Oh No! We'S A Cult!

[Calm]

Again, don't know why I have to explain the obvious, but it's a slam at their "intellectual" skills (absolute nutballs), not the good Gump that we loved from the movie.

I've already pointed out it was calling them mentally deficient. That was in fact the point I was making, that it was an inappropriate slam against their intelligence.

A belief that someone is a cultist likely has nothing to do with one's IQ, education perhaps, but that was not what he was suggesting.

If he wants to criticize them for being bigots, he should call them bigots, not some variation on "retards". I've never watched the entire movie as it is way too syrupy sweet for me and the insertion of Gump into every last moment of significance got unbearable for me when it came to the smiley face, but I wouldn't call him a "nut ball" either, the only thing wrong with him and therefore the only thing being attacked is intelligence...though possibly now that I think of it maybe an accusation of being a redneck hillbilly as well...as I said, haven't seen the movie all that much so don't know if that was made a big thing.

And personally I think the whole use of the "cult" card was a brilliant, though wrong and in many cases deceitful move by the anti cult industry, those using the term Inappropriately to undermine their opponents, are not lacking in intelligence, but morality.

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

The good pastor explaining his remarks...

http://video.ca.msn....76b%7c%7c%7c%7c

Interesting definition 'Theological Cult' vs 'Sociological Cult'.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

Don't buy it unless he's now claiming he is using the term differently than the SBC was.

[Calm]

Had to share.....

The first item that came up after doing a search on the SBC site was this:

http://www.sbc.net/bustour/story.asp?ID=16871

It includes an interesting comment considering the past couple of days' excitment....

The church is more than 100 miles from any other Southern Baptist church in Michigan. Bivocational pastor Thomas Mackay said the sense of isolation is real. In a region so heavily populated by Roman Catholics and Lutherans, Baptists are often unfairly characterized as a cult.

I can so relate.

Somehow I don't think they are protesting against being called a cult "theologically".

[Calm]

Found the difference between theological and sociological....if this is the only difference, it's not much of an excuse:

Deeming it "a false religion," the articles also distinguished Mormonism as a "theological cult" rather than a "sociological cult" because it held important doctrinal differences with orthodox Christianity but was not helmed by a controlling leader.

Meaning what, we brainwash people to follow the Church in general and not a specific, "controlling leader"? Will keep looking, if the video defines it, please state what it says as I cannot access the video for some reason.

http://www.slate.com...he_mormons.html

Had an interesting factoid I was not aware of....

In the early 1980s, Southern Baptist Convention leaders discovered—much to their horror—that 40 percent of Mormonism's 217,000 converts in 1980 came from Baptist backgrounds.

Can't find anything but pointing to our differences for a definition.

So we are a theological cult because we are different from orthodox faiths. Well, does that mean Baptists are a cult after all since they are different from Catholics and Lutherans? If they are not even though they are different, then why are we? Seems to me that the addition of "theological" came about because they couldn't remain credible with those who were actually educated about cults or knew enough about the LDS culture to realize that it wasn't just another Heaven's Gate or Jonestown, so they had to come up with something that they could use when challenged, as was Jeffress, on the usage of cult.

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

Can you access this one...

http://video.ca.msn....76b%7c%7c%7c%7c

He defines a 'theolological cult' as...

1) A religion that has a Human founder vs a divine founder. (JS vs JC)

2) Accepts other written revelation besides the Bible. (BM & BIBLE vs BIBLE only)

Edited October 9, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Anti-Mormon Pastor To Anderson Cooper: Romney May Belong To A ‘Cult,’ But He Is Better Than Obama

video

by Frances Martel | 9:16 am, October 8th, 2011

» 87 comments

Evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress stole the Friday news cycle with his comments that Mitt Romney, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, was a “non-Christian” in a “cult”– shortly after having introduced Rick Perry as speaker at the Values Voter Summit. Jeffress elaborated on his comments last night to Anderson Cooper in an interview where he argued Catholicism defied the New Testament and suggested President Obama’s “purported” Christianity was not enough to sway his vote.

Cooper opened up with a broad question asking to elaborate on what Jeffress considered a “cult,” and he explained quickly that he considered it a “theological cult as opposed to a sociological cult” because it was founded by a human being– Joseph Smith– and not a divine leader, as well as because they consider the Book of Mormon a new revelation that follows the New Testament. “They have never been considered a part of historical Christianity,” he concluded, adding that “a lot of people say that are Christians, and they are not.” To clarify, Cooper asked him to weigh in on other religions– while he did consider Catholicism to not be a cult (as it was founded by Jesus Christ himself), he did consider that the “basic tenets are contrary to the teaching of the New Testament” because good deeds were necessary to be “made right with God,” and not just faith. Pagan religions he hesitated little to designate cults.

RELATED: Mike Huckabee Would Vote For A Mormon ‘In A Heartbeat’: ‘It Is Not A Disqualifier’

Jeffress also explained why he believed religion played into the election cycle, and why he would prefer to vote for a Christian like Perry as opposed to a “non-Christian” like Romney, citing abortion and birth control funding in Romneycare as an example of the sort of governing he would like to avoid. That said, he did not consider being a “non-Christian” an end-all, be-all in gaining or losing his vote: “I’d rather a non-Christian like Romney who accepts biblical positions than a professing Christian like Barack Obama who accepts non-biblical views,” he explained. This sounded to Cooper as if he did not believe that President Obama was a real Christian, a point he attempted to hammer home several times despite Jeffress noting that he could only say the President was a “professing” Christian because, unlike in Perry’s case, he had not sat down and conversed with the President about his beliefs.

While Jeffress said he understood the word “cult” was “loaded,” he did not adequately explain how he considered his comments appropriate in a political climate. Sure, Jeffress is entitled to his definition of the word, but observers are equally entitled to look askance at the timing of his comments– Perry’s honeymoon period with primary voters is marked over– and at his subtle attempts to feign naivete at how his comments could sway voters already queasy about the LDS Church.

The segment via CNN below:

http://www.mediaite....ter-than-obama/

So if it came down to Mitt and Obama he'd vote against a Chrisitain.

What I'd like to know is who died and left Pastor Jeffers in the judgment seat of Chris and the ultimate arbiter on who is and isn't a Christain?

Edited October 9, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

Can you access this one...

http://video.ca.msn....76b%7c%7c%7c%7c

He defines a 'theolological cult' as...

1) A religion that has a Human founder vs a divine founder. (JS vs JC)

2) Accepts other written revelation besides the Bible. (BM & BIBLE vs BIBLE only)

It says I need a 32 bit mode or something.

That's a ridiculous definition. There is no coherency with any other usage of the term "cult" either academic or popular. They've created a whole new definition out of the air just so they can keep using the term "cult" and then they can wave their hands and proclaim "oh no, I am not in the least equating that group with Heaven's Gate, no, I'm using the term in a completely different way". Any religion that is false in their view has a human founder, any revelation that is outside the Bible is false in their view. Why was "false religion" not enough? Since no one has a clue what a "theological cult" is unless it is defined at the same time it is used (I saw it used in several different ways on the internet), then it is not a useful term for the purpose of increasing understanding or precise language. Nor is it an intuitive definition in my view. Again "false religion" meets all their needs except for not being associated with the baggage of "sociological cults" (again examples have to be given so people know what they are talking about such as Heaven's Gate and Jonestown).

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Skylla]

ldsfaqs:

Stop labeling people please.

Skylla

[Calm]

Catholicism defied the New Testament

Huh?

We believe our faith was founded by Jesus Christ, but of course that is not so according to Jeffress and others who buy his nonsense.

We believe that the revelation is from God, but that can't be according to Jeffress so we are a cult, not just a false religion. And the Catholics though they reject or change all the stuff in the New Testament are okay because at least they just play around with the Bible rather than claiming any other scripture (what about the Apocrypha?) .....I think it has more to do with just how ridiculous it sounds when the largest Christian denomination from which Protestant denominations broke off is labeled a "cult".

So it's all about someone else getting to define what a faith is....same old, same old.

Why isn't calling us "heretics" enough? Because their founders were called "heretics" when they opposed the then establishment denomination and that makes us sound too much like just another version of the Christian faith?

I wonder if the percentage of former Baptists LDS converts is any less than 40% now. I would suspect so as I don't believe Baptists are as large of a presence outside of the US as inside, but if one just counts in the US.....? Will have to do some research.

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

Huh?

WOW! You have to see that one in my last post and see if you can get the movie to work!

CNN's Anderson Cooper drills him big time!

Jeffers says Caltholicism went against the New Testement because it adds works to faith and that "Traditional Christianity" beleived in "Faith alone". Something tells me the Good Pastor is oblivious to the History of the Christian church!

Faith Alone was invented by Martin Luther in the 15th century! Prior to that right up to the time of the first students of the Apostles Baptism was a requirement.

Andersen asks "Hindus, Budist, Islam all Cults?"... the Good Pastor YEP.

Catholics arent a cult but they do Go against 'Faith alone'.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

Jeffress contradicts himself by claiming that as a pastor he would support Romney over Obama even though the latter is a Christian according to his definition. If he is placing religion first as it appears he is claiming when he says "as a pastor", then Obama should be preferred.

However, it appears he is willing to throw religious faith under the bus if the politics don't match.

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Jeffers says Caltholicism went against the New Testement because it adds works to faith and that "Traditional Christianity" beleived in "Faith alone". Something tells me the Good Pastor is oblivious to the History of the Christian church!

Faith Alone was invented by Martin Luther in the 15th century! Prior to that right up to the time of the first students of the Apostles Baptism was a requirement.

Unless you accept as a matter of faith that there were Christians embedded in the Catholic faith and others who believed in faith alone all along.

[Zakuska]

Jeffress contradicts himself by claiming that as a pastor he would support Romney over Obama even though the latter is a Christian according to his definition. If he is placing religion first as it appears he is claiming when he says "as a pastor", then Obama should be preferred.

However, it appears he is willing to throw religious faith under the bus if the politics don't match.

Yes I noticed that too.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Zakuska

[Mike Reed]

Faith Alone was invented by Martin Luther in the 15th century! Prior to that right up to the time of the first students of the Apostles Baptism was a requirement.

You sure about that?

Edited October 9, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Calm]

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the idea of voting for someone you see as having similar beliefs, whether it's political or religious or cultural or something else. If there was no difference between candidates in all other ways, why not choose someone who is the same religion as you are. My issue is that instead of promoting the man who is like him, he is attacking someone who is not.

[Calm]

He states he knows it's a "loaded term".....says it all. He says he knows that "cult" is a pejorative term, but somehow it's okay to use it if one means "theological".....even if one doesn't say "theological"....right.

While Jeffress said he understood the word “cult” was “loaded,” he did not adequately explain how he considered his comments appropriate in a political climate. Sure, Jeffress is entitled to his definition of the word, but observers are equally entitled to look askance at the timing of his comments– Perry’s honeymoon period with primary voters is marked over– and at his subtle attempts to feign naivete at how his comments could sway voters already queasy about the LDS Church.

So one would label Baptists as a theological cult if it was back in the day they were only a one hundred year old denomination.....since at that time it would be no more "historic Christianity" than he views LDS now.

I just don't see it....we accept Biblical positions more than Obama according to Jeffress, yet we are not Christians in Jeffress' eyes and he is.

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

You sure about that?

You tell me Mike...

"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls."

Letter of Barnabas 11:1-10, 74 A.D.2

"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is.’"

The Shepherd of Hermas 4:3:1-2, 80 A.D.

“Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.”

Tertullian, On Baptism 7:2, 203 A.D.

“When we are going to enter the water, but a little before – in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president – we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, his pomp, and his angels. Upon that, we are immersed [from Latin mergo, to dip] three times, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.”

Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3 Pg. 94, 211 A.D.

http://fairviewcofc....tians_speak.pdf

" It is in fact prescribed that no one can attain to salvation without Baptism, especially in view of that

declaration of the Lord, who says: " Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life."

Tertullian (220 A.D.)

" Baptism 12.1"

" By this alone the Jews can receive pardon for their sins, if they wash away the Blood of Christ slain in

Baptism, passing over into the Church, obey His precepts. In Isaiah the Lord says: " Now I will not release

your sins. When ye stretch forth your hands , I will turn away my face from you ; and if you multiply

prayers, I will not hear you; for your hands are full of blood."

St. Cyprian ( 258 A.D.)

" Against the Jews"

" Since by the transgression of the first man when whole progeny of the human race is vitiated, no one

can be freed from the condition of the old man except by the Sacrament of the Baptism of Christ."

Pope St. Leo the Greay

"Epistle XV:10

"Unless one be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. No one

excepted: neither the infant nor one prevented by any necessity. When the Lord Jesus came to John, and

John said: " I ought to be baptized by Thee, and dost come to me?" Jesus said: " Permit it to be so for

now. For thus it becometh us to fulfill all Justice" ( Mt. 3:14-15). Behold how all justices rests on Baptism!"

St. Ambrose ( 392 A.D.)

On Abraham, BK IV, ch.II:79

" On account of this rule of faith, even infants are truly baptized unto remission of sins. Moreover, if

anyone says that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be some place where infants live who departed this

life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven which is eternal life: let

him be anathema"

Pope St. Zosimus

DNZ:102, n.2 Cannon 2,XVI Council of Carthage

" Baptism is the Sacrament of absolute necessity. Consequently, it is clear that everyone is bound to be

baptized, and that without baptism there is no salvation for me."

St. Thomas Aquinas

" Summa Theologica III, Q.68,art. 1 and Q. 72"

" The Lord has determined that the Kingdom of Heaven be conferred only on baptized persons. If eternal

life can accrue only to those who have been baptized, it follows that they who die unbaptized incur

everlasting death."

St. Augustine

" Faith of the Early Fathers"

Vol. III 1882

" The punishment of being deprived of God and the loss of heavenly glory affects both adults and children

who are unbaptized. The children are punished along with the others, but by the mildest punishment

because the deserve the Punishment of the Loss alone, not the punishment of the senses."

St. Bonaventure

"The Breviloquium" pt. 3 ch.5, 2

" Weep for the unbelievers! Weep for those who differ not a smidgen from the infidels: those who die

without Baptism! They are outside the Royal City, along with those subject to punishment, along with the

damned."

St. John Chrysostom

"On Philippians,: homily III 4, " On Acts of the Apostles," homily I:8;

PG:62:I77;PG 51:61

" Baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not

been cleansed in this purifying stream and who, consequently, are not members of Christ."

Pope Pius XII

" Mediator Dei"

" Our heretics, more audacious than Pelagians, deny that Baptism is necessary, not only for the remission

of sin, but for the attainment of Heaven. However, those who imagine that there is another remedy

besides Baptism openly contradict the Gospel, the Councils, the Fathers, and the consensus of the

universal Church."

St. Robert Bellarmine

" On Baptism," Bk. I, ch.4

" If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those

words of our Lord Jesus Christ" " Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit: ( John 3:5) are

distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema."

Canons on the Sacrament Of Baptism

Can. 2 Council of Trent

" If anyone shall say that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema."

Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism

Can. 5 Council of Trent

Edited October 9, 2011 by Zakuska

[Mike Reed]

You tell me Mike...

You didn't quote Martin Luther. See my link above.

[Zakuska]

You didn't quote Martin Luther. See my link above.

WOW!

I'm going to add that to my siggy!

Apparently... Faith Alone was invented after Luther!

[Calm]

Found a discussion about the three types of cults:

http://www.columbias...eetalk/047.html

Theological Cult

This one seems easy enough to understand and define, but amazingly many Christians (including many pastors) have no real understanding of what theological peculiarities make a cult. One might attempt a reversal of the order: in other words, rather than defining what a theological cult is, one might be better off to explain what makes Christianity Christian . . . then, anything that does not fit into that definition is outside the pale of Christianity, and, thus, by definition a theological cult.

Dr. Millard J. Erickson, Ph.D. (dean and professor of theology at Bethel Theological Seminary) defines a cult as a group that is heretical in one or more significant respects. This easily falls in line with my statement above: what makes Christianity Christian? If a group teaches something that is not in line with the essence of Christianity in one or more significant respects, then it is a cult.

Note carefully, that the requirement is numerically only one . . . they do not have to deny every aspect of the Christian faith to be a cult. One will do. Furthermore, according to Erickson, the issue of something being heretical simply means, "Pertaining to any view that has been officially condemned by an authoritative body." Now, some people just don't get this, but it is really very simple. If an authoritative body says that something is heretical, then it is heretical. What people often do not get is how some group can say that something else is heretical. But, again, this is also simple . . . let me illustrate.

So if the authoritative body of Catholics (who with the Orthodox are historic Christianity if anyone can be called such) comes out and says that Baptists are heretics because they deny what is to Catholics a "DNA Doctrine"....the authority of the Priesthood of the Catholic faith or religious truth resides in the Bible, the Traditions, the Creeds, the Bishops and the Pope or that the Fulness of the Deposit of Faith rests within the Apostolic Catholic Church or, then Baptists will be okay with being called a "theological cult".

Right.

They have substituted "cult" for "heretics". Again, I'm wondering why.

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Mike Reed]

WOW!

I'm going to add that to my siggy!

Apparently... Faith Alone was invented after Luther!

It is still faith alone for Luther. It is just that it is only through faith in the power, mercy, and grace of God WHILE you are baptized that there is any saving power. So yes... there are certain things that Luther identifies as legitimate sacraments, but without faith these works are dead. It isn't the work in itself that saves you. It is the power, mercy, and grace of God.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Calm]

It isn't the work in itself that saves you. It is the power, mercy, and grace of God.

Is there any Christian faith that believes otherwise?

[Zakuska]

It is still faith alone for Luther. It is just that it is only through faith in the power, mercy, and grace of God WHILE you are baptized that there is any saving power. So yes... there are certain things that Luther identifies as legitimate sacraments, but without faith these works are dead. It isn't the work in itself that saves you. It is the power, mercy, and grace of God.

Yes I see that in his writing because he says that some people are baptized not having faith (ie the word) and so their baptism is a bath-keepers baptism. But in his eyes it takes both Water and Spirit at the Baptism.

here is the relevant part...

222. Therefore, we constantly teach that the sacraments and all external things which God has ordained and established are not to be estimated according to the gross outward form—as we see only the shell of the nut—but as that in which God's Word is enclosed. We speak in the same manner of the estates of father and of mother, and of temporal authority. When we consider the persons in these estates with reference to their features, their skin and hair, their flesh and bones, they resemble the Turks and heathen. One might flatly say: Why should I think more of them than of others? But when we take into consideration the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother," I see quite another person, one adorned and robed in the majesty and glory of God. The commandment, I say, is the golden chain about his neck, yea, the crown upon his head, which shows me how and why I should honor this particular flesh and blood.

In like manner, and even more, you should honor baptism and value it for the sake of the Word; God himself honored it by word and deed, and confirmed it by miracles from heaven. Do you think it was a trivial thing that the heavens opened when Christ allowed himself to be baptized, and the Holy Spirit visibly descended, and everything manifested divine glory and majesty? Mt 3, 16.

Therefore, I admonish that these two, the Word and the water, be by no means disunited and considered separately. For when the Word is taken away, the water is no different from that which the servant uses for cooking purposes; baptism under that condition might be called a bath-keeper's baptism. But when the Word is present according to God's ordinance, baptism is a sacrament and it is called Christ's baptism. This is the first part—the nature and dignity of the holy sacrament of baptism.

223. In the second place, since we now know what baptism is and how we are to estimate it, we must also learn why and for what purpose it was instituted; that is, what it avails, what it confers and effects. And this cannot be learned in a better way than by the words Christ cited above: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.'' Mk 16, 16. Therefore, expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ's kingdom and live forever with him.

Here you have another argument for the high esteem and honor in which baptism ought to be held. It is found in the inestimable treasure obtained therein. And that shows that more is there than ordinary water. Ordinary water cannot have such effect, but God's Word has, and the name of God, which is present. As has been explained before, God's name is in it. Where God's name is, there must also be life and salvation, and it is rightly called a divine, blessed, bountiful and gracious water; for through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3, 5.

224. But when our wiseacres, the new spirits, declare that faith alone saves us, and that works and outward things effect nothing to this end, our answer is that assuredly nothing in us effects salvation but faith, as we shall hear later. But these blind leaders are unwilling to see that faith must have something to believe—something to which it may cling and upon which it may plant its feet and take root. Thus faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life, not through the water, as has been sufficiently stated, but through the fact that the Word and institution of God are embodied in it and God's name is joined to it. Now, when I believe this, what else does it mean but to believe in God himself, who has planted his Word in the outward object and places it before us, so that we may seize the treasure it contains.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

An interesting commentary on labels and the need to be careful with them from a Pentecostal who feels the need to correct people when they claim he is not an Evangelical....

http://www.columbias...eetalk/076.html

Well, it is difficult to have a "moral of the story" in an article like this. This is predominately an instructional article helping people get a handle on the various terms. However, if there is any "moral of the story" in this article it is this: Please be very careful when you use terms to brand people.

This is the one that was justifying the use of the term "theological cult" even though "heretic" says the same exact thing only it's recognizable.

He points out that Pentecostals are the most bible believing ("the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches") and gospel spreading denomination according to Barna research, the same research that says:

One of the most startling revelations is that the percentage of Mormons who have born again beliefs is higher than the percentage of born again believers within either the Episcopal or Catholic churches. In total, 34% of the adults who attend a Mormon church say they have made a personal commitment to Christ that is important in their life today and also say that when they die they know they will go to Heaven solely because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. In contrast, the same perspective is held by just 30% in the Episcopal church and 25% within Catholic parishes.

http://www.barna.org...by-denomination

also from the same article:

When seven theological perspectives are combined to determine the

overall purity of people's biblical perspectives

, the ranking of the twelve denominations shows three groups far outpacing the rest of the pack, with two far below all others. At the top of the list were people who attend Pentecostal churches (who had a firm biblical view on the seven items 72% of the time), Assemblies of God (72%), and non-denominational Protestant (65%) churches. The next echelon included people who attend Baptist (57% accuracy) and Church of Christ (54%) churches. In the lower portion of the standings were those aligned with Mormon (49%) Adventist (48%), Presbyterian (43%), Methodist (38%), and Lutheran (37%) churches. Lowest on the continuum were people affiliated with Catholic (28%) and Episcopal (28%) churches.

Even though Adventists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics and Episcopal are related lower on biblical purity, they are Christian and we are not.....

Well, anyone who believes that religious behaviours and attitudes are consistent is probably in for a rude awakening......

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah