GOOD NEWS - BAD NEWS (Don't Say You Weren't Warned)

Self | 1-22-04 | Sidebar Moderator

[drstevej]

***oops, editing needed***

The Sagacity Prayer

GOD, grant ye mod the sagacity to discern the things should remain,

Insight to zap the things I should, and the wisdom to know the difference.

[polemikos]

I could say that you have no idea whereof you speak.

You could, but it would be wrong. (Say, does threatening to use personal invective constitute abuse?)

World Christian Encyclopedia (2nd Ed., 2001), published by Oxford University Press, lists 33,830 denominations within Christianity. Subtract the Catholic Church and the Eastern churches, and you are left with about 33,800 other churches, those descended from the Protestant Reformation. I rounded down to 30,000 because I thought the resulting comparison with 29,999 was simpler to comprehend. (Say, is that arithmetic abuse?)

[CARepubGal]

Jim:

I pinged several gentlemen who are much better equipped to answer you (all my answers are packed in a box and I would prefer this to be a new thread. :-)

[A.J.Armitage]

Regarding the Athanasian creed, Nicene creed, the Westminster Confession, Heidelburg Confession, Chalcedonian creed, etc., I had only heard of a few by name. A few minutes' perusal (ain't the internet better than sliced bread and canned beer?) shows me they all differ from each other, yet all have similarities. The fact is that the Mormon "creed" has much in common with them.

Tell me a doctrinal difference between the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds.

As for Mormon doctrines, have you ever read the King Follett Discourse?

[xzins]

There is no record in the bible of any angel named moroni.

[xzins]

There is no record in the bible of any angel named moroni.

This should be a separate thread and isn't appropriate for this information thread about new guidelines in the religion forum.

[P-Marlowe]

I would agree that personal attacks against posters and freepers should not be tolerated. Also "false" allegations against freepers and posters should not be tolerated as well. But if we are going to have free and open and cordial discussions of religion, then allegations (whether true or false) against religious leaders and allegations (whether true or false) about what certain religions teach or have taught in the past, should not be considered as violative of the spirit of the religion forum or of the general posting rules on FR provided they are done to further discussion and ultimately seek the truth rather than to ridicule or berate any particular poster's beliefs.

Some religious practices and doctrines and histories are just plain unorthodox. People should be allowed to point those things out and not fear that merely raising the issue is going to get them banned.

As everyone knows I attend Calvary Chapel and their peculiar doctrines and practices are considered by some as "cultic". I have no problem defending their practices, and I would not cry foul if someone were to point out the human flaws in any of its leaders or to question the orthodoxy of any of its beliefs or practices. That would give me a chance to get an objective view of the church from people who are not a part of it and also give me the opportunity to defend the beliefs, practices and personal quirks of the church and its leaders.

Unfortunately a lot of people see criticisms of peculiar doctrines or questions regarding the personal histories of the church leaders as personal attacks on them.

I would hope that you would agree that personal attacks against freeper are unwarranted, but questioning the validity of specific doctrines and church history and politics is legitimate in order to further the purpose of a free and open discussion of all things religious.

Would you not agree?

[CARepubGal]

Actually, I have done this as have plenty of folks: wrote down something (misspelled or out of context, gone off to have a life (I do really really have one!) :-) and come back to read what I wrote and realized it was completely out of context and conveyed a wrong message. The options at that point are: hit abuse and ask a Mod to pull the post; post a reply explaining post #1 or let it go and just allow the flame wars. Option 4 which is the "oops" which would (generally) show the post was edited is by far a less painful outcome for everyone involved. :-)

[A.J.Armitage]

World Christian Encyclopedia (2nd Ed., 2001), published by Oxford University Press, lists 33,830 denominations within Christianity. Subtract the Catholic Church and the Eastern churches, and you are left with about 33,800 other churches, those descended from the Protestant Reformation. I rounded down to 30,000 because I thought the resulting comparison with 29,999 was simpler to comprehend. (Say, is that arithmetic abuse?)

And how does it define denomination?

[CARepubGal]

LOLOL! Dean is seriously nuts! That deserves a whole lot of ridicule (as does the "I left the ECUSA over a Bike Path) IMO. :-) And mocking liberals is still ok (I think) ;-)

[polemikos]

And how does it define denomination?

In a traditional Protestant way?

[CARepubGal]

The use of bandwidth would be an issue I think. :-) Seeing "edited" next to a post should be enough and FRMailing the author would solve the issue you mention (in almost all cases)..

[drstevej]

traditional Protestant -- oxymoron ???

[polemikos]

traditional Protestant -- oxymoron ???

Good catch. I thought about using that but was sore afraid!

[A.J.Armitage]

In a traditional Protestant way?

Not even close.

The original source, as you can see here, was the first edition of the work you cited. And, as you can also see at the link, they did not use the "traditional Protestant way" (whatever that is), or any way you'd use in ordinary conversation. The second edition obvious uses the same definition (unless you've got evidence that 19 denominations, in the ordinary sense of the term, suddenly jumped to 30,000).

This is actually a side issue. By your answer, you proved that if you read it at all, you saw the number and ignored the context, trusting your own guesswork for the rest.

[polemikos]

The second edition obvious uses the same definition (unless you've got evidence that 19 denominations, in the ordinary sense of the term, suddenly jumped to 30,000).

Now who's jumping to conclusions without having read the source material? ;-)

This is actually a side issue.

Agreed. It is about my tagline above, afterall.

they did not use . . . [a definition] you'd use in ordinary conversation

Ulp. Putting words in my mouth?

By your answer, you proved that if you read it at all, you saw the number and ignored the context, trusting your own guesswork for the rest.

There's a leap!

The "analysis" you linked contains one or more critical flaws. A key one to me is the nature of the centralized theology of Catholicism versus the individual theology of Protestantism. The methodolgy employed by Barrett and Johnson certainly makes more sense in examining Protestantism rather than Catholicism.

So even if we were to arbitrarily throw out 90% of the Protestant denominations as "without distinction", that still leaves 3,000 denominations. (3,001 per Barnacle.) And my point about only one being possibly valid still stands, regardless of the final count, no?