When you take a look at the manner organized religion tends to divide communities, Catholic against Protestant, Sunni against Shia, Islam against Judaism, Pentecostal against New Apostolic, Theist against Atheist, and compare this to other inherently divisive social systems, you will find that the same divisiveness that characterizes especially Abrahamic faiths is quite similar to that which a multiparty democracy system creates, whereby the end result is Democrat against Republican against Liberal against Independent against Socialist against etc. It's political party against political party, and the ultimate result is the same: divide and conquer.
It may sound like I am reaching with this, or that I am comparing two totally different realities in this case, but not if you first of all admit that organized religion has the potential to split families, create enmity where non should be, cause violence and even murder and genocide, just as party political convictions are wont to.
We have seen it happen in history as well as the present. There is ample proof of this so it's not just off the top of my head.
And it should dawn on you that this remarkably similar divisiveness in politics and religion bears witness to a playboook or modus operandi associated with the "usual suspect" that in most probability is behind the creation of the trends in both.
Let me clarify this statement ...
If you think about it, a unified religion is what people would have logically rigorously sought to create over the ages for obvious reasons, and the fruits of those efforts would have given results already.
Yet division and subdivision has been the overriding concern of the main activists for change where it was evident that that's the wrong direction to take if it was causing unnecessary divisions and the strife that this brings.
Mahatma Gandhi's remark that "God has no religion" couldn't have been rocket science to the erudite and informed men who were busy breaking the church into denominations. Clearly, if we understand from the simple message in this simple remark that they opted for worse rather than better, we can not be faulted for seeing these men as agents of divide and rule ... We cannot be faulted for thinking they were fulfilling the wishes of a power that could only see unity, any kind and under any banner, as a threat to it.
And it's only when you check the backgrounds of the men who championed the changes that created the various denominations in Christianity alone that a pattern begins to emerge. Curiously, and maybe revealingly, they all share one thing in common. They all happened to be products of Freemasonry.
Martin Luther, the man who was instrumental in the creation of Protestantism, is shown above making the masonic "hidden hand" sign. The image can be found at the link below.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/559572322440990783/
Charles Fox Parham, the man who founded the pentecostal denomination, was a Freemason too. He is said to have made it clear that he had left Freemasonry to focus on his church, but there is credible evidence showing that he never made distance with the secret society, suggesting that he lied. Why? The answer to that question is of course obvious. Read all about it at the link below.
https://how2becomeachristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/pentecostal-freemason/
Need I go on? If you do your due diligence you will discover that the splintering of the Catholic church was done by the church itself, through its secret society freemasonry.
Research the link masonry has to the Catholic church, as well as the link the Knights of Malta (Jesuits), a sister organization of the Knights Templar, in which the origins of masonry partly lie, has to the same. Remember that the current and previous pope are both Jesuits and masons.
The motivation for the Catholic church to deliberately splinter the Christian Church into various incompatible denominations has already been stated before. It's hidden right out in the open and was carried out by the "hidden hand" behind major World events. The point of it is the fact any kind of unity of the common masses doesn't work to the best interests of the powers-that-be in the long run.
