The Marketing Of Christianity

Which even if correct (and I cannot imagine how any such figures might be determined) it is still not a really significant number. No, I have said it does not matter whether or not there was a physical resurrection. The lesson I believe we are supposed to learn would be the same. Kinda. All religions are human attempts to create a system for controlling populations. The point is that the Jesus mythos perfectly fits the various messages that Christians want to promulgate. But there is no universal portraiture or caricature of Jesus. What You post is entirely different than what Faith posts or Phat posts or I post.And yes, I believe we are all clueless and must be clueless about what GOD might really be and that all the Gods we can discuss are just human creations.

And you keep making assertions that simply show you are incapable of reading or understanding at best and incapable of even making a basic analogy.There was a thread GDR on what made a true Christian and the result was the only possible way to tell a true Christian was to ask them if they were a Christian.Try actually dealing with YOUR beliefs and stop misrepresenting what I believe. More word salad and more misrepresentation. "The major point of Christianity is that we can see the true nature of God in the person of Jesus Christ. " is a great example of lots of words with absolutely no content or meaning.I have never said any religion got it completely wrong. I have said I doubt any religion was the RIGHT one.I have said that GOD if GOD exists will not be like any of the Gods or gods we can describe or talk about and that includes Jesus.We build religions and Gods to suit our cultures, eras, mythos.

That is great support for the very point I have been making. There was not just a number of different proposed definitions but rather no real agreement as to any single definition. The answer to who is a real Christian depends solely on what the respondent thinks is a real Christian with the only commonality being that they will tell you that THEY are a real Christian.I'm not so sure my response is jar centric as much as simply realistic. Faith will tell you that she is a Christian but the Pope is the anti-christ. The Pope will tell you that he is a Christian. GDR will tell you that he is a Christian yet also say that I am not a Christian. I believe they all all Christians and I will tell you that I am a Christian.There really is a pattern with the only commonality to identify who is a Christian being to ask the person.If we ask the person if someone else is a Christian we get a variety of answers.

But yet again you are simply misrepresenting what I believe.Since you are obviously so bad at that why do you continue trying?

That's fine nor did I say anything like that. As I pointed out in the very message you are replying to:

quote:

---

Faith will tell you that she is a Christian but the Pope is the anti-christ. The Pope will tell you that he is a Christian. GDR will tell you that he is a Christian yet also say that I am not a Christian. I believe they all all Christians and I will tell you that I am a Christian.

​

There really is a pattern with the only commonality to identify who is a Christian being to ask the person.

---

You, like Faith are free to decide someone is not beautiful even though they say they are.I cannot dictate YOUR beliefs, however I still contend that there is no way to determine if a Christian is a Christian better than asking them if they are a Christian. I tend to agree that there isn't much use for the term Christian beyond determining organizational membership.Frankly if you look at any of the characteristics that can be objectively measure there is nothing that sets Christians apart from any other demographic. They do not behave uniformly, dress uniformly, eat the same foods, live in the same neighborhood, drive the same car, subscribe to a set of common beliefs...

As I have said, I am a cradle Creedal Christian, I subscribe to those statements of Faith outlined in the Nicene Creed. I believe they are true; but I also understand that I could well be wrong and believe it is really unimportant whether they are factual or not.

Not quite.I do believe that there is a GOD and I do believe that we all will be judged based on our behavior, not our beliefs or acclamations. I also understand that as long as we are alive and perhaps even after we are dead we will not know if that is true.But I think the message that Jesus marketed (according to the stories) about how we should live our lives, this life, how we should relate to others and to the world itself is important and significant even if the stories were nothing more than tales told around the campfire.I see Christianity as the path I have chosen to follow but also understand that the Map is not the Territory. It is not the only path and certainly not the "True" path or even the "Divine" path, but rather the path I am on.As to the resurrection, that is a minor point. The ascension is far more significant and yes, I do believe that happened. But I also understand that it is a belief, not a fact.I've covered all this many times here at EvC and if you would like will happily cover and expand on it yet again for you. Please feel free to ask if you have more questions.

Really? Have you actually ever read the Nicene Creed? Would you like to point out what part of the Nicene Creed I do not believe?Too funny!

Again, you still are misrepresenting my position.Let me try again.What I have said is that Jesus while living here on the earth among us was fully human. Not part human/part god but purely and totally and only human.What I have said is that I see no real sacrifice if it is a God dying, a God being resurrected, a God ascending but the idea of a God becoming simply, fully, completely human, being born as a human child unable to focus his eyes, to feed himself, to control his bowels to even turn over by himself; becoming simply, fully, completely human with no knowledge, having to learn how to think, how to speak, how to get along with others, how to earn a living, how to put on clothes; becoming simply, fully, completely human suffering from bugs, fleas, rash, pain, hunger, doubt, fear, confusion; becoming simply, fully, completely human being whipped, sentenced to die, nailed to a cross with no assurance of resurrection other than human faith; that is a real sacrifice.What Jesus was before his birth or after the resurrection is a different issue. I believe that Jesus was God before his birth and after the resurrection but again, I really don't think that is an important part of the narrative.It is Jesus life that tells us how to behave.It is Jesus the simply, fully, completely human man that is resurrected that tells humans there can be life after death.

The Nicene Creed certainly evolved over time but there is not a Roman Catholic version and a Protestant version. The catholic in that Creed refers to universality.And yes, the Nicene Creed does state what Creedal Christians should believe.But there are also non-creedal Christians, Unitarian Christians as an example. There are also many other Creeds and Statements of Faith that apply within the framework of various Christian sects.Nor does it exclude the majority of the world's population from a pleasant afterlife.Again, this is actually covered in both the Old and New Testament in several forms and many places and recognized by many of the world's major Christian chapters.Although, unlike the UK, there is no State Church in the US, we do have a National Cathedral located in Washington Dc. It is an Episcopal Church. It also has as it's most basic tenet that it should be a place of worship for all people. Not just Episcopalians, not just the Church of England, not just Protestants, not just Trinitarians, not just Christians but all people. They hold service there under other faiths as well, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist. The movement is ecumenical.The basis for this position lies in the many examples in both the Old and New Testaments of the house of worship for all peoples and on a passage that IMHO is often misapplied from Luke 4.

quote:

---

Luke 4:22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. Isn’t this Joseph’s son? they asked.

​

23 Jesus said to them, Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’

​

24 Truly I tell you, he continued, no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy[g] in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansedonly Naaman the Syrian.

​

28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

---

As most often marketed today the emphasis is placed on the "no prophet is accepted in his hometown." passage when again IMHO the important part is what follows: "25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansedonly Naaman the Syrian.In the latter passage Jesus is telling an audience of the "Chosen People" that God often chooses outside the "Chosen People" and that in God's eyes they are not more special than the non-Hebrews.No wonder the audience reacted as they did. Today is not much different. When someone suggests that Christians may not be the "Chosen People" we see a similar reaction. Again, I need a clue just what you seem to think is the fussiness over the resurrection which you prefer to finesse before I can respond.

And again, that is NOT what I say. Not quite. A Creed is a statement of Faith for some organization.What the Nicene Creed says is: [quote]Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. [/qs]Nothing in there about only Christians being judged.And while YOU might not be interested in what the Bible stories say it is highly probable that those people who fought and argued over the wording of the Nicene Creed were interested in what the Bible stories said.Edited by jar, : hit wrong key

Again, it is all in how YOU interpret what is written.I have posted the Baptismal service here in the past and certainly can post it here yet again but the important point about the Baptismal service (again speaking through the lens of the Episcopal and COE) is that it too is a statement of what the persons duties are while living here on earth.But even in the Nicene Creed you will note that the passage you are again taking out of context is a section that applies to the beliefs and procedures of the members of the Church while the whole text shows Jesus as the judge and God as the party that forgives sins.There is nothing anyone can do including being Baptized that can forgive sins in the view and doctrine of many of the major Christian sects including the Roman Catholic Church and the COE and the Episcopal church and many other chapters of Club Christian.Yes, many Chapters of Club Christian do market "once saved always saved" and "born again" and "not perfect just forgiven" and other versions of the Get Outta Hell Free Card; but I have also consistently spoke out against that position.And yes, a few centuries ago Christianity in particular was the single most intolerant force on earth. If you actually read the Bible stories though and don't just rely on quote mined passages and proof texts you can find support for the "liberal attitude that anyone can be saved".AbE: Missed this question I just covered that earlier today in Message 320.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

I don't know. I believe Jesus lived, died was resurrected (he had nothing to do with that) and ascended into heaven and that he will judge us all when we die. I don't doubt that is what you were taught but it seems most people are never really taught much about Christianity.I try to help expand their knowledge in that area. Again, I have always said that. I have constantly pointed out that all of the various religious "scripture" contain contradictions, factual errors and reflect the bias and purposes of the authors, editors, redactors and Committees of Canon.Religions, including Christianity, are a human construct.

None of that even makes any sense.The Nicene Creed is simply one of many, many Christian Statements of belief and has no relevance outside those Chapters of Club Christian that subscribe to that Statement of faith. God, I certainly hope not.Again, that just has no meaning whatsoever.

And for most of the history all four of those characteristics were not in evidence. First there was the Holy Roman Empire that was neither Holy or Roman and one body and one spirit as long as Charlemagne was alive but then various Italian bodies and spirits until Otto was crowned.By 1054 the first of the Great Schisms led to the creation of the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church with all ties between the two severed.Then there was the Avignon Papacies when the Throne of Peter and papacy were in Avignon instead of Rome. That lasted for seven popes IIRC.Then there was the Western Schism when the College of Cardinals elected multiple simultaneous Popes with three different men all claiming to be the legitimate pope.And then came the Reformation and Henry.And onward and upward to the thousands of bodies today.In fact today the vast majority of Christian sects are not Apostolic but rather claim the legitimacy of being "called".