Please for to expound this further, as, at present, it is ambiguous.That is not keeping Religion and Government separated as was the previous comment, that is more of the guide line.
The article claims at the start "There are more than 45,000 denominations globally." Its source is this page which explains how broadly it uses the term "denomination":Why does Christianity have so many denominations?
There are more than 45,000 denominations globally.www.livescience.com
Let me know when you all agree.
There are that many and they will only be guaranteed to have one thing in common.The article claims at the start "There are more than 45,000 denominations globally." Its source is this page which explains how broadly it uses the term "denomination":
The most detailed level of our taxonomy of global Christianity is Christian denominations, defined as an organized Christian church, tradition, religious group, community of people, aggregate of worship centre, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other churches and traditions. Denominations are defined and measured at the country level, creating a large number of separate denominations within Christian families and Christian traditions. For example, the presence of the Catholic Church in the world’s 234 countries results in 234 Catholic “denominations”, though these can be further subdivided by rite (e.g., Byzantine or Latin). The typical way for Christians to count themselves is at the local congregational level and then aggregate these totals at the city, province, state, regional and finally, national levels.
Individual congregations are not counted as “denominations.” We do make note of the fact that many independent congregations are not a part of any denomination. If those churches were to form an independent network with a name, we would consider them a denomination. Using this method, we report 45,000 Christian denominations in the world in 2019.
It seems to me that any methodology that counts the Catholic Church as 234 denominations is perhaps using the term "denomination" very, very loosely.
I suppose this doesn't fully negate the point that "Christians disagree with each other and there's a bunch of denominations" but let's not exaggerate it into numbers like 46,000.
If one wants to use an extremely broad definition of "denomination" I suppose one can claim there are that many, but doing so also robs the number of any meaning. Once again, if one's definition of denomination makes the Catholic Church count as 234 different denominations (they explicitly note they are counting it as such), then it's clear that the definition being used is useless for any practical measurement of the number of denominations.There are that many and they will only be guaranteed to have one thing in common.
Why does that matter, there all not Jesus based are they?If one wants to use an extremely broad definition of "denomination" I suppose one can claim there are that many, but doing so also robs the number of any meaning. Once again, if one's definition of denomination makes the Catholic Church count as 234 different denominations (they explicitly note they are counting it as such), then it's clear that the definition being used is useless for any practical measurement of the number of denominations.
HmmThere is a party a tiny bit like that already. It is the Solidarity Party and is based on the European Christian Democrats. It is based on Christian and Jewish principles, not in a Sola Scriptura sense though. Christian Democrats were foundational in European recovery after WWII. They included a broad coalition of Protestants and Catholics and Jews. The Solidarity Party in the USA is tiny but it has fielded candidates already. Now is a very opportune time for a third party when people are fed up with the parties of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
3rd parties had their effect in 2016. They took more voters aways form Clinton than Trump. 3rd parties have affected lots of elections.Honestly, the opportune time would have been in 2016. That was a squeaker of a presidential election. A third party should have looked at that and realized that people want options and started to run in state or House elections starting in 2018 to build some name recognition to potentially have somebody they could field in 24.
Democrats would be more likely, I think.Hmm
I suggest that if we took a poll, very few of our posters would accept the policies of Christian Democrats.
That my brother in faith is a matter of opinion.Why does that matter, there all not Jesus based are they?
I wasn't being negative. My point was not all religions are Jesus based so i guess i don't know why you need that count?That my brother in faith is a matter of opinion.
I apologize if I misunderstood or offended.I wasn't being negative. My point was not all religions are Jesus based so i guess i don't know why you need that count?
Well if you don't think it's for you then you can do what you want. And obviously it's not for everybody because most are dyed in the wool Democrats or dyed in the wool Republicans who absolutely love everything about their parties.Hmm
I suggest that if we took a poll, very few of our posters would accept the policies of Christian Democrats.
Thank you for the information. I hope that it will help all those searching for a political party based on Christian principles. Many European countries have been guided by Christian Democrats for decades.Well if you don't think it's for you then you can do what you want. And obviously it's not for everybody because most are dyed in the wool Democrats or dyed in the wool Republicans who absolutely love everything about their parties.
For those who might want to know a bit more about Christian Democrats you can get a picture here: Christian democracy - Wikipedia
For the American Solidarity Party: American Solidarity Party
Christian Democracy is for the most part fiscally liberal and socially conservative (there are some exceptions, but if you need to summarize it quickly, "economically liberal, socially conservative" is what describes them). I'm pretty sure a decent number of posters would fall into that.Hmm
I suggest that if we took a poll, very few of our posters would accept the policies of Christian Democrats.
3rd parties had their effect in 2016. They took more voters aways form Clinton than Trump. 3rd parties have affected lots of elections.
We should oughta try governing without so much religion in the mix.From the colonial era to the present, religions and religious beliefs have played a significant role in the political life of the United States. Religion has been at the core of some of the best and worst movements in the country’s history.
Establishment Clause: Separation of Church and State
Establishment clause is often interpreted to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.firstamendment.mtsu.edu
I think we need to stop blaming ourselves if the 'wrong' candidate wins unless we actually voted for that 'wrong' candidate. It's the other people who voted for the 'wrong' candidate that bear the responsibility. Our job as voters should be to vote for a good candidate. Not to have to vote for a bad candidate to stop a worse one from winning. It is totally on those who vote for bad candidates if those bad candidates win.Yes, a decent number would support Christian Democrats. I'm fine with that. I just think that few would accept much if the economically liberal part of the platform, elements like universal health care. I believe that the EU and much of their political beliefs was based on the welfare state ideas iof Christian Democrats. Make no mistake, I personally favor those ideas.
======================
I guess that I don't really want to rehash the effects of 3rd parties, but I believe that there were considerable studies in 2016, as there were in 2000. Obviously, Clinton also was the benefactor of a 3rd party, also much studied. I'm sure there are more, perhaps senators.
I have suggested that 3rd parties consider their effects on the general election, understanding that they will not win in the current cycle.
This will be a major issue if we go into June with Biden and Trump as our very, very likely nominees. There is already plooing on the likelyeffect of Kennedy running on a 3rd party ticket (Dems are cheering).
Folks have had this discussion for decades.I think we need to stop blaming ourselves if the 'wrong' candidate wins unless we actually voted for that 'wrong' candidate. It's the other people who voted for the 'wrong' candidate that bear the responsibility. Our job as voters should be to vote for a good candidate. Not to have to vote for a bad candidate to stop a worse one from winning. It is totally on those who vote for bad candidates if those bad candidates win.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?