Catholicism & Christianity

[Katzpur]

There most certainly is. Real churches count the number of people who actually attend meetings, teach, evangelise, pray, help each other in practical ways, and they know each other personally, and well.

It would be nice if it could work that way, but where most denominations are concerned, it's simply not practical. A person goes to one Lutheran Church one week and then a different one the next week, and a third one the next week. They're all Lutheran Churches. Does the person get counted as a Lutheran three times, or is he not counted as a Lutheran at all? How does each congregation know whether the person who is absent from its services has simply stopped attending church or is worshipping at another Lutheran Church. Does a member of a congregation has not helped someone else in a practical way not get counted as a member until he does? How many people does a person need to know personally before he's counted? And what do you do when the Methodists count one way and the Baptists another way? Does a person have to attend a Presbyterian Church 97% of the time to be counted, but another person attending a Greek Orthodox Church gets counted if he only attends 65% of the time?

Names on a list are not worth the paper they are written on.

Maybe not where God is concerned, but for purposes of statistical analysis, they are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe not where God is concerned, but for purposes of statistical analysis, they are.

But statistical analysis of what? We have to consider what's actually being measured if we're going to try to draw inferences from it.

 

[krsnaraja]

It would be nice if it could work that way, but where most denominations are concerned, it's simply not practical. A person goes to one Lutheran Church one week and then a different one the next week, and a third one the next week. They're all Lutheran Churches. Does the person get counted as a Lutheran three times, or is he not counted as a Lutheran at all? How does each congregation know whether the person who is absent from its services has simply stopped attending church or is worshipping at another Lutheran Church. Does a member of a congregation has not helped someone else in a practical way not get counted as a member until he does? How many people does a person need to know personally before he's counted? And what do you do when the Methodists count one way and the Baptists another way? Does a person have to attend a Presbyterian Church 97% of the time to be counted, but another person attending a Greek Orthodox Church gets counted if he only attends 65% of the time?

Maybe not where God is concerned, but for purposes of statistical analysis, they are.

Do you know that the Past & Present Presidents of SRF ( Self Realization Fellowship ) were members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints? That they have embraced the teachings of Yogananda Paramahansa? The question is this: Why are the Mormons get attracted to the Teachings of Yogananda? & if they did get attracted are they still considered Mormons?

 

[Katzpur]

But statistical analysis of what? We have to consider what's actually being measured if we're going to try to draw inferences from it.

Aren't we talking about the growth or decline of various Christian denominations? That's what I was talking about. How do you think growth or decline should be measured?

 

[Katzpur]

Do you know that the Past & Present Presidents of SRF ( Self Realization Fellowship ) were members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints?

First off, there is no such church. The name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm not trying to split hairs here; I'm just saying that if you're going to shorten the name, don't leave out the two most important words in it.

That they have embraced the teachings of Yogananda Paramahansa? The question is this: Why are the Mormons get attracted to the Teachings of Yogananda?

Since I have no clue what the teachings of Yogananda are, I wouldn't venture a guess as to why some Mormons may be attracted to them.

... if they did get attracted are they still considered Mormons?

How attracted are they? Attracted enough to have their names removed from the LDS Church's records?

All I'm saying is that religious demographics are tricky to capture. If you could ask every person in the U.S. what religion he considers himself, that would be the ideal way of getting accurate numbers. But since you can't very well do that, what do you suggest as an alternative?

 

[Villager]

It would be nice if it could work that way, but where most denominations are concerned, it's simply not practical.

In that case, denominations must be of the Adversary. But then, there is abundant evidence of that, anyway. As has been stated rather loudly in certain quarters for well over a century, now.

 

[Katzpur]

In that case, denominations must be of the Adversary. But then, there is abundant evidence of that, anyway. As has been stated rather loudly in certain quarters for well over a century, now.

Well I have no doubt but that every church except the one you attend is "of the Adversary." As with every topic I've seen you post on, you're right and everybody else is wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aren't we talking about the growth or decline of various Christian denominations? That's what I was talking about. How do you think growth or decline should be measured?

Ideally, I think we should measure it by asking people which religion they actually adhere to. That's why I mentioned censuses.

Actually, I think for the real picture of the state of a religion, we shouldn't only ask if a person considers themselves a member of a particular religion, but also whether they've attended a worship service within the past month.

I think using the denominations' own membership records is problematic, because I think most denominations do a much worse job at tracking people who leave than they do tracking people who come in, so, IMO, those records give an incomplete picture of what's actually going on.

Or... if we're going to look at membership records, I think we need to qualify them with other data. For instance, maybe we could look at how the ratio between total members to tithing members has changed over time to get a sense of the "quality" of the members in that new growth, such as it is.

 

[krsnaraja]

First off, there is no such church. The name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm not trying to split hairs here; I'm just saying that if you're going to shorten the name, don't leave out the two most important words in it.

Since I have no clue what the teachings of Yogananda are, I wouldn't venture a guess as to why some Mormons may be attracted to them.

How attracted are they? Attracted enough to have their names removed from the LDS Church's records?

All I'm saying is that religious demographics are tricky to capture. If you could ask every person in the U.S. what religion he considers himself, that would be the ideal way of getting accurate numbers. But since you can't very well do that, what do you suggest as an alternative?

You can do research on how many are in the USA Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc by going over a patient`s medical record. Usually the patient fills in form where the blank space says, What is your religion? Physicians want this information written specifically in the patient`s medical history record simply because there are religious denominations say Jehovah`s Witness require their members not to receive blood transfusion, etc.

 

[Katzpur]

Ideally, I think we should measure it by asking people which religion they actually adhere to. That's why I mentioned censuses.

I agree. That would be the ideal way, but if we're not going to do it that way, we have to at least go for the most objective way we can. I'm 99% sure the U.S. census doesn't ask for religious denomination. Perhaps it should. Until it does, though, I'm not sure it's possible to get an accurate picture.

Actually, I think for the real picture of the state of a religion, we shouldn't only ask if a person considers themselves a member of a particular religion, but also whether they've attended a worship service within the past month.

Why use a month as the determining factor? Why not week? Or why not quarter? I know that in my church, someone who attended only once a month would not be considered an "active" member. At the other end of the spectrum, I know a number of Catholics who seldom attend Mass (maybe two or three times a year) but who are very adamant in defining themselves as Catholic.

I think using the denominations' own membership records is problematic, because I think most denominations do a much worse job at tracking people who leave than then do tracking people who come in, so, IMO, those records give an incomplete picture of what's actually going on.

Or... if we're going to look at membership records, I think we need to qualify them with other data. For instance, maybe we could look at how the ratio between total members to tithing members has changed over time to get a sense of the "quality" of the members in that new growth, such as it is.

Right, but that's not as easy a project as it may appear. If you were counting "tithing members" of the LDS Church, that might give you some pretty accurate figures. But many churches don't even expect their members to tithe. You've got to have a standard that kind of works across the board.

Just as a point worth noting... Roughly 800 people worldwide conver to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints every day of the year. Autodidact used to say that according to her sources, more people leave the LDS Church each year than join it. I never could convince her otherwise. But here's the point she refused to acknowledge: We are building a new chapel somewhere in the world every 16 hours. We aren't building chapels to sit empty. If more people were leaving than were converting, the existing chapels would accomodate the membership. The fact that this need for new buildings is real and can be measured proves her wrong. Of course not all people who convert continue to attend, but that's to be expected. Clearly, most of them do.

 

[Katzpur]

You can do research on how many are in the USA Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc by going over a patient`s medical record.

That would work great if we could assure that every person in the U.S. was admitted to a hospital at least once a year. I know religion is generally asked when you're admitted to a hospital, but I've never been asked my religion when just going to a doctor's office. Besides, an awful lot of Catholics would specify Catholic as their religion, particularly if they thought they might be in danger of not leaving the hospital alive -- even if they hadn't set foot in a Catholic Church in years.

 

[krsnaraja]

That would work great if we could assure that every person in the U.S. was admitted to a hospital at least once a year. I know religion is generally asked when you're admitted to a hospital, but I've never been asked my religion when just going to a doctor's office. Besides, an awful lot of Catholics would specify Catholic as their religion, particularly if they thought they might be in danger of not leaving the hospital alive -- even if they hadn't set foot in a Catholic Church in years.

The medical records of all US Citizens are either in the hospital, the pediatrician`s office, the family physician`s office, the Internist`s office, the surgeon`s office, the obstetrician & gynecologist`s office, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. That would be the ideal way, but if we're not going to do it that way, we have to at least go for the most objective way we can. I'm 99% sure the U.S. census doesn't ask for religious denomination. Perhaps it should. Until it does, though, I'm not sure it's possible to get an accurate picture.

The US Census doesn't ask about religion? Wow - I just assumed that it would. The Canadian census definitely does. There's some controversy about how the religion question is worded, but at least it's there.

Why use a month as the determining factor? Why not week? Or why not quarter? I know that in my church, someone who attended only once a month would not be considered an "active" member.

I know it's a bit arbitrary. I only picked a month because I figured it'd be a good dividing line to screen out those who only attend on major holidays from those who attend on a regular basis (even if they're not attending to the full satisfaction of their denomination).

Right, but that's not as easy a project as it may appear. If you were counting "tithing members" of the LDS Church, that might give you some pretty accurate figures. But many churches don't even expect their members to tithe. You've got to have a standard that kind of works across the board.

I wasn't thinking of a particular dollar amount, but just number of donors... and I think it works for most denominations. Any church that issues tax receipts to donors has a list of names for those receipts. Count up the number of names on that list and you have a total number of donors that could be compared against the number of members on record.

Just as a point worth noting... Roughly 800 people worldwide conver to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints every day of the year. Autodidact used to say that according to her sources, more people leave the LDS Church each year than join it. I never could convince her otherwise. But here's the point she refused to acknowledge: We are building a new chapel somewhere in the world every 16 hours. We aren't building chapels to sit empty. If more people were leaving than were converting, the existing chapels would accomodate the membership. The fact that this need for new buildings is real and can be measured proves her wrong. Of course not all people who convert continue to attend, but that's to be expected. Clearly, most of them do.

I don't think that's clear at all. If it's true, it just means that the ratio of successful conversions (i.e. conversions that result in long-term church attendance) to de-conversions is greater than 1:1. It doesn't necessarily mean that there are more successful conversions than unsuccessful conversions.

Also, need for building space is going to be influenced by other factors, such as growth from within the membership by current members raising their children in the church.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The medical records of all US Citizens are either in the hospital, the pediatrician`s office, the family physician`s office, the Internist`s office, the surgeon`s office, the obstetrician & gynecologist`s office, etc.

And how many adult US citizens haven't been admitted to hospital since they were children (i.e. when the question "what is your religion?" would've been answered as if it was "what is your parents' religion?")?

 

[Astounded]

Protestants, real ones, do as the Bible says. Catholics do as their leader says, or do as they please.

Jesus, in the bible, tells you to do a Jewish 'todah' in remembrance of Him. Catholics/Orthodox do the real thing. Protestants 'play' todah....which has no value.

What do you think goes on at the Mass/Divine Liturgy??? Everyone binds their keeping of Jesus' two commandments (gifts/offerings) along with the perfect sacrifice of Jesus (gift/offering) and they present/offer them to the Father. 'Works' not tied to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus have no 'value' to the Father.

 

[Villager]

Ideally, I think we should measure it by asking people which religion they actually adhere to. That's why I mentioned censuses.

Actually, I think for the real picture of the state of a religion, we shouldn't only ask if a person considers themselves a member of a particular religion, but also whether they've attended a worship service within the past month.

That methodology could reveal an enormous overestimate of Catholic membership by the Vatican, particularly in Western countries. If the immigration factor is taken into account, the figure would be lower still. The staff recruitment factor is the crucial one in Catholicism, because there is no Catholicism without a priest.

 

[Kathryn]

This is going to be a ridiculous and unprovable argument one way or another, because statistics on ACTIVE membership in ANY religion are nearly impossible to come by.

Of the 2.1 billion Christians, nearly half identify themselves as Catholic.

Here's an interesting site:

Major Religions Ranked by Size

 

[Villager]

What do you think goes on at the Mass/Divine Liturgy???

A 'real sacrifice', if the Tridentine canons are reliable. Protestants believe that to be heresy, and there has been no change in this view for 500 years, so the idea that Catholic and Protestant can get along is vain. Catholic pretence that there is no sacrifice, as is now common, is not going to deceive anyone of importance.

 

[Katzpur]

The US Census doesn't ask about religion? Wow - I just assumed that it would. The Canadian census definitely does. There's some controversy about how the religion question is worded, but at least it's there.

Maybe it's in the U.S. census, but I sure can't remember seeing it.

I don't think that's clear at all. If it's true, it just means that the ratio of successful conversions (i.e. conversions that result in long-term church attendance) to de-conversions is greater than 1:1. It doesn't necessarily mean that there are more successful conversions than unsuccessful conversions.

I disagree, but I don't know what I could say to convince you. We don't build nearly 600 chapels a year to have them sit empty. And yes, Mormons have large families, but we're not quite prodigious enough to warrant that kind of new construction.

 

[Astounded]

A 'real sacrifice', if the Tridentine canons are reliable. Protestants believe that to be heresy, and there has been no change in this view for 500 years, so the idea that Catholic and Protestant can get along is vain. Catholic pretence that there is no sacrifice, as is now common, is not going to deceive anyone of importance.

Protestants have no concept of kairotic time, yet first century man did.....sad, huh?