Can Pew ever be wrong about religion? by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Thursday, November 18, 2010
It is unfortunate Pew Research Center for the People & the Press does a religious survey, and gets most of its premises incorrect. First, they assume all religions are equal. Second, they fail to mention the largest religion in the US, even though their analysis concerns the population's religious traditions.
Anyone who actively belongs to a religion should know about that religion. Very likely if you're not Hindu, you won't know Vishnu and Shiva are part of Hinduism history. When a survey says Americans don't know much about religion, they're talking about all religions as if they were all equal. How do you know anything about a religion to which you don't belong?
Largest Religious Groups in the USA, from the Pew Research Center, says the Catholic population should be over 90 million Americans by 2011. With almost one third of the country's population, they are the largest religion in America.
Probably the worst error made by Pew is they call Catholics a denomination of Christianity. Thorndike-Barnhart defines religion as "the worship of God or gods". It defines denomination as "a religious group or sect". Succinctly, the Galluppoll simply asks: "What is your religious preference -- is it Protestant, Roman Catholic or Jewish?" Each is its own religion, but with the same God.
It's rare when one would call a Baptist or even a Jehovah's Witness a denomination of Catholicism. But Pew thinks they're related and a denomination because of their loose association with Christ. But one would never go to church in another religion's house.
Pew re-states the question about when the largest 10 religious bodies were formed from earliest to latest. Martin Luther founded the church for Lutherans in 1517 AD. Until that date, no other formal Christian religion existed. They list an establishment date for all active religions, but none for Catholicism even though it is known to be 33 AD.
Bottom line, even though many religions are associated, loosely or otherwise with Jesus Christ, because of vastly different rules and beliefs, they are their own religions. Gallop seems to draw the line between religions with 3 separate categories (Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish). [See Largest Religious Groups in the USA] What makes Catholicism so different from other religions is the fact that it was born immediately after Christ's ascension.
The myths and unfound beliefs about Catholicism abound: 1) Mary is adored and prayed to as co-God with Christ, 2) indulgences can be sold or bartered, 3) having statues and pictures of saints breaks the 1st Commandment, 4) heaven is attained by faith only, 5) no man can be called Father, 6) no man can forgive sins, 7) transubstantiation of ordinary bread and wine is a complete misinterpretation of the Bible, etc., etc...
Pew exacerbates these falsehoods by calling any religion, even remotely related to Christ, denominations of Christianity. But they include Catholics in that extremely rough denomination. Pew also states that 55% of Catholics correctly identified the Catholic Church's teaching about transubstantiation, or the Eucharist. Scripture Catholic - THE EUCHARIST is a perfect description of the process.
Many non-Catholic Christians believe the Eucharist may be a mere symbol of Christ's presence, or even somehow consubstantiated with the bread and wine. Do they forget about what the gospels of John said six times, and Mark, Luke, and Matthew said as well? (See above link)
It seems many people started to make their own interpretation of the Bible around 1517 AD. It's funny how God made a universe 13 billion years old, designed galaxies that allow for life in one instance but not in others, engineered the fastest speed in the universe at 186,000 mps, but most religions can't figure out how the substance of bread and wine changes but retains its regular physical properties.
As a side note, it would be perplexing to see how Pew would've interpreted the Bible only 1500 years after the fact. If Pew is going to take surveys, it has got to be right.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kevin Roeten only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kevin Roeten is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: wtstan
Date: November 20, 2010 11:34:52 AM
I am sorry to inform you, but there is simply no requirement to accept the Eucharist as being the literal body and blood of Christ in order to be saved. John 3:16 is the clear invitation to become a Christian. Above everything is the receiving of God's Son as your Savior and Lord of your life.
Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence to support the founding of the Catholic Church in 33 AD.
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the "conversion" of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine "legalized" Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse - not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new "Christian" identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:
(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as "Queen of Heaven," "Mother of God," and "theotokos" (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given "official" status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was "present" in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one's god). Mithraism also had seven "sacraments," making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lord's Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord's Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ's death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord's Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass / Eucharist, complete.
(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is "in charge" over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided "patron saints" for the cities.
(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors - Pontificus Maximus.
Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of "church tradition." Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church "Christianized" the pagan religions, and "paganized" Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the "Roman world" for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God's Word.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
Back to my words: If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you are my brother in Christ and we are united in Christ's Church, which is the ONLY True Church. He is Lord over His Own and no man can place a claim on those who are His. Let's not argue over those things that divide us, but unite in Him who died for us. We are His children if we love Him and are called according to His good purpose.
