2007 Church Yearbook Ranks Largest Denominations

[Nova]

Oh good grief. I should expect better logic form you Nova, but perhaps not. Anyways, it isn't worth getting this thread locked because someone wants to play victim and not let others.

That wasn't my point, but given the way I framed my remarks, I can understand the inference.

Trust me, if gays or Jews or anyone else starts calling for Catholics to have fewer rights than others, I will be the first to speak up.

As for illogic, it's when one group agitates quite aggressively to deny rights to others and then cries "hate speech" when somebody describes their political power as alarming.

(ETA: as you should know by now, my argument here has nothing to do with knocking individual Catholics, of which there are many, many fine examples. Feel free to move in next door to me, if you like.)

 

[eve]

This is true.

DK, did it list Episcopalian/Anglican numbers?

I agree Dk and South, intolerance is intolerance. Generally, lots more to be "scared" about than people of faith. I also wondered about my Episcopal church, South. :blowkiss:

Eve

 

[eve]

That wasn't my point, but given the way I framed my remarks, I can understand the inference.

Trust me, if gays or Jews or anyone else starts calling for Catholics to have fewer rights than others, I will be the first to speak up.

As for illogic, it's when one group agitates quite aggressively to deny rights to others and then cries "hate speech" when somebody describes their political power as alarming.

(ETA: as you should know by now, my argument here has nothing to do with knocking individual Catholics, of which there are many, many fine examples. Feel free to move in next door to me, if you like.)

Well, Nova, gay parishioners are more than welcome in my church, that's for sure. I think the context was clear in Narla's post, and it wasn't appreciated by me, either. Talk the talk, walk the walk. Many evils have been committed in the name of religion but that doesn't mean everyone in those religions subscribes to such.

Eve

 

[Nova]

I agree Dk and South, intolerance is intolerance.

Being justifiably concerned about the power represented by certain groups with large numbers is not intolerance. Nobody has said those groups - or their individual members - should be oppressed; nobody has even hinted that their activities should be banned.

Using the word "intolerance" too broadly has the same effect of denying that it exists.

 

[Nova]

Well, Nova, gay parishioners are more than welcome in my church, that's for sure. I think the context was clear in Narla's post, and it wasn't appreciated by me, either. Talk the talk, walk the walk. Many evils have been committed in the name of religion but that doesn't mean everyone in those religions subscribes to such.

Eve

I don't want to make this another "gay" thread, but I will repeat that I have been treated quite decently by almost all Catholics (certainly including Catholic posters at WS). (ETA: but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about Christianity's political influence in the U.S.)

I see that Narla deleted something. Maybe she said something worse.

But equating "Scary, huh?" with hate speech is an overreaction, to say the least.

 

[Dark Knight]

The 2007 Yearbook reports the largest 25 denominations/communions in the U.S. (noting an increase or decrease in membership since the 2006 Yearbook reports).

1. The Catholic Church, 69,135,254 members, reporting an increase of 1.94 percent.

2. The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,270,315 members, reporting a increase of .02 percent.

3. The United Methodist Church, 8,075,010 members, reporting a decrease of 1.36 percent.

4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,690,672 members, reporting an increase of 1.63 percent.

5. The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members, no increase or decrease reported.

6. National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., 5,000,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 4,850,776, reporting a decrease of 1.62 percent.

8. National Baptist Convention of America, 3,500,000, no increase or decrease reported.

9. Presbyterian Church (USA), 3,098,842 members, reporting a decrease of 2.84 percent.

10. Assemblies of God, 2,830,861 members, reporting an increase of 1.86 percent.

11. African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

12. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America, 2,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

13. Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc., 2,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

14. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), 2,440,864, reporting a decrease or .93 percent.

15. Episcopal Church, 2,247,819, reporting a decrease of 1.59 percent.

16. Churches of Christ, 1,639,495 members, reporting an increase of 9.30 percent (This increase reports the church's growth since its last reported figures in 1999.)

17. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 1,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

18. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc., 1,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

19. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 1,440,405 members, reporting an increase of .53 percent.

20. American Baptist Churches in the USA, 1,396,700, reporting a decrease of 1.97 percent.

21. United Church of Christ, 1,224,297, reporting a decrease of 3.28 percent.

22. Baptist Bible Fellowship International, 1,200,000, no increase or decrease reported.

23. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, 1,071,615 members, no increase or decrease reported.

24. The Orthodox Church in America, 1,064,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.

25. Jehovah's Witnesses, 1,046,006 members, reporting a decrease of 1.56 percent.

The total members reported in the largest 25 communions is 149,222,807, an overall increase of .82 percent.

The 2007 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches costs $50 and may be ordered at www.electronicchurch.org

 

[eve]

Being justifiably concerned about the power represented by certain groups with large numbers is not intolerance. Nobody has said those groups - or their individual members - should be oppressed; nobody has even hinted that their activities should be banned.

Using the word "intolerance" too broadly has the same effect of denying that it exists.

When someone simply says "scary, isn't it?" I suppose we have to figure out WHAT that means. Your explanations of Narla's thoughts may make sense but that is not what I inferred when I read HER post, which included no such distinctions.

I'm usually arguing for "intolerance" to be used judiciously for the very reason you give, but as I said, Narla made no such explanation, and the remark looked intolerant. I agree with DK, if it had been said about Jews or Muslims, whooee - sparks would be flyin'!

Eve

P.S. Thanks DK for the extended list. Interesting.

 

[Dark Knight]

I don't want to make this another "gay" thread, but I will repeat that I have been treated quite decently by almost all Catholics (certainly including Catholic posters at WS). (ETA: but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about Christianity's political influence in the U.S.)

I see that Narla deleted something. Maybe she said something worse.

But equating "Scary, huh?" with hate speech is an overreaction, to say the least.

Thanks for not wanting to make this another "gay" thread, lol!

I don't think it's productive to treat perceived intolerance with intolerance. You wouldn't like me saying "a homosexual is living next to me, scary huh" and would call that homophobic, right? Well I don't like someone saying Catholics are scary, either. You would serve your goals better if you opposed all intolerance, I think. Consistancy means a lot to people when selling a point of view. IMHO anyways.

ETA: Yes Narla made another post early this morning that was far more vitriolic. She said herself she deleted it to avoid being banned. I guess she saved herself, lol.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Since Southern Baptists and gay rights have both come up in this thread, I'll share this tidbit, which takes me by surprise, although it shouldn't as I'm a Southern Baptist and know how the thinking generally goes:

Mohler Says Gay Gene Should Be Manipulated, if Possible
By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service

The president of a prominent Southern Baptist seminary says he would support medical treatment, if it were available, to change the sexual orientation of a fetus inside its mother's womb from homosexual to heterosexual.

The idea was floated by the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., on his blog, www.almohler.com, last Friday (March 2).

"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin," Mohler wrote in advice for Christians.

Mohler's view, in some ways, could signal a shift away from traditional evangelical thinking on homosexuality, from a condition that is changeable to one that is actually determined by genetics. Mohler said there is "no incontovertible or widely accepted proof" that sexual orientation is based in biology, yet "the direction of the research points in this direction."

In addition, the idea of genetically altering a fetus -- and which characteristics to alter -- raises deep ethical and theological questions about Christian parents' ability to change a baby they believe was created by God.--->> http://www.beliefnet.com/story/213/story_21372_1.html

Talk about taking "born with a sin nature" too far! Why not just recognize that homosexuality may be a natural, genetic characteristic rather than just a life-style choice?!?!?

 

[Dark Knight]

Since Southern Baptists and gay rights have both come up in this thread, I'll share this tidbit, which takes me by surprise, although it shouldn't as I'm a Southern Baptist and know how the thinking generally goes:

Mohler Says Gay Gene Should Be Manipulated, if Possible
By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service

The president of a prominent Southern Baptist seminary says he would support medical treatment, if it were available, to change the sexual orientation of a fetus inside its mother's womb from homosexual to heterosexual.

The idea was floated by the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., on his blog, www.almohler.com, last Friday (March 2).

"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin," Mohler wrote in advice for Christians.

Mohler's view, in some ways, could signal a shift away from traditional evangelical thinking on homosexuality, from a condition that is changeable to one that is actually determined by genetics. Mohler said there is "no incontovertible or widely accepted proof" that sexual orientation is based in biology, yet "the direction of the research points in this direction."

In addition, the idea of genetically altering a fetus -- and which characteristics to alter -- raises deep ethical and theological questions about Christian parents' ability to change a baby they believe was created by God.--->>

Talk about taking "born with a sin nature" too far! Why not just recognize that homosexuality may be a natural, genetic characteristic rather than just a life-style choice?!?!?

Hey! No hijacking my thread! :snooty:

 

[southcitymom]

I don't want to make this another "gay" thread, but I will repeat that I have been treated quite decently by almost all Catholics (certainly including Catholic posters at WS). (ETA: but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about Christianity's political influence in the U.S.)

I see that Narla deleted something. Maybe she said something worse.

But equating "Scary, huh?" with hate speech is an overreaction, to say the least.

Hi Nova! There was indeed a stronger post.

 

[Nova]

When someone simply says "scary, isn't it?" I suppose we have to figure out WHAT that means. Your explanations of Narla's thoughts may make sense but that is not what I inferred when I read HER post, which included no such distinctions.

I'm usually arguing for "intolerance" to be used judiciously for the very reason you give, but as I said, Narla made no such explanation, and the remark looked intolerant. I agree with DK, if it had been said about Jews or Muslims, whooee - sparks would be flyin'!

Eve

P.S. Thanks DK for the extended list. Interesting.

Again, Jews and Muslims - in THIS country - are small groups and, particularly in the case of the former, traditionally (and fairly recently) oppressed.

The same cannot be said of Christians - again, in THIS country, but that's what the figures concern.

Different context.

Perhaps I misunderstood Narla's intent, but I still maintain there may be very good reasons to fear the influence of Christianity on many people, all the while continuing to be tolerant of their right to believe as they do (and with full awareness that Christians in this country are composed of people with many different political views).

 

[Nova]

Thanks for not wanting to make this another "gay" thread, lol!

I don't think it's productive to treat perceived intolerance with intolerance. You wouldn't like me saying "a homosexual is living next to me, scary huh" and would call that homophobic, right? Well I don't like someone saying Catholics are scary, either. You would serve your goals better if you opposed all intolerance, I think. Consistancy means a lot to people when selling a point of view. IMHO anyways.

ETA: Yes Narla made another post early this morning that was far more vitriolic. She said herself she deleted it to avoid being banned. I guess she saved herself, lol.

No, I wouldn't appreciate that remark, DK, but if somebody wrote s/he objected to having Catholics in the neighborhood, I didn't read it.

In a discussion of gay marriage, DK, you explained why you oppose it, based on your religious beliefs.

Although I questioned your logic, I certainly didn't cry "hate speech" - even though your view directly and negatively affects my family and me. Had I called your remarks hate speech then, I would have been just as guilty of trivializing that term.

 

[Nova]

Hi Nova! There was indeed a stronger post.

Well, we all know Narla has a way with words. But she would have to post something truly incendiary before I'd agree to call criticism of a majority group "hate speech."

 

[southcitymom]

Again, Jews and Muslims - in THIS country - are small groups and, particularly in the case of the former, traditionally (and fairly recently) oppressed.

The same cannot be said of Christians - again, in THIS country, but that's what the figures concern.

Different context.

Perhaps I misunderstood Narla's intent, but I still maintain there may be very good reasons to fear the influence of Christianity on many people, all the way continuing to be tolerant of their right to believe as they do (and with full awareness that Christians in this country are composed of people with many different political views).

While I see your argument - and agree with it on some level because we have similar sensibilities! - some people feel the same about Jews, Muslims, African Americans, (ie - that there are good reasons to fear their influence and that they are out to overtake the world with their influences). Yet if you inserted Jew, Muslim, African American, etc... into the original posts (and I'm thinking of them both), I think it would be decried as hate speech by a great many.

Whether the groups are small or not, people's fears seem very real to them about any of these groups.

 

[southcitymom]

Well, we all know Narla has a way with words. But she would have to post something truly incendiary before I'd agree to call criticism of a majority group "hate speech."

I hear you. And it is a fine line - when is that term appropriate. It is all rooted in fear.

People who fear the Muslims are going to use their power to gain undue influence and bring harm to their lives feel very strongly about that just as you and I feel strongly that Christians may use their power to gain undue influence and bring harm to our lives.

 

[Nova]

I hear you. And it is a fine line - when is that term appropriate. It is all rooted in fear.

People who fear the Muslims are going to use their power to gain undue influence and bring harm to their lives feel very strongly about that just as you and I feel strongly that Christians may use their power to gain undue influence and bring harm to our lives.

No doubt. But I don't agree that "feelings" are the test. In France and the Netherlands, for all I know, people may have reason to fear the political and social power of Muslims.

In THIS country, however, that fear isn't reasonable, no matter deeply it may be felt.

 

[southcitymom]

No doubt. But I don't agree that "feelings" are the test. In France and the Netherlands, for all I know, people may have reason to fear the political and social power of Muslims.

In THIS country, however, that fear isn't reasonable, no matter deeply it may be felt.

That's a good point though I think you would find some people who would fight you to the end about whether or not we should reasonably fear Muslims! I'm not that person though.

If "feelings" aren't the litmus test, what do you think is?

 

[Nova]

That's a good point though I think you would find some people who would fight you to the end about whether or not we should reasonably fear Muslims! I'm not that person though.

If "feelings" aren't the litmus test, what do you think is?

Power.

Which is why the same remark may be hate speech or not, depending on whether it is directed at the majority or the minority.

This is not to say blacks should make racist remarks about whites, or gays should bash straights, just that we should be mature enough to understand why it is different on the rare occasions when they do.

(ETA: there is also a distinction between real and imagined fears. Fearing all Muslims are terrorists is not based on objective proof; fearing that conservative Christian denominations are hostile to gay rights is objectively demonstrable.)

 

[sandraladeda]

Well, we all know Narla has a way with words. But she would have to post something truly incendiary before I'd agree to call criticism of a majority group "hate speech."

I think the comment might be regarded as one in a long line of comments designed to inflame and antagonize Christians/Catholics on the WS board, despite an awareness that these comments are hurtful and do not contribute to meaningful discussion. There are more diplomatic ways to express opinions. In my opinion, it is the relentless nature of these sorts of comments which make them hateful.

Hateful comments say more about the poster than about the group being targetted.

imo