How come there are over 40,000 christian denominations and more invented daily

[Mudda]

So we both agree that you're wrong. Good for you.

Grin. Again, you know what your own mind says...but that is not necessarily reality. You know so little about Catholicism and religion it's difficult to have a meaningful theological discussion. We're at the point that we agree that words are made up of letters. Any further agreement is probably stretching things.

You want to pretend that Catholicism doesn't believe that Adam and Eve were real. Making you not even a Catholic. Now you know.
And your concession was duly noted.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear ding
Because Mudda does not have any knowledge, understanding or experience with spiritual healing
being used to change people's orientation or identity in cases when this is "unnaturally caused by abuse"
this is causing a bias that you and I must be injecting some opposition to homosexuality for religious reasons
that aren't even true. This wrongful impression can be changed if it is understood spiritual healing is not false or coerced but helps those who agree that the homosexuality is not natural for them but was caused by unnatural circumstances they agree to go through the therapy to heal from. So the unwanted homosexual attractions they decide are unnatural for them will change because and where it is attached to the unnatural abuse that is the focus of healing therapy.

See the source I cited for therapy that has effectively helped people change, but is NOT hateful and is NOT rejecting or judging anyone for homosexuality yet it still recognizes that homosexuality is NOT the natural default state and it CAN be changed as part of someone's spiritual process:
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education

If more people understand this process is based on forgiveness, inclusion and acceptance
and NOT on judgement rejection coercion fear guilt or anything negative,
then this fear can stop that people are being hateful about it. This spiritual healing process
is the same whether people are overcoming barriers and coming out either gay or straight. It is not about dictating or judging what someone is naturally, but helping them restore and make peace with whatever their natural state is.

You're a hateful homophobe, thinking you can change people's sexual orientation. That and you're nuts.

Is there like a modern liberal go to playbook that all of you socialists use? If so, it needs some updating because playing the, "you must be a racists" or "you must be a homophe" cards straight out of the gate is hilarious.

Ok, she's just nuts.

I like her. She is sweet. Nuts would be someone spending their time discussing something they don't believe in. That's nuts.

Like you defending a bible you don't believe is true?

Dear Mudda and ding
1. Whatever interpretation or meaning you associate with the Bible, if that teaching is false I should well agree with you if I am honest in seeking truth. That does not negate interpretations or meanings of the Bible which we can agree are true. Do we agree we d rather see Justice in the world, and agree to live by Justice not injustice? Well in Bible terms to live by Justice with Mercy for all is to live by Restorative Justice, to establish Universal Truth by free will which is symbolized as God's will reconciled with man's will by Christ or Perfect Conscience that is the goal. And with Truth that sets us free from suffering and strife comes Justice with Peace represented by healing or Holy Spirit that forgiveness and correction brings in the name of Equal Justice for All or Jesus saving all humanity from cycles of war destruction and death by retribution or antichrist. Can we agree that if the Bible is used to help foster good will between ppl that's what God's will should mean, but if it's abused for fear and division by ill will that's the opposite of God and Christ where corruption of truth and justice is symbolized by Satan and Antichrist.

2. If that's too much deep theology to ask, Mudda and ding, how about going back to simpler questions:
If rape occurs in the animal kingdom, including larger walrus/seals that will rape the helpless younger ones, does that mean we should let and tolerate rape among humans.

Some ppl say bullying the runt is natural and ppl need to learn to deal with bullies.

What about rape, if this is naturally occurring is that why it keeps happening. Is it our duty to stand up to prevent it? Or just accept it as natural?

 

[ding]

The Church believing the Bible happening as written is very different from the Church believing it happened as you believe it happened.

I believe that the events didn't happen at all as written, and science backs me up. If you're trying to say that Catholics don't believe the bible happened as written, then you'd be wrong. You could say that Catholics are being forced to renounce what's in the bible because of science, but they've been against scientific discoveries for a long time.

Wow, an atheists who claims he was raised as a Catholic is trying to tell real Catholics what the HRCC teaches. That's pretty funny. You can't make that shit up.

 

[ding]

Catholics follow a more literal interpretation of the bible.

That was a great example of a logical fallacy.

So we both agree that you're wrong. Good for you.

This is another example of how you have hallucinations.

 

[ding]

Catholics follow a more literal interpretation of the bible.

That was a great example of a logical fallacy.

This guy is so desperate to validate his beliefs he has constructed an alternate reality universe devoted to his delusions.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear guno the real question is why aren't there more, why aren't there as many versions of faith as ppl on the planet? Or throughout history?

Each person has their own path in understanding LIFE, different ways of perceiving experiencing and expressing relations in terms of Religions or Beliefs and principles or concepts.

So the fact ppl identify with groups, when each person's beliefs and views are UNIQUE is MORE amazing. How can ppl agree at all? Enough to form only a fixed number of common religions, instead of everyone going their own way to make millions of paths. Amazing any religions survive if ppl keep changing and growing, Wow!!

 

[emilynghiem]

Catholics follow a more literal interpretation of the bible.

That was a great example of a logical fallacy.

This guy is so desperate to validate his beliefs he has constructed an alternate reality universe devoted to his delusions.

^ back to guno 's whole point
about religions....

 

[Mudda]

The Church believing the Bible happening as written is very different from the Church believing it happened as you believe it happened.

I believe that the events didn't happen at all as written, and science backs me up. If you're trying to say that Catholics don't believe the bible happened as written, then you'd be wrong. You could say that Catholics are being forced to renounce what's in the bible because of science, but they've been against scientific discoveries for a long time.

Wow, an atheists who claims he was raised as a Catholic is trying to tell real Catholics what the HRCC teaches. That's pretty funny. You can't make that shit up.

Never claimed I was raised Catholic, you made that up. As usual.

 

[Mudda]

Catholics follow a more literal interpretation of the bible.

That was a great example of a logical fallacy.

So we both agree that you're wrong. Good for you.

This is another example of how you have hallucinations.

Just can't get enough of me, can you, that you have to jump in on our conversation just to insult me. How cute. I'm flattered. Mission accomplished!

 

[Mudda]

Catholics follow a more literal interpretation of the bible.

That was a great example of a logical fallacy.

This guy is so desperate to validate his beliefs he has constructed an alternate reality universe devoted to his delusions.

I agree, Meri is pretty desperate.

 

[emilynghiem]

So we both agree that you're wrong. Good for you.

Grin. Again, you know what your own mind says...but that is not necessarily reality. You know so little about Catholicism and religion it's difficult to have a meaningful theological discussion. We're at the point that we agree that words are made up of letters. Any further agreement is probably stretching things.

You want to pretend that Catholicism doesn't believe that Adam and Eve were real. Making you not even a Catholic. Now you know.
And your concession was duly noted.

Maybe your mother was an ignorant Catholic and taught you that but all you need to do to correct her error is to read the CCC.

So now you insult my mother? Which page of the bible did you learn that on?

Dear ding I think Mudda has a valid point here. What happened to respecting each other our differences and can we please stay on track?

ding if you and I are of Christian faith, should we not treat Mudda with the same respect we ourselves much prefer, despite our differences and inability to understand or express where these are coming from. Thanks to both of you, I care and want to understand your views, can you please stick to clarifying those and not distracting with the side cracks at each other or at anyone's mother. Thank you!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Homosexuality is part of nature, get over it. Being left handed is a deviation from the norm, so is having green eyes... They all deviants, lol? Or just evildoers?

Consider there may be some unintended cross-purposes here. For example, you appear to have a prejudicial concept of 'deviant' or 'deviance'. Perhaps consider that Ding is using the term in a non-prejudicial manner. My Grandmother was left-handed, my daughter is left-handed, and these were two who had to adapt to being the minority (or the deviants) in a right-handed world. Being a deviation or a minority doesn't always equate to something evil. There is the norm or the usual, and then there is the deviation. Genius is as much deviation from the norm as extremely low IQ is.

As a teacher, I often use the word "justify" which means give reasons that support a statement or an opinion. Outside school, I once, unintentionally, made someone furious when I used the same word. This person had more of a legal background, and "justify" was more often used when wanting someone to offer an excuse for bad behavior. Instead of understanding that I sincerely wished to know how she reached a legitimate opinion, she thought I was condemning her opinion and she only could offer excuses in support of it. Your conversation with Ding reminds me of this other time when a conversation took an unexpected/unintended turn because people were using two definitions of the same word.

Whoever Controls Language Controls Thought

Just by using the word homosexual implies that it describes a sexuality. But it is as unicorn word, because sex is only between a man and a woman. Notice that the decadent Fairyphile permissives haven't forced a word such as "pedosexual" on us, at least not yet.

 

[Mudda]

Homosexuality is part of nature, get over it. Being left handed is a deviation from the norm, so is having green eyes... They all deviants, lol? Or just evildoers?

Consider there may be some unintended cross-purposes here. For example, you appear to have a prejudicial concept of 'deviant' or 'deviance'. Perhaps consider that Ding is using the term in a non-prejudicial manner. My Grandmother was left-handed, my daughter is left-handed, and these were two who had to adapt to being the minority (or the deviants) in a right-handed world. Being a deviation or a minority doesn't always equate to something evil. There is the norm or the usual, and then there is the deviation. Genius is as much deviation from the norm as extremely low IQ is.

As a teacher, I often use the word "justify" which means give reasons that support a statement or an opinion. Outside school, I once, unintentionally, made someone furious when I used the same word. This person had more of a legal background, and "justify" was more often used when wanting someone to offer an excuse for bad behavior. Instead of understanding that I sincerely wished to know how she reached a legitimate opinion, she thought I was condemning her opinion and she only could offer excuses in support of it. Your conversation with Ding reminds me of this other time when a conversation took an unexpected/unintended turn because people were using two definitions of the same word.

Whoever Controls Language Controls Thought

Just by using the word homosexual implies that it describes a sexuality. But it is as unicorn word, because sex is only between a man and a woman. Notice that the decadent Fairyphile permissives haven't forced a word such as "pedosexual" on us, at least not yet.

Sex is only between a man and a woman? So what do you call it when two women get it on?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No. Don't be silly. The standard set by nature. Nature has decided that male and female unions are how natural selection is passed down to the next generation.

Thank you for proving my point that atheists worship science but are the first to argue against it.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it.

Nature created homosexuality and trans... as well. They are a standard of nature as well.

Diversity Is Perversity

All you are pointing out is that nature created impurities, deformities, and toxicities. Intelligence weeds them out. Intelligence never accepts what mindless nature imposes on us.

Theists believe without proof. What is worse but loudly preached as better, New Age religion believes what has been obviously disproven. Forced to choose between only those two, we have to accept religion in order to survive.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”


“Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies,

and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”


“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577

So?

Just as you do to your cult with Biblical passages, you post these quotations as if they were undeniable mathematical proof. Free men automatically reject such authoritarian bullying attitudes. We refuse to listen to more because being so pushy is a form of verbal abuse.

Undeniable mathematical proof? No. Self evident truths that are proven through reason and experience? Yes. Reason and experience tell us that virtue is necessary for freedom and liberty. I posted those quotes in response to your comment that we have to accept religion to survive. Religion does serve a vital purpose. It does what government cannot do. It teaches morality and virtue. Without virtue and morality there can be no freedom and liberty.

Three-Pointer at the Buzzer

I am not in your choir. You have a desperate need for a cheering section to be awed by your leaps in logic.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Homosexuality is part of nature, get over it. Being left handed is a deviation from the norm, so is having green eyes... They all deviants, lol? Or just evildoers?

Consider there may be some unintended cross-purposes here. For example, you appear to have a prejudicial concept of 'deviant' or 'deviance'. Perhaps consider that Ding is using the term in a non-prejudicial manner. My Grandmother was left-handed, my daughter is left-handed, and these were two who had to adapt to being the minority (or the deviants) in a right-handed world. Being a deviation or a minority doesn't always equate to something evil. There is the norm or the usual, and then there is the deviation. Genius is as much deviation from the norm as extremely low IQ is.

As a teacher, I often use the word "justify" which means give reasons that support a statement or an opinion. Outside school, I once, unintentionally, made someone furious when I used the same word. This person had more of a legal background, and "justify" was more often used when wanting someone to offer an excuse for bad behavior. Instead of understanding that I sincerely wished to know how she reached a legitimate opinion, she thought I was condemning her opinion and she only could offer excuses in support of it. Your conversation with Ding reminds me of this other time when a conversation took an unexpected/unintended turn because people were using two definitions of the same word.

Whoever Controls Language Controls Thought

Just by using the word homosexual implies that it describes a sexuality. But it is as unicorn word, because sex is only between a man and a woman. Notice that the decadent Fairyphile permissives haven't forced a word such as "pedosexual" on us, at least not yet.

Sex is only between a man and a woman? So what do you call it when two women get it on?

A frigidity fetish.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So what sect of Christianity doesn't believe that the bible stories are true? I bet you're wearing magic underwear.

The account of Genesis is allegorical. God did not magically create the universe in one step. He set the rules of nature and let nature take its course. You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise. Here is the proof you have been looking for. Maybe one day, you will realize that the exact moment you lost this argument was when you admitted that tangible items could be used as evidence. The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps. Science tells us that the universe did have a beginning and what we see today is a result of the evolution of matter and was a process that was done in steps. Subatomic particles evolved into hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium formed cosmic structures. Supernovas created the other elements. Chemical evolution created all the compounds. Life mad the leap from inorganic matter to organic matter. Life made the leap from single cells to multi cells and to eventually beings that know and create. The laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

"You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise." Other than hindsight, you have nothing, admit it.

I have science that proves it. What do you have that disproves it?

So what denomination are you that believes these heretic concepts of the bible?

Where is your proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

In November of 1919, at the age of 40, Albert Einstein became an overnight celebrity, thanks to a solar eclipse. Eddington’s experiment had confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways.

General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.

That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

The Lunatics' Debate

Black Holes and the singularity that led to the Big Bang are both impossible concentrations of matter. Believing in them is as stupid as believing that the world was created in 6 days. Other modern beliefs, such as the ones about justice, are as harmfully permissive as sharia or Puritanism is oppressive. So we need a better substitute for religion; the alternatives we have now are far worse. They will lead to destruction, whereas religion only leads to stagnancy.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Church believing the Bible happening as written is very different from the Church believing it happened as you believe it happened.

I believe that the events didn't happen at all as written, and science backs me up. If you're trying to say that Catholics don't believe the bible happened as written, then you'd be wrong. You could say that Catholics are being forced to renounce what's in the bible because of science, but they've been against scientific discoveries for a long time.

Causes Without Effects

Events must have logical consequences. All the people who witnessed Jesus's miracles would have saved him from crucifixion at the risk of their lives. But they didn't, so none of that really happened.

 

[ding]

...So we need a better substitute for religion; the alternatives we have now are far worse. They will lead to destruction, whereas religion only leads to stagnancy.

The founding fathers of communism agreed with you.

Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx

The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin

 

[ding]

...So we need a better substitute for religion; the alternatives we have now are far worse. They will lead to destruction, whereas religion only leads to stagnancy.

The Founding Fathers of Liberty and Freedom disagree with you.

The early thinkers of our country were convinced that the state must be held accountable to the authority of a higher ethical and spiritual standard – the “Natural Law” or the “Law of Nature’s God.

George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...”

The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.



George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.


John Adams, “Letter to Zabdiel Adams, Philadelphia, 21 June 1776”

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” John Adams Letter of June 21, 1776, quoted in The Wall Builder Report, Summer 1993

The Works of John Adams – Second President of theUnited States, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1854), 9:401.


Samuel Adams Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”

Paul H. Smith, Gerard W. Gawalt, Rosemary Fry Plakes, et. al., Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, volume 11, October 1 1778-January 31 1779.


Patrick Henry Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1799


“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”

Moses Coit Tyler, Patrick Henry (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1898; reprint, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962), 409.


Benjamin Rush Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 1798

“The only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

(Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), 8.

 

[ding]

...So we need a better substitute for religion; the alternatives we have now are far worse. They will lead to destruction, whereas religion only leads to stagnancy.

The witness to the carnage created from humanism confirms both.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”


“Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies,

and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”


“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577