Was Christianity started to control the masses and dictate poltical agendas

[Fake Messiah]

[Banned]

Here's an example of what Christianity is all about from the Papal breve Quod aliquantum of March 1791 where Pope Pius VI spoke out against the republic, democracy, and human rights:

"In the eyes of the Assembly, this monstrous law is based in the freedom and equality natural to the human being, yet can there be something more incomprehensible than setting such a licentious freedom and equality? This freedom […] which the National Assembly grants humans as an inalienable inborn right is incompatible with the law set by God the Creator. After all, as St. Augustine said, human society is nothing more than only a general contract to listen to kings whose power stems not from a social contract but from God."

It's pretty ugly.
"Liberty of conscience is the greatest challenge" said Pope John Paul, as the first pope to set foot on England since the reformation.
The stupid people thought that he meant that giving people liberty is the greatest task, but as the Bible says, he speaks with a forked tongue, "liberty is the greatest challenge to get rid of."

---

That's an ill informed remark, but no surprise from your perspective.

Yo, Banned! You need to look into what Min is talking about. He is totally correct on this!

You know what my pet name for protestants is? Diet Catholics.

All Protestant denominations (including yours) have more in common with Catholics than they do the Early Christian Church. And don't come back at me with some nay saying bullcrap. Take the time to look into Minimalist's claims. If you want to disagree with them, fine, but first demonstrate that you know what the fuck he is talking about.

Yes and no.
It has to do with events.
The reformation churches arose by accepting truth of the Bible which the RCC denied the people access to. It challenged the church and eventually broke her back.
It wasn't until years later, that the Protestant churches ceased their flight to freedom and renegotiated their stance, and united with the mother church, in finance and doctrine, until today they are the same beast.

The Bible encodes it by the following statement in Rev 17,
Mystery - Babylon, the Mother of Harlots.

Mystery - work it out.
Babylon - the city where Israel was captured, because of their apostacy. The papacy arose from an apostate Christian world. It persecuted the saints and kept the world in darkness for 1260 years.
Mother of Harlots - the church would have spawnings. The churches which were established after her downfall, were just as corrupt as her.

The reformation was right, but the institutions/churches which followed ended up rejoining Rome. That meant doing her dirty deeds against humanity.

[vulcanlogician]

Yo, Banned! You need to look into what Min is talking about. He is totally correct on this!

You know what my pet name for protestants is? Diet Catholics.

All Protestant denominations (including yours) have more in common with Catholics than they do the Early Christian Church. And don't come back at me with some nay saying bullcrap. Take the time to look into Minimalist's claims. If you want to disagree with them, fine, but first demonstrate that you know what the fuck he is talking about.

Yes and no.
It has to do with events.
The reformation churches arose by accepting truth of the Bible which the RCC denied the people access to. It challenged the church and eventually broke her back.
It wasn't until years later, that the Protestant churches ceased their flight to freedom and renegotiated their stance, and united with the mother church, in finance and doctrine, until today they are the same beast.

The Bible encodes it by the following statement in Rev 17,
Mystery - Babylon, the Mother of Harlots.

Mystery - work it out.
Babylon - the city where Israel was captured, because of their apostacy. The papacy arose from an apostate Christian world. It persecuted the saints and kept the world in darkness for 1260 years.
Mother of Harlots - the church would have spawnings. The churches which were established after her downfall, were just as corrupt as her.

The reformation was right, but the institutions/churches which followed ended up rejoining Rome. That meant doing her dirty deeds against humanity.

You wouldn't be quoting Revelation to me if Martin Luther got his way. He wanted to remove it from the Bible.

His followers gave him some pushback, and it didn't happen. He did, however, remove other books successfully. I have a Catholic Bible sitting on my shelf. I bet you it has more books than the one you have sitting on your shelf. The Bible you believe in is different because of the politics in 16th century Europe.

I bet you think that your Bible is the inerrant word of God too. That's a Catholic thing. The Early Christians didn't even have an agreed upon canon (their texts lacked some canonical books or contained apocrypha), nor did they consider it inerrant. The Catholics came along and said, "These books are in, these other books are out, and what we have chosen is the inerrant word of God."

Funny how the inerrant word of God is suspect to the whims of powerful political figures at different stages of history, isn't it? You'd think the inerrant word of God wouldn't be subject to the whims of politics, but it is.

[Minimalist]

You need to look into what Min is talking about.

The very last thing a shithead like him would ever do, Vulc.

Facts are his enemy.  He prefers fairy tales.

[Banned]

You wouldn't be quoting Revelation to me if Martin Luther got his way. He wanted to remove it from the Bible.

His followers gave him some pushback, and it didn't happen. He did, however, remove other books successfully. I have a Catholic Bible sitting on my shelf. I bet you it has more books than the one you have sitting on your shelf. The Bible you believe in is different because of the politics in 16th century Europe.

I bet you think that your Bible is the inerrant word of God too. That's a Catholic thing. The Early Christians didn't even have an agreed upon canon (their texts lacked some canonical books or contained apocrypha), nor did they consider it inerrant. The Catholics came along and said, "These books are in, these other books are out, and what we have chosen is the inerrant word of God."

Funny how the inerrant word of God is suspect to the whims of powerful political figures at different stages of history, isn't it? You'd think the inerrant word of God wouldn't be subject to the whims of politics, but it is.

The RCC withheld the Bible from the people, but it was instrumental in preserving as well. Her additions and subtractions haven't always been right.
For the full details - if you can handle a long lecture -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNv-zzpIwBs

---

The very last thing a shithead like him would ever do, Vulc.

Facts are his enemy.  He prefers fairy tales.

How come you never feel any better after you have tried to put someone else down?

Haven't you had so much misery, confusion and rage that topping yourself was running through your thoughts?

[The Grand Nudger]

In summary, you're wrong but that other fucker is a meany-head.  

You're validating his assessment just by offering that comment in response.

[Amarok]

How come you never feel any better after you have tried to put someone else down?

You don't know his feelings . Nor have much better it feels to call you out on your nonsense .

Haven't you had so much misery, confusion and rage that topping yourself was running through your thoughts?

A statement based on empty slander and baseless presumption .

[Aegon]

I think the opposite, actually. Christianity was founded out a movement by the masses against those above them. Jesus was Luke Skywalker and the Roman Empire was... the Empire. I made a post similar to this several days ago, where I briefly discussed how Jesus is first and foremost a political figure, in my eyes and the eyes of many historians. That a mystical movement accompanied it is no surprise, considering they were Jews waiting for the messiah.

Christianity, like all religions, has been used to control people but I think you'd have to be willfully ignorant to think that that was the reason for its founding. It's too basic of an argument for an awfully nuanced debate that has yet to be resolved (and probably never will be.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Early christianity wasn't anti-roman in any way, so far as we can tell.  A significant portion of them appear to have cast the god of the OT as vader.  It didn;t even take off with the jews, it took off with the gentiles. It became anti-roman at some point but was quickly rehabilitated to facilitate romanization..thus all the effort and trouble to say that it was the jews what killed jesus. The book most refer to as so explicitly anti-roman would be rev..but recall it was romans that included it in canon..they were unlikely to have seen themselves as the beast.

Wishy washy little cult, aint it?

[Aegon]

Early christianity wasn't anti-roman in any way, so far as we can tell.  A significant portion of them appear to have cast the god of the OT as vader.  It didn;t even take off with the jews, it took off with the gentiles. It became anti-roman at some point but was quickly rehabilitated to facilitate romanization..thus all the effort and trouble to say that it was the jews what killed jesus. The book most refer to as so explicitly anti-roman would be rev..but recall it was romans that included it in canon..they were unlikely to have seen themselves as the beast.

Wishy washy little cult, aint it?

What is considered "early Christianity"? It seems to me from the little I know the Romans scapegoated Christians like Hitler scapegoated the Jews (perhaps not to the same extreme though...) Didn't they blame the Great Fire on them, sometime around 60 AD? Christian martyrs were a big deal early in the faith's history... it was part of why it was spread. And it was mainly the Roman Empire that oppressed them. It'd make more sense for the anti-Rome sentiment to disappear later on in Christianity's history, rather than early on. And I suppose saying that those who lived in Judea were Jews is oversimplification, since there was no such thing as a cohesive Judaism at that time. I know is that there were Jews who were quite wealthy and contributed to the oppression of the population, meaning that the rich Jews sitting pretty with the Romans were just as bad. Hence that time Jesus went beserk and fucked up that temple*. But there are several instances of Jesus, on behalf of the majority of the population, speaking out against both Roman rule and those who supported them.

*Excuse me, I meant cleansed the temple.

Tell me if I got any of that wrong.