The Church Killed God

Since when did we resort to using the Bible in here?

What the Bible says cannot be a valid argument in a thread accusing it of being the cornerstone of suppression by the institution that killed God.

 

Anyone, who wishes to cite the Bible may as well be wasting their time as the Bible is the de facto book of lies so doesn't hold any water in this discussion.

 

Provocative and ludicrous at the same time.

Okay, I'll bite:

Which Church? Which God? How so?

 

Most organised religions, the God that made us who we are and how we are, by creating rules and using it to pass judgement on us.

 

Fair enough, but what I find ludicrous is the idea/contention that anyone can kill God. That includes the judgmental people with their rules and lurid fantasies of a cruel and hateful God.

 

They found a way, for every soul they've condemned to Hell in their torment.

 

Also, the Catholic church is what the Romans became; and it was they who first told of somebody getting crucified by the Romans, and the Vatican City is in Rome, and the first Pope was the last Emperor - and so probably dug out the Jesus of Nazareth execution, out in the Holy Lands, hundreds of years later, from the archive; and made Jesus of Nazereth a martyr - and probably used confessions of those who betrayed Jesus the write what we know about Jesus. Who knows about Jesus the man Vs. Jesus the Son of God?
I know the Pope's people killed Jesus the man if anyone were to put a dagger into God's heart or nail him to a cross, back when it was the Roman Empire, if we were to be pedantic about the Church actually killing God.

 

Personally, I like the late, great comedian George Carlin's take on religion.

 

Have you ever considered that the Mary character was just a metaphor that represented the Samaritans?

 

Nope.

I've considered Mary to be the victim of a rape by a Roman solider so traumatic she thought it was divine intervention or she and her husband just flat out lied; and it was a Germanic Roman solider so that's why Jesus was lighter.

 

Perhaps a reference is being made to Nietzsche's idea of a collective destruction.

 

I considered that, but if Rhetoric was being more literal I submit that materialism and secularism have had more to do with "killing God" than a "Church" that has 2.3 billion followers.

It seems that God is alive and well....

 

"I Repent , I Repent" ... so, what bad deed are we repenting for .. lack of repentance ?

 

Disagree - Secularism does not kill God - nor any part of God. - nor God's message. Christ preached Secularism.

 

Just because YHWH is depicted in the OT as being a irrational, nonsensical, xenophobic, flip flopping God - with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics - does not necessarily make one's belief in Christ incoherent and nonsensical.

 

Do you accept that God of the Holy Bible might be the father of all lies? To question God of the Holy Bible wherever you may live? To recognise the Church as a sin against nature? To recognise the Bible as written by man and not by God? That the Church killed God in creating the Church, and are the decedents of the ones who killed Christ? To cite Roman occupation of the Holy Lands and Vatican City being in Rome today? To understand that the first Pope was the last Roman Emperor? To understand the Bible as a tool written by men who needed to control a populous? Do you understand to use the literal in the actually being the people who killed Christ as well as the spiritual in the damnation and oppression murder of God and to cite all oppression of the Church? That no God would ever deny a Woman for being female? Do you accept that the Church killed God?

Do you accept to listen to what you know to be true, and to renounce the lie of eternal life and virgin birth?

 

I liked Bill & Ted's
"Be excellent to each other."

I don't know what his take on religion was though, and I cba to google it.

 

Materialism is, undoubtedly, the greatest enemy of human spirit.
That said, any religion that perverts the relation of creation to creator could be described as deleterious to that relationship. The quantity of "followers" is of little significance; as they say, many are called but few are chosen.
Most of what we see with religions is that they re-enforce society's tendencies as regards dualism. That these groups have numerous members is not, in itself, evidence of a healthy deity.

 

Nothing can kill God.

I agree with what you're saying, but I was referring to secularism in the atheist sense. I should have made myself more clear.

 

They can't condemn anyone, and if you subscribe to the notion of God's Judgement you would know that authority and power is His and His alone.

Furthermore, I'll point out to you what I've pointed out to other people in other discussion threads - the doctrine of eternal damnation was not preached by Jesus or the Early Church.

How & When The Idea of Eternal Torment Invaded Church Doctrine
https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/ho...-torment-invaded-church-doctrine-7610e6b70815

I don't care if people attack or criticize the Church in any and/or all of its forms - there's plenty of room for legitimate criticism there - but I would suggest that people get their History straight and then attack/criticize.

 

Oh, really? The Apostles weren't the first to tell of Jesus?

And as you should know, the Romans weren't the only ones who had a hand in Jesus' sentence....

Romulus Augustulus was not the first pope, my friend...

What are you claiming here?

Who is this emperor - Constantine? - and what is this "archive"? This "emperor/pope" made Jesus a martyr? The Apostles betrayed Jesus?

You're right - no one knows for certain. The historical Jesus may have been quite different from the Jesus we read about in the New Testament. The same thing can be said for some other 'holy men' whose historicity is in question.

There was no pope or even a bishop of Rome when Jesus lived and died, and Christianity did not become the official religion of the Roman Empire until the emperors Theodosius I, Gratian and Valentinian II issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD. Your timeline makes no chronological sense, thus you cannot blame the Catholic Church for killing Jesus and/or God in a literal sense. One might argue that the RCC killed God in a figurative sense, but that is debatable at best.

 

Holy cracker Jack that is a whole lot of repenten .. What dat I do against Jah Rastafa dat make me a sinner - did I roll it to fat ? Does the good book not say ... "Roll up a fatty for Ol Puff Daddy" ? .. its not easy I tell ya .. no no no.

So then - who wanna be speaking for Jah ? sayin dis and dat .. only one rule we must follow says the blessed HeyZeus - son of da most high. "Don't do to others what ye hate" - the rest is all commentary say the Rabbi Hillel - blessed teacher to the Son of Jah..

Now - what this be about no eternal life ... who told you this but one with forked tongue .. Jah tell us the soul is eternal - through the workings of the Creator do we not see the cycles in nature - death and rebirth

 

I think you were referring to the message part - and in a sense one could say that Secularism "Kills the message of God" - rendering it mute.

This however would be from a flawed definition of secularism - attaching all kinds of meaning to the word that does not exist - which would be how I have heard the term secularism used by some on the religious right .. a kind of demonization of a word really.

Secularism is simply a system where the authority of Gov't comes from some place other than "Divine Right" It is a kind of prohibition of the Leader to claim he/she speaks for God - or that their actions somehow are based on the authority of God.

This does more to safeguard the message of God rather than Kill it - as History has shown us. Saves us from Law on the basis of "God Says so" w/r to essential liberty - understanding the distinction between this and other law is requisite.

 

I'm all for secularism, and not only Jesus but the Medieval Catholic Church played a big role in developing it. Personally, I think it's important that religion be able to operate within its own autonomous sphere. I'm not sure religious freedom can exist without that.

There are many definitions and concepts of "secularism", but this is the one I had in mind earlier:

secularism
noun
sec·u·lar·ism | \ ˈse-kyə-lə-ˌri-zəm \
Definition of secularism
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secularism

 

That is a fairly simplistic definition - and keep in mind we are using the definition as it relates to Gov't - which indeed excludes religious considerations in keeping with the general definition.

Notice that the best way to guarantee/facilitate religious freedom is a secular form of Gov't - which is not some authoritarian anti religious dictatorship. Theocracies are often the most repressive to other religions.