No disrespect, but the analogy is nonsensical, and the argument is a non-sequitur.

If my parents are of the same nationality, and they copulate to have me, then it follows I would be considered that nationality with 50% of my genes coming from my father and 50% from my mother. God has no nationality, did not copulate with anyone, yet creates a son who is considered (according to orthodox tradition) 100% human and 100% God. Moreover, the holy spirit is 100% God as well. Three persons as one. In other words, 3=1 and 1=3. Therefore, Trinitarianism is a logical disproof of this god.

Some Christians are modalists however. Modalism is analogous to saying God has three "modes" or "essences" like water can exist as a liquid, solid and vapor. That's NOT Trinitarianism though. If one doesn't accept the Trinity, then they're called heretics.

If interested, please help me understand. Thanks.

By the context, the assumed author (Paul) appears to be referring to Christian piety, dietary customs and the various opinions held b/w Torah Christians and Gentile Christians. Again, it's theological biases and interpolation to arrive at your conclusion that "denominations are a result of Romans 14" as you stated using the verses cited. Factions existed when Paul wrote this epistle, I concede that. However, it certainly doesn't explain the 30,000+ denominations of Christianity today, and as such, why I wanted Kal to clearly define his "Christianity" for the sake of argument.

Again, this all begs the question. Which "authority" does one use and why? The very "doctrinal issues" you raise hinge on having clearly established which 'Bible' to use and why and how you can extrapolate your theology from scripture when so many "brands of Christianity" differ. Major or "minor issues" are ambiguous qualitative values which you'd have to distinctly define as well. Doctrine must arise from somewhere, right? Who is right? And how do we know?

Anyway, it'll be more productive for Kal to clearly define his terms of "Christianity" so we can discuss this further. I don't want to get too far off track.

Thanks for your input.

You're right. Religious dogma but also sociopolitical ideologies are implicated in many wars. However, we have to distinguish between matters of preference and matters of judgment. If someone wants to believe that Bigfoot lives in his closet, or invisible space aliens lives under his bed, then I'm perfectly fine with that. I might think it's absurd, but I have no argument with him. That's his preference. However, if he claims that Bigfoot and the aliens talk to him and told him to go bomb abortion clinics, murder people who disbelieve, or fly a 747 into a building full of people, then we're dealing with matters of judgment. This negatively affects our society. As such, I and others will stand up to challenge that individual and set him straight.

IMO, we all should be seekers of truth, and honestly follow the evidence wherever it leads. I and others would much rather live our lives by the sobering truth than some comfortable lie.

Again, just my opinion.

Spidercmb wrote: Denominations are a result of Romans 14. Romans 14 teaches that many decisions aren't doctrine, they are personal choices that a person should make. Is Sabbath, Sunday or Saturday? Should Christians eat pork? Should Christians drink alcohol? ETC Denominations are broken up on those types of issues, which Romans 14 covers. Christians shouldn't argue about those subjects, they are personal. Many Christians couldn't deal with being around other Christians who considered Sunday the Sabbath, so they made their own religion. Etc etc. That doesn't make any of the denominations more or less Christian. Christianity is the state of a human heart, not a religion. If someone told you "That house is a republican", would you believe them or think they were crazy? A Church is where Christians gather, it's just a building and does not have personal religious beliefs. Same with religions, people are Christians, Religions are man-made institutions, which have the purpose of spreading a specific version of Christianity.


That doesn't alleviate the issues I've raised. You can't appeal to a chapter in a book found in the 'Bible' to justify an argument when the very authenticity and reliability of the 'Bible' is what is in question. It's a logical fallacy called "begging the question" or "circular reasoning." Moreover, "Christianity" in whatever denomination is still a religion by definition. To call it a "state of a human heart" is equivocation (another logical fallacy).

Besides, how does the issue of "denominations" arise from Romans 14? If one reads the chapter at face-value and out of the historical context it was written in (assuming it's authentic & reliable), I can't arrive at the interpretation you've stated. IMO, it takes theological biases and interpolation to achieve your conclusion. I'm not saying you're wrong, but your inference isn't obvious to a layperson. Which results in even more problems that I see with the texts.

Nevertheless, my challenge stands. Kalamazoo posted he was willing to "provide answers to Christianity". He must first define his terms if he plans to have an intellectually honest and productive discussion with someone like me. I'm open to his opinions and yours, but how can we have a rational discourse if we're not all playing in the same ball park?

Thanks.

With over 30,000 denominations of Christianity in the world each offering their own "answers", there is still no consensus on what "Christianity" is or what being a "Christian" entails. As such, what exactly are you providing here?

Further, if your response is "answers" that are scripturally or 'Bible' based, then this raises even more problems. Are we talking the canonical texts? And why those? The Catholic or the Protestant bible? And why that? Which translation and version? What advantage does one have over the other, if any? How do you know?

Ultimately, how are you qualified to speak for "Christianity" or "Christians" in general?

This is NOT an attack upon your character, but a rational, cogent argument, and a legitimate query into your claim to be able to "provide answers to Christianity."

Best wishes.

No worries. Once the women here read how all your posts contain words like "boring" and "****ing", they'll be beating down your door. Quit whining, and make a positive contribution to JSH. Jeesh.

Just one man's opinion. Good luck.

Yeah, I hear ya. But, I love it when she says, "You sunk my battleship!"

Ok. You can play with my hair.

Venus Blue by Acid Bath

Now, I know that's probably not how I got 'carple tunnle'.

I'm curious. What are the top five? Is this a credible source?

All of them should respect your choice, but the odds are, most men will disagree and move on to someone else. That choice should be respected as well I think. It doesn't make 'em bad people. Good luck.

If you're coming here sober, then that's your first mistake.

Only if she says you must be this tall to ride this ride.

I prefer to stay above the equator.

The important issue is whether or not the carpet matches the drapes. And just how much carpeting is there?

I think it's code or 'womanspeak' for, "Why haven't you grabbed my b00bs?" But, what do I know.

Nothing, but giving serious consideration to Yoga Booty Ballet.

Jesus was Mexican. He sold me some oranges last week.

Question: Does that come in adult size?

Answer: I was in the pool!!!!