Dragan,

>>Did he invent the new church out of the blue, promoting true shepherds into shepherds and demoting shepherds into true shepherds? Or did he just manage to get away with what he did by leaving the organization pretty much as it was, leaving the important guys in their places, and promising them they won't have to be second in Rome but will have the privilege of being the first in their village.

There is ample, fairly distasteful history to be reviewed. Suffice to say it was not a simple transfer and "business as usual". Legions of churchmen went to meet their maker early and the temporal power of the church was drastically altered forever.

>>So if the power of the church came from its procreators, are you also assuming that whoever has the ability to give has an equal ability to take away?

Absolutely. You have denied the church your support. You have not been struck by lightning. If all society agreed with you, that would be the end of religion, or at least of the power it apparently exerts. Religion exists through communal faith, it is not a malign external influence.

>>I start objecting, however, when it becomes a public matter, and someone somewhere in the dispute says something like "those unbelieving people have no [soul | spirituality | morality |...] ADDITIVE". Then the spirit of community just takes me in, to partake in the merry dispute.

Can you please provide the post where somebody said that?