Xianity declining worldwide

Originally posted by P. M. Thorne
JAMES R. asked: "WHAT CHRISTIANS"

This is what I would like to know!

Church attendance has declined in some places, true enough, but this is not necessarily indicative of Christianity as a whole . . . no more than church membership was ever.
----------
M*W: Try North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, etc. The only place it seems to be growing is in Africa. I wonder why?
----------
Members listed on the books of religious organizations tells nothing except the number of people who have joined churches.
----------
M*W: The statistics can be readily found on the Internet.
----------
Any reasonable person would know this; therefore, how can anyone be convinced that Christianity is dying any more than believers could ever convince these same doubters that Christianity was living? You did not believe that either!
----------
M*W: The decline and fall of the RCC is well-publicized world-wide. Interestingly, it shows a prominent decline in Italy!
----------
Those who have never accepted that all those with church membership were truly Christians, would necessarily be at a loss to know the true status of the health of Christianity now? We cannot know one thing without having known the other.
----------
M*W: Church membership is not comparable of the numbers of Christians who no longer believe in it. How many of those who go to church are just going through the motions of ritual yet not believing. I was one of those statistics who went through the motions of "believer," but I finally saw the truth when I was mentally and emotionally strong enough to remove myself from the dogma and rituals that possessed me.
Click to expand...
 
<i><b>
Yes, I'm very aware that the RCC believes in the actual transubstantion of the bread and wine into Jesus's body and blood. I know the RCC claims this to be a "miracle." I just don't believe it anymore. This would be an example of mass psychodelusion. I call it cannibalism.</b></i>
I'm specificially refering to Eucharist miracles that are manifested physically when the artifacts change. They have been a long tradition of them. Justin Martyr tellls us of a case where the host turned into ashes, so tihs is not a modern invention.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.htm
l
 
Originally posted by okinrus
That's funny M*W. The catholic church does not use the term "Roman Catholic Church" in any of their documents. I've never seen any chrisitans refer to themselves as X or Xian. In fact, I've only seen Satan worshipers use X. It's a tilted cross M*W.
----------
M*W: Well, okinrus, needless to say, I've been around the block a few more times than you have. If the RCC doesn't use the term RCC, where did that come from when they broke away from Constantine's church? There is a big difference between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. You know more about Satan worshippers than I do, so I cannot comment. All I know is that the upside down cross like Peter was crucified on is a Satanic symbol. Any wonder it's a representation of the Roman Catholic Church? The "X" is, for the upteenth time, the cross of St. Andrew, patron saint of Scotland. Roman Catholic's and their church use "X" on many of their symbols. It originally started as "shorthand" in church documents that were, of course, hand-written. It abbreviated all the writing the scribes had to do and meant absolutely nothing. By the way, do you call yourself Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? There's also the American Catholic Church. Ever heard of it? There is also the Catholic Church that still uses Latin entirely. I don't remember its name. By the way, it's getting close to the holiday season, so Mary xmas.
Click to expand...
 
M*W: "Church membership is not comparable of the numbers of Christians who no longer believe in it. How many of those who go to church are just going through the motions of ritual yet not believing. I was one of those statistics who went through the motions of "believer," but I finally saw the truth when I was mentally and emotionally strong enough to remove myself from the dogma and rituals that possessed me."

Okay, did not make myself clear. The Internet and/or the Church records have no way of knowing how many on the records were truly followers of Christ.

I think the confusion lies in the fact that you speak from the view of the Roman Catholic Church, and I speak--to be honest--probably more to do with Protestants, because I was not raised Catholic.

All I am saying is that the numbers were misleading in the first place, and possibly even more so today. There are Christians never listed on church registars. Conversely, there are those listed who are not Christians. So, we are basically agreeing here Are we not?

With this in mind, I have to wonder whether the ones dropping out, or not joining in the first place, or simply more into thinking for themselves. In my book, those who blindly follow, have no beliefs. Or, is this too judgmental? In any event, I still say unless you can correctly identify a potato, there is no way that you can know how many there are, or how many are missing. That is all I was saying.

You seem to base a majority of your conclusions on what you believe about "RC," as you call it. I have nothing personal against the any Christian organization. I simply do not like organizations, because those toward the top get themselves confused with diety.

Even in corporate organizations, those up in the loft, often believe they have infinite wisdom, and this I say from first hand knowledge. Power corrupts, and Clergy over the Laity is wrong.

Thank you for responding.

PMT
 
<i><b>M*W: Well, okinrus, needless to say, I've been around the block a few more times than you have. If the RCC doesn't use the term RCC, where did that come from when they broke away from Constantine's church? </b></i>
This is from a friend of mine who commented on my usage of Roman Catholiic. The Church has always refered to themselves as Catholic since the times of Ignatius and the apostle creed. The Catholic Church uses the terms "latin rite" and "eastern/byzantine rite" to differentiate between the two churches. The term "Roman Catholic" and Rominish were only later used by the reformers in order to justify their position that the Catholic Church was a foreign power. So in reality "Roman Catholic" is sort of a slang term. I don't bother you from using it because I'll use it, but using RCC as the offical name for the Church is probably wrong.

<i><b>
There is a big difference between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism.
</b></i>
I occasionally go with family to the eastern rite that is in communion with the Catholic church. There's not a huge difference.

<i><b>The "X" is, for the upteenth time, the cross of St. Andrew, patron saint of Scotland. Roman Catholic's and their church use "X" on many of their symbols.</b></i>
Yes, the cross is the symbol of St. Andrew but I don't quite see how it would become a shorthand for christiantiy. It sounds too much like cretian. When ever I see Xtian, I pronounce it esk-y-an.

<i><b>
By the way, do you call yourself Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? There's also the American Catholic Church. Ever heard of it? There is also the Catholic Church that still uses Latin entirely. I don't remember its name. By the way, it's getting close to the holiday season, so Mary xmas.</b></i>
I don't think the American Catholic Church is in communion with us. The Orthodox church isn't in full communion either but the Church recognizes their apostatic succesion and the validity of their ritual. There are, however, Byzantine and Greek Churches in communion with us. My beliefs are Roman Catholic but if there was an eastern church nearby I might go to that every now and then.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
<i><b>M*W: Well, okinrus, needless to say, I've been around the block a few more times than you have. If the RCC doesn't use the term RCC, where did that come from when they broke away from Constantine's church? </b></i>
This is from a friend of mine who commented on my usage of Roman Catholiic. The Church has always refered to themselves as Catholic since the times of Ignatius and the apostle creed. The Catholic Church uses the terms "latin rite" and "eastern/byzantine rite" to differentiate between the two churches. The term "Roman Catholic" and Rominish were only later used by the reformers in order to justify their position that the Catholic Church was a foreign power. So in reality "Roman Catholic" is sort of a slang term. I don't bother you from using it because I'll use it, but using RCC as the offical name for the Church is probably wrong.
----------
M*W: Do you mean "wrong" as in the abbreviation is offensive, or "wrong" because the official name doesn't include "Roman?" The addition of "Roman" along with Catholic Church denotes its location rather than its affiliation with the HRE, which is what most protestants believe.
----------
There is a big difference between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism.

I occasionally go with family to the eastern rite that is in communion with the Catholic church. There's not a huge difference.
----------
M*W: I am aware of this "rule." I've also been to the Orthodox church, one was Russian, and the other Greek. I have Lebanese friends who are Arab xians.
----------
<i><b>The "X" is, for the upteenth time, the cross of St. Andrew, patron saint of Scotland. Roman Catholic's and their church use "X" on many of their symbols.</b></i>
----------
Yes, the cross is the symbol of St. Andrew but I don't quite see how it would become a shorthand for christiantiy. It sounds too much like cretian. When ever I see Xtian, I pronounce it esk-y-an.
----------
M*W: tiassa posted something to that effect when he was long-windedly bashing me several posts ago. The brain has a tendency to tell the mouth to pronounce words like that. Since "x" stands for "Christ," it's still pronounced "krys-chun."
----------
By the way, do you call yourself Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? There's also the American Catholic Church. Ever heard of it? There is also the Catholic Church that still uses Latin entirely. I don't remember its name. By the way, it's getting close to the holiday season, so Mary xmas.
----------
I don't think the American Catholic Church is in communion with us. The Orthodox church isn't in full communion either but the Church recognizes their apostatic succesion and the validity of their ritual. There are, however, Byzantine and Greek Churches in communion with us. My beliefs are Roman Catholic but if there was an eastern church nearby I might go to that every now and then.
----------
M*W: No, the American Catholic Church I believe was started by a defrocked priest. I believe he got married.
Click to expand...
 
<i><b>M*W: Do you mean "wrong" as in the abbreviation is offensive, or "wrong" because the official name doesn't include "Roman?" The addition of "Roman" along with Catholic Church denotes its location rather than its affiliation with the HRE, which is what most protestants believe.</b></i>
For the most part, I don't think it's a good idea to attach a place like Rome to the Church. While it is recognized that the Pope has the apostatic succesion from St. Peter of Rome, it's St. Peter of Rome not Peter from Rome. It's wrong depending on what context. This forum does not have too many anti-catholics so Roman Catholic is ok.


<i><b>M*W: I am aware of this "rule." I've also been to the Orthodox church, one was Russian, and the other Greek. I have Lebanese friends who are Arab xians.</b></i>
I've heard of the mennonites that are supposed to be Arabic I think.

<i><b>
M*W: No, the American Catholic Church I believe was started by a defrocked priest. I believe he got married.</b></i>
Yes, they have liberal views on abortion, contraception, and women priest.
 
I was re-reading the thread title and I thought I'd suggest the following,
Would it be better to look at Xianity as not so much declining but transforming to a less church based religion?


Most people I know who are what you might call new agers do not despute the existance of the Christ etc but have a different perspective on him.

The transformation of religion is and always will be a painful process I think. But a process that will occur all the same, as difficult as it is.

So saying that a religion is in decline could be uneccesarilly enflamitory, rather a religion in transformation or growth may be better.

???
 
Originally posted by okinrus
<i><b>M*W: Do you mean "wrong" as in the abbreviation is offensive, or "wrong" because the official name doesn't include "Roman?" The addition of "Roman" along with Catholic Church denotes its location rather than its affiliation with the HRE, which is what most protestants believe.</b></i>
----------
For the most part, I don't think it's a good idea to attach a place like Rome to the Church. While it is recognized that the Pope has the apostatic succesion from St. Peter of Rome, it's St. Peter of Rome not Peter from Rome. It's wrong depending on what context. This forum does not have too many anti-catholics so Roman Catholic is ok.
----------
M*W: Why? What's wrong with being identified with the City of Rome? Peter wasn't from Rome. Every protestant is an anti-Catholic regardless of persuasion. That's why they "protest!"

<i><b>M*W: I am aware of this "rule." I've also been to the Orthodox church, one was Russian, and the other Greek. I have Lebanese friends who are Arab xians.</b></i>
----------
I've heard of the mennonites that are supposed to be Arabic I think.
----------
M*W: I thought they originated in Germany.
<i><b>
----------
M*W: No, the American Catholic Church I believe was started by a defrocked priest. I believe he got married.</b></i>
----------
Yes, they have liberal views on abortion, contraception, and women priest.
----------
M*W: okinrus, did you know that in specific situations (i.e. on the battlefield, workplace, etc.) where a priest is unavailable or if the situation is such that it would be impossible to wait for a priest, that any Catholic can perform the rites of sacrament? I was in the military and trained in battlefield medicine. In the presence of death, those in charge must consider the spiritual needs of the dying. As a medic, I felt it was my duty to address these needs at the time and place they were needed instead of waiting for a chaplain to come, when there may not even be one around to baptise or give extreme unction if needed. I took this responsibility seriously as part of my duty as a medic and healer. I considered myself to be a "healer" of the body as well as of the spirit. This has never changed. To make a long story short, I served in Germany in Labor and Delivery. Babies sometimes came into the world with little hope of survival. Some didn't come in alive. Most were thriving, fortunately. My instinct at the time as a good Catholic was to make sure I baptized them all regardless of their parents religious beliefs. I don't regret this. I did it in good faith. Their parents still had the right to raise them in whatever religion they chose, and should they choose to baptize their children later in their church, I'm sure my original lay baptism meant nothing. They were none the wiser. No harm done. But in the cases of those that were born dead or didn't make it, the idea of baptism was sincere from my heart, because I knew the dead babies would be taken directly to the morgue with no chance of baptism. I had several occasions in the many years I've delivered babies to ask the parents their wishes, and I've offered to baptise their dying or dead babies with their knowledge. Mostly these people were staunch Catholics, so I knew they would be more receptive to it. It was a comfort to them knowing their loss was God's gain. When time wasn't the enemy, I would call the chaplain, so I wasn't in the mindset of my being a pseudo-priest or anything. I was just the messenger. I've worked many years in life as well as in death. What I learned from it is the only thing through the two portals of existence is the One Spirit of God. It may be called many different names, but it answers to no one. It is the All.
Click to expand...
 
<i><b>M*W: okinrus, did you know that in specific situations (i.e. on the battlefield, workplace, etc.) where a priest is unavailable or if the situation is such that it would be impossible to wait for a priest, that any Catholic can perform the rites of sacrament? </b></i>
No, I was only aware of baptism but this is extremely rare cases. You probably should not have baptised someone because were only allowed to baptise someone without a priest if that persons intention was to be baptised and that person is dying. I don't believe that all unbaptised will go to hell though.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
<i><b>M*W: okinrus, did you know that in specific situations (i.e. on the battlefield, workplace, etc.) where a priest is unavailable or if the situation is such that it would be impossible to wait for a priest, that any Catholic can perform the rites of sacrament? </b></i>
No, I was only aware of baptism but this is extremely rare cases. You probably should not have baptised someone because were only allowed to baptise someone without a priest if that persons intention was to be baptised and that person is dying. I don't believe that all unbaptised will go to hell though.
----------
M*W: Well, I don't believe it now, either, but I was a sincere Catholic at one time. The RCC teaches that any baptized Catholic can assume the role of priest in a dire situation as long as it doesn't violate local law, i.e. performing marriages, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
With xianity declining around the world, what will the xians do when the myth is finally revealed?
Click to expand...
your right, xianity is on the decline, Christianity is on the rise!
Those that are so-so Christians are making decisions, either or

BTW were are your sources? or just wishful thinking?

some sites:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm
http://cbn.org/spirituallife/perspectives/colson020722.asp
http://www.parable.com/cbn/item.asp?sku=0195146166

when will your myth be revealed?
 
Re: Re: Xianity declining worldwide

Originally posted by Randolfo
your right, xianity is on the decline, Christianity is on the rise!
Those that are so-so Christians are making decisions, either or

BTW were are your sources? or just wishful thinking?

when will your myth be revealed?
Click to expand...
----------
M*W: I didn't make-up the statistics. They are well-publicized in the media. "Christianity" is declining worldwide. Someone reported recently on this forum that the percentage is 1/3 of the world's population. I heard recently on the radio that the current membership is 1/4 of the world's population. Not much difference, really. For a source, check the Internet. I don't remember the radio station. There were recent stories in the headlines (Internet) that specifically cited a decline in the US, Canada (widely declining), some countries in SA, Europe (widely declining), Asia, Australia (widely declining) but increasing in Africa. Whether it's my "wishing thinking" or not, my wishes will not impact the membership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top