The Fallacy Of 30K Denominations And The Reality Of Christendom’s Unity Through The Irreducible Epicenter Of Shared Ontological Real Estate Across All Of Christendom’s Branches

Christianity’s singular metaphysical landscape houses the irreducible Epicenter of Three distinctions in GOD as Trinity and of the All Sufficient Self-Outpouring of God.

That singular …wellspring of all ontological possibility… provides not only Christendom’s Irreducible Epicenter but also such provides Mankind with two unbreakable pillars – namely [1] What God is like in God as per the irreducibly relational vis-à-vis Being in totum as Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life and also [2] What it is that both keeps us in and/or gets us back into relation with God (…nothing less than All Sufficiency, God, His Self-Outpouring, etc…). It is also uncanny that those pillars hold through all possible worlds – both with and without Privation. Once again we mean specifically the irreducible Epicenter of Three distinctions in GOD as Trinity and of the All Sufficient Self-Outpouring of God. We need never waste time mistaking discussions concerning the Aqueducts for discussions concerning the Living Water.

A Complaint About 40K Denominations:

Two Brief Replies — as per both — and as per

A Followup Complaint:

“…..You accuse me of confusing the shell/core of Christianity, as though there are many differences at the shell level of Christianity but that there is consistency at the core level….”

Brief Reply:

Note that all of those lead into a series of links from the following thread which will be listed a few paragraphs down:

Before going on to look at the fallacy of 30K and 40K denominations, a brief pause to add the following context:

“If you are a scientist and you believe that equips you to comment on how to read the Bible, then don’t complain when theologians comment on the adequacy of various scientific theories. In short, if you don’t know your own lane, don’t gripe when others drive into yours.” (R. Rauser)

Critic’s Reply: “….there’s an asymmetry here that you apparently don’t comprehend — namely 1) scripture being a divine message to everyone including drunkards and prostitutes by the omniscient creator of the universe with the intent to be understood means that _everyone_ is qualified to comment — and also 2) faith heads commenting on science is still wrong regardless of whether or not some scientists comment on the bible rightly or wrongly….”

The problem with the Critic’s reply is that he is excluding the message of Body & Reciprocity & one-another. So-and-so not speaking Hebrew is fine because we have a Body and in the Body there are those who do, and so on. The Critic has a half-narrative. It’s a valid half. But just a half. The key word is reciprocity.  That leads us ((then)) to the wider body of Christendom’s general Metaphysic at the core and its various spokes radiating outward from that Epicenter. All of which ((obviously)) frees us of Non-Theism’s forced Brute Facts, this/that forced Reductio Ad Absurdum, its horrific claim that slavery is merely subjectively wrong and ontologically on par with What-Ever, and the incoherent, magical thinking driving the denial of one’s own Mind/Self.

((…both the comment at — and also at are reworked in the following to update hyperlinks which expired due to STR’s format change…))

There is an outer shell of differences surrounding the inner core common to Christendom’s Unity Through The Irreducible Epicenter Of Shared Ontological Real Estate Across All Of Christendom’s Branches — as per concepts from and as per a few concepts from

It’s interesting, the whole Shell/Core reality. It seems to befuddle our Non-Theist friends. Why? They point to that Epicenter/Radiating-Spokes “as-if” it’s a problem, but really it just brings attention to yet another real-word example of the predictive reliability of Scripture regarding the Church, Knowledge, Fragmentation/Privation, and convergence over time. Apparently the Critic thinks that the Shell/Core reality or the shell around the core in fact *contradicts* the Christian metaphysic vis-à-vis the nature of Mankind’s knowledge of God and the nature of discovery within Privation and temporal becoming. Given that belief on their part it is apparent that they need to read the whole Bible, and not just parts of it.

The “Core” or “Epicenter” of Christendom is not only common to all of Christendom ((…as per Shared ontological real estate across all branches …)) but it is also unique on planet Earth. I say that knowing that our Non-Theist friends like to equate all claims of all religions – an obviously uninformed move, as discussed at which looks closer at the “Universal Stalemate Straw Man”.

Our Non-Theist friends are of course free to explain for us how the Shell/Core reality is supposed to be a “problem” for the Christian metaphysic with respect to that reality (…the Shell/Core reality…) with respect to the nature of Mankind’s Knowledge of God and the nature of discovery within Privation and temporal becoming ((…perhaps slices of …)).

“But There’s 40K Denominations!”

There’s a lively discussion which is in part related to this supposed “problem” for Christendom. So, from that thread, there is List [A] in contradiction with List [B]. It’s a bit tedious, but, given that it’s such a common issue that is raised, though tedious the 2 lists provide at least a “sort-of-helpful” reference of some basic and general complaints/replies that may in some basic or general way be of some utility elsewhere. And, so, 40K Brands!?! and List-A juxtaposed to List-B, as in:

List-[A] Comments which imply that there are large swaths of Christendom, perhaps 10’s if not 100’s of millions of Christians, who or which are Unitarian / Binitarian / Polytheistic and so on, and, also, comments which opine about ‘40,000 different denominations….!!’ as if all of that fussing is somehow true and/or somehow equivalent to gaining traction against the reality of the Core / Epicenter which unites Christendom worldwide both in essence and in premise. Meanwhile, List-[B] argues AGAINST that fallacy.

[….Note the initial version was at ((1)) and the lists are from comments out of ((2))  …..]

Here’s List-A Arguing FOR the Fallacy of 40K Brands:

  4. ((…which was later amended at

Here’s List [B] Arguing AGAINST That Fallacy:


And Then In General:


And Then A Reminder:

“People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed.” Of what? Well….. of “Mere Christianity”

“….really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks and cranks who do that. As Dr Johnson said, ‘People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed.’ The real job of every moral teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple principles which we are all so anxious not to see; like bringing a horse back and back to the fence it has refused to jump or bringing a child back and back to the bit in its lesson that it wants to shirk…..” ((…from C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity / as per the initial comment from that thread at…))

“What about Unitarians & Mormons? Are they Christians?”

First of all, see the above content as much of that content addresses that specific question. However, there is another “layer” which was not actually unpacked in the earlier links/content and so it is worth looking at here.

The reply in general is the same as it is with ANY person, even professing Christians or Atheists and so on. First of all, broadly speaking there is no person who can make claims on the status of the soul of another human being. Professing Christians may be leaning on something quite different than the All-Sufficient even as this or that Non-Christian is Who-Knows-Where today, right now. Second of all, there is only one logically possible Means by which ANY Contingent Being can find Wholeness of “being itself” vis-a-vis the perfection of one’s own being. “What does it mean to be Christian” just is that Leaning-Upon that which is nothing less than All-Sufficient RATHER than on ANY Contingent Terminus as the irreducible source of “one’s very being and fullness thereof”.

However, Unitarians and Mormons appeal to Jesus-The-Contingent-Being as that which is Poured-Out, as that which Fills, and so on. But of course that is the same metaphysical category of terminus as in ANY “paradigmatic conclusion” which plans to bring about the Maximization of Being in/by/through ANY Contingent ANY-thing as the source which itself is in fact not the Aqueduct but is in fact the Water as What-Pours-Into the Hollow/Vacuum of “one’s very being and lack-thereof.” 

So let’s see how that appeal unfolds:

Step 1: Evil is not a positive substance but is instead a deficiency of substance ((…deficiency of Being, deficiency of Good, of Life, of Mind, and so on…)) or we can say that Evil is a Hollow or Vacuum that is void of said Substance. That is what the Christian Metaphysic means when it speaks of The-Good and then in turn speaks of “The-Good-Minus-Something” which is to say “Evil is Good’s Privation” or “Evil is a privation of Good”.

When we speak of any such Deficiency, well then what can Pour Out to fill that Hollow/Vacuum? Before we unpack that let’s recall the “Principle of Proportionate Causality” from

“To be a tree or to be a stone is merely to participate in “treeness” or “stoneness.” But to *be *at *all – which is the characteristic effect of an act of creation out of nothing – is to participate in *Being *Itself. Now the principle of proportionate causality tells us that whatever is in an effect must be in some way in its cause. And only that which *just *is *Being *Itself can, in this case, be a cause proportionate to the effect, since the effect is not merely to be a tree or to be a stone, but *be *at *all….”

Step 2: The Christian Metaphysic posits a cure for Evil — for Privation. By force of Identity/Logic the cure is nothing less than the *only* *logically* *possible* *Means* by which the aforementioned Hollow or Vacuum or Deficiency could be brought to Non-Existence. And what is that Only-Logically-Possible-Means? Well once we know what is MISSING we then know what must be POURED OUT & INTO said Hollow/Vacuum/Deficiency. If we say that it is “X” which is missing in said Void/Hollow then we find that ONLY that which “Is Itself X” ((so to speak)) or we can say ONLY that which is “X Itself” ((so to speak)) can Pour-Out // Pour-Into and so thereby Fill-Up // End // bring to Non-Entity that Void/Hollow which is itself the Deficiency of “X” ((so to speak)).

Step 3: Logical Necessity & Identity press in through all possible worlds with respect to Evil as we find that said “X” amid said Deficiency by force of Identity/Logic *cannot* *be* anything less than Being Itself poured out — or Goodness Itself poured out — or Life Itself poured out — or All-Sufficiency Himself poured out — or God — vis-à-vis His Own Self-Outpouring — to the bitter Ends of Time & Physicality vis-a-vis all things Adamic — and what that “looks like” is what we see when we turn our gaze upon Christ.

Step 4: Regardless of our explanatory terminus, in the end we have only two options which we can “lean-upon” / “hope-in” with respect to Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3 and those two options are:

((1)) THE Necessary Being ~ All-Sufficiency (…wherein we shout “Thy/Thine/Other”…).

((2)) ANY Contingent Being ~ In-Sufficiency (…wherein we shout “I/Mine/Self”…).

In the end, given the nature of *identity, *love, *necessity, *contingency, and *sufficiency one of those two in fact must descend, must pour out, must give-away, must be debased while the other one of those two must ascend, must be infilled, must drink, must be raised. One must push one’s terms through to their necessary terminus and, therein, we arrive, if we don’t stop too soon, here:

Step 5: Is it rational to be bothered by the fact that contingent beings are in fact contingent and therefore totally (as in *ontic) and eternally (as in *ontic) in need of “That Which Exists Necessarily” / The Necessary Being?

Given what is in fact referenced by Necessary/Being, the option of something akin to, say, [Many Necessary Beings] is a logical impossibility (and a metaphysical absurdity), and, also, the option of something akin to, say, [the contingent being *void* *of* *need*] is a logical impossibility (and a metaphysical absurdity). That is all rather basic, elementary, irreducible, and so on.

Is that particular logical necessity or *fact* somehow *immoral*? Is “reality” immoral because of a logical necessity? Is “reality” immoral because I am not the Necessary Being? Either I am the Necessary Being – God – or else Reality is somehow Immoral? ((..and Etc…))

Recall we are discussing the question of “Is there really only One Way?” But don’t stop unpacking “there”, not yet — let’s keep going:

Step 6: When thought through to the end we find a necessary and unavoidable “Total Insufficiency” with respect to our proverbial “ontic-status” and that seems to bother some of us — but let’s keep going — and so the question is why on earth such a basic feature of reality would bother ANYONE. In fact, some *even* seem to count the fact of that ontic-status of ANY Contingent Any-thing as an Immoral Claim for “…God / Being Itself…” to actually declare to a world He in fact loves.

As bad ((silly)) as that is to fault any such Speech, let’s keep going:

Step 7: Logic forces us to ask: Should God Lie instead? Is the term *need* somehow wrong or immoral? Is the syntax of “One-Logically-Possible-Terminus” somehow wrong or immoral?

*IF* we mean to find wholeness, sufficiency, our true good, our final felicity, the perfection of being ((& so on)) *THEN* all vectors converge as Identity & Logic reveal the nature of what we mean by Necessary Being / Contingent Being, & forces our hand ((else Reductio)).

Step 8: TWO questions press in: ((1)) …from where does the Contingent Being find Eternal Life vis-a-vis one’s own **being **itself…? ((2)) …how can the Contingent Being find Eternal Life BUT FOR the Necessary Being…?

Our hand is forced to conclude that it is All-Sufficiency Himself, and nothing less, by which and through which the Interface of each and every one of those full-on “Ontic Categories” arrives fully intact.

The question is not “Should the truth of that reality — of our necessarily contingent ontic-status – NOT be revealed to Mankind by The Necessary Being?” Rather it is all about HOW that Map is revealed and HOW it transposes into & through All Things Adamic to the very Ends of Time & Physicality ((…see….)).


Spread the love
Recent Posts