Kevin's Watch

Iryssa wrote:...with our hearts in the right place.

It's perhaps one of my fondest hopes that the line I quoted turns out to be the most important consideration of all.

--A

*smile* mine too

taking the base point of this thread, conflicts between Christian sects (if that's the right term) only dilute the whole Christian message and for me (as an atheist) only reinforce my scepticism. In the UK we have all brands of so called Christianity (if you define Christiand as a follower of Christ), but the most prevalent are the Methodist, Catholics & Anglicans (Church of England). The main differences between these are startling to say that they all claim to follw the same creed.

Catholics - argue that they are the true faith, believe Christ was born to a virgin, had no brothers, rise from the dead and that all followeres receive the actual transubstantiated body of CHrist each Sunday in Church. Cahtolics also believe that condoms are sinful, sex without the intent of procreation is sinful ,homosexuality is sinful, every other religion is wrong, women can't be priests, sex before marriage is wrong (what about all the people in the world who don't know of Catholicism and aren't "married" yet live together as a unit, are they damned?) The list of restraint goes on and on.

C of E - some believe that he was born to a virgin, some don't, believe he did probably have some brothers, don't believe that you receive the actual body of Christ at church, but only a representation. Get this though, a few years ago an archbishop of the church questioned the validity of the resurrection, saying that it wasn't important. Eh? did I miss something but of all the incongruities in the New Testament, isn't this the one constant and the central part of Christianity???

Methodists - they don't appear to be wrapped up in the actualities, but focus more on the implied stuff and what it points to.

Then you have all the others, Scientology (all the divinities are circling the earth in a Mother Ship? Really?) Mormons, Jehovahs etc.

So much of modern Christianity is based on the letters and teachings of Paul. I mean no disrespect, but history is revealing this man as a misogynist and an extremist. IT just seems to have got it all wrong to me. Far to much adherence to detail, when the detail is not sure.

Take for example the four gospels - 3 are similar, mostly sourced from Mark. The fourth , JOhn is entirely different ,contains fewer miracles and a very different Jesus. In John, he's reluctant to declare who he is and wants reputation to drive people to follow him . IN the other 3 he is evangelical calling the crowds to follow him the son of god. Hmm, bit of a contradiction. Mark, the first gospel was written 30 years after Jesus was killed. How can anyone expect to take this word for word, but they do.

Then you have the Bbles. The first official one, the King James, was edited by a pwere hungry King with the intent of controlling the masses - a reliable source for further re writings? IN this respect you ahve to respect Islam where today's Koran is exactly the same as the 7th century edition to every last space and comma.

Putting your faith in Christianity is like standing on shifiting ground. There are so many contradictions, how can you be sure what is correct?

do I ramble or what?!

hamako wrote:...believe he did probably have some brothers...

I must say I'm surprised at this, IIRC, the Bible is pretty specific about Jesus having several brothers, (and a sister too? not sure about that).

Perhaps the whole point is that nobody can be sure about what is correct or not.

Maybe you just have to take that blind leap, and hope you weren't too wrong? Maybe Iryssa and I are right, and what really counts is whats in your heart. Let's hope.

--Avatar

It's all dependent on which translation you read, which gospel you read and what faith you follow - Catholics will have you believe that any reference to "brothers" is not familial, merely a term used to describe close friends. Further, Catholic teaching strictly says that Mary was forever a virgin though quite where they get this from baffles me.

It's my whole point - nothing is clear. Av, you talk about making a blind leap? What for? I guess it's a case of what you want to believe, not whether it's correct or not? Not for me pal, it all strikes me as a waste of time. Perhaps this is the opposite of a leap of faith? I just can't understand why people want to believe it all. Imagine a guy comes upto you in the street with a lot of contradictory, sketchy facts about events that took place over 30 years ago. He has no record of them other than what's in his memory. Do you through down your nets and put yourself wholeheartedly in his trust? MOre than that, you have to hand over everything about yourself and maybe change your whole life. Somehow I don't think you would. You'd need a little more to make that step wouldn't you? Imagine the waste......

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, afterall, I'm not a christian (or a follower of any organised religion) myself.

I think people do tend to believe whatever they want, regardless of the facts (or lack thereof). People need something to believe in.

I think old socialist Karl was right when he called it "the opiate of the masses". If we'd never had religion, mankind would have had little to carry the majority through "dark days of the soul".

I think it was a way to justify the suffering that people experience here: "Don't worry, life may be awful right now, but just wait 'til you die. It'll all get much better."

--Avatar

The opiate of the masses...
Hahaha... I think these days the opiate of the masses comes more in the form of an..err.. opiate

Back to that masculinity/femininity of god thing, I think that while it's true that we do refer to God as male more out of habit and tradition than anything else... I think that it has a really powerful subconscious impact on our thinking. The characteristics of femininity seem to be lacking in many faiths, perhaps in part because we view God as perfect, and then quietly as male.
I think the church, or at least the Church (catholic) could stand to be a little more nurturing and empathetic.

I agree that we don't realise the impact that an assumption such as that has on our sub-conscious.

To return to the original question though, about the differences between various christian sects, the believers among us may be reassured to know that this is not solely a christian problem.

My GF (bless her ) picked up a copy of Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell for me yesterday (more on this in a new thread which I'll soon start).

Looking through it briefly, (She bought it for me, but was half-way through it herself by the time I got home) I was led to The Tibetan Book of the Dead (which I also own) where I was very interested to note that the translators preface points out many disagreements and disparities regarding the translation thereof.

Perhaps it is simply a human trait not to agree on anything in general?

Also, in reference to someone mentioning the preservation of the original Qu'ran, while it is true that the words have remained the same (due to the fact that it still appears in the language in which it was written, unlike the bible) it is equally true that there is considerable diversion on the interpretations thereof, hence the major divisions in Islam between Sunni and Shi'ite(sp?)

Anyway, it's obvious that these disagreements are not limited to the christian faith.