Why does religion eventually disintegrate into sects?

Why does religion eventually disintegrate into sects?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I'm currently reading Ancient History of India and I have the following question - It has been widely documented that religion is divided into sects on account of differences in the interpretations of scriptures/teachings of their founder. so, Why is it that the language of the texts or their ideas weren't represented in a clear and ambiguous manner so that there arise no future conflicts? why keep texts or teachings that opens up to multiple interpretations (not that multiple interpretations are bad since we have an enormous diversity of thought and intellect) in a way which invariably lends itself to differences in opinion on what "ought" to be the case and to head in a direction which is in direct opposition to what its founder intended. For eg- Shia-Sunni under Islam, Jains too were divided into two sects on account of differences in opinions. How to resolve this? I think it is like the constitution of the country where it is widely interpreted differently to evolve with society and hence, stay relevant. Is it the same with religion too? But my primary concern remains how to ward off the animosity that grows between the two sects? Please, share your thoughts and knowledge. This question is literally bugging me up.

Grateful and Thank you


Religious schism is a long and proud tradition. Just this week the United Methodists had to split into two. But schism is not limited to religion, it occurs in any kind of community of practice. No matter if they have been stated by a God or not, the rules are never quite clear, leaving room for edge cases that if pressed, can become wedges. Religious texts, like most others, are composed in natural language, and interpreted by the populations of the future: these are perfect conditions for textual disagreement. Consider the degree of controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a very short text that is only two centuries old.

If a religious text can be written in a language of formal assertions that is meaningful now and into the future, I have yet to hear about it.


Watch the video: RomaStories-Film 107 sprog undertekster