My Argument About "the Church"

[BluePhantom]

For the purposes of this discussion I wish to establish the following historical and logical givens. Now all of these are certainly subject to debate on their own merits and I have no problem doing that on a different thread (citations for reference to any historical given I will be happy to provide on such a different thread and by request); however, to focus on the actual point of this thread I suggest that for the sake of argument, let’s assume the following to be true. Note: the term “the church” refers to the central governing body of any religion and/or the Vatican depending on the time frame being referred to.

Historical Facts
1) In the early stages of Christianity, there were various sects all who had different beliefs and used their own books of scripture. One sect would use the book of Matthew for example while another rejected Matthew but accepted James. Yet another might reject both Matthew and James and instead only used Mark and Thomas. Essentially, every sect kind of did their own thing.

2) In AD 313 the Roman Emperor Constantine established the Edict of Milan decriminalizing Christianity and he eventually declared Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire summoning the Council of Nicaea where Christianity was defined and organized according to a given set of beliefs.

3) The Biblical Canon was first officially organized by what would eventually be the Catholic Church at the Third Council of Carthage in AD 397 during the reign of Emperor Honorius and under the supervision of Augustine of Hippo.

4) After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the late 5th Century AD, the church arose as the dominant political power in Europe holding significant influence (even over kings) until the Reformation in around AD 1517. This period of time we will refer to as the Middle Ages.

5) During the Middle Ages the church, enjoying great power and influence, became corrupted by political and financial issues, engaged in acts of atrocity, and introduced and/or altered significant tenants of Christianity using the tradition of Midrash, terror, and suppressing education in order to maintain control and force the obedience of the people.

6) Many of the changes to Christianity outlined in point five endure to this day and significantly influence modern Christian thought.

7) After the Reformation the influence of the church continued albeit in different forms and spread over multiple governing bodies. Still, the church retained significant power and influence whether directly (i.e. direct influence on matters of state) or indirectly (influence of the state through the influence of the people) until relatively modern times, arguably even today.


Logical Givens
1) An organization of any kind that relies on the willingness of followers to obey must enforce obedience.

2) Fear is an extremely effective method for establishing obedience.

3) Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

4) No Roman Emperor or Pope will ever allow a scripture that they deem as “rebellious” or anti-establishment” to become part of the mainstream theology of the state religion.

5) The political need of the church for obedience by the faithful has not ended. For the church to survive it still requires the willful obedience of the people.


Spiritual Givens
1) Communication with the Holy Spirit represents perfect guidance according to the will and wisdom of God.

Initial Conclusions
1) Constantine provided an opportunity for what would eventually become the Catholic Church to tip the balance of power in their favor against other sects who did not agree with their views. By forcing a definition of Christianity (the Nicaean Creed) and enforcing it through Roman power, opposing viewpoints were essentially eradicated.

2) With the rise of total spiritual authority by church, the need to establish the submission of the people and the kings in order to maintain their power, riches, and influence, led to the evolution of Christianity into a fear based theology; something that persists to the modern day.

3) If initial conclusion #2 is accepted as valid, it means that the original theology of Christianity has by definition been eradicated.

4) Ancient mainstream scriptures, such as the Gospels of Thomas, James, Mary Magdalene, etc were not accepted in the Biblical Canon as they were too rebellious and anti-establishment to be accepted by the church (who requires obedience) and the Roman Emperors (who required obedience, order, and efficiency).

5) If initial conclusions 1-4 are accepted as valid, it means that Christianity became “Romanized” and altered in order to meet the political and financial requirements of the church and the Emperors of Rome.

6) Because obedience and submission of the people remains necessary to the current day for the church to maximize their power and influence, the modern church has no motivation to dispel the alterations and Romanization of Christianity. In fact quite the opposite, the more they can enhance it the better for their future prospects of remaining as a viable and influential political and economic force.

7) If all the givens are accepted as true it means that the teachings of the church are not spiritual teachings. Instead they are political and financial teachings intended to maximize the power of the church.

8) If conclusion #7 is accepted as true it means the practice of Christianity according to the specific guidelines endorsed by the church is the practice of the desires and requirements of ancient Roman Emperors and religious/political despots.

9) If conclusion #8 is true it means the practice of Christianity according to the specific guidelines endorsed by the church is contrary to the guidance and wisdom of Jesus.

Final Conclusion

1) The practice of Christianity according to the specific guidelines endorsed by the church is contrary to the best spiritual interests of the individual. Instead of enhancing a personal spiritual relationship with God it actually interferes with it. As such organized religion should be rejected, each individual should establish their own religion based upon guidance gained by meditation and opening themselves to communication with the Holy Spirit.


I will now brace myself for the onslaught of attacks.

 

[Dragon]

LOL well, I'm not going to attack you for that. I find your logic compelling and irrefutable.

I will say that all this began to unravel at the point where the Church lost its political power. Today, Christianity is well on its way to becoming as diverse as it was in the pre-Constantine days. So it may be that, just as the Imperial Church could not have been created without the power of the Roman Empire, so in the end it cannot be maintained without the Empire's power, either.

 

[BluePhantom]

LOL well, I'm not going to attack you for that. I find your logic compelling and irrefutable.

Why, thank ya.

I will say that all this began to unravel at the point where the Church lost its political power. Today, Christianity is well on its way to becoming as diverse as it was in the pre-Constantine days. So it may be that, just as the Imperial Church could not have been created without the power of the Roman Empire, so in the end it cannot be maintained without the Empire's power, either.

I would agree completely and actually participated in a discussion on another thread about "coming full circle" in some ways (i.e. the variations on Christianity, followed by the concentration of it into one specific theology, followed by the split back into various theories). Your last point I think is very compelling: maintenance through empirical power. Let me ponder that one for a bit. It's a damn good point.

 

[Iridescence]

I, too, agree with Dragon that your logic is a bit irrefutable... I just want to mention that the church can be a profoundly empowering entity if she was just used to be so by the men who are in charge of her. I believe in the potential of progressive improvements for the church, it just takes the men of such a mind to bring it about.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not sure the logical givens are actually logical givens. I'm not sure that fear is a completely effective way to control people, but maybe initially, it is.

 

[koshergrl]

It seems to me that people behave better when they are allowed to grow in a fear-free environment.

 

[BluePhantom]

I, too, agree with Dragon that your logic is a bit irrefutable... I just want to mention that the church can be a profoundly empowering entity if she was just used to be so by the men who are in charge of her. I believe in the potential of progressive improvements for the church, it just takes the men of such a mind to bring it about.

I can't argue against that nor do i have a desire to. In my heart I still want to believe that the church is about spirituality. Unfortunately, after years of study and research I am forced to conclude it is not. That's not to say it can't be. It would take, as you suggest, many good men to make it happen. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be its history and I see nothing to indicate that it's about to change course.

What then are we left with but to simply go it ourselves? And frankly if one reads the gospels of James, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, etc....that's actually what those scripture say to do...and it's my belief that that's precisely why they were thrown out of the Bible. I mean if you are establishing an organization that depends on obedience are you going to include in your handbook something that says "don't listen to a centralized governing body"? I think not.

 

[spectrumc01]

It seems to me that people behave better when they are allowed to grow in a fear-free environment.

I don't think so, people behave better when they are bred that way. The church has been breeding and grooming people for a long, long time. Take "Catholic guilt" for example.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree with most of your premise.

the thing was that when Christinianity was "illegal" from the period of Jesus (or perhaps just Saul of Tarses, who made Jesus up) to Constantine, is that there were a lot of local variation on practices and beliefs. Constantine wanted Christianity to be a state religion, with the concept of a King in Heaven and his counterpart a King/Emperor on Earth. An understandable concern, as Rome had suffered nearly 100 years of Emperors knocking each other off in one civil war after another.

 

[BluePhantom]

I'm not sure the logical givens are actually logical givens. I'm not sure that fear is a completely effective way to control people, but maybe initially, it is.

Well I am happy to discuss those logical givens. Like I said in other threads. I could be completely wrong and I am more than happy to explore that possibility and identify a flaw in my logical process.

As far as fear....in my experience as a business manager, I think it's a real lousy way to get productivity. My experience tells me that subordinates who fear the manager hate him, they aren't happy, they become passive aggressive, they will never defend him, as a result they wont do their best work and their productivity will suffer...but they will obey. So if all you need is obedience...fear is very effective.

 

[koshergrl]

It seems to me that people behave better when they are allowed to grow in a fear-free environment.

I don't think so, people behave better when they are bred that way. The church has been breeding and grooming people for a long, long time. Take "Catholic guilt" for example.

Fearful populations are generally violent ones.
I'm not talking about the fear of the almighty. I'm talking about fear of death. I don't think we can measure spiritual fear.

 

[BluePhantom]

I agree with most of your premise.

the thing was that when Christinianity was "illegal" from the period of Jesus (or perhaps just Saul of Tarses, who made Jesus up) to Constantine, is that there were a lot of local variation on practices and beliefs. Constantine wanted Christianity to be a state religion, with the concept of a King in Heaven and his counterpart a King/Emperor on Earth. An understandable concern, as Rome had suffered nearly 100 years of Emperors knocking each other off in one civil war after another.

Exactly. I mean right square on the nose. So from that perspective Constantine is going to force a version of Christianity that streamlined all those various beliefs into one central belief that assured his power and dominance.

 

[spectrumc01]

I, too, agree with Dragon that your logic is a bit irrefutable... I just want to mention that the church can be a profoundly empowering entity if she was just used to be so by the men who are in charge of her. I believe in the potential of progressive improvements for the church, it just takes the men of such a mind to bring it about.

I can't argue against that nor do i have a desire to. In my heart I still want to believe that the church is about spirituality. Unfortunately, after years of study and research I am forced to conclude it is not. That's not to say it can't be. It would take, as you suggest, many good men to make it happen. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be its history and I see nothing to indicate that it's about to change course.

What then are we left with but to simply go it ourselves? And frankly if one reads the gospels of James, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, etc....that's actually what those scripture say to do...and it's my belief that that's precisely why they were thrown out of the Bible. I mean if you are establishing an organization that depends on obedience are you going to include in your handbook something that says "don't listen to a centralized governing body"? I think not.

I believe that the heirarchy of the church leaves the "spirituality" up to the street level priest and nun. They concern themselves with trying to shape the world through religion, and they are hemoraging clout, prestige, and power right now.

have you seen this?
Spain's Stolen Babies: An Ugly Past On a Staggering Scale - Yahoo! News

 

[LOki]

LOL well, I'm not going to attack you for that. I find your logic compelling and irrefutable.

I will say that all this began to unravel at the point where the Church lost its political power. Today, Christianity is well on its way to becoming as diverse as it was in the pre-Constantine days. So it may be that, just as the Imperial Church could not have been created without the power of the Roman Empire, so in the end it cannot be maintained without the Empire's power, either.

 

[BluePhantom]

Fearful populations are generally violent ones.
I'm not talking about the fear of the almighty. I'm talking about fear of death. I don't think we can measure spiritual fear.

I think eventually an oppressed society will rebel. That is in our nature as human beings. And again if we look at it historically the people did rebel against the dominance of the church. That's what led to the Reformation. But the church introduced something even more terrifying. The ace up their sleeve...."if you rebel you will burn in torment for eternity." Well....shit.......see what I am getting at?

 

[spectrumc01]

It seems to me that people behave better when they are allowed to grow in a fear-free environment.

I don't think so, people behave better when they are bred that way. The church has been breeding and grooming people for a long, long time. Take "Catholic guilt" for example.

Fearful populations are generally violent ones.
I'm not talking about the fear of the almighty. I'm talking about fear of death. I don't think we can measure spiritual fear.

look around, or have you become blind to mans in humanity to man. Not just Wars, but everyday common violence and murder. We are a violent people. Man is violent by nature, we choose when and where we want to be peaceful.

 

[BluePhantom]

I believe that the heirarchy of the church leaves the "spirituality" up to the street level priest and nun. They concern themselves with trying to shape the world through religion, and they are hemoraging clout, prestige, and power right now.

I agree and I made that point in a different thread. i think just like a corporation the closer you get to "street level" the more the emphasis on the product or service being offered: in this case spirituality. The higher you get to the CEO the more the focus becomes power, money, and political status. I don't see where the church is any different...except that their commodity is God instead of tacos. Still, as I said in the other thread, the marching orders come from the top and I can tell you from having worked in such a structure for years, nothing fucks up a good product or service like a corporation. Is the church really any different? I mean when you really stop and think about it...is it really any different?

have you seen this?
Spain's Stolen Babies: An Ugly Past On a Staggering Scale - Yahoo! News

No I was unaware of that. I will have to do some research on it before I can comment

 

[Dragon]

It just occurred to me that one reason Jesus taught in parables so much of the time is because he foresaw the possibility of his teachings becoming corrupted by power. I mean, he saw it in the Jewish authorities right there in Judea. So by putting it all in riddles that worldly men would be intrinsically unable to understand, he insured that it would be preserved and passed along as part of Sacred Writ even though it went one-eighty degrees against what the Church taught in many cases (the authorities being unable to tell that it does). Think of the parabolic encryption as similar to the protective coating on a virus that lets it evade the body's initial defenses.

Anyway, even in the darkest days of the Middle Ages Christians were not immune to developing genuine spirituality. They just ran the risk of being burned as heretics when they did.

 

[Intense]

For the purposes of this discussion I wish to establish the following historical and logical givens. Now all of these are certainly subject to debate on their own merits and I have no problem doing that on a different thread (citations for reference to any historical given I will be happy to provide on such a different thread and by request); however, to focus on the actual point of this thread I suggest that for the sake of argument, let’s assume the following to be true. Note: the term “the church” refers to the central governing body of any religion and/or the Vatican depending on the time frame being referred to.

Historical Facts
1) In the early stages of Christianity, there were various sects all who had different beliefs and used their own books of scripture. One sect would use the book of Matthew for example while another rejected Matthew but accepted James. Yet another might reject both Matthew and James and instead only used Mark and Thomas. Essentially, every sect kind of did their own thing.

2) In AD 313 the Roman Emperor Constantine established the Edict of Milan decriminalizing Christianity and he eventually declared Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire summoning the Council of Nicaea where Christianity was defined and organized according to a given set of beliefs.

3) The Biblical Canon was first officially organized by what would eventually be the Catholic Church at the Third Council of Carthage in AD 397 during the reign of Emperor Honorius and under the supervision of Augustine of Hippo.

4) After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the late 5th Century AD, the church arose as the dominant political power in Europe holding significant influence (even over kings) until the Reformation in around AD 1517. This period of time we will refer to as the Middle Ages.

5) During the Middle Ages the church, enjoying great power and influence, became corrupted by political and financial issues, engaged in acts of atrocity, and introduced and/or altered significant tenants of Christianity using the tradition of Midrash, terror, and suppressing education in order to maintain control and force the obedience of the people.

6) Many of the changes to Christianity outlined in point five endure to this day and significantly influence modern Christian thought.

7) After the Reformation the influence of the church continued albeit in different forms and spread over multiple governing bodies. Still, the church retained significant power and influence whether directly (i.e. direct influence on matters of state) or indirectly (influence of the state through the influence of the people) until relatively modern times, arguably even today.


Logical Givens
1) An organization of any kind that relies on the willingness of followers to obey must enforce obedience.

2) Fear is an extremely effective method for establishing obedience.

3) Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

4) No Roman Emperor or Pope will ever allow a scripture that they deem as “rebellious” or anti-establishment” to become part of the mainstream theology of the state religion.

5) The political need of the church for obedience by the faithful has not ended. For the church to survive it still requires the willful obedience of the people.


Spiritual Givens
1) Communication with the Holy Spirit represents perfect guidance according to the will and wisdom of God.

Initial Conclusions
1) Constantine provided an opportunity for what would eventually become the Catholic Church to tip the balance of power in their favor against other sects who did not agree with their views. By forcing a definition of Christianity (the Nicaean Creed) and enforcing it through Roman power, opposing viewpoints were essentially eradicated.

2) With the rise of total spiritual authority by church, the need to establish the submission of the people and the kings in order to maintain their power, riches, and influence, led to the evolution of Christianity into a fear based theology; something that persists to the modern day.

3) If initial conclusion #2 is accepted as valid, it means that the original theology of Christianity has by definition been eradicated.

4) Ancient mainstream scriptures, such as the Gospels of Thomas, James, Mary Magdalene, etc were not accepted in the Biblical Canon as they were too rebellious and anti-establishment to be accepted by the church (who requires obedience) and the Roman Emperors (who required obedience, order, and efficiency).

5) If initial conclusions 1-4 are accepted as valid, it means that Christianity became “Romanized” and altered in order to meet the political and financial requirements of the church and the Emperors of Rome.

6) Because obedience and submission of the people remains necessary to the current day for the church to maximize their power and influence, the modern church has no motivation to dispel the alterations and Romanization of Christianity. In fact quite the opposite, the more they can enhance it the better for their future prospects of remaining as a viable and influential political and economic force.

7) If all the givens are accepted as true it means that the teachings of the church are not spiritual teachings. Instead they are political and financial teachings intended to maximize the power of the church.

8) If conclusion #7 is accepted as true it means the practice of Christianity according to the specific guidelines endorsed by the church is the practice of the desires and requirements of ancient Roman Emperors and religious/political despots.

9) If conclusion #8 is true it means the practice of Christianity according to the specific guidelines endorsed by the church is contrary to the guidance and wisdom of Jesus.

Final Conclusion

1) The practice of Christianity according to the specific guidelines endorsed by the church is contrary to the best spiritual interests of the individual. Instead of enhancing a personal spiritual relationship with God it actually interferes with it. As such organized religion should be rejected, each individual should establish their own religion based upon guidance gained by meditation and opening themselves to communication with the Holy Spirit.


I will now brace myself for the onslaught of attacks.

You bring up interesting points and perspective. Though I am not in agreement, I respect your position.

There are many factors in what you brush on. I think the positions on the Church, on Human Nature, on specific circumstance have allot more depth than you are giving credit for. Fear, was around from the start, it is a major player in the Old Testament, in Human Nature, a tool of Every King and Emperor to say the least. It did not originate with the Roman Church. Using it as a tool is a part of our very Nature, from teaching your kids to not play with matches, to using intimidation against a perceived threat.

Personally, I find controlling Authorities at some point, for the most part, competing with God for attention and allegiance, be it Church or Government. It's a derailment.

What is True Religion? How about we start with God First in All Things. We Communicate through Conscience, let the Spirit behind the wheel for a time. Observe, Trust, Learn, watch it unfold as it happens. What is one thing that tells you? God is Always in control, even when you are not. There is a balance and It's driven by Purpose. There is what you plainly know inside, that is confirmed outside? True Religion Must involve Faith and Conscience, It Must involve a Personal Relationship with Our Maker, that No Man, Woman, Institution, Church, Government, conditionally stands between. "God First In All Things". Everything Else is Secondary.

Which brings us to "Training Wheels".

Church, State, have a place. There is Learning Development, shared Experience, We All learn from. Why begrudge. Where you agree, You Agree, where You fail to Agree, Respectfully Disagree. Bear Witness, Testify, Tell the Truth about what you see. Be a Faithful Witness, that is the least one can do. Speak the Truth from Your Own Perspective, you never know how it can effect change, influence Outcome. "The Emperor's New Suit" Hans Christian Anderson (Saint) , he Lost Parable.

Every Institution has it's advantages and disadvantages. There are none without flaw, just like you and I. We can take the good, not get snared by either bad, or what we are not yet ready for.

What is True Religion? A path that brings you closer to God, smarter, and wiser, than from where you started?

Church, Government, have done well in fighting off lawlessness and Anarchy, states from which, few come out ahead. That's a plus. The Realization of Unalienable Right's, to me personally, as important as the discovery of Fire. We Each Matter. We Each have Value. We Each have a Unique Perspective. The training wheels are always there when we need them. Be it council, comfort, support, acceptance. Don't discount that. In Matters of Conscience, don't let it deter you either. Allegiance to God is not conditional, it either is or isn't. I think God realizes now that We are not perfect, His relationship with Us, is beyond Understanding, yet through Faith, We know that there is Design and Meaning in Everything We Encounter. There is a point to it.

Just a thought. I personally do not find Established Religions to be a threat. Where Anyone or Anything puts me in a position to choose between Them and God, with My Conscience Directing me, I choose to make my own choice. How Many Old Testament Prophets had to make tough choices? How are Any of us different in that way?

 

[syrenn]

all i have to say is this....


http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/187194-taking-the-usmb-advice.html