The fragmented nature of the church - Serious comments only please

1. 60

   Eric Graudinsposted 14 years ago

   Hi,
   
   Do you think that the second part of this clip is funny?
   
   http://www.emophilips.com/video/video/244

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Eric:
      Church?
      This is confusing to me.
      Are you referring to christianity or the fragmented nature of the 3 major monotheisms?
      Clear this up for me pls...ty  :-)

      replyreport
   2. 73

      IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      OMG!  That was great!!!
      
      I loved it.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Al Blondinposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It was hilarious but sadly had a lot more to do with human nature than religion.
      My take is that what people for the most part consider negative about religions are simply individual misguided interpretations and practices of such religions. For my part, I like Blaise Pascal's view of religion: "the heart has reasons that reason cannot know". I served almost a whole year in Afghanistan and saw first-hand some of what we as Canadians acomplished there. Yet, most of what Canadians back home saw were the negative aspects of the mission because the information that made it back was driven by  the agenda of media organizations which are in turn driven by the "human nature" of the audience. We "anthropos" are by nature much more attracted to catastrophe than good news. So the story we get is the one we demand, not necessarily a good representation of the actual truth.

      replyreport
2. 73

   earnestshubposted 14 years ago

   What is even funnier than the video, (which is hilarious by the way and not to be missed!) is the reality behind it!
   10/10 for this one.

   replyreport
3. 84

   Jewelsposted 14 years ago

   Great video Eric.  Ta!

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Jewelsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      In all seriousness, it's not funny Eric!  It shows how a sect becomes dissected time and time and time and time again.  Why does this happen?
      
      -To appease those who cannot agree, cannot conform, or is it that those in the flock don't want to be dictated to by the head person?
      
      -Is there a lack of truth in what is being taught in the original sect?
      
      -Are the teachings empowering or dissempowering?  Anything that limits or squashes will is not truth.  Therefore any teaching that does not honor the student is doomed to failure.  Absolutely nobody is less than, and yet it is the prime teaching in religion.  You are not worthy to enter the house of God.  And so it will be.  As you teach, so it will come to pass.
      
      --Was there corruption in the original sect? 
      
      -When the sole purpose of spirituality and religious dogma is UNITY, why is there so much disunity and fragmentation of churches?
      
      (I do like that statement : "Do you think billions of years ago, a bunch of molecules floating around at random without rhyme or reason could some day have had the sense of humor to make you look like that?"

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Al Blondinposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The unfortunate difficulty lies in that churches are made up of people. And people are fallible. The same could be said of political parties. They mostly begin with good intentions but at some point "fall" into various "human" temptations like greed, sloth, pride, etc... ;o)

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            The saddest of all is that all of this has been foretold to come to pass in the scriptures themselves.
              And because it has been fulfilled people come to the wrong conclusion that scripture proves itself false.   WRONG!
            
               I think that scripture also says that this  will be the end result.

            replyreport
4. 73

   earnestshubposted 14 years ago

   I remember asking a wise old outback farmer in his 80s if he read the bible.
   "No son" he said. "Something that claims I"m not good enough how I am shouldn't need that many words to justify it"

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
5. 70

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   The fragmented nature of the church.
   
   Well, the church has been working under the same ill-conceived notion, it's always been working- if humanity is not made to answer to a higher authority then chaos would ensue.
   
   However, as humanity's mind-space has grown, the ideology of a higher authority, outside of government, no longer seems rational or even viable to the overall safety and security, and survival of the human species.
   
   The more consciously active people have to become is a new level of awareness, not just about their surroundings, but about living life itself.
   
   The religions of the world are fragmented, because too many people find too many errors in each religion, so they start up another religion minus those errors and still claim to be the supposed true words of some mystical god.
   
   Too many irresponsible people presently living today, who refuse to accept complete responsibility for themselves, which continues to break off in to some sort of new religion.
   
   It's getting detrimental to the survival of the human species, because if you seriously think about it- 2/3 of the world believe in a god of some sort- yet those same people blame people who are not themselves for the state of the world.
   
   There are not enough NON-religious people in the world to make a difference. Those who claim religious ties, lies-cheat-steal and do a great many other disservices to others, without any real sort of accountability.
   
   It's sad really.

   replyreport
6. 0

   china manposted 14 years ago

   The church is fragmented because all the major tenets of faith were exploded with the Renaissance.  Keeping the lie going regardless is a full time business on which the business of church relies.
   
   The re-branding and re-re-branding creates sects that suit the greatest number of people from the 'churches' that treat the idea of a god figure as a metaphor and so they can still think and explore though all the various permutations - to those 'churches' that suit progressively more simple people - right down to the basic dumbo.  It is a shame that the lowest common denomination seems to be the most frequent visitor to these forums.

   replyreport
7. 60

   Eric Graudinsposted 14 years ago

   @quark:
   Both.
   
   Thanks everyone for the comments so far.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Eric...Ty. By the way, it's "Qwark."  :-)
      Ok we're considering all 3 major monotheisms, if I get your drift.
      It's pretty easy to understand.
      During the "Dark Ages," catholicism ruled in Machiavelian style i.e. if ya didn't believe and play along, your life ended.
      Then a fellow; "Luther," PROTESTED against catholicism and the fun began.
      Today, worldwide, there are approx. 40,000 differing protestant interpretations of the OT. They all proclaim to be "right." The "bible" (KJV) is not an easy read.
      Jews are convinced that the pentateuch (the torah) has the answers and islam touts their beliefs in opposition to all of the aforementioned.
      It's all based on the uniqueness of our being i.e. consciousness.
      During the processes of our evolution, man was curious and fearful about death and loss.
      We infantile humans are still frightened and fearful. We arrogantly place undeserved value on our existence and create inexplicable metaphysical divinities which love us, to save us from the finality of death....which by the way, is pure BS and may take us to the edge of extinction.
      Qwark

      replyreport
8. 82

   Pcunixposted 14 years ago

   I remember seeing him do that bit somewhere.  Still funny.
   
   As to the question:  not within the boundaries of anything I care about.  Fragment, wither, blow away on the wind and good riddance.

   replyreport
9. 0

   sandra rinckposted 14 years ago

   It's fragmented because their manuals are fragmented.  It's fragmented because a slip of the pen can change the whole context and meaning of certain aspects of what they just read.
   
   I remember studying once with someone and we had two different bibles but some sentences were not exact replicas so even though the words used were synonymous, what you take from it can be dramatically changed by word association.
   
   Also, there doesn't seem to be a well defined definition for the term 'sin'.  In some context it means breaking one of the 10.  In others it indicates something like being born into life ie: life meaning the same as 'sin' in which case you can use them interchangeably.
   
   The definition of Spirit is also horribly dismantled in such a way that, when you read through the Bible, the term spirit referrers to character traits such as "the spirit of deceit" as very well noted in the book of Daniel were "one with many spirits" seems suggest a liar, a magician or someone who otherwise uses deception or illusion or manipulation but does not indicate a supernatural evil being.
   
   The same thing can be said about Jesus.  "He has the spirit of Christ", what is that exactly?  It doesn't mean that Jesus is literally in someone but indicates that someone has taken on certain characteristics that are associated with Jesus. 
   
   Now the same can be said Jesus' choice words, "Who said I am good?  I am not good." 
   
   If religions could clearly define some definitions like: god, sin, good and spirit, among others, then there wouldn't be so many different fragments of the same religion(s). 
   
   They all think they are right and the other is wrong and I believe much of that comes from not having a well defined definition for the core of their beliefs.
   
   The video was funny though.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      ....thanks for making my point so well!   :-)

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Al Blondinposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      To argue that the Church is fragmented because of a lack of clear definitions is not very useful. To use this as a potential argument against Christianity or the divinity of Christ is ludicrous. Definitions are simply our limited but only means of trying to understand the world around us. Protestant churches are fragmented because of lack of common organization and authority. Their organization is focused on a democratic model which leaves the definitions to everyone who has a Bible in hand. By the way, the word "church" is common only to Christianity. Judaism has synagogues and Islam has mosques. Deninitions are the core of language and every discipline we care about. Not being able to define something is not a good argument against its viability or existence. For example, few would argue against love, yet try to define it and you will receive a multitude of opinions. It is the same with science.
      Physical laws affected the world before our attempts to define them came along. The relationships between pressure and flow, volts and amps, heat and pressure etc. pre-exist the definitions. Many appear to think that to define something is necessary for its existence. That is subjective nonsense. We may think ourselves clearheaded and evolved in this new millenium, but we are extremely arrogant to believe that our understanding or definition of something is necessary for that something to exist. The problem with definitions exists in all intellectual disciplines. Religion in this case is not the perpetrator but simply another victim to the limits of human communicaitons.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Okay then define: god, good, evil, justice, and sin.
         
         Well Jesus said he is not good.  What do you make of it?  If you could clearly define what 'good' means, then it wouldn't be a ludicrous argument.
         
         so now you are saying that because you think the Protestants don't have any organization or authority, they must be democratic and it is 'bad' to leave the definitions up to the people who have a bible because they are simply wrong?
         
         Actually, being able to define "god" would be an excellent starting point in making a viable argument.  Define god please.  Since god is the core of your belief you should know what it is you believe right?
         
         not the same at all. 
         
         
         
         Yet, the definitions have been clearly defined because they are observable and testable but at least you are right about those things existing before they were given definitions and names.
         
         nope. but I am asking for some definitions but you wont define them because you don't know them.  Let's start with something simple.  Okay, define god. 
         
         So you are saying that god does not exist?
         
         
         No, playing the blame game is a product of ignorance.  Ignorance is the product of not knowing.  Not knowing is a product of faith.  And through all that, you neither chose to define some terms, you managed to blame other Christian religions for not having the same undefined definitions as yourself, and you have chosen to believe in things that do not exist and blame it on your inability to define it. 
         
         You make no sense at all.  Define god.

         replyreport
10. 60

    paradigmsearchposted 14 years ago

    Politics and religion are intertwined to such a degree that they are one and the same.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       paradigm: sorrowfully correct! :-(

       replyreport
       1. 0

          sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          there is a term for that, "religical" or "poligulous" or any variation of the two combined to form a singular meaning.

          replyreport
11. 60

    paradigmsearchposted 14 years ago

    Have the answer...
    
    Too tired to direct u.

    replyreport
12. 60

    Eric Graudinsposted 14 years ago

    Thanks for the comments.
    Wow. We're up to about 20 posts in the religious forums without a religious war breaking out.
    I'm gunna call the Guiness Book of Records.
    
    
    As I see it, everything boils down to some simple basics.
    
    1. Perception is everything. So of course everyone  perceives  their own gang to be the best.
    
    2. Everyone wants as many members as possible for their own "gang"
    
    3. You gotta defend your turf against the miserable heathens who inhabit every other gang but yours.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       or that.

       replyreport
    2. 61

       Al Blondinposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Eric, the reason there has not been a religious war has less to do with good will than the fact that most of those who wrote simply agree with one another. I did not see any who stood up to defend religion in this forum. Therefore, the only kind of war possible would have been a civil war...  ;o) I have little interest in simply maintaining civility; and more of an interest in finding and upholding truth wherever it may be found. It can get messy but much more interesting! I threw in my first grenade above. Let's have some real fun!

       replyreport