The Marketing Of Christianity

In addition the concept of the TRINITY evolved over time and only entered the dogma long after Jesus died. Even in the first version of the Nicene creed it was missing and the major value of the trinitarian position was always political rather than a matter of faith. I served to eliminate certain theological parties.

I'm saying being born again as practiced in much of today's Christianity is simply a worthless and pointless con game. I am saying "dramatic transformations" are worthless and meaning less unless demonstrated not by the dramatics but rather the simple minor day to day acts; putting carts back in the rack in the grocery store parking lot, holding the door for someone burdened, reaching for a box on a shelf another cannot reach, smiling at strangers, kneeling down so you are at eye level with the five year old, putting the neighbors trashcan away for them, picking up trash off the street, buying Girl Scout cookies even though you really hate them and will give them away, keeping a baggie with water and quickwipes and breakfast bars and candy and a few dollars in your car to give to beggers... . It is the little things not the dramatic things that make a difference. And I would say that is simply bullshit and and bumper sticker propaganda.Can people change? Sure but the only way to tell if someone has changed is by their behavior. And the only way to change is for the person to make the change. I was a smoker for over a half century but three years ago I stopped smoking, not because I was told to stop smoking, not because I worried about what smoking was doing to me or others, not because I wanted to stop smoking, rather I just stopped smoking. BUT it is only after going three years without smoking that I even think about it. Nothing dramatic; just a change. If it makes YOU feel good to make that claim then go for it, but exactly how can you determine from results whether the person doing the act did it because they were transformed (what ever that word salad means) or simply to help another? Does it make any difference to the person helped? Does it matter whether the helper is eager or not? If the Lord loves a joyful giver does the Lord not also love the giver even if not all that joyful?When I see stuff like "transformed vessels" or "born again" or "liberal humanitarian" or "do-gooder" or "taking up a cause" my BullShit detector pegs the needle. Those are simply patent phrases of the Cultural Conservative Christian snake oil salesmen.The Bible says it in both the New and Old Testament. Jesus' parables are all about it. It ain't what you say, it ain't what you believe, it is what you do that indicates who you are and what you are.The first step for Christians to begin following the Gospel is to throw God and Jesus away. Don't pray for them to transform you, to make you want to do stuff, change yourself. Just do it. Concentrate on Jesus life and on this life and let the next life take care of itself.

As you say, when asked the most common answer is "I just know!" Well to be honest, that says nothing and has no more worth or value than saying "I want a PB&J."I have not said no one can ever know such things, I have said no one has ever shown any way that someone could know such things.Can you tell me how you can know you are communing with God and not a bad burrito? What are the tests? How can you tell there is any communing and not just MASTERbation?

Read your quote.Nowhere in that quote does C.S. Lewis suggest or say that is communing with God but rather what I call Jesus message, the calling, that we are compelled to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, protect the helpless...That Moral Law, the charge to do for others is entirely independent of spiritual beliefs and can be found in Christians and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and atheists and agnostics and Satanists and Taoists and Shintoists and animists and pagans and garments and ancestors.That is entirely different than communing with God.So once again, how does someone know they are communing with God?

There is a very high probability that many peoples certainty is just wishful thinking.

The fruit of the Tree was the knowledge of Good but also Evil.

Simon Greenleaf is a great example of "Biblical Christian Freedom from Truth" as he is often mentioned in the fantasy where as an atheist he is challenged by a student to actually look at the evidence and does and gets "Born Again" as a Christian.Well the facts as usual are slightly different. He was born into a Christian Family and was raised as a Christian. He was a Christian Apologist and as a lawyer used legal processes as a basis for a book he wrote. He did not found Harvard Law school as claimed by many current Christian liars but did help it expand. Remember that while Harvard was never formally affiliated with one denomination it was a primary training college for the Puritan Unitarian and Congregationalist denominations.It's interesting to note that one of the driving forces towards creation of the college was outlined in an early publication as "to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity, dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches when our present ministers shall lie in the dust".Simon Greenleaf came along a century or two after Harvard had moved away from its strongly Puritan flavor but after Harvard Divinity School was formally created.

And you do understand that legal standing is entirely different than scientific standing?

And he was using the legal tests as they would have been applied at the time.You do understand that?

Greenleaf's conclusions are not really as great an issue as his methodology. Even in a court of law Greenleaf's arguments would not stand up to examination today. Yet the details in the stories as in much of the Bible do contradict each other and are mutually exclusive. In addition many stories (Paul's encounter, the Great Commission, the immediate aftermath of Jesus death) also show classic signs of embellishment and evolution as retold and manipulation as they are presented to different audiences. But the Nicene Creed makes no statements of fact and does not even address the issue of factuality; it is simply a statement of belief. But what does that have to do with anything more than you having a limited exposure?

Well the vast majority of people believe no Messiah is needed.

Yet I have nothing to market to atheists. If there is a group I try to reach it is Christians not any other demographic; it is how Christianity is marketed that I consider incorrect and harmful.

Again, Phat, that's not really the case except for the very early church. It was Christianity becoming a State Religion with membership offering economic, political and power advantages that spread and grew the Christian Church and the Church was not spread based on truth but rather force.Christianity grew by soldiers killing all the priests of the other faiths and wiping out any signs of a different religion, by adopting those events that were popular and re-branding them as Christian, by requiring membership in a particular chapter to engage in commerce and by physically expelling and taking all the possessions of members of other religions.Christianity before becoming a State Religion was never more than a tiny irrelevant fringe cult.

And I would ask if that really has any meaning or was just word salad? I consider that a meaningless assertion; just plain silly.

I usually just kinda laugh when that nonsense comes up. Actually even before Constantine Christianity was tolerated by Rome. It was only when the Christians made it an issue, at the times when Roman was going through their Emperor rotation period with some down right crazy tyrants that Christianity was outlawed, far less than any 300 year period. And yes, Roman did go in for blood sports to keep the masses happy, but it was not just Christians that were used.Christianity, the tiny sects that were early Christianity were spread by individual marketers like Paul but it was a loose organization of a few small bands of folk in a few locations. And of course I have answered you many, many times. I explained that I am a Cradle Creedal Christian and a member of a recognized chapter of Club Christian and believe in those statements of belief outlined in the Creeds. That distinguishes me from being a Buddhist.But I also understand that belief and fact are not synonymous. I m also pretty sure that GOD, not that caricature we worship but the real thing will not be anything like what we talk about and not "good". GOD, if GOD really exists will be complete, not just good or bad or male or female. Complete.