Differing congregations.

[weareunity]

Looking at "beliefs" in a general sense--and including philosophies.( For the sake of ease of typing notated as b's and p's)

Some are personal, perhaps private b's and p's, perhaps unspoken, perhaps evident only in the behaviour of that person.

Some are shared, and if so--and arguably in all such cases-- the effect of that sharing is to draw together a group, a congregation.

The power of b's and p's to draw together such congregations is a unifying power, and as such has been, and continues to be, an important component in the provision of social cohesion within social groupings.

However, when b's and p's differ and arguments arise concerning the validity of different b's and p's, what is it which is really being protected by arguments which seek to validate one b's and p's seemingly at the cost of invalidating the b's and p's of a different congregation?

Do we perhaps lose sight of the spirit of oneness which differing b's and p's may have as part of their core simply because that aspect is illustrated, put across, imagined, characterised etc. in a manner and by means which are different to the manner and means which are used to illustrate, put across, imagine, characterise the b's and p's of which we are ourselves followers?

Are we perhaps too fearful of loosing an established identity and forget and forego the very power of congregation because we cannot or will not see beyond our "own" b's and p's?


My attempts to put these thoughts into words are floundering, and in any case not applicable to b's and p's which do not have a sense of a spirit of oneness at core. Hoping that others may be able to be more lucid.