Yes, and that's fine and fair game.Of course I got your point, just as I know you know I could not resist a bit of teasing, too.
It's a third by definition because it's not one of the two that combined. They can choose what to call it and even adopt the name of one of the two originals!My point, of course, not about some breaking away from one, some from a second, and now we have a third.
That's the idea and they are choosing names that suggest a united church. Unity.Why not two uniting to become one?
Now you're being negative and intolerant about your own invention. You can't bear to find common ground with an atheist.