YesuWangu wrote:
Whenever the church and state unite, it is the church that has the upper hand and will lord it over the state. Because politicians are elected every so years and will depend on the clergy to help in their re-election.
This is a very bad idea.
When Constantine took the sign of the cross, the Church grew powerful. But now, the cross is effete. It seems it cannot even chase a baby vampire away!
Or is it that Constantin's entry dealt the fatal blow?
How could it be, that the Church fathers could not settle the question of orthodoxy once and for all?
What did Luther really want? Could he rightly say, 'Sola sriptura?' For example, by letting everyone read the bible for himself, he was letting everyone interpret the bible for himself . . . but scripture is Canon, and Canon? Conversation. Luther only magnified Christianity's errors.
How could it be that Arius' case could only be settled by death?
Perhaps there was never meant to be a canon at all! Could it be that Christ never intended to have a religion at all?
Maybe Luther was anti-religious himself . . . or at least, ideologically, he was to sow the seeds of 'irreligion' and now we are left to gather the harvest?
Who are we?
Supposing the Church has in fact been rotting from within since Constantine, does it mean that Nietzsche was right with his 'The last Christan died on the cross?'
What did Christ say?