A nice article Peter. Nevertheless, I am enclosing a bunch of thought that I wrote in 1987 against overemphasizing the communitariasn aspect in Western (Catholic in my case) Church - indistinction to Eastern Churches - against the individual aspect: http://www.gvirsik.de/Thoughts_on_RENEW.pdf.

Distrust of monarchy is found in the Bible. In an eloquent passage the prophet Samuel points out the defects of monarchy.

Samuel1 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

God regarded the desire of the people for a king as a rejection of the rule of God.

In the following Samuel points out the evils of monarchy:

Samuel1 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

continued

continued

The man credited with originating the expression, separation of church and state, is Roger Williams, a Baptist minister. He headed the first unit of government which had separation of church and state as a basic principle.


Williams was a Baptist minister with strong opinions. He was expelled from Massachusetts Bay colony for those opinions. Unlike many people with strong opinions he recognized that other people had strong opinions which were different from his, and they had a right to have and express those opinions. He set up Rhode Island as a colony which welcomed dissenters of all kinds.Baptists who supported Trump and would tear down the separation of church and state might learn from Williams.

From "Roger Williams and The Creation of the American Soul":

"The Bay's leaders, both lay and clergy, firmly believed that the state must enforce all of God's laws, and to do so the state had to prevent error in religion. This conviction they held fast to, for their souls and all the souls in Massachusetts plantation depended upon it.

Williams recognized that putting the state to that service required humans to interpret God's law. His views were not fully formed-how Massachusetts dealt with him would itself influence their formulation-but he believed that humans, being imperfect, would inevitably err in applying God's law. Hence, he concluded that a society built on the principles that Massachusetts espoused could at best only lead to hypocrisy, for he believed that forced worship "stinks in God's nostrils." At worst it would lead to a corruption not of the state which was already corrupt, but of the church, as it befouled itself with the state's errors. His understandings were edging him toward a belief he would later call "Soul Libertie."” pp. 3-4

continued

Well uncle Pete, Christianity is in the end, likened to a bowl of rolled oats and raisins, not worth two bob, unless marinated in milk and soaked for hours before eating.

But, like any useful commodity, in the end it is gobbled up and is gone!

continued

Many Enlightenment figures such as Voltaire distrusted the common people and thought religion was necessary to rein in their savage impulses. They thought religion was a legitimate tool of the state.

The US Constitution was written by men of the Enlightenment. They were not representative figures and distrusted democracy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening tells of the influences on most Americans of the time. The men who wrote the Constitution regarded religion as a divisive force. The reason of the men who wrote the constitution for supporting separation of church and state differed greatly from that of the man who originated the concept.

ISTR reading elsewhere that officially the head of the Church of England is Jesus, and that the English Monarch is merely the Supreme Governor.

I deny that true Christianity is dead, just the control addict authoritarian version of it!

Call it what you will Peter even as you and your ilk embrace Islam, its authoritative autocracy and the thought police it embraces, I believe, as part of its even more flawed philosophy?

At one time esoteric Christians met in each other's homes and broke bread in remembrance of their crucified Founder/Teacher! Nothing more.

And where the real rise and fall occurred as the sun worshipping Constantine changed it all and imposed various pagan rituals, controls and sacrifice at an altar on it!

Your friend, not the only one who sat through the rendition of God save the Queen!

Real Christianity as created by its original founder and teacher has ben dead for the best part of 1,500 years!

Even as sword carrying Popes led mass murdering blood soaked armies on genocidal conquests that imposed the new Constantin religious order on the conquered!

And therefore of little moment what happened to the doctrine of the English church and the parrots who promulgate its flawed belief system. Or the Queen, one of the richest in Britain, who is its head, allegedly?

Lettuce spray?
Alan B.

So , Politics and Religion don't mix. In any shape , form or guise... ie. Religious NGOs'.

A lesson that has yet to be fully understood by established Religions !

' So , Politics and Religion don't mix. In any shape , form or guise... ie. Religious NGOs'.'

hence we have the warmist religion ripping the people off and deceiving the gullible.

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Christianity isn't threatened. But the Christian church hierarchies might be.

I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

Returning the faith to its pre-Constantine roots would be its salvation.

Time to start seeking out some catacombs.

Does anybody really think that Saint Jesus of Galilee would ever had anything to do with ANY of the institutional churches, in any time and place.
What is the nature of the "kingdom" that Saint Jesus of Galilee was communicating about while he was alive. And how does anyone, one at a time do to enter it? http://www.dabase.org/up-5-3.htm

This essay addresses the power-and-control-seeking nature of big-time institutional "religion", and the hollow words of all of the big-time talkers of big-time false religion.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html

Section 17 of this reference gives an extended version of the above original essay.
http://www.dabase.org/up-6.htm
By the way the last section (25) of this essay provides a profound esoteric Spiritual Understanding of Cosmic Reality and of "Jesus" and "Mary"

Can christians who like everyone else in their dreadful entire God-less sanity are like NARCISSUS http://www.beezone.com/narcissus.html return to a pre-Constantinian form of christian-ism..

Mhaze and Daffy, agree and it's time to return Christianity to its original roots and founding Fathers unrevised, unedited teachings, rather than this or that massively misrepresented re interoperation of the Rabbi's/Jesus's teachings!

Not for nothing is it writ large, know the truth and the truth will set you free!
Alan B.

The book of Danial seems to me to be the answer to the question of how to be a Christian in a secular world. Danial was among the Israelites that were exiled in Babylon. In that time Danial seemed to be the model for Jesus's teaching later to submit to those who rule over you. He served a king that did not serve God, and in all that Danial did it seemed to be that he was loyal to this kingdom that conquored his people. Everything except where following an ordnance would be taking actions against God.

To me this is the example we should follow. We live in a world that continually acts against what we know is from God. And though one option seems to be the obvious answer to charge against the evil rulers of our nations that is not what Jesus taught. To be Christians in a secular or otherwise world, we should be like Danial was and be faithful to God in all we do, then after that, be under the rule of the nation's we abide in. (Unless we are perscuted. In that case go ahead and run, flee to a new home).

As for the church as a whole. I don't think we are at the end of Christianity or christiandom any more then Israel was at it's end when it became conquored, and later lost it's homeland and became scattered throughout the world. If the church body could be destroyed it would have been in it's beginning, when it was under fierce persecution. Or it would have during the times of controversery and hearsay that became the foundation for a need that brought the first consol of Nicea. Or even later the church would have rotted from corruption, or fallen apart after Protestant splits in it. Yet Christianity is still strong. Held together by faithful people who study the bible, as well as those who by love act to serve the world that desperately needs help.

(Continued)

(Continued)

In my opinion Jesus's promise that nothing could tare down His kingdom seems true with what Christianity has been through and still continued on. It's a simular promise that God gave to Israel. And they are still here today as well.

:). Good article Peter. Lots of thoughts to consider, and to consider being a faithful Christian in spite of both the state, as well as in spite of sometimes the leaders of the churches.

We are part of a kingdom not of this world.

Amen, Peter, though the road ahead is still long.

I am so happy to read such a topic where we all seem to agree, whether Christian or otherwise.

Regarding the small controversy pointed out by George, about the statement: "It means that individualist Christianity is abandoned for a place in a community.", perhaps what the author meant to say in this context was that, as long as the church was tied up with the state, true Christians who sought the kingdom of God had to go underground and practice religion individually, but once the church and state are separated, they can come out of the closet to participate in a meaningful community of worship.

Seeing this thread has been going for awhile I'll join it now... I like to see the crazy theories of people first.

True Christianity died when Jesus died...Sorry that people didn't notice that...

Not long after he died the disciples started mucking it up eventually allowing the Pharisee Paul to infiltrate and teach his rubbish. He was the huge divisive wedge pushed into Christianity.

The disciples were expecting Jesus' return for the first few years but quickly realised it is all up to them.

How Jesus ever made Peter the rock is almost unbelievable!

Like the modern day believer Paul hardly mentioned Jesus and got most things wrong anyway.

Paul taught the Oppression of women, robbed churches, taught that women should cover their heads or be shorn, lied often, and taught totally against Jesus teachings of the Prodigal Son.

So by the time that the Catholics started Christianity had been taken over by a Pharisee and the destruction was well under way.

The Church of England of course had such an honourable start (lol) in that it broke away from the Catholics because King Henry wanted to divorce a wife or two or three. Eventuaslly that also led to the killing of two of his wives although what happened with Catherine of Aragon dying in custody who would know.

Jesus left one religion and no buildings from his time on Earth.

The divisive believers have broken his religion into 34,000 to 44,000 sects or groups depending who you listen to and built some 37 million buildings depending on who you listen to.

The Christian religion has only itself to blame for it's own destruction.

Most Christians don't follow Jesus teachings whilst crowing that they do and the Bible is continually misrepresented by then\m through poor education.

In Luke 12:49-56 Jesus predicted what would happened and the followers accidentally made it happen.

The Queen who probably shouldn't actually even be Queen is the Supreme Governor of the CofE as laughable as that is especially after it's ugly beginnings.

Jesus must be so proud...lol

It is that simple!

.

Dear Peter,

.

« The rise and fall of English [and Australian] Christendom » ?

For whom the (church) bell tolls ?

Don’t worry, Peter, Christianity will find its rightful place, in good time, in the pantheon of the great mythologies : Greek, Roman, Etruscan, Celtic, Germanic and Norse … They have all left their mark on Western culture and will never be forgotten.

They continue to inspire us.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Manichaeism extended from Spain to China and lasted from the third to eighteenth centuries. Except for historians who specialise in the study of that extinct religion its myths are now forgotten.

From E. C. Carpenter's Pagan & Christian Creeds:
Their Origin and Meaning

"But almost more remarkable than the world-encircling belief in human-divine Saviours is the equally widespread

p. 156

legend of their birth from Virgin-mothers. There is hardly a god--as we have already had occasion to see--whose worship as a benefactor of mankind attained popularity in any of the four continents, Europe, Asia, Africa and America--who was not reported to have been born from a Virgin, or at least from a mother who owed the Child not to any earthly father, but to an impregnation from Heaven. And this seems at first sight all the more astonishing because the belief in the possibility of such a thing is so entirely out of the line of our modern thought. So that while it would seem not unnatural that such a legend should have, sprung up spontaneously in some odd benighted corner of the world, we find it very difficult to understand how in that case it should have spread so rapidly in every direction, or--if it did not spread--how we are to account for its spontaneous appearance in all these widely sundered regions.

Continued

continued

I think here, and for the understanding of this problem, we are thrown back upon a very early age of human evolution--the age of Magic. Before any settled science or philosophy or religion existed, there were still certain Things--and consequently also certain Words--which had a tremendous influence on the human mind, which in fact affected it deeply. Such a word, for instance, is 'Thunder'; to hear thunder, to imitate it, even to mention it, are sure ways of rousing superstitious attention and imagination. Such another word is 'Serpent,' another 'Tree,' and so forth. There is no one who is insensible to the reverberation of these and other such words and images; 1 and among them, standing prominently out, are the two 'Mother' and 'Virgin.' The word Mother touches the deepest springs of human feeling. As the earliest word

p. 157
learnt and clung to by the child, it twines itself with the heart-strings of the man even to his latest day. Nor must we forget that in a primitive state of society (the Matriarchate) that influence was probably even greater than now; for the father of the child being (often as not) unknown the attachment to the mother was all the more intense and undivided. The word Mother had a magic about it which has remained even until to-day. But if that word rooted itself deep in the heart of the Child, the other word 'virgin' had an obvious magic for the full grown and sexually mature Man--a magic which it, too, has never lost.

Manichaeism and many of the forgotten legends that Carpenter cites have disappeared from public consciousness. Most of us are no longer in the Age of Magic, and Christianity could disappear as completely as Manichaeism.

.

Dear david f,

.

You wrote :

« … Christianity could disappear as completely as Manichaeism »

True, but as some wise person is reported to have observed : “prediction is a difficult business, especially when it involves the future”.

As I understand it, Manichaeism’s main claim to fame seems to have been its dualistic theory which equated evil with matter and good with spirit, serving as a doctrinal basis for asceticism and mysticism – not to be confounded with Zoroastrianism that rejects asceticism, and whose dualism is simply good and evil, seeing the spiritual world as no different from the natural one (the word "paradise", or “pairi.daeza”, applying equally to both).

Zoroastrianism is, of course, one of the oldest religions in the world that continues to be practised, including in Australia. Whereas, as you say, Manichaeism has largely “disappeared from public consciousness”.

Nevertheless, judging from the various sources I have consulted, I think it is true to say that there has been a certain degree of cross-fertilisation among Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic religions which continue to play a major role in the shaping of culture for much of humanity today.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I was not predicting the disappearance of Christianity, I merely suggested the possibility of its disappearance to the extent that Manichaeism has. Wishful thinking does not engender accurate predictions.