Posted on 02/23/2010 9:25:41 AM PST by stfassisi
You sound like Rosie O'Donnell, and like her, completely wrong. Those "radical Catholic fundamentalists" saved Europe on more than occasion from the Mohemmedan hordes.
I'm not aware of any of them that claim to "authoritatively" interpret Scripture. Scripture itself is the sole authority, and there is only one truth. That truth is not based in Rome.
So you're wearing the mantle of progressivism? Be my guest.
Uhhh...re-read her post.
Picking out one word and extrapolating? Illogical.
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a86.htm
http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm
It introduces the article by saying that it will demonstrate that "progressive" men should reject Protestantism. I am not a progressive man, so why should I pay further attention?
In what post did I do that?
Dear Saint...
I thought you were better than this.
I believe in the one true God as manifested as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I worship the one true God. I count on Jesus as my salvation, and not myself. I believe in the Bible as the inspired true word of God.
Why do you have to tear down my beliefs? Why do you have to be contentious when God says to get along with each other? Why do you have to spew hatred and calculated lies about those who believe in God?
I guess you were right all along. You are not a saint, after all.
Neither is Dr. Rao, if you read further. He isn’t “progressive” in the left wing sense- far from it.
None of the documents you list are found.
The Lie of 30,000 Protestant Denominations
30,000 Protestant Denominations?
30,000 Protestant Denominations?
30,000 Protestant Denominations - Revisited
Well worth the read to show why not only is the statement false and misleading, but double standards are applied.
Since adding a religion doctorate from Columbia University to his technical background, he has spent 40 years systematizing information on world religions, a calling he discovered while assigned as an Anglican missionary in Africa.
Now 73, Barrett recently culminated his oddly remarkable career with publication of the second edition of his global accounting of faiths and the faithful — trends, details and his best estimated count of believers of all religions in each of 238 nations and territories.
Never has there been such a thorough reference as the two large volumes, running 1,699 pages, of the World Christian Encyclopedia, published by Oxford University Press. Barrett has doggedly visited most of the lands in person, collecting raw material, including national census figures and United Nations data, and recruiting the 444 specialists who feed him material. Among them: Vatican missions librarian Willi Henkel and editor J. Gordon Melton of the Encyclopedia of American Religions. Barrett’s encyclopedia sought to count each human being in each religion and religious subcategory in each country as of 1900, 1970, 1990, 1995 and 2000, with projections to 2025.
The 2001 edition, successor to his 1982 first edition, which took a decade to compile, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers.
Within Christianity, he counts 33,820 denominations.
Barrett also calculates religious populations for the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year, standard estimates that are used in turn by the World Almanac and innumerable journalists. Such numbers are always debatable, but they’re the best available. “We don’t really have any rivals,” Barrett says. “That’s the problem.”
Title: World Christian Encyclopedia : a comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world
Authors: David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian, Todd M. Johnson.
Edition: 2nd ed.
Published: Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2001.
Description: 2 v. : ill., col. maps ; 32 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
Contents:
v. 1. The world by countries : religionists, churches, ministries
v. 2. The world by segments : religions, peoples, languages, cities, topics.
“At last count, we have over 30,000 different types of “Protestantism” and they all claim to authoritatively interpret Scripture”
Yoy probably sound a lot smarter when you are speaking on a subject of which you have some rudimentary knowlege. I haven’t yet seen an example of that from you but I do hold out hope.
I agree, but following them does make for an amusing pasttime. It is a shame though, because it sometimes makes us look foolish and petty.
Thanks
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.