Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Why yes, yes it is - people who are in the cult of Jesus Christ read the Bible!
You might find this interesting:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2005/RAND_WR211.pdf
A RAND Labor and Population study (December 2004) which used the most recent data on religious populations from the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB) showed,
Evangelical Protestants continuing to grow, but at slower rates than that of the population. Mainline Protestants continue to decrease, even in areas of some population growth. Catholics are increasing slightly, but likely only because of Hispanic and immigrant population influxes. some writers (e.g., Kelley, 1972; Roof & McKinney, 1987) have claimed comparative Evangelical strictness in doctrine and practice has led to comparative growth,
Evangelical Protestants “have typically sought more separation from the broader culture, emphasized missionary activity and individual conversion, and taught stricter adherence to particular religious doctrines,” while Mainline Protestants “have typically emphasized an accommodating stance toward modernity, a proactive view on issues of social and economic justice, and pluralism in their tolerance of varied individual beliefs.”
Evangelical Protestants [14.2% nationwide] are nearly twice as prevalent in the South as elsewhere. Mainline Protestants [9.4% nationwide] are more prominent in the North Central states Most of the 62 million Catholics [22% nationwide] are in the Northeast (more than all other groups combined) and North Central regions. Catholic population growth, however, has been greatest in the South and West Catholics and Jews are about twice as prevalent in the Northeast as elsewhere.
Recent data showed Muslims concentrated in large metropolitan counties and Eastern religious congregations concentrated in counties with Asian populations.
LOL! I’m going to bed.
But they might get stats from somewhere else, like http://www.glenmary.org/grc/Maps_2007/menu.htm
Bullingerite?
There isn’t any downside.
It’s been a rather agreeable experience, all in all, which is more than I can say for my years in the Catholic church.
“*GASP!* Reading the Bible? Isn’t that what cults do?”
It certainly is what the Catholic Church does, in public, out loud, every day, in every nation - and has done so without let for over 2,000 years. Can your odd little cult say that?
Wow, looks like you're right! Stirring the pot can be so much fun.
However, I won't have really hit the big time until I post something up that racks up over 1,000 comments.
I saw nothing in the article written from the catholic site that doesn’t do more than try to rain on the mans parade. Making issue of how He sees the catholic church in end times is not the first one to say this and frankly I don’t know if I even adhere to that...but many speculate because we really don’t know yet. So this doesn’t mean he lies. Not by a long shot.
Further the Pope won’t be the anti-Christ but many say will have to do with the one world religion..and that’s posssible as is the world council of churches.
“littlefacts”...”things missing” just don’t wash either. Perhaps he is trying to avoid degrading the catholic church so avoided certain things he might otherwise say. It is speculation again.
” Something in hsi story dosn’t add up...” says nothing either..what doesn’t add up?
It’s all iffy’s and uncertaintanties in their critique of the man. Nothing there substantial at all.
If you weren't raised Catholic, then you can't really come to that conclusion because you don't know.
Actually, yes, yes we can.
As for Catholicism, well, shall we dispense with the obvious falsehood that it is actually built upon Christ and the Apostles? Catholicism arose as a syncretism between Christianity and paganism, and generally developed into its present form between the 5th-7th centuries.
The church is the body of believers with Christ as the head...no matter what denomination or place of worship. That church. As for phoning it...I would recommend a conversation with the head of that church...He is certainly willing and able, and most importantly always available to answer questions you might have...His word never fails us in that respect.
You are avoiding the issue, but I will take the grammar knock, though that was due to hasty posting, but the use of what should have been “termed” was due to my awareness that going by the etymology of the word then “cult” would not be exclusively used as it typically is today in the pejorative to define groups such as the Moonies. This might help if needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_%28religious_practice%29
Strange, the priests at my parish read the bible every Sunday before a packed house. I read it at home (Revised Standard Edition and New Jerusalem Edition and KJV when on business travel — little pocket sized NT version)
The priests are Catholic. I went to a Franciscan seminary and am still Catholic. My head didn’t explode from reading the Bible. My faith in God is intact. My religion re-affirms my faith.
Oh well. Have a nice day.
Sorry. Just put an L at the end, or click here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html
I belong to a non-denominational evangelical church. We believe we are saved by grace through faith. Period. The finished work of Christ is what saves, not works. Period. We believe the Word of God is the final authority. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Can’t add to it, can’t take from it. Can’t impress God. Can’t work our way to heaven.
Well hello Don,....I know you adhere to the blood and body of Christ...that you eat and drink this in some very mysterious way and feel special for doing so. But again...you and I do differ on how we apply the scriptures, and now it does seem the Table of Rememberance as well. I have heard and seen your arguement before but the matter is a settled matter for me. Christ does not have to enter my body over and over and over again thru the sacrements...He arose and gave us His Holy Spirit who by him Christ already dwells within me......”ONCE and for All”....”Sealed”... not by drinking/and eating for some mystical experience as you have stated...Rather by remembering the great sacrifice He made for my sins and for that “It is finished”..and now Christ sits at the right hand of Father God.
Consistency in sound doctrine is commendable, but,
1. Unless it is on the practical pew-level then it shows that what is officially taught is not the same as what is effectually conveyed. And on that level the typical fundamental type evangelical manifest far more commitment and doctrinal fidelity to fundamental doctrinal moral truths than the typical Catholic, even weekly attendees.
2. Consistency in teachings which are not sound, from annulments with their broad criteria to praying to the departed saints, places you in a glass house at best.
I recognize that belief as one that I once held. Then I began to look at the early church and found St Ignatius in 110 A D speaking of the “medicine of immortality”. I had to find out for myself if that medicine is still available. It is.
Nice myth. Keeps the congregations in line down at Bible Baptist, keeps them from challenging what the minister says, keeps the money coming in the collection basket.
But it's still only a myth. All you have to do is read a little history to learn that, as Newman said, "to go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant".
Before 100 AD, we have the Didache saying that baptism may be conducted by pouring water on the head.
By 110 AD, we have Ignatius of Antioch, second bishop of Antioch after Peter, who knew the apostles personally, calling himself "Bishop of the Catholic Church in Syria" and saying that only a few heretics, of whom it is better not even to speak, deny that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
By 150 AD, we have Justin Martyr writing that old women are alive in his day who were baptized by the apostles. You do the math: they would have to have been baptized as little children. Origen would later write that baptizing infants is a "tradition we have received from the apostles".
By 180 AD, we have Irenaeus of Lyons writing that to maintain the Apostolic tradition, one must be in communion with the Roman see, and calling Mary the "New Eve," who undid by her obedience the knot tied by the first Eve's disobedience.
Shortly after that, we have Hyppolytus of Rome describing in great detail a Christian Sunday liturgy that sounds a lot like a Catholic Mass, so much so that when Rome revised the liturgy in 1970, they borrowed some prayers from him.
By 210 AD, we have Tertullian writing about how to go about picking a confessor.
And we're still have a century to go before the Arian heresy was formally slapped down and the divinity of Christ reaffirmed at Nicaea, and two centuries to go before the last word was spoken regarding the canon of the New Testament in the West!
The truth is that Catholicism is not the sycretistic faith. Yours is: it's a syncretism between the rationalism and nominalism of the 16th century and Catholic Christianity.
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.