Why I hate the Church...

First, I don't mean to offend anyone. I have no problem with spirituality but organized religion ignores both science and common sense. They teach people to ignore facts and "trust in god". What they don't tell you is they lost their direct line to the big "man" a long, long time ago.

I just got done reading a thread here where the Pope was talking about declining population trends in Canada. The very first sentence was enough for me. "Pope Benedict said Saturday that low birth rates in Canada are the result of the "pervasive effects of secularism" and asked the country's bishops to counter the trend by preaching "with passion" the truth of Christ."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2297256

Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK???!!! The single biggest problem facing this planet in the coming centuries is overpopulation. For those who don't agree see this link. Google "world population trends" for others. I would suggest that ALL OTHER PROBLEMS STEM FROM COMPETITION FOR RESOURCES DUE TO PLANETARY OVERPOPULATION.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm
To compound this problem we have a leader of one of the biggest and most influential religions in the world telling people that declining birth rates are a concern, essentially advocating a population increase. This person's logic must be something along these lines:
1. People will fuck, their is nothing in the history of the world to suggest otherwise, not even Church teachings.
2. Fucking without birth control results in babies and increasing population trends.
3. Fucking with birth control can result in a flat or decreasing population trend.
4. Canada's birth rates are low, so people are fucking with birth control.
5. The Church absolutely can't stand people fucking with birth control, so the only possible position to take is one that would result in high birth rates.

I'm certain the Pope wouldn't limit his position to industrialized Canada. He would also say this to any third world citizen. Don't fuck at all, if you do only do it to make babies. So poor third world citizen, besides not knowing where your next meal is coming from, besides the worry about militias roaming your neighborhood, besides not being able to educate yourself out of your desperate situation, besides KNOWING you will never be able to educate yourself out of your desperate situation, besides the loss of all hope, besides the loss of all dreams, besides the pain of death of your loved ones to starvation, disease, neglect, besides the hunger and thirst you experience on a daily basis, besides the yearning for relief, besides the lack of clothing and shelter, besides all these things, the one place you thought you could go to find some sort of explanation for all the pain, the church, is telling you not to find comfort in a lovers arms. Don't dare experience the one thing that may make you feel wanted and un-alone. Don't express your love for someone in this way without bringing another soul into what you know to be a miserable existence. Don't hold someone on your mat at night and feel, if only till the morning when you have to beg for your food again, that things, in this moment, are good. Don't do that because the Church knows what will save your soul.

Well I say FUCK THEM. The church may have good intentions but they really need to get their collective head out of the sand. A few billion more people will stretch resources to the limit. People will fuck, their is nothing in the history of the world to suggest otherwise, not even church teachings. Not even AIDS. It's time to accept it as true even if you don't want it to be and formulate public policy around that.

You know, be fruitful and multiply. I have never read it to mean "have a bunch of babies" I always have interpreted that verse to mean "go out and teach others about Christ and bring new Christians into the fold". I am not a scholar so I could be wrong but I like my version better anyway. :)

It is Genesis 1:27-28, which was a command that God gave to Noah and his fellow ark escapees. Obviously, even if we accept that both legends are true, then this command predates Christ by thousands of years, and thus there is no way to interpret it in other ways than "have lots of babies".

Also the verse continues to say "and fill the earth". God did not say "until every last square inch of ground is covered by your offspring". So my opinion is that this verse is a prime example of a "religion", in this case the Catholic Church, selectively interpreting a verse to fit their own agenda.

FYI for future reference, this verse is part of the creation story. Noah is not mentioned until verse six.:)

I left the Protestant Church in which I grew up because of stultified thinking. I know many Catholics who have tried their best to work within their Church and who have finally, sadly, given up on it, turning to spirituality without dogma.

their belief that they need organized religion to get there.... the "church" in many cases wants to be the <go between> between the real church and their heavenly father/mother. This gives them unlimited power which ultimately has corrupting influence. More people should remember the quote "the kingdom of heaven is WITHIN YOU".... so that their perceived need for a powerful intermediary can drop down a few notches.

...and most organized religion because of the notion of salvation. We are "flawed" and need to be saved by some outside source, like a big daddy in the sky passing judgment on us. We need to keep moving around the wheel of reincarnation or some other stupid made up shit in order to not be "flawed" anymore!

Fuck that! I'm not broken! I was not born a sinner, and I don't some boogie man to save me, thank you very much! I make mistakes, hopefully learn things from them, and I try to do what I can to make people around me happy, rather than to make them suffer. If I fuck up, tell me, and I'll apologize.

I DON'T NEED SALVATION, and anyone who tells me otherwise is an idiot in my book!

Oh, and Jamnt... I LOVE to fuck, I do it often and well, and I got a vasectomy at a fairly young age after two children to make sure that I did not contribute anymore to overpopulation!

elegant.

but I agree for the most part with what that poster is saying. One of the most compelling reasons I turned away from Christianity in particular and organized religion in general is because it teaches humans that they need to be saved from ourselves. I think our species is just fine, it's just we haven't realized our potential to solve our problems. Also, organized religion, especially the Abrahamic brand, teaches people that it will all be better in the next life, which tends to make people lethargic in solving injustices in this life.

but I have a slightly different take on it. Now, understand I am fortunate enough to have grown up in a denomination that is not in the least bit repressive. Or at least it wasn't in my life. (I am Episcopalian.) As a kid, it was a chance to get dressed up, see my friends in Sunday School, hang with my Dad and sing beautiful music. As I got older it provided a cycle and a framework that I have appreciated. I do, however, think our species is flawed, and it has nothing to do with religion. We've evolved with certain behaviors that are no longer functional. I don't think we are inherently evil or anything like that, just burdened with fears. Your point about it being better in the next life...I'm thinking about that. I see what you mean, but then I wonder whether there are some individuals who, without a framework, a guide for altruism, if you will, would live for today and just make a mess of things in general. But I have no way of knowing what proportion would be that way. I guess if I had to guess I'd put forth that it might be a wash. These are questions that make me wish I had some sort of magic mirror that would let me see the answers, but I don't. I used to love that mirror on Romper Room. I was a good Doo-Bee.

makes me want to work harder to teach my students to write expressively.

celibate old men start to say anything that even remotely touches on sexuality or human reproduction, they expose themselves as fools.

...and I completely agree with you.

:)

And no, I don't believe I am going to hell for saying so. Jesus spoke of helping the poor and the sick more than any other single subject, yet that point seems to fall way down on the list for most religions.

And on that note, while I was driving yesterday I saw in front of me a giant Lincoln Navigator. Like always, under my breath, I thanked the drivers for driving an over-priced gas guzzling mammoth, and thanked Bush for giving them the tax break to do so. Then I noticed the W sticker in the window. And then there was the icing on the cake. I saw the license plate which read, ZIG4GOD. Then they pulled into a church parking lot filled with similar automobiles. That just shows me that organized religion is a joke!

Pope Benedict said Saturday that low birth rates in Canada are the result of the "pervasive effects of secularism" and asked the country's bishops to counter the trend by preaching "with passion" the truth of Christ."

Translation:
What with our continuing covering up for pedophiles driving away the regulars as well as the declining birthrates among Catholics world-wide, we're getting less and less tribute from the suckers, er, our parishioners, and that means we'll only be able to afford 10 solid gold toilets for his excellency this year."

TlalocW

are you a former Catholic?

I am a former Catholic. Now a Zen practitioner.

keep practicing. It's good for you!

What zendo do you go to?

in 25 years.

of just who should be having sex and how and why.

Someone is always trying to control other people's sexual behavior. I don't think we can single out the Pope for restrictive attitudes when Jim Dobson is really far worse. And Pat Robertson. And Jerry Falwell. And all the other nutcases whose names we don't hear on the news but who are out there in many U.S. evangelical churches.

The fundie wing of U.S. Christianity is out of its collective mind, if it has a mind at all, when it comes to sex. A hell of a lot of red voters standing in line to vote for Republicans in 2004 were from churches whose pastors told them to vote for Bush and all other Republicans because if they vote Democratic, LESBIANS AND GAYS WILL INVADE THEIR HOMES AND UNDERMINE THEIR MARRIAGES AND STEAL THEIR KIDS AND DOGS AND GOLDFISH AND BEFORE YOU KNOW IT THERE WILL BE SODOMY IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES TO THE POLLS AND SUPPORT REPUBLICANS AND ONLY REPUBLICANS!

And they showed up to vote in the miliions. By some counts, around a third of registered voters. And not just Catholics; there were Protestants aplenty.

Popes may be restrictive, but the Calvinist hellfire Protestants are no slouches at prohibitive sin-based sexual mores. They can dish it out with the best of 'em.

It's as ignorant and ill-thought as that first sentence that got you.



I haven't read such blatantly and demonstrably false bullshit here in quite a while. So I decided not even to read the rest of your post.

Don't get your panties in a twist. I don't think the OP meant that the "church" literally ignores science and common sense (after all, they did come around eventually to admitting the earth was NOT the center of the universe) - just that it's generally been opposed to anything that contradicts things in the bible; which, of course, modern science has a wonderful track record of doing.

First, I don't mean to offend anyone. I have no problem with spirituality but organized religion ignores both science and common sense.

Based on your post, I assume that's all you read. I fail to see how you can demonstrate the following:
a)The poster's intent was to insult and offend believers.
b)The poster has a problem with spirituality.
c)The church accepts and embraces science and common sense.

Arguably, point c is the easiest one to attack - as the notion of accepting scientific knowledge is somewhat subjective. However, it's pretty easy to see that a lesser claim is (to use a big word like you did) demonstrably true: The church is hostile to scientific progress and the application of scientific knowledge when these are contrary to the tenets of their faith. Take, for example, the whole AIDs issue (which you would've read some about had you finished the OPs post). The church is against contraception because of tenets in the Xtian faith. In other words, the Church's stance is that sex should only take place for the purposes of reproduction and anything else is simply unnatural.

Well, we've known for quite a while now that unprotected sex leads to an increase in STD transmission rates. Hell, our rates in the US are sky-high when compared with some of the european nations (trust me, they have just as much sex, if not more, as we do here). We've known for a long time that AIDs is a horrible condition which can be spread through various means; among them is sexual contact. We've also known for quite a while that, in addition to the other trials and tribulations facing the indigent in Africa, AIDs infection rates are unacceptably high. An easy solution to alleviating this problem would be for organized religion to take a relaxed stance on contraception. Which, to the church's credit, they are doing currently.

To their discredit, however, they are only re-examining that policy for married couples wherein one partner has HIV/AIDs. It's a start, but it's a tiny baby-step of a start. But, that only took them...hmmm...since the late 80's? Almost two decades? Hmmm....

Not to mention the church's stance against stem-cell research (which is critical research for developing cures for numerous currently incurable conditions such as Parkinsons). And this continued suffering and death for millions that could be alleviated by a greater scientific understanding of human biology stands why? Because it contradicts tenets of faith.

Yes, the "church" truly is a bastion of scientific progress and common sense. (That's sarcasm, by the way)

edit: I can't spell (or use the spell check, apparently)

You are both confused as to the terms "organized religion", "the church", and "Catholicism".

There is no "the church", except in a universal sense of meaning all Christians - but in that universal sense, there is no governing body or active partnership: it's a generic term meaning all who follow Christ, and is usually then capitalized. But one cannot speak in any way about the practices or beliefs of this meta-church, because there is no organization.

So when you say that 'the church is against stem cell research' or 'the church is against science' or other monolithic statements, you are always wrong unless you do the academically honest act of either specifically naming the Christian expressions that are against stem cell research or science or what-have-you (e.g., Catholic, Presbyterian, Southern Baptist), or put in a modifier of "some".

Now, you might say that you are talking only about Catholics since they often refer to themselves as "the church" and all other expression of Christianity are excluded from that; but, the Greek Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox also refer to themselves as "the church" and do not include the Catholics; and some of the independant pentecostal and charismatic and evangelical expressions in America also refer to themselves as "the church", at the exclusion of all other faith expressions. So one really cannot talk about "the church" at all in terms of stances or beliefs.

To insinuate that ALL Christians are ignorant, anti-science idiots - or even to insinuate that the leaders of every Christian expression believe that way, even if the rank and file don't - is as ignorant as those who want Creationism taught in science classes.

Also, the OP wasn't even talkig about "the church" but was talking about "organized religion", which makes the statements even more ignorant.

I guess maybe you didn't read that either. Oh, and the OP was talking about the Pope too...so you're getting all bent out of shape because I was a bit confused on my semantics? Oh wait, I don't believe I ever said or insinuated that all Christians are "ignorant, anti-science idiots" as you put it. I never insinuated that Xtian leaders are ignorant or idiots either, but they are anti-science insofar as what progress science makes contradicts teachings of the bible. To go away from "the Church", perhaps you've heard something of the "intelligent design" debate going on in this country? The anti-science mentality goes far beyond the catholic church and the Vatican, but for the record I was referring mainly to the catholic leadership with my post. Although, I take it that catholics are Christians too, so nothing I said was "patently false".

But, if you had actually read the OP, then you would see that, in fact, he was talking about the "Church"; more specifically, the Catholic Church given that the Pope is mentioned a couple of times.

Both you and the OP are attempting to make monolithic statements about "the church" that are not true, because not every expression of Christianity fits the mold of anti-science and anti-common-sense.

Had you read my post, you would know that I am fully aware of the "creationism" and "intelligent design" brouhaha, which are being led, as I said, by *SOME* churches, but not by "the church".

And my argument still stands as true that you and the OP are confusing "the church" and "organized religion" and "Catholicism" and "Christianity" as all the same thing; you are both using these words interchangably (though you are not using "organized religion"),and they are completely non-interchangable.

So what you said IS patently false. Had you said The Catholic Church is against stem cell research, you would be correct. But if you say the church is against it, you are wrong: wrong because there is no "church" and because not every Christian expression ignores or is anti-science.

And yes, you DO insinuate all Christians are ignorant when you say the church is anti-science.

If you want to refer to Catholicism, you have to use the word; you can't just say "Christians" or "the church".

So please - read my posts - I'm not saying that there aren't Christians who are anti-science. I'm asking only for more careful word usage; that only *some* Christians are anti-science, anti-birth-control, etc., and NOT to label all Christians (or in the case of the OP, all organized religions in toto) monolithically.

And I didn't see any mention of "creationism" or "intelligent design". But that's really beside the point.

Apparently, you're getting all bent out of shape over my use of semantics. Perhaps the following will make you feel better:

In my post I was referring to the Catholic "church", which is also what the OP was referring to. I sincerely apologize for my misuse of semantics, and in the future will clearly label all criticisms of religion appropriately (e.g. Catholic, Greek-Orthodox, Southern Baptist, Northern Baptist, Sunni, Shiite, Hacedic Jews, etc.)

I figured a lay reader of my post would've been able to figure out that I was referring to the Catholic church - as the OP was by the mentioning of the Pope several times - but I suppose I figured wrongly.

But again, here's something from my last post you might find interesting:

The anti-science mentality goes far beyond the catholic church and the Vatican, but for the record I was referring mainly to the catholic leadership with my post.

I reiterate I was focused mainly on the catholic church with my post - though in my response to yours, I brought up ID and creationism. Beyond saying that an anti-science mentality extends beyond the Vatican, if you could point out to me where I said that all Christians are anti-scientific I would greatly appreciate it. I did say, however, that the leaders of Christian (and that's the whole mess of them) faith, not to mention other faiths, tend to be hostile to scientific knowledge when it contradicts foundational tenets of their respective faith. Those who are more hostile tend to reject it outright, those who are less hostile tend to become more moderate / secular in a bid to reconcile newly discovered knowledge with long-held beliefs.

I hope that helps.

Sorry about that - apparently I mentioned it elsewhere, I thought it was here.

And yes, it is the semantics over which I am getting bent - because this particular semantic issue is not irrelevant: it is, in fact, a very important one.

Both you and the OP interchanged "the church" with "organized religion" <-- big no no. "organized religion" covers all faith expressions, not just Christian. So "the church" and "organized religion" are not one and the same. "The church" is a type of organized religion, but is not organized religion itself.

And yes, you and the OP both made mention of the the Pope, BUT - since you also made mention of organized religion in the same context, and also used the term "the church", it was not PRECISELY clear that you were talking ONLY about Catholicism.

So, by your misuse of these terms, you DID imply that all Christians are ignorant - in fact, you and the OP both implied that, and both implied that all religious people in general are ignorant.

Now, do I think that you feel that way? Not any more, no. I realize that it was simply a misunderstanding of terms on your part, and a likely too-energetic dismissal on my end and failure to seek clarity before attacking. One of my pet peeves when others do it, and by golly, there I was, doing it. :spank: Apologies to you.

I am somewhat touchy on this subject, because I am a confessing Christian, and one who is trained in and believes in science, logic, and common sense, and is often in disagreement with Catholic teaching and doctrine (I'm not Catholic), and in agreement with using our brains and not trying to find ways to unexplain the truth of science.

but it was only through my ham-fisted use of semantic terms. In other words, it wasn't my intent to do so. Apologies if I offended.

the church is not against stem cell research. They ARE against embryonic stem cell research. I know that often that's what people mean when writing stem cell research, but there is a difference. The church has no beef with stem cell research, but they do not support harvesting embryos for embryonic stem cell research.

My denomination isn't against any of the things you name. Please be specific.

There's a rule about broad-brush statements, btw.

which is what I assumed the poster who I responded to was talking about.

This is a classic case of advice that was great for a desert tribe whose very survival was in question, but not so great for people in a world of readily available food, effective medicine, and 70+ year life spans.

and I'll share it to bring everyone down to where I am. With things looking as bad as they do with worldwide AIDS and global climate catastrophes, maybe as a species we won't be so fortunate for very long.

Yikes. And my nephew works for a company that makes flu vaccines and when I pooh-poohed the bird flu when talking to him on the phone and said it was waning in Asia, yada, yada, he laughed. He says it is going to be a scourge and it will hit people in their 20's the hardest. He said something about it passing to pigs first and then pigs to human and then human to human. He is also the most left-leaning member of our family, despises the BFEE, so I listened to him.


Ok, deep breath. I will have a beer and cheer up a bit.

disease(s) can get ALL of us ....

The only things that I think can wipe out the ENTIRE human race anytime soon are:

1. Ourselves
2. A REALLY big meteor....

So, cheer up, T-Grannie!

Bird flu, if it ever crosses the barrier to humans like the 1918 pandemic may get several million worldwide (including you and me!), but the human race will continue...

I'm feeling much better now. I was really worn down from wedding festivities. (My son was married on Saturday.) Fatigue makes me anxious.

When the very subject line of your post is "Why I hate the church".

unfortunate choice of words. I understood his point, and I didn't necessarily take it as an attack on all Christians (though he/she does seem to have a beef with Catholicism!). It was an interesting read, and it brought up points that are often brought up when people express distrust for the Catholic Church. I disagree with his points in many circumstances, but I understand the feeling. I went through a period where I felt somewhat similar.

I think that Christians in general would be less likely to stiffen up if the words, "Why I HATE...." weren't included in the subject line.

Jamnt makes some very valid points in his rant. And I think he qualified his remarks to some extent. However this is a pretty good example of how to express your views while simultaneously spitting into the wind.

I hear what your saying Jamnt, your passion and emotion is clear, and your message hits the mark. I'd just suggest that you work on your delivery. Not chastising you friend, I'd like to hear more of what you have to say. I just don't want to have to wear my fireproof long johns when I'm reading your threads.:)

there were many valid points in the OP, but it WAS a tad "rough."

to rant about this topic without offending anyone. I when I said "church" and "organized religion" I did NOT mean the christians in general or Catholics in particular. Those who read it that way demonstrate their own sensitivity and "natural" (I believe programmed) protection of their faith. (Bring it on, I have a tough skin) What I did mean was much more general. What originally caused me to get upset was the thread I pointed to, in which the Pope was quoted. This was then taken as an attack on christians, which of course it wasn't. (It seems their is a least one person in this thread that believes the only "church" is the Christian chruch.) It WAS an attack on ALL theologies that ignore science and common sense.

I find it very telling in reading this thread that I've been attacked not on the basis of what I've said, but on who I may have offended. Why isn't there more talk and debate on the logic I've presented? I believe that's where truth lies, not in the emotionalism of "offence".

and I'm not suggesting that you tried to start one. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think you made some excellent points, worthy of consideration and discussion (BTW, that's exactly what I come here for). But, I think that if you re-read your OP, and some of the responses to it, you'll see how certain phraseology tended to incite folks to knee-jerk reaction and to obscure the message. Why risk that, when you obviously have insightful thoughts to share?

I have a thick skin too, and don't mind getting dirty, but I also know that there are many casual visitors to this forum that could provide much benefit to our discussions, yet may be turned away if they perceive this forum as one big street fight. Just food for thought, and I hope you don't feel that I'm bashing you, I'm really not, just sharing my perception. I look forward to seeing more of your posts, and getting your viewpoint.

I appreciate your kind words, and I think you do "get" what I was trying to say. I did re-read my original post and the responses. And I knew going in I'd get flamed. I find it amazing how many responses, both for and against my post, were trying to mind-read my intents when I thougth they were pretty clear. Perhaps you're right, toning it down MAY result in better discussions. Then again, in my experience people of faith tend to be pretty intolerant of those who hold different views. (For those who are going to jump on this last statement, I said TEND to be. I know there are plenty who are, some are friends. But I really don't think the bell curve is skewed to the tolerant side.)

Some subjects are inherently inflammatory and you just have to roll with it. That doesn't mean you can't be passionate about your subject either. But I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that there are many of us on this forum, from many different viewpoints, that are not only "tolerant" of differing views, but welcome them. Hang around for a while and you'll see what I mean. Glad your here.

in my opinion, but you have to look at your purpose. If you write something with a lot of inflamatory statements and a liberal sprinkling of the F-word, there are lots of folks who will NEVER get past that to see the wisdom in your words.

And what we are after here is discussion. At least that's what I am after. So maybe saying something like "I have very strong negative feelings about the Catholic church" would not overpower your wisdom as much as using "hate." Not trying to put words in your mouth, just giving you an example.

Sometimes passion has to be contained in order for people to take you seriously.

Keep posting, though.

more clearly.

The word "church" refers exclusively to Christianity, except probably for a few wiccan or pagan groups who think they're being clever by calling themselves a "church". No other major religion uses the word "church".

when I said "church" and "organized religion" I did NOT mean the christians in general or Catholics in particular.

You might not have MEANT to say that, but that is what you DID say. You didn't qualifyu your statements at all. Also, your second one is erroneous: all the major religions are "organized religion". So you took a blanket-swipe at ALL Christians and then, in an excellent rhetoric device, expanded your swipe to include ALL people who have any kind of faith that happens to be of a faith that has some kind of organization.

This was then taken as an attack on christians, which of course it wasn't.

You didn't INTEND it to be, but your lack of clarity made it become that.

It WAS an attack on ALL theologies that ignore science and common sense.

No, it was an attack on all people of faith, because in your argument you set up the condition that ALL organized religions ignore science and common sense.



Of course, now that things are being explained, I realize that that is NOT what you meant to say. And your criticisms of the Catholic Church's position on birth control and population expansion are right on the money. And your criticism of people who ignore science, or are actively anti-science, and those who are against common sense is also entirely on the mark. I share your position, and I share your outrage and your ire at that segment of religious people (of whatever faith) who are braindead fucknuts. They refuse to use their god-given brain for a false idol: their faulty idea of what the Bible, the Koran, or whatever says. IN my opinion, the refusal to use those gifts which God gives us is far more sinful, nay heretical, than "being gay" or "liberal" or using birth control or having an abortion. And I say that as a very active and dedicated Christian, trained well in science and mathematics as well as the arts, who believes that the Bible tells us about our relationship with God but nothing about science; and science tells us how things happen, but doesn't say anything for or against God.

So we are in agreement - I do ask, however, that you communicate more clearly. That could have saved a lot of ire.

That your second sentence rather gives the lie to your first.

I think that it's important for those who are angry with the "church" to be given an opportunity to say so and why. It's no skin off of anyones teeth if you believe that church is inherently bad. I would think that a little dissension is good. It shakes sleeping people awake, it makes us take notice of a strong opinion.

That said, we all have our own experiences and thoughts regarding religion. Some of us have been deeply hurt and offended, some of us have never seen any use for a god and some of us have had lovely experiences with church.

If we were all given the same information we would all come away with slightly different interpretations from the same data. Some will accept it at face value, some will take it to science and some will develop a deeper more meaningful use for it. In the end it's up to each of us to know what we think and believe and take no offense from those who see it differently.

After all it is man who has handed down the information for years and it's my opinion that the differences in religions all stem from the interpretations made by men.

I happen to believe that we each get what we need according to our beliefs about everything anyway.