Posted on 02/23/2010 9:25:41 AM PST by stfassisi
I wasn’t disputing the number; I don’t particularly care about that. I was disputing the notion that each of those Protestant denominations claims to “authoritatively” interpret Scripture. They may claim to do so correctly, but I don’t think most of them claim to do so authoritatively. That’s a real and important difference.
So you didn’t read the articles then. Instead of showing where you don’t agree with them, you just give credentials of someone who is wrong? Odd.
“”I thought you were better than this.””
I doubt you or anyone else who made certain comments actually read the article,dear IT.It’s more about the damage done by Calvinism’s horrible doctrine of total depravity.
Please take me off your ping list.
I’ve pretty much had it with the RF on this site and the constant childish bickering.
I have better things to do like actually work with other people of other religions to help those in need.
And I thought you were better than malicious attacks on people of faith, whether they believed in the 5 points of Calvinism or not. We all believe in the same God, don’t we?
Since you seem to believe that the more degrees a person has, the more right they are, let me ask you this. Do you have a law degree? If not, then in the same way that you seem to believe in the truth of how Barrett interprets religions, do you think that Obama then puts forth a better interpretation of Constitutional law? If I understand you right, then you believe and will argue that most of the Freeper here, not having law degrees are wrong and our current president is right. Correct?
Also, what about a PhD who touts global warming? Does their degree mean everything they say or write is correct?
It's NOT the type of progessivism you're thinking of,dear friend
By the way, I believe in the total depravity of man. Can you prove otherwise? Can you show me anyone (other than Jesus) who was perfect from birth on? Man is depraved in his spirit, until Jesus enters in.
Well, you and others can keep disputing for all you want. But at least the numbers given you were from someone who did the research. We all know that research findings on just about any subject can be questioned. But even if we drop a few thousand, there is no disputing that the number of such “Protestant” denominations is in the thousands. And let’s not forget that the (33,820) number of denominations provided is from a count made 10 years ago.
You asked for a source, one was given you, and now you quibble.
___________________________________________________________
Since adding a religion doctorate from Columbia University to his technical background, he has spent 40 years systematizing information on world religions, a calling he discovered while assigned as an Anglican missionary in Africa. Now 73, Barrett recently culminated his oddly remarkable career with publication of the second edition of his global accounting of faiths and the faithful — trends, details and his best estimated count of believers of all religions in each of 238 nations and territories.
Never has there been such a thorough reference as the two large volumes, running 1,699 pages, of the World Christian Encyclopedia, published by Oxford University Press. Barrett has doggedly visited most of the lands in person, collecting raw material, including national census figures and United Nations data, and recruiting the 444 specialists who feed him material. Among them: Vatican missions librarian Willi Henkel and editor J. Gordon Melton of the Encyclopedia of American Religions. Barrett’s encyclopedia sought to count each human being in each religion and religious subcategory in each country as of 1900, 1970, 1990, 1995 and 2000, with projections to 2025.
The 2001 edition, successor to his 1982 first edition, which took a decade to compile, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers.
Within Christianity, he counts 33,820 denominations.
Barrett also calculates religious populations for the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year, standard estimates that are used in turn by the World Almanac and innumerable journalists. Such numbers are always debatable, but they’re the best available. “We don’t really have any rivals,” Barrett says. “That’s the problem.”
Title: World Christian Encyclopedia : a comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world
Authors: David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian, Todd M. Johnson.
Edition: 2nd ed.
Published: Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2001.
Description: 2 v. : ill., col. maps ; 32 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
Contents:
v. 1. The world by countries : religionists, churches, ministries
v. 2. The world by segments : religions, peoples, languages, cities, topics.
There is nothing malicious about exposing Calvinism.
But when a denomination “claims to do so correctly” as opposed to what is the claim of another denomination in the interpretation of scripture, why then must someone believe the former as opposed to the latter? Was it the intent of those who wrote scripture, that their interpretation be subject to multiple and frequently contradictory meanings? or did Christ establish a single Church to insure that His “Great Commission” be truthfully disseminated?
We all have the” law of love written on our hearts”,IT. We can all Know this love ,thus we are not depraved
Dear OP,you’re overreacting,the article is not inaccurate if you read it
I think you are setting up a straw man argument. The issue here is simply whether or not a reasonable basis for making such a calculation exists especially when the research has been peer evaluated by religious historians? Is it accurate or not, by how much, is not what this thread was all about. Indeed, it is beyond mine and your (I presume) expertise since this is not our fields of specialty.
Of course, you are free to question the validity of these findings as much as I am free to dispute Obama’s interpretation of the constitution.
You indicated that I had pulled a 30k number out of the blue. That it was not.
That's why God designed us with the faculties to discern the truth.
Was it the intent of those who wrote scripture, that their interpretation be subject to multiple and frequently contradictory meanings?
I guess I'd phrase that differently: was it their intent that we read the scripture they wrote and take our authority from it, or was it their intent that we be content to have people in Rome tell us what it means?
or did Christ establish a single Church to insure that His “Great Commission” be truthfully disseminated?
If His intent was that the Catholic church be the sole carrier of the Great Commission, it didn't work very well. Tolerating serial child rapists as priests hasn't helped your cause much.
You'll likely have the temptation to think that I am ardently anti-Catholic. Not so. But it's hard not to mention some of these things when you refer to my church using phrases like "barren harvest."
Thanks for the ping. Interesting article. However, I don’t think I need to go looking for fights. They come to me soon enough.
I asked for a source because so many people just repeat what they hear without checking. I will assume you did not just do a quick google search and that you have actually read and digested both Barnett’s interpretations and the ones who disagree. Am I right in that assumption?
Are you then saying that research makes truth? and more research makes something more true? Are you saying that Svendsen did no research at all in his showing how Barnett is wrong? Again, by this reasoning, you agree with Obama and all his kind in their intrepretation of constitional law because they “did some research”.
Do you believe Al Gore also because he has done research?
You obviously did not read the rebuttals from your answer. It isn’t about dropping a few thousand.
Nope, no straw man. No, I did not mean to indicate you pulled it out of the blue, but that you are spreading something that has shown to be wrong. This subject has been discusses several time on FR. Many people throw that number out there and don’t have a clue where it comes from, or that is has been shown to be incorrect. It is also clear that you don’t seem to even want to read why it has been shown wrong. That is your choice.
It isn’t you, of all people! ~And it isn’t the article.
I’m just extremely disgusted with this forum and the nonsensical jabbering, infighting and generalized hatefulness on it.
I’d rather not participate.
I did read the rebuttals. I was being fair in placing on this thread both pro and contra arguments.
My whole point here is that I did not take the 30,000 number out of the blue. Now, of course to debate its accuracy is something else. My belief in the exact number is of little consequence to the overall point that even a few thousand denominations would make for as many and often contradictory interpretations of Scriptural documents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.