet I do believe that they actually MIGHT cut some corners.
As for "statistics" see below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
The term was popularized in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Google: The Barna Group is an evangelical Christian polling firm based in Ventura, California.
Even evangelical Christian polling firms can make an error every so often since they are, like all of us, flawed human beings.
Even the priests need a day off :)
Why do you consider Barna and/or The Gospel Coalition “mainstream media”? What causes you to come to that conclusion?
Yes, they do. They even need a vacation now and then.
They also deserve to be treated like human beings who are serving God the best they can, sinners though THEY be.
But I get it. They are SO much fun for SOME people to trash. They know that too. Today they are uber smart, educated AND dedicated to Discipleship and Evangelization.
They are PUBLIC, that's why.
Don't they INTEND on reaching as large an audience as they can? Or are they only for a very small and very private group of people. One would ASSUME that they would go for as large an audience as they could. Jesus did.
So is your basis for mainstream media anyone trying to increase audience? Have you considered this as the mission for Barna and TGC? How could you come to that conclusion considering Barna’s status as a firm with clients who pay for the research?
Same question applies to TGC, which says it exists for current and next generation Christian leaders: why do you assign to them the goal of mere audience accumulation?
Have you considered Barna might not have lasted 30+ years in the business if it were a company that didn’t perform for its clients?
They don’t read the Bible, they have selected, Vatican approved portions of It read to them. There are sections of the Bible that would never be read to the people.
“THEY learn the Catholic Church’s interpretation in their Seminary studies.”
It is astounding how little of the Catholic seminary curriculum is devoted to Scripture.
It is extremely narrow.
I cordially disagree.
The former has been well evidenced here, and as there is no official complete RC commentary on all the Bible with all its verses, then as RC apologist Jimmy Akin at Catholic Answers stated,
"The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty”
In addition, your bare denial means you even disagree with the documented facts of liberal notes and study helps that have been taught for decades in Romes NAB.
Wrong: I am sure any statistics class can tell you that not all surveys are the same and warrant the same degree of credulity, but multiple surveys of how people feel which consistently conflate with each other, and with actual evidence are a whole lot more reliable sources of accurate information than bare assertions - which is all you have.
Trying to prove that those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death are overall strongly (if that) conservative is what you cannot show.
Well, Barna reported ,
Bible reading was most likely among those who attend a Pentecostal church (75%) and least likely among those who frequent the Catholic (23%), Episcopal (30%) and Lutheran (32%) churches. 2000
they have selected, Vatican approved portions of It read to them. There are sections of the Bible that would never be read to the people.
According to the research by a RC cited before (Todd Easton: http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1063633&postcount=9) , Obadiah is never read during the 3-year cycle, even if one includes weekday masses, while Judges, Ruth, Esther, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Nahum, and Haggai are utterly missing in the Sunday cycle, and only 1% of Leviticus, Numbers, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, and Daniel are read.
But i should read more than i do myself.
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.