Posted on 06/24/2025 4:33:58 AM PDT by daniel1212
...according to data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders, which is hosted on the Association of Religion Data Archives. The team that put that instrument together included a series of questions that probed how clergy thought about God, the Bible, and various aspects of religious beliefs that offer a fascinating peek behind the curtain into the personal faith of religious leadership in the United States. ..
the share of evangelicals who believed in Adam and Eve as literal historical people was only 80%, which was slightly lower than Black Protestant clergy at 89%. Meanwhile, Catholic priests and mainline pastors were much lower - with just a quarter saying that they were certain Adam and Eve were real people...
An evangelical pastor was twice as likely to believe in Hell compared to a religious leader in the mainline (93% vs 45%). Catholic priests were about halfway between, with 70% saying that Hell definitely exists. You can also see this same general pattern on the question about miraculous healing. While 78% of priests expressed a certain belief, along with 84% of evangelical pastors - it was only 47% of mainline leaders...
What about belief in the Bible?,..
The most popular choice across the entire sample of Christian clergy was the idea that the Bible was the inspired word of God, but parts of it are really symbolic. Among evangelical clergy, 70% took this position and it was 67% of the Black Church pastors. For the mainline leaders, about a quarter put themselves in that camp. I was struck by the Catholic sample, though. Half of them chose the “inspired, without errors” option and the same share chose the option related to the idea that the Bible is not historically accurate and instead reflecting the culture in which it was written. And, for what it’s worth, the latter position was clearly the favorite among the mainline pastors - chosen by 7 in ten of them...
There’s a statement in this survey, “My religion would be the best one for all people no matter their background or current religion” that really gets to the heart of the matter.
In this sample, 93% of the evangelical pastors said that their religion was the best one for all people. That was 22 points higher than Black Protestants. It was also significantly higher than Catholic priests and mainline Protestant pastors. For the Catholics, 58% thought that they had a superior perspective and it was a bare majority of the mainline at 51%.
There’s another question that even takes this a step farther - it asks about evangelizing to other faith groups....
Why is Judaism not included?
And the fact that it can’t be proved is why it is called faith.
The authors response to questions about belief in the Bible reveal ignorance:
1. The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.
2. The Bible is the inspired word of God, without errors. Some parts are meant to be symbolic, but all of it applies today.
3. The Bible is the inspired word of God that still speaks to us today, but not all of it is historically accurate, and some parts reflect the culture in which it was written and do not apply today.
The author thought that it was odd that only 20% of evangelical pastors chose #1, as if they were to take metaphors, etc. as literal, versus #2 which itself presumes much as to how all of it applies today (as it does, in principal as regards such commands building a fence around roofs of new construction: Deuteronomy 22:8).
Actually, you live by faith everyday, but as in the Bible, that is not blind faith, but confidence based upon a degree of evidential warrant. Atheism itself is a position of faith.
I would count most televangelists as unbelievers in the Bible, but only in the offering plate.
Many of them don’t believe much of what they aught. Many don’t practice what they preach.
And during the offering, most every pastor becomes a Pentecostal in hoping that God will speak to the people to give generously.
The vast majority of Catholic priest (especially those in the Vatican) are practicing homosexuals and pedophiles.
They are Hedonist and worship Satan’s pleasure hole above all else. They should all be burned at the stake. All of them. /spit
It takes much more faith to be an Atheist. In fact, it ranks right up there with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
For far too many clergy, it is simply the opportunity to earn an income or support while mingling their brand of politics with twisted Biblical preaching.
For example, I haven't met anyone who takes all of the Bible "literally". (Yeah, including John chapter 6.)
Is all of the Bible "historically accurate"? Some parts probably aren't meant to be. Is Job a real, historical person, or is that book an extended parable? (Does it even matter? It teaches what it intends to teach either way, doesn't it?)
"Some parts reflect the culture in which it was written" ... I think all parts reflect the culture in which they were written, just like anything anyone writes today reflects the culture in which it was written. That's intrinsic to the nature of a written record.
When a survey asks people to choose between overlapping alternatives, all of which have elements of truth, the results are going to be a mess.
As a matter of record, assuming the questions were straightforward, a Catholic priest who denies the existence of a literal Adam and Eve (not the names, of course, but the persons) is a material heretic, and one who denies the existence of hell is also a material heretic.
Amen brother and thank you for the ping!
Only because they were part of a support group.
Saying that faith is belief in something that can't be proved implies that there it's mindless wishful thinking, and its's not.
Scripture defines faith as:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Everyone exercises faith everyday when they go to start the car and expect it to start. When they plug something in and expect it to work.
It may be in things not seen, but it's not lack of proof.
Yet across researchers they overall have concurred in many aspects.
For example, I haven't met anyone who takes all of the Bible "literally". (Yeah, including John chapter 6.)
I myself raised that objection in my comment.
And related to the case you chose to mention, then in isolationist exegesis, a strict literalist could conclude that water obtained at the risk of men's lives became blood, as David called it this and thus poured it out unto the Lord, (2 Samuel 23:15-17) and that Israel consumed Canaanites (for "they are bread for us” - Num. 14:9), and that "this is My body" ((1 Corinthians 11:24) meant that the apostles were viewing the manifestly incarnated flesh of Christ, which Scripture emphasizes, (Luke 24:39; 1 John 1:1-3, 4:2-3; John 5:6; 2 John 7) versus a false Christ whose appearance did not conform to what He materially was.
And that consuming this was how one obtained spiritual life in oneself, (Jn. 6:53) versus regeneration by believing the gospel, the word of life, (Acts 10:43-47, 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13, 2:1; Philippians 2:16; Jn. 6:63) and that Jesus Himself continually lived by consuming the flesh of His Father, that being His food. (Jn. 4:34, 6:57) as believers are to.
Of-course, interpreting the gospels by themselves, versus the rest of inspired Scripture, makes the problem of such literalism evident, in addition to the theology it resulted in.
Is all of the Bible "historically accurate"? Some parts probably aren't meant to be. Is Job a real, historical person, or is that book an extended parable? (Does it even matter? It teaches what it intends to teach either way, doesn't it?)
Of course it matters, for as with the true story of Luke 16:19-31, then unlike merely illustrative parables such as virgins not having oil, if the account of Job's sufferings was not real, but work of fiction, then it detracts from its power as a lesson of a real man enduring real suffering, as a result of a real test of faith as part of a real supernatural battle.
Which means that holy James is merely referring to a fictitious man in exhorting believers to endure as he did:
Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy. (James 5:11)Thus, since the NABRE notes state that the story of Job is "not a transcript of historical events and conversations," then the RC version would read, Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy, although this is only a fictitious person, as are his sufferings and faith.
Of-course, in RC theology you have decades of notes and study helps by the commentators of the official RC New American Bible (now surpassed with the slightly revised NABRE) and esp. its St. Jospeph study version, which for taught such things as that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson. And that the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21, 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson. TradCaths themselves understandably are critical of such.
"Some parts reflect the culture in which it was written" ... I think all parts reflect the culture in which they were written, just like anything anyone writes today reflects the culture in which it was written. That's intrinsic to the nature of a written record.
True indeed. The error is when those with a dishonest agenda, or in ignorance, fail to rightly divide the word, such as prohomosex polemicists do, employing a hermeneutic which effectively can negate any command they do not like from being a universal one.
When a survey asks people to choose between overlapping alternatives, all of which have elements of truth, the results are going to be a mess.
Which to varying degrees, is usually the case.
As a matter of record, assuming the questions were straightforward, a Catholic priest who denies the existence of a literal Adam and Eve (not the names, of course, but the persons) is a material heretic,
Why not the names, which the Holy Spirit cites (Adam 9 times, Eve twice)? Yet denial of a literal A+E was one of the aspects referred to in approved RC notes of its study version of the NAB, St. Joseph's edition copyright 1970, which has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur stamps of sanction.
Why not the names, which the Holy Spirit cites (Adam 9 times, Eve twice)?
Because the names are clearly symbolic and refer to their roles. "Adam" means "man" and "Eve" means "mother".
Yet denial of a literal A+E was one of the aspects referred to in approved RC notes of its study version of the NAB, St. Joseph's edition copyright 1970, which has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur stamps of sanction.
Between (a) your opinion; (b) my opinion; (c) the 1970 NAB Bible study notes; and (d) definitive Papal teaching, which one do you suppose I regard as having the greatest authority?
(The correct answer is "d", BTW.)
See Humani Generis, paragraph 37.
What about those who give an oath of celibacy to Gawd, but then break it? That means that they do not believe. At all.
What about those who give an oath of celibacy to Gawd, but then break it? That means that they do not believe. At all.
***
Considering that oaths of total celibacy are inherently against the Word of God, who cares?
What about those who give an oath of celibacy to Gawd, but then break it? That means that they do not believe. At all.
**********
No that is not what it means. What is means is that anytime anyone gives an oath to God, the devil is jealous and tempts the person.
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.