The Marketing Of Christianity

It isn't a question of chance "over" certainty. If there is ANY chance of something happening, no matter how small that chance is, then it is certain that it WILL happen, given enough time. You don't need a miracle to roll a seven; you just have to roll the dice until it happens.

No he didn't. He didn't "explain" it at all. He just repeated the same old tired platitudes. If he thought a thousand to one was poor odds, he was ignorant of mathematics.

I'm not trying to score points. I'm just trying to get you to think about what you say. I've read The Screwtape Letters and seen the movie version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Lewis writes a pretty good fantasy but I avoid apologetics and "inspirational" claptrap no matter who wrote it. According to what you've quoted, Lewis often didn't know what he was talking about. Who's he?Edited by ringo, : Thpelling.

quote:

---

Tonight the Great Pumpkin will rise out of the pumpkin patch. He flies through the air and brings toys to all the children of the world. ~ Linus Van Pelt

---

If that quote attributed to Linus Van Pelt is correct, how would you know?And what does that have to do with chance?

Don't confuse "accurate" with "correct". Accurate means he really did say that. Correct means he knew what the hell he was talking about. Buddha may have actually said what you quoted and he may have actually believed it but that doesn't make it true. On the other hand, we know that impersonal and random things do happen. But we do not know about any spook that's guiding things. THAT is the belief, so it might be false. What we KNOW is not false. I don't think anybody disputes that there are consequences to our actions. Where Buddha descends into empty belief is in carrying the consequences over from generation to generation. Essentially, he reduces the responsibility of the following generations. That is in the vicinity of Original Sin.

So he saw himself as God's customer service representative. Keeping your existing customers happy is just as important as getting new customers.

You're taking words like "marketing" and "customer" too literally. Religion may not (always) be a cash-for-service transaction but stop and think: What really is the difference between "sharing your testimony" and selling a vacuum cleaner? He was in it for growing an organization, or a movement wasn't he? Doesn't the Red Cross market itself? Doesn't the YMCA market itself? Doesn't the Ku Klux Klan market itself? Even if the goal isn't cash, it's still marketing. We don't need to spread that message. It's innate. What we need to spread is the message that religion shouldn't prevent us from doing the right thing. That was Jesus' message to the Pharisees: Follow the spirit of the law instead of the letter; do the right thing even on the Sabbath. Customer service. What Microsoft is selling isn't really the software itself; it's tips on how to get around the bugs in the software.

Or orcs and hobbits. Or anything else that has no real effect on our lives.

Just a nitpick: According to Genesis 2-3, God didn't want us to have the knowledge of good and evil. We acquired it against His will. If He wants us to infect the world with it, that's Plan B.

Nobody who reads the gospels objectively is going to reach that conclusion. The resurrection is one of the red flags that tells us the story is fiction. Like the talking snake in Genesis, you might as well have a flashing neon sign to tell you not to take it literally.

Well, objective reading and critical thinking are pretty much hand-in-glove.I'm saying that people who read objectively are not going to conclude that the resurrection is real because objectively resurrections don't happen. It may be possible for theists to read objectively in some cases but if they conclude that the resurrection is real, they're not. Yes, exactly, in every case. That's what I said. What's your objection? I didn't say it does. I said that belief without evidence is not objective. Why are you guys so in love with objectivity that you want to claim you have it when you don't? That applies to believers too.

You didn't ask a question. You made an assumption and I pointed out why that assumption can only lead to nonsensical conclusions. That isn't objectivity.

I'm the first one to say that you can't be objective all by yourself - i.e. objectivity requires consensus. But consensus doesn't necessarily add up to objectivity. If you add subjective beliefs, you just get a bigger pile of subjective. And in the case of Christianity, the consensus against is far bigger than the consensus for.

Objectivity requires setting aside your biases and no human being can do that reliably. You may stumble on "the right answer" by yourself. You may convince yourself that you're being objective. But until somebody else looks at your process, you shouldn't be sure you're being objective.

Don't confuse "objective" with "true". Objectivity is about the process, not the result. It can but it seldom does. The fools are more likely to be the lone wolves.My point being, again, that you shouldn't try to fool yourself into thinking you're "being objective" all by yourself. Asking your peers for confirmation is almost a required step in the objective process.