Church thoughts

[Heads22]

Why is it a big deal if someone's a homosexual? I have a gay friend and most people are sure that the two "studs" of the football team may be bisexual as they can be found cuddling with each other half the time. Does it bother me? No.

[whitesoxfan99]

like I said, I wasn't trying to prove any assertions, therefore I need no thesis. I'm just trying to sort this all out in my head. I thanked Stef for her post on autism and ADD, and of course it got ugly. My question is why it's assumed that homosexuality is a natural occurance. A culture that considers so many genetic inheiratences (spell check please) as negatives, such as obesity, high cholesterol, ADD, why isn't homosexuality in that mix? we try to treat all of those things with medications, yet we chose to accept homosexuality as normative.

 

Once again, i'm asking not for hateful remarks and condescention, but for scientific explanations to why we accept this as ok. I'm not asking for suggestions that society evolves, because gay relationships have been accepted long before the advent of voting and democracy, so why do women have the right to vote and only now people are trying to get the gay marriages legalized? my point being that there seems to be a deeper seated reason that societal evolution has given homosexuality the screw, however, I don't know if anyone outside true christianity could understand with faith.

 

please, let's continue to talk about this in a civilized manner. thanks, PA

I don't have an scientific explanation but comparing homosexuality to ADD, obesity, and high cholesterol is a terrible comparison. People with ADD are given medication so they can learn and work more easily. Without medication many of these people have an extremely difficult time learning and ultimately holding onto a job. As for obesity and high cholesterol, well obviously they have a very negative effect on your health so its pretty obvious why thats considered a negative. But my question to you is why should homosexuality be considered a negative by society (without bringing in Bible texts). I understand that it does not allow for reproduction but in our current world in which there is over population anyway this doesn't pose a threat to the human race. And homosexuality doesn't harm anyone so why would it be viewed as a negative.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I don't have an scientific explanation but comparing homosexuality to ADD, obesity, and high cholesterol is a terrible comparison.  People with ADD are given medication so they can learn and work more easily.  Without medication many of these people have an extremely difficult time learning and ultimately holding onto a job.  As for obesity and high cholesterol, well obviously they have a very negative effect on your health so its pretty obvious why thats considered a negative.  But my question to you is why should homosexuality be considered a negative by society (without bringing in Bible texts).  I understand that it does not allow for reproduction but in our current world in which there is over population anyway this doesn't pose a threat to the human race.  And homosexuality doesn't harm anyone so why would it be viewed as a negative.

ok, this is a start, I suppose. before we automatically assume that homosexuality is or is not a negative gentic, biological, or nurtured state, I wanted to discuss the facts.

 

I would very much disagree with homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. If homosexuality isn't a choice, which we can almost all agree on in the majority of cases, how does one explain the catholic priest scandal? the AIDS epidemic in the 80s? both have significant effects on millions of people.

 

If we remove reproduction from the picture, why aren't brothers and sisters, cousins, etc allowed to marry, date, have sexual relationships? two men conviently cannot have a child on their own, and if a brother had a vasectomy, why then couldn't he marry his sister?

 

I know my thoughts will be mocked, but I don't believe its due to my ignorance, but because it's not politically correct to ask questions about this subject. I'm not personally attacking anyone and I'm not saying I'm right about anything. It should worry everyone single person who believes in education, freedom of expression, etc for my opinions and thoughts to be suppressed in the name of political correctness. hear me out, that's all I ask.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Why is it a big deal if someone's a homosexual? I have a gay friend and most people are sure that the two "studs" of the football team may be bisexual as they can be found cuddling with each other half the time. Does it bother me? No.

I don't have a problem with anyone. I'm just trying to ask questions and understand life better.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I would very much disagree with homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. If homosexuality isn't a choice, which we can almost all agree on in the majority of cases, how does one explain the catholic priest scandal? the AIDS epidemic in the 80s? both have significant effects on millions of people.

 

Neither of these problems is caused by homosexuality.

 

If we remove reproduction from the picture, why aren't brothers and sisters, cousins, etc allowed to marry, date, have sexual relationships? two men conviently cannot have a child on their own, and if a brother had a vasectomy, why then couldn't he marry his sister?

 

dunno. what do you think?

[Heads22]

Neither of these problems is caused by homosexuality.

Heterosexuals do the same things too.....to say that these are purely gay problems (sexual assualt, STD's, Rape) is pure overgeneralization.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I would very much disagree with homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. If homosexuality isn't a choice, which we can almost all agree on in the majority of cases, how does one explain the catholic priest scandal? the AIDS epidemic in the 80s?  both have significant effects on millions of people.

 

If we remove reproduction from the picture, why aren't brothers and sisters, cousins, etc allowed to marry, date, have sexual relationships? two men conviently cannot have a child on their own, and if a brother had a vasectomy, why then couldn't he marry his sister?

Pinning the catholic scandal and the AIDS epidemic on the 'problem' of homosexuality is as flawed an argument as me suggesting religion is evil because it is the leading cause of war and death at the hands of others. Don't resort to easy, cliched arguments and neither will I.

 

As for the brother/sister question, it is just as flawed because the central issue is not reproductive, it is the adherance to societal mores versus the wanton breaking of sociatal taboos. Why don't we have a sexual relationships with our menopausal mothers? It seems a fine setup - no risk of unwanted pregnancy AND it's a heterosexual relationship so we aren't cheezing off God and His followers. Well, of course we don't do that because it violates long-held societal taboos. Ditto for brother/sister, brother/brother, etc...

 

Interestingly, anthropologists will suggest that the initial emergence of such taboos actuually did have a reproductive basis. When relatives did mate and have children, there was a price to pay in terms of inbreeding and loss of hybrid vigor - the offspring were often F'd up, so the practice eventually became taboo.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Pinning the catholic scandal and the AIDS epidemic on the 'problem' of homosexuality is as flawed an argument as me suggesting religion is evil because it is the leading cause of war and death at the hands of others.  Don't resort to easy, cliched arguments and neither will I.

 

As for the brother/sister question, it is just as flawed because the central issue is not reproductive, it is the adherance to societal mores versus the wanton breaking of sociatal taboos.  Why don't we have a sexual relationships with our menopausal mothers? It seems a fine setup - no risk of unwanted pregnancy AND it's a heterosexual relationship so we aren't cheezing off God and His followers.  Well, of course we don't do that because it violates long-held societal taboos.  Ditto for brother/sister, brother/brother, etc...

 

Interestingly, anthropologists will suggest that the initial emergence of such taboos actuually did have a reproductive basis.  When relatives did mate and have children, there was a price to pay in terms of inbreeding and loss of hybrid vigor - the offspring were often F'd up, so the practice eventually became taboo.

so because one social taboo has worn off, the others are SOL? because there was a time when homosexuality was the same way.

 

I'm just finding covienience in the homosexuality arguement versus actually fact. A minority of people worked their cause and got enough people on their side to ignore social mores that you discussed and now we're at where we're at.

 

*note* I'm quite libertarian politically, so by all means, I think on a social level, homosexuality is fair game. The government shouldn't have much say at all in this discussion.

 

I'm just raising these questions because from a biblical standpoint we shouldn't mirror the greater society. "be in the world, but not of the world" So I do agree with Southsider that if homosexuality is a sin, then it's no difference than me lying, murdering, etc. I wish I could love everyone to the extent that I'm called to, but I have a strong sense of justice and desire to protect the leadership of the church. There's just no room for arguement in that category.

 

*back to dragging my knuckles

[sox4lifeinPA]

Neither of these problems is caused by homosexuality.

 

 

 

dunno.  what do you think?

1) I totally agree, but the examples stand as social problems stemming from the vehicle of homosexuality. The spread of AIDS was amplified by the gay community among many other factors (zero sex education, proper protection). The catholic church scandal is a perfect example of individuals in power corrupted by the sexualization of America over the past 30 years. I'm actually not sure how this isn't a problem created by homosexuality, so please help me on that one.

 

2) I'm not pro-incest, if that's what you want to hear, I'm just suggesting that we need to have discussions like this before we tread down pathways that we can't step back from. Prohibition was disasterous, as would ending abortion rights. Once a society choses the more liberal pathway it cannot undo that decision.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Thing is, I don't think the taboo, the social strictures that still hold homosexuality in contempt, have worn off. The 'and now here we are' is more telling from the pro gay rights side of the aisle. All these years, and still it is Oscar Wylde's "Love that dared not speak its name." People are not hired, are fired, are not elected to political office, are ridiculed, beaten, killed... for being gay, so 'and now here we are' doesn't seem all that different from where we have been for a the last few centuries.

[GoodAsGould]

I remember in Theology class being told that the historical perspective for confession was mostly a social one. Much like having Jews keep kosher was more about public health than the actual ability to be closer to God.

 

On the other thing, Tex - I don't subscribe to any particular Christian religion anymore. I'm just looking for the place that feels right. Any church I attend HAS to be open and affirming. I don't want a church to condone my actions, but instead to accept who I am as valid. Something that not enough churches do.

maybe you should try a unitarian universalist church.... they accept people no matter what your previous religion was or if you are gay or not.... the one i used to go to in palatine has a couple gay couples in it i think.... one of them is even two white guys who adopted a black daughter... basicly its worth a shot id think if you are looking for a church thats open

[CrimsonWeltall]

I'm actually not sure how this isn't a problem created by homosexuality, so please help me on that one.

 

Neither is a result of homosexuality. One is pedophilia and the other is promiscuity and a lack of safe sex.

[Wong & Owens]

I would very much disagree with homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. If homosexuality isn't a choice, which we can almost all agree on in the majority of cases, how does one explain the catholic priest scandal? the AIDS epidemic in the 80s?  both have significant effects on millions of people.

Both do affect millions of people, and both have nothing to do with homosexuality in and of itself.

 

The cause of the catholic priest scandal is pedophilia. There are reported cases of girls being abused by priests as well as boys. If you were a pedophile, could you possibly draw up a better job description to facilitate getting your rocks off than catholic priest? It's no coincidence that so many have been caught with their, er, pants down. Maybe some of the priests simply are homosexual, and abused kids because they were easy targets. While ceertainly not acceptable for any reason, maybe if said priest wasn't essentially raised to think that feelings he can't control are punching his ticket to damnation, maybe he wouldn't have gotten screwed up to that degree.

 

As for the AIDS scare, yes, it was more prevalent amongst gays due to their lifestyle, but also due to the lack of education, outlets and support structures offered to the gay community that contributed to that lifestyle. I'm too lazy and tired to go digging for all the theories, but to say that the AIDS scare was spread because people were gay is simply inaccurate. Not alot of lesbian AIDS cases, IIRC.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Sexually immoral is a broad statement.  To me that would apply to premarital sex, extra-marital affairs, lust etc.  I still won't accept that being gay would be anymore of a sin, than any of the other sexual sins.  I really don't see that being specified there.

how do you feel about a practicing adulterer being in leadership then? or a pastor who is addicted to pornography?

[southsider2k5]

how do you feel about a practicing adulterer being in leadership then? or a pastor who is addicted to pornography?

To me, no way. But I don't see any of those things as being anymore against the Churches teachings than any other sexual sin. That's my point.

[sox4lifeinPA]

To me, no way.  But I don't see any of those things as being anymore against the Churches teachings than any other sexual sin.  That's my point.

I'm 100% in argeeance. My brother made the point that how many pastors have a weight problem, and we don't say anything to them? How then do we selectively point to homosexuality as the "ultimate" no no?

 

I get his message, but we shouldn't be allowing leadership in a church to have any foothold with repeatative sins, so just because there is now, doesn't mean we can just allow anyone to shepherd a flock.

[southsider2k5]

I'm 100% in argeeance. My brother made the point that how many pastors have a weight problem, and we don't say anything to them? How then do we selectively point to homosexuality as the "ultimate" no no?

 

I get his message, but we shouldn't be allowing leadership in a church to have any foothold with repeatative sins, so just because there is now, doesn't mean we can just allow anyone to shepherd a flock.

I think my point is more like EVERYONE has something that offends God, which we refuse to quit. In God's eyes being gay isn't any different than any other sin. I'm not quite sure how bibilically gay leadership is different from someone stealing from the collection, or anything else.

 

I can't understand how we are taking this to the point of schism, but we have allowed churches to shuffle pedophiles around illegally. Which to me is much more than sin, it is turning our kids into victims as well. To me being gay is a victimless sin anyway. I would much rather see the church protect these guys vs pedophiles... But who is driving pedophiles out of the church? Not the church itself, but the courts through lawsuits which are endangering the very financial basis of the churches.

 

And that amongst all of the other sins that get committed in Gods name by churches and its leadership, I just don't see how gay is any different than anything else, even in a biblical sense.

[Rex Kickass]

Both do affect millions of people, and both have nothing to do with homosexuality in and of itself.

 

The cause of the catholic priest scandal is pedophilia.  There are reported cases of girls being abused by priests as well as boys.  If you were a pedophile, could you possibly draw up a better job description to facilitate getting your rocks off than catholic priest?  It's no coincidence that so many have been caught with their, er, pants down.  Maybe some of the priests simply are homosexual, and abused kids because they were easy targets.  While ceertainly not acceptable for any reason, maybe if said priest wasn't essentially raised to think that feelings he can't control are punching his ticket to damnation, maybe he wouldn't have gotten screwed up to that degree.

 

As for the AIDS scare, yes, it was more prevalent amongst gays due to their lifestyle, but also due to the lack of education, outlets and support structures offered to the gay community that contributed to that lifestyle.  I'm too lazy and tired to go digging for all the theories, but to say that the AIDS scare was spread because people were gay is simply inaccurate.  Not alot of lesbian AIDS cases, IIRC.

You know, I watched movies made in the late 1960's that alluded to priests and pedophilia. It's not a new issue for the church. The difference is the level of openness and victimization in our society. This actually makes priests LESS able to fall into this trap rather than more able to.

[Guest hawaiisoxfn]

If any of your pastors drive $60,000 cars (an admittedly ambiguous, but certainly not unfair figure), you might want to rethink the way you're doing church. (1 Timothy 6:3-21, 1 John 3:16-18, 1 Thessalonians 2:6-9, Luke 6:20-24)

Id definitely agree with this one. This is the reason Im not Catholic, and dont ever plan on being Catholic. I went to Catholic mass with an old girlfriend once, and it was full of hypocrisy. The Bible preaches how it is easier to for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Yet heres the Catholic minister drinking wine out of his gold cup, in a silk robe lined with golden threads. Everythings covered in expensive silk and they have the cross with Jesus on it and its made of the finest wood and some china-like material for the body of Christ. This isnt what Christ would have wanted. Although some might not see it as being so deep, I think Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade teaches a great lesson. When told to choose the grail, the Nazi chose the one that he thought was the most beautifully decorated. He drank from it and rotted instantly. Indy, on the other hand, chose the only one of the bunch that was plain. A cup with no jewels and made plainly of clay. It was the grail, the cup that held eternal life. And that is what Christ would have wanted. Christ was dirt poor! He would never have been able to drink from a gold cup lined with rubies. He was plain and poor, but spiritually, he was far richer than every man combined. Id like to see a Christian church made out of ordinary bricks. Inside, have several benches of gray stone, and a cross of simple wood. Have a minister who does not wear fancy clothes or drink from a fancy cup. Instead, have him in clothes that only cover him in nothing more and give him a cup made of clay. That is the church of Christ. Im pretty sure it is the book of Daniel that says when you pray, you should go into your room and strip down to worthless clothes and honor him. The Bible also says that you must close the door. Giving to charity and honoring God is worthless if you only do it to exalt yourself. Essentially, dont brag about giving to charity. Only God, you and your benefactor should know about it.

 

Heres one last thought Ive been having. Like I said earlier, God says it is nearly impossible for rich men to go to Heaven. And in one instance, Jesus told a rich young man that to achieve eternal life, he must give his wealth to charity. But in the Ten Commandments, he warns that you must not rob. That said, how do you think that God saw the acts of Robin Hood? I know Robin Hood was fictional but imagine he was real. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. You are breaking the Ten Commandments by robbery, but you are at the same time fulfilling Gods wish that the rich give to the poor. I think God would admire it. If one person gave all of his wealth to the poor, and then started robbing other peoples money and giving it to the poor, God would honor that person. On the other hand, if you made yourself a life of wealth and then stole from other rich people to give to the poor, that would be hypocritical. That would be somewhat like the despicable Mr. Brocklehurst in Charlotte Bronte's book Jane Eyre. He deprived the students at Lowood School and said that it was Christian morals, while at the same time he gave his family all they could ever ask for. That is hypocrisy.

 

OK, Im going to shut up now. Someone please respond, I dont want to have wasted all this time just to talk into thin air.

[southsider2k5]

Id definitely agree with this one. This is the reason Im not Catholic, and dont ever plan on being Catholic. I went to Catholic mass with an old girlfriend once, and it was full of hypocrisy. The Bible preaches how it is easier to for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Yet heres the Catholic minister drinking wine out of his gold cup, in a silk robe lined with golden threads. Everythings covered in expensive silk and they have the cross with Jesus on it and its made of the finest wood and some china-like material for the body of Christ. This isnt what Christ would have wanted. Although some might not see it as being so deep, I think Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade teaches a great lesson. When told to choose the grail, the Nazi chose the one that he thought was the most beautifully decorated. He drank from it and rotted instantly. Indy, on the other hand, chose the only one of the bunch that was plain. A cup with no jewels and made plainly of clay. It was the grail, the cup that held eternal life. And that is what Christ would have wanted. Christ was dirt poor! He would never have been able to drink from a gold cup lined with rubies. He was plain and poor, but spiritually, he was far richer than every man combined. Id like to see a Christian church made out of ordinary bricks. Inside, have several benches of gray stone, and a cross of simple wood. Have a minister who does not wear fancy clothes or drink from a fancy cup. Instead, have him in clothes that only cover him in nothing more and give him a cup made of clay. That is the church of Christ. Im pretty sure it is the book of Daniel that says when you pray, you should go into your room and strip down to worthless clothes and honor him. The Bible also says that you must close the door. Giving to charity and honoring God is worthless if you only do it to exalt yourself. Essentially, dont brag about giving to charity. Only God, you and your benefactor should know about it.

 

Heres one last thought Ive been having. Like I said earlier, God says it is nearly impossible for rich men to go to Heaven. And in one instance, Jesus told a rich young man that to achieve eternal life, he must give his wealth to charity. But in the Ten Commandments, he warns that you must not rob. That said, how do you think that God saw the acts of Robin Hood? I know Robin Hood was fictional but imagine he was real. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. You are breaking the Ten Commandments by robbery, but you are at the same time fulfilling Gods wish that the rich give to the poor. I think God would admire it. If one person gave all of his wealth to the poor, and then started robbing other peoples money and giving it to the poor, God would honor that person. On the other hand, if you made yourself a life of wealth and then stole from other rich people to give to the poor, that would be hypocritical. That would be somewhat like the despicable Mr. Brocklehurst in Charlotte Bronte's book Jane Eyre. He deprived the students at Lowood School and said that it was Christian morals, while at the same time he gave his family all they could ever ask for. That is hypocrisy.

 

OK, Im going to shut up now. Someone please respond, I dont want to have wasted all this time just to talk into thin air. 

Interesting thoughts all of them.

 

The Church as we know it today, is NOTHING like the church Jesus intended in the new testament. If you read the gospels, so much of the traditions of the church are complete garbage. The institution of the church has become an entity all on itself, instead of a road to God as it was originally intended.

 

The Robin Hood analogy is interesting but flawed. There is no thing as a "good" sin. Remember where God said if you have committed one sin you have committed them all. Even if his intentions were good, he still broke Gods commandments, and would be punished as such.

[Soxy]

Of course it is most obvious that the Catholic Church flaunts its wealth with the cathedrals and the huge compounds in the dioceses. But if you go into a wealthy Suberban church you will find the exact same idea. Million plus dollar church buildings where more money seems to be spent edifying the building than on outreach or charity. Absolutely insane.

 

On the other hand I was in NYC last weekend with a few friends who are doing volunteer corps (Jesuit--aka catholic and Lutheran) who were living on an $85/$100 a month stipend (rent and food was provided) while serving in their community. Unfortunately, I think that kind of joy and Christian duty (living simply) has most assuredly gone awry. I'm not necessarily saying Jesus was an ascethetic (sp), becasue I don't think he was, but I DO think that living simply doesn't fall into accord with what ANY mainstream denomination are doing.

 

And why should only pastors be lambasted for driving $60,000 cars? I am reminded of a quotation from Keeping the Faith: Catholics want their priests to be the kind of Catholics they don't have the devotion to be. I think that pretty much generalizes... All Christians are called to live in a way similar to Jesus, not just those of the cloth...

[sox4lifeinPA]

Interesting thoughts all of them.

 

The Church as we know it today, is NOTHING like the church Jesus intended in the new testament.  If you read the gospels, so much of the traditions of the church are complete garbage.  The institution of the church has become an entity all on itself, instead of a road to God as it was originally intended. 

 

The Robin Hood analogy is interesting but flawed.  There is no thing as a "good" sin.  Remember where God said if you have committed one sin you have committed them all.  Even if his intentions were good, he still broke Gods commandments, and would be punished as such.

what he said. good post, though.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I think my point is more like EVERYONE has something that offends God, which we refuse to quit.  In God's eyes being gay isn't any different than any other sin. I'm not quite sure how bibilically gay leadership is different from someone stealing from the collection, or anything else.

 

I can't understand how we are taking this to the point of schism, but we have allowed churches to shuffle pedophiles around illegally.  Which to me is much more than sin, it is turning our kids into victims as well.  To me being gay is a victimless sin anyway.  I would much rather see the church protect these guys vs pedophiles... But who is driving pedophiles out of the church?  Not the church itself, but the courts through lawsuits which are endangering the very financial basis of the churches.

 

And that amongst all of the other sins that get committed in Gods name by churches and its leadership, I just don't see how gay is any different than anything else, even in a biblical sense.

the problem is that homosexuals don't consider their lifestyle a sin. "God created me this way". It's only in a contrite heart and in complete submission will we find salvation. I just don't know if practicing homosexuals fulfill that. I'm definitely not saying their sin is any different than mine, but the distinction is in the desire to be fulfilled solely by Christ. Therefore, we must be convicted of the things that keep us from Him, and cast those sins aside.

[jackie hayes]

I would ask that Protestants do not criticize Catholicism from the standpoint of their own theory. It's long been believed by the RCC that people can only imperfectly perceive God, and that displays (grandeur of cathedrals, ceremony, images) are therefore helpful in developing a relationship to Him. Theatricality was thought to be a way of leading people towards a right understanding. Protestants have violently disagreed, and have in general hated the idea of intercession (whether in this manner, or through other figures, saints and the Virgin, eg). But one shouldn't ignore the fact that Catholic displays have a well-developed reasoning behind them. It's not hypocrisy.

 

Frankly, there are very few people of any faith who keep it foremost. How many people are there who truly keep the Sabbath sacred (spend the day primarily resting and reflecting on God, not on football), how many Catholics believe (or even understand) that they are literally cannibals when taking mass, how many Protestants believe that they do not have free will? This is a very general phenomenon, not limited to charity or opulence -- more centrally, religious practice/belief does not match religious feeling. (I should say, I'm referring mostly to Christians, and I don't know enough about other religions to comment.)

[southsider2k5]

I would ask that Protestants do not criticize Catholicism from the standpoint of their own theory.  It's long been believed by the RCC that people can only imperfectly perceive God, and that displays (grandeur of cathedrals, ceremony, images) are therefore helpful in developing a relationship to Him.  Theatricality was thought to be a way of leading people towards a right understanding.  Protestants have violently disagreed, and have in general hated the idea of intercession (whether in this manner, or through other figures, saints and the Virgin, eg).  But one shouldn't ignore the fact that Catholic displays have a well-developed reasoning behind them.  It's not hypocrisy.

 

Frankly, there are very few people of any faith who keep it foremost.  How many people are there who truly keep the Sabbath sacred (spend the day primarily resting and reflecting on God, not on football), how many Catholics believe (or even understand) that they are literally cannibals when taking mass, how many Protestants believe that they do not have free will?  This is a very general phenomenon, not limited to charity or opulence -- more centrally, religious practice/belief does not match religious feeling.  (I should say, I'm referring mostly to Christians, and I don't know enough about other religions to comment.)

The Catholics just have the misfortune of having the face of Christianity. But really almost all of the problems of the churches transend the schisms and sects. The Church as a whole is really a mess.