Vatican: 'Urgent Need' to Guide Artificial Intelligence

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FlyersFan2

Aye, but it's ""people"" who run the church.

Hence if they are corrupt, then so is the organisation by default, or so it would seem to me.

I suppose a better question would be how could the problem be fixed?

Maybe by taking a page out of Jesus' book. After indicating that false religion produces bad works, just as a “rotten tree produces worthless fruit” (Matthew 7:15-17) and after explaining that “a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit” (vs 18), Jesus goes on to say that “every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (vs 19).

In other words, don't try to fix what is inherently unfixable (rotten, or "corrupt" as you put it). False religion will be chopped down and destroyed! What must we do if we do not want to share the fate of false religion? “Get out of her, my people,” urges God’s messenger. (Revelation 18:4)

And for those under the impression that the corruption of the Church (or various denominations within Christendom) is something that happened recently:

Part 12—100-476 C.E.—Snuffing Out the Gospel Light (Religion’s Future in View of Its Past)

“Men have discovered that it is far more convenient to adulterate the truth than to refine themselves.”​—Charles Caleb Colton, 19th-century English clergyman

BEGINNING in 33 C.E., when Rome put Christianity’s Founder to death, that sixth world power of Bible history was at constant loggerheads with the Christians. It imprisoned them and threw some of them to the lions. But even when threatened with the martyrdom of serving as human torches to light Nero’s gardens, Roman Christians of the first century continued to let their spiritual light shine. (Matthew 5:14) In time, however, the situation changed.

“In the early part of the third century,” says the book From Christ to Constantine, “the church was beginning to become respectable.” But respectability had its price, “a lowering of standards.” Accordingly, “Christian living was no longer seen to be a requirement of Christian faith.”

The gospel light had waned to a glimmer. And “by the fourth century,” says the book Imperial Rome, “Christian writers were claiming not only that it was possible to be both Christian and Roman, but that the long history of Rome was in fact the beginning of the Christian epic. . . . The implication was that Rome had been divinely ordained.”

Sharing this view was the Roman emperor Constantine the Great. In 313 C.E., Constantine made Christianity a lawful religion. By combining Church and State, putting religious leaders into the service of the State, and allowing State control of religious affairs, Constantine did a real disservice.

Already in the early second century, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, had introduced a new method of congregational government. Instead of a group of elders, the monarchical episcopate provided for a single churchman to be in charge of each congregation. About a century later, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, expanded this hierarchical clergy system into a monarchical seven-grade hierarchy, the supreme position being occupied by the bishop. Under him were priests, deacons, subdeacons, and other grades. The Western church subsequently added an eighth grade, while the Eastern church settled for a five-grade hierarchy.

Where did this form of church leadership, combined with State approval, lead? The book Imperial Rome explains: “Only 80 years after the last great wave of persecution of Christians, the Church itself was beginning to execute heretics, and its clerics were wielding power almost equivalent to that of the emperors.” Surely this is not what Christ had in mind when he said that his disciples were to be “no part of the world” and that they should conquer it, not by force, but by their faith.​—John 16:33; 17:14; compare 1 John 5:4.

“Saints” and Greek Gods

Long before Constantine’s time, pagan ideas had already adulterated the Christian religion. The mythical gods of Greece that had once strongly influenced Rome’s religion had also already influenced the Christian religion. “By the time Rome had become an imperial power,” says the book Roman Mythology, “Jupiter had become assimilated to the Greek Zeus . . . Later on Jupiter was worshipped as Optimus Maximus, the Best and Greatest, a designation which was to be carried over into Christianity and appears on many a monumental inscription.” The New Encyclopædia Britannica adds: “Under Christianity, Greek heroes and even deities survived as saints.”

Author M. A. Smith explains that this meant that “the many sets of gods were becoming intermixed, and the regional differences were getting blurred. . . . There was a tendency for people to think that the various deities were really only different names for one great power. . . . The Egyptian Isis, Artemis of the Ephesians and the Syrian Astarte could be equated. The Greek Zeus, the Roman Jupiter, the Egyptian Amon-Re and even the Jewish Yahweh could be invoked as the names of the one great Power.”

While being fused with Greek and Roman thinking in Rome, Christianity was also undergoing changes in other places. Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, and Edessa, all centers of theological activity, developed distinctive schools of religious thought. Herbert Waddams, a former Anglican Canon of Canterbury, says the Alexandrian school, for example, was “particularly influenced by Platonic ideas,” assigning allegorical meanings to most “Old Testament” statements. The Antioch school adopted a more literal, more critical attitude toward the Bible.

Distance, lack of communication, and language misunderstandings served to intensify the differences. Chiefly responsible for the situation, however, was the independent spirit and selfish ambition of religious leaders willing to adulterate the truth for personal advantage, thereby snuffing out the gospel light.

“Falsely Called ‘Knowledge’”

...

Twisting the Truth About Christ

The Gnostics were not alone in twisting the truth about Christ. Nestorius, an early 5th-century patriarch of Constantinople, apparently taught that Christ was actually two persons in one, the human Jesus and the divine Son of God. In giving birth to Christ, Mary gave birth to the man but not to the divine Son. This view did not agree with Monophysitism (“one nature”), which held that the union between God and the Son was inseparable, and that although of two natures, Jesus was in reality only one, wholly God and at the same time wholly man. Accordingly, Mary would indeed have given birth to God, not just to the human Jesus.

Both theories were outgrowths of a controversy that had arisen during the previous century. Arius, an Alexandrian priest, argued that Christ is inferior to the Father. So he refused to use the term homoousios (being of one substance) in describing Christ’s relationship to God. The Council of Nicaea rejected his view in 325 C.E., ruling that Jesus is indeed ‘of the same substance as the Father.’ In 451 C.E. the Council of Chalcedon stated that Christ is God incarnate. The Babylonian-Egyptian-Grecian concept of a triune God had now crowded out Christ’s teaching that he and his Father are two separate individuals, in no way equal.​—Mark 13:32; John 14:28.

Actually, Tertullian (c. 160-c. 230 C.E.), a member of the North African church, introduced the word “trinitas,” which found its way into Christian usage sometime before Arius was born. Tertullian, who was the first theologian to write extensively in Latin instead of Greek, helped lay the foundation for Western theology. So did “Saint” Augustine, another North African theologian of some two centuries later. “[Augustine] is generally recognized as having been the greatest thinker of Christian antiquity,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica. But its next words are cause for concern for every sincere Catholic or Protestant: “His mind was the crucible in which the religion of the New Testament was most completely fused with the Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy; and it was also the means by which the product of this fusion was transmitted to the Christendoms of medieval Roman Catholicism and Renaissance Protestantism.”

Catholicism in Crisis

...

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

a reply to: andy06shake

Just the way things go in threads. By replying to this particular post, I am also replying to your next post also, with reference also to my reply to DontTreadOnMe.

Now that that's clear
Let's take Dr Taylor Marshall, the youtuber, former Anglican Priest, now Catholic, still a very educated man and author. I watched a very long interview he had with another youtuber.

He knows his history. The thing is, different people interpret different historical events as good or bad, depending upon their personal situation in life and culture.

I was raised Protestant, therefore it seems quite natural for me to think of the Protestant Reformation as a good thing. Moreover, I think of the Enlightenment and the emergence of Liberal Democracy as a good development.

Dr Taylor seems to see these movements as Evil. I can't help but think that he would prefer a situation wherein the whole of Western Civilization was ruled from the Vatican, with all Kings, Emperors, and lesser heads of state, serving at the will and sufferance of the Bishop of Rome.

The anti-current Pope Catholics, seems to me, hate the Pope because maybe he accepts his situation of heading an institution which exists along side other institutions. Some, it seems to me, would only be satisfied by an institution (like the one ring) which rules them all.

For those interested, because the individual articles are separated over multiple issues of Awake! magazine, so they are a bit tricky to find:

Religion’s Future in View of Its Past (Series in Awake!)

And now that I've started a new comment, I might as well continue where I left off. The bolded paragraphs are my doing and not in the layout of the article, just highlighting a few things "for those under the impression that the corruption of the Church (or various denominations within Christendom) is something that happened recently", as I mentioned before.

Part 13—476 C.E. onward—Out of Darkness, Something “Holy” (Awake!—1989)

“Sins committed in the dark are seen in Heaven like sheets of fire.”​—Chinese proverb

IN APRIL 1988 the Church in the Soviet Union rejoiced to hear General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev publicly state that mistakes made by the State in its relationship with the Church and its members were to be corrected.

A rift of another kind also seemed to be on its way to settlement when Roman Catholic pope John Paul II sent greetings to the “thousand-year-old sister church as an expression of the heartfelt desire to achieve that perfect union that Christ wanted and that is basic to the nature of the Church.” But how did a breach between ‘sister churches’ come about in the first place?

Loss of a Unity That Never Was

Early in the fourth century, after becoming emperor of the Roman Empire, Constantine the Great moved its capital from Rome to the Greek city of Byzantium, located on the shores of the Bosporus. It was renamed Constantinople, and we today know it as Istanbul, Turkey. The move was designed to unite an empire threatened with dismemberment. In fact, as early as the latter half of the second century, “the blueprint for a divided empire had already been sketched in outline, no matter how faintly,” notes The New Encyclopædia Britannica.

Christianity had spread through the eastern part of the empire faster and more readily than through the western part. So Constantine saw in a universal (catholic) religion a force for unity. But even as the empire was basically split, so also was its religion. The Eastern church was more conservative than the one centered in Rome, and it resisted the theological innovations Rome offered. “Right up to the twelfth century there would be many political and theological disputes between the two churches,” says The Collins Atlas of World History.

One of these theological disputes involved the Nicene Creed, which furthered the development of the unscriptural Trinity doctrine. As developed by the first three general councils held by the church (Nicaea in 325 C.E., Constantinople in 381 C.E., Ephesus in 431 C.E.), the creed spoke of the “Holy Ghost . . . who proceedeth from the Father.” But at a council in the sixth century, the Western church changed the phrase to read “who proceedeth from the Father and the Son.” This issue of the filioque (Latin for “and the son”) was, and still is, a point of dispute between these “Christian” sister churches.

Disunity became more apparent when the western empire ended in 476 C.E., marking the start of the Dark Ages. As regards Christianity, the Dark Ages were indeed an era of intellectual darkness and ignorance. The gospel light of Christianity had been, for the time being, overwhelmed by the darkness of Christendom.

Religious darkness is not conducive to unity. “The various sections of the Christian world were constantly seeking for a unity which was never achieved,” says former Canon of Canterbury Herbert Waddams. “It was not a case of full unity which was later broken,” he says, adding that “the idea that Christendom was once one great united Church is a figment of the imagination.”

A “Child” Is Born

The “child” born in 800 C.E. on Christmas Day grew up to be called holy. It was a restored western empire born after Pope Leo III broke with the Eastern church and crowned Charlemagne, king of the Franks, emperor. After a short interruption, the western empire was revived in 962 C.E. and later became known by a more pretentious title, Holy Roman Empire.

Actually, the name Roman Empire was a misnomer. The bulk of its territory, present-day Germany, Austria, western Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, eastern France, and the Low Countries, lay outside Italy. German lands and German rulers predominated, so its official name was later changed to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

The empire mixed religion with politics. Collier’s Encyclopedia explains that the idea was “that there should be a single political head in the world, working in harmony with the universal Church, each with its own sphere and authority derived from God.” But the line of demarcation was not always clear, thus leading to controversies. Particularly between the mid-11th and the mid-13th centuries, Church and State contended for European leadership. Some feel that religion’s involvement in politics was unselfish and justified, but as author Waddams admits, “there is little doubt that papal ambition for power did play an important part in the development.”

During its last century and a half of existence, the empire degenerated into a loose collection of nations under the shaky control of a common emperor. Most appropriate during this phase of its history are the words of French writer Voltaire, who said that it was “neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.” Finally, in 1806, gray with age and with nothing to recommend it for sainthood, the “holy child” died. In 1871 it was revived in the Second Reich (German for “empire”) but collapsed in 1918, less than 50 years later. And in 1933, Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich began its goose-step through Europe, only to come to an inglorious end in 1945 in the ruins of Berlin.

Germanic Influences in the West

The German reference work Meyers Illustrierte Weltgeschichte (Meyer’s Illustrated World History) calls “the three pillars upon which Europe’s Middle Ages rest . . . the heritage of classical antiquity in its late Roman mintage, Christianity, and finally the traditions taken over by the Germanic peoples from their ancestors.” In corroboration, German author Emil Nack says: “The old Germanic annual festivals were often continued in the form of Christian holidays, since the church, as advised by Pope Gregory the Great, transformed many a pagan festival into a Christian one.”

Observance of these religious festivals did not imply a deep sense of religiousness among Germanic peoples. Andreas Heusler, deceased authority on Germanic religion, describes it as being a religion that “forbade very little and demanded nothing of difficulty, including any mythological orthodoxy. A person was considered pious if he made his sacrifices, paid his temple tax, did not dishonor the sanctuary, and wrote no verses of mockery about the gods.” He concludes: “It was hardly religious ardor. . . . A German’s idealism did not lie in his religion.”

Although ancient Germanic peoples believed in gods, they felt that there was actually a still higher power, one that had created the gods. This was “the power of fate,” explains author Nack, which, he says, was “not swayed by sacrifices or prayers.” Notwithstanding, fate was not viewed as “blindly arbitrary,” since it operated in accordance with natural laws. So a person was viewed as “a free agent, not a victim.”

Germanic religion had its roots in nature. Sacrifices were often held outdoors, in groves and forests. A Germanic myth speaks of a cosmic tree called Yggdrasill, where the gods daily held court. The Encyclopedia of Religion describes it: “[It rose] to the sky, and its branches spread over the entire world. . . . The symbolism of the tree is . . . mirrored in other traditions. In ancient Babylonia, for example, a cosmic tree, Kiskanu, grew in a holy place. . . . In ancient India, the universe is symbolized by an inverted tree. . . . [But] there is no proof of any Judeo-Christian element in the concept of Yggdrasill.”

In view of this background, it is not surprising that in countries that have been strongly influenced by Germanic religion, people are often fatalistic, not very religious, and prone to say: ‘Nature is my god!’ It is also understandable that many of the pagan customs Germanic religion introduced into Christendom are nature-oriented. Christmas customs, such as using lights and mistletoe, burning the Yule log, or displaying a Christmas tree, are just a few examples.

Meanwhile, in the East

Always at odds with the Western church, the Eastern church was not at peace with itself either, as illustrated by the iconoclastic controversy. Icons, differing from the three-dimensional images, such as statues common in the Western church, are religious images or pictures on a flat surface, including raised work. They generally depict Christ, Mary, or a “saint.” They became so popular in the East that, according to John S. Strong of Bates College, they came “to be viewed as direct mirrors or impressions of the figures they represented, [and] . . . were thus thought to be filled with sacred and potentially miraculous power.” Nevertheless, in the early eighth century, Byzantine emperor Leo III prohibited their use. The controversy was not finally settled until 843 C.E., since which time the use of icons has been sanctioned in the Eastern church.

Another example of Eastern disunity comes from Egypt. While some Egyptian Catholics spoke Coptic, others spoke Greek, the two language groups disagreeing on the nature of Christ. Even though Byzantine authorities refused to admit it, this led to the de facto existence of two separate churches. All the while, each faction tried to maneuver one of its bishops into the position of patriarch of Alexandria.

Today, the Eastern church is still divided. Some churches of Eastern rite, known as Uniates, accept, for example, the jurisdiction of Rome’s pope. The Eastern Orthodox Churches and the so-called lesser Eastern churches, on the other hand, do not.

Like Sheets of Fire

Long before the unholy, scarcely Roman non-Empire ended, “a legacy of hatred of Christians for other Christians had been implanted deep in the hearts of the Christian East,” says Anglican churchman Waddams. Certainly, the sin of “Christian” hating “Christian,” even if committed in darkness, did not go unnoticed in heaven but was as obvious as sheets of fire.

Furthermore, Christendom’s sin of a divided house did not go unnoticed on earth. For example, a certain outstanding Arab of the seventh century C.E., who “knew a good deal about Christianity from his travels and from people close to him,” says clergyman Waddams, was not impressed by “the disputes which he observed among Christians.” This man sought a way better than the one offered by disunited Christendom. Did he find it? Today in 1989, fully 17 percent of the world population champion his cause. Who this man was and how he felt about “Submitting to God’s Will” our next issue will answer.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: andy06shake
...

He knows his history. The thing is, different people interpret different historical events as good or bad, depending upon their personal situation in life and culture.

I was raised Protestant, therefore it seems quite natural for me to think of the Protestant Reformation as a good thing.

That makes me think of:

Part 15​—1095-1453 C.E.​—Resorting to the Sword

Part 16—9th-16th century C.E.​—A Religion Badly in Need of Reform

Part 17—1530 onward—Protestantism—A Reformation?

But I think I've already quoted a bit too much from that article series.

Moreover, I think of the Enlightenment and the emergence of Liberal Democracy as a good development.

Part 19​—17th to 19th century—​Christendom Grapples With World Change

Part 21​—1900 onward—​Skirts Splattered With Blood

And especially in light of that last part (not the last part of the series), I'd like to take the opportunity to quote Jesus' teachings concerning false religion and their rotten fruit (such as the rotten fruit discussed in part 21 above, which is really a culmination of what came before, or the groundwork/foundation that was laid before “according to human tradition”, Col 2:8, “and teachings of demons”, 1 Tim 4:1, showing another hand at play). As discussed and partially quoted before in my previous commentary, at Matthew 7:13-29 (bit more context this time):

13 “Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.

15 “Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.

21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. [whereislogic: notice that Jesus' father is in heaven while Jesus is saying that on earth, present tense, he's clearly talking about someone else here who is in a different location.] 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works* [Or “many miracles.”] in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew* [Or “recognized.”] you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’

24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does them will be like a discreet man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and lashed against that house, but it did not cave in, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Furthermore, everyone hearing these sayings of mine and not doing them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and struck against that house, and it caved in, and its collapse was great.”

28 When Jesus finished these sayings, the effect was that the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching, 29 for he was teaching them as a person having authority, and not as their scribes.

a reply to: whereislogic

That's a big reading list.

I read your second post in the series, then went to the first.
Up to Augustine, almost done.

Edit to add:
Me thinks that Part 17 may be directed at me.

But let me explain. The Seventh-day Adventist Church that I grew up in was heavily influenced by the Ana-baptist ideology through the Baptist movement as manifested in 19th Century America. We liked and admired Roger Williams (actual father of religious liberty in America). If not widely studied by SDAs, the influence of Menno Simons (Mennonites), is very great.

Simons grew up in a disillusioned war-torn country. Friesland was ravaged by war in the late 15th and early 16th centuries.
...
In 1535, his brother Pieter was among a group of Anabaptists killed near Bolsward because of his participation in the violent takeover of a Catholic monastery known as the Oldeklooster (or Bloemkamp Abbey). This monastery, near Bolsward in the Dutch province of Friesland, was seized on 30 March 1535 by about 300 Anabaptists of Friesland, both men and women, led by Jan van Geelen, an emissary of the Anabaptists of Münster. They thereby won a strong position and from here tried to conquer the entire province. The imperial stadholder Georg Schenck van Toutenburg was put in charge of capturing the old monastery from the Anabaptists. He supposed that he would be able to do so easily, but found himself compelled to conduct a regular siege. On 1 April he decided to bombard the monastery with heavy artillery and tried to storm it, leading his soldiers in four assaults. On the third they succeeded in taking several positions, although some of the fortifications and the church remained in Anabaptist possession. On 7 April the monastery was finally stormed after a severe battle. 300 Anabaptists were killed. Of the ones who did not lose their lives in the attack, 37 were then beheaded and 132, both men and women, taken to Leeuwarden, where another 55 were executed after a short trial. Jan van Geelen escaped
...
Although some Anabaptists in Amsterdam and Münster in the 16th century engaged in violence and murder, Dutch Mennonites generally became pious and peaceful. In his 1539 Christian Baptism Menno Simons stated his reluctance to engage in disputes, which may have stemmed from his reluctance for years to announce his true convictions.[15] Simons' relationships with the radical Münsterites and peaceful Melchiorites may offer additional clues.

Wikipedia - Menno Simons

So peace, non-violence, is my upbringing. Religious Liberty, my upbringing. These are consistent with how I view myself as a member of a mundane liberal democracy known as the United States.

I'm going to get off my soap box and read for the rest of the day.

nobody wants too hear it but as awful as the Pedo # was, it is silly to try to cast the blame on the entire catholic/christian church. From what I understand it was about 1% of the total clergy involved, which is about the same % of pedos in the us pop total...what a great way to actually destroy the church though.

a reply to: infp1986

The crime was that the hierarchy protected the priests rather than protecting the people that the Church exists to help and protect.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: whereislogic
...
But let me explain. The Seventh-day Adventist Church that I grew up in was heavily influenced by the Ana-baptist ideology through the Baptist movement as manifested in 19th Century America. We liked and admired Roger Williams (actual father of religious liberty in America). If not widely studied by SDAs, the influence of Menno Simons (Mennonites), is very great.

Remember Matthew 7:13,14 (quoted before)?

13 “Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.

The Broad Road of Religious Divisions (1953)

WHY so many religions? Within the United States alone there are twenty-three kinds of Baptists, twenty-one kinds of Methodists, twenty divisions among the Lutherans, thirteen brands of Mennonites, ten kinds of Presbyterians, and a whole handful of Churches of God. Thirty-nine religions admit such a lack of unity that they say doctrine is all up to the individual, apparently assuming he knows more than the scholars, or that his contradicting idea may be inspired by the spirit. One authority put it this way: “If one must speak of denominations and sects, of organizations here and there, of movements now and then, how can one speak of Christianity in the United States? Is not this religious chaos . . . all spots and jumps?”

Yes, why such division? The Bible is just one book. Average editions contain 1,000 to 1,300 pages, and that is not exceedingly large. Webster’s Dictionary contains 3,000; the Encyclopædia Britannica, 24,000; the Harvard Classics, 22,000. Yet on the basis of the Bible’s 1,000 pages rests the foundation of more than 230 of America’s more than 250 religions, or one denomination for every five pages in that book. Now, since the Bible does not contradict itself on doctrine every five pages, why are there so many different religions claiming it as their guide? Are their scholars so ignorant they cannot read these 1,000 pages to agree, or are there other reasons?

Some reasons for this division have been petty, others practically ridiculous, few of them Christian. A main cause has been man’s determination to make his religion over to suit him, instead of making himself over to suit God. These attempted “improvements” were long ago foretold: “Men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves,” and, “There will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them [Christ].” (Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Pet. 2:1, NW) In evidence that this happened, The Kingdom of God in America says current religion “represents not so much the impact of the gospel upon the New World as the use and adaptation of the gospel by the new society for its own purposes”. Unity of doctrine is gone, and that loss of unity represents a loss of true Christianity.

...