Belly: Bring your money with you to Church we will truly honestly share every cent with the poor.

I queried one of these Traveling Preachers once. I asked him why should we donate money for the church to spend overseas when there are poor people here living under Bridges. You could spend the money on them, instead of building another Church.

He said that the Church wasn't there to help their Physical wellbeing, it was there for the spiritual Wellbeing. So I said, "So, you get to keep the money." That's when I got hustled away. Ay.

And so it is with these preachers, especially the TV Type. Ay.

Jayb,

"Some consider the Catholic Church as a spiritual institution founded for a spiritual purpose – and only that. And I recall Josef Stalin’s quip to French Prime Minister Pierre Laval in 1935: “The Pope! How many divisions has he got?” (as quoted in Winston Churchill, The Second World War, 1948), which was purposeful sarcasm to point out how on earth a spiritual institution could do anything to help thwart the escalating military threat of Nazism.

But the Catholic Church is more than a spiritual institution. Apparently using “the strategy of non-coercive power” (Deus Vult: The Geopolitics of the Catholic Church, 2010), the Church runs 5,500 hospitals, 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, with 65 percent of them located in underdeveloped and developing countries."
http://usa.inquirer.net/15692/catholic-church-worlds-biggest-charitable-organization

'He said that the Church wasn't there to help their Physical wellbeing, it was there for the spiritual Wellbeing. So I said, "So, you get to keep the money." That's when I got hustled away. Ay.

And so it is with these preachers, especially the TV Type. Ay.'

no doubt Al Gore and co learn't a few things. If ever their was high priest making a killing from the public.

Is Mise: the Catholic Church is more than a spiritual institution. Apparently using “the strategy of non-coercive power” (Deus Vult: The Geopolitics of the Catholic Church, 2010), the Church runs 5,500 hospitals, 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, with 65 percent of them located in underdeveloped and developing countries."
http://usa.inquirer.net/15692/catholic-church-worlds-biggest-charitable-organization.

Exactly my point. The Churches (All of them) are looking after the Spiritual needs of a person not the Physical needs. When it comes to Clinics, Old peoples Homes & Special Needs Homes. Well that's a farce. The Cost just to apply is exorbitant & the ongoing Costs outrageous. Then the dependants get virtually nothing from the Estate.

It's all a big money making Business & they make lots & lots of Moola. Even the Aged Home Care is really a Scam. This is all Religions, not just the Catholics.

Oh, I'm Catholic, or was. I went to a Convent with the Nuns (The Crows) Then onto the Marist Brothers to grade 10. Grade 10 was a big deal in those days. My Parents, being good Catholics (Mum was Irish Catholic) None of that Roman stuff for her. The paid a fortune for my Education & when the Italians owned all the Cane Farms the Fees skyrocketed to cater for the rich Italian Farmers (see gouge the Italians for as much as you can get.)

As I said why go to 3rd. World Countries? Why not look after the poor people living under the Bridge? Hmmm... They haven't got any money. In the Missions (3rd. World Countries) the Churches will eventually own everything & the people will all die off. Ay. That's the way it has worked for about 600 years since the Spanish, Portuguese carved up the Colonies.

Dear Belly,

«Why so many Gods»

How possibly could there be many Gods?
It is a logical impossibility to have two or more different beings of unlimited power!

Alright, people can have different ideas ABOUT God and assign Him/Her/It different attributes such as personality, legends or expectations of mankind, yet they all speak about the same God regardless whether or not their attributions have a real basis.

No takers?

Is it because it's an uncomfortable question? Or because you really don't see any divisiveness among atheists? In case blindness is your excuse I'll give a few examples.

•Israel Folau. Got canned because he posted on Twitter when he was off the clock about people who won't go to heaven and the type of sins. The original Twitter post wasn't directed at homosexuality, but against many sinful behaviors. Getting canned for speaking against homosexuality is what it got turned into.
-follow up question: why were atheist so oppressive and divisive to make an example here against Folau

•Richard Dawkins. Not much needs to be said, because everything he says is so much against religion that the obvious question is:
-why so aggressively divisive against religion?

•Here on OLO. Do you really want direct quotes? Just look at the comments on OLO. If a Christian has an opinion on anything that another poster disagrees with, then just by being Christian the insults start to fly, or the arguments that their stance (in whatever topic) is stronger then the Christian's "belief without proof." There are too many examples in this forum to claim blindness on not seeing it.
-why the divisive and active hostility by atheists? If you want direct quotes, or even just naming the posters that have done this, then that can be arranged. But do any of you really fake blindness that much?

I'll say it again. If atheist are divisive shouldn't they take responsibility for the product of their philosophy and the culture of divisiveness within their philosophies?

I answered the question of divisiveness in religion that I've can answer for. Namely explanations that I can give within Christianity. Is there a reason why none of the atheists here care to stand up to the same question?