mrunicycler

I don't mean to argue over your experiences, and don't mean to imply that they aren't a valid reference for you to base your own beliefs on, but if you mean to say that the primary focus of the vast majority of christian churches isn't to get money, I think that your experiences would be in the minority.

I've never been to a church, or listened to church radio, without hearing them ask for money and demanding that their followers act in various ways, nor have I encountered any apostates who wouldn't remark on the phenomena. My father is a prime example. He's a 'devout' catholic ('devout' because he's one of those who believes he should believe, but has never read the bible) who quit going to church because he couldn't find one that didn't continue asking for money in every sermon. He was a giver, but didn't like that they tried to guilt him into giving more...and more...and more.

Each pastor/priest/radiangelist has entire sermons devoted to why their listeners should give money.

If money isn't their primary motivation, then they need to focus on it less, IMO.

Solitary Man

Ah, yes, of course, businesses should focus less on money and focus more on bankruptcy, right?

mrunicycler

I'm not sure what you mean here.

If you mean to say that the church is a business and should be treated as such, then I agree.

But if you're saying that, like a business, a church has every right to ask for money, I disagree to the extent that businesses are open about their agenda and pay taxes on their income, whereas churches are extremely disingenuous, claiming the giving and taking of money is to save the person's soul, or for the good of god, or some other bs that demands that the followers yield their better judgment to the church.

Meanwhile, people like Oral Roberts live like kings off the fat of the people oppress.

Perhaps, I would feel better about the money aspect of religion if churches in general showed a modicum of honesty about how much money they get and where that money goes, and if the leaders of the largest organizations didn't time and time again prove to be frauds.

Also, they would have to stop swindling money from the people who can least afford to give it.

Solitary Man

Sure, but those are different issues than the one you brought up.

Solitary Man

Please define propaganda and show how the early oral traditions were such.

I disagree. The attestation of Josephus, both in Greek and Arabic, and in Jerome, as well as synoptic with Tacitus and Luke (and so far the only thing I've seen to be rebutting this is handwaving, typical of those with the assumed belief that Jesus never existed).

I also find it funny that you say religious texts as if it were a genre, when clearly the religious texts are religious because they were chosen for canon. Much of the New Testament is political rather than religious, and there is no solid demarcation of religion and non-religion in the ancient world.

This is a misunderstanding of what tradition is in a largely oral society. Things get exaggerated based on certain principles, but not largely as pure propaganda. That instead happens with more power.

I think you're conflating concepts here. If I understand where you're going and your premise for this, then even what you're presenting is "propaganda". You're abusing the term so much as to make it lose all its meaning.

That Jesus never existed is by no means "truth".

mrunicycler

I forgot to add, in the post that this is referencing, the most important distinction between a business and a church.

Businesses take money for services or products rendered.

Churches take money, but offer nothing in return.

spamandham

What oral tradition are you referring to?

mrunicycler

From dictionary.com:
How could they not have been spreading propaganda?

To the extent that propaganda has a negative connation, they upheld that distinction by claiming miracles in order to confound the early believers and swindle them out of money and goods, the same as churches had done previously to them, and the same as they do now.

To say otherwise is to claim that miracles happen (something that you would have to prove) and that the early tradition-spreaders weren’t lying about their miracles in order to get money from, and power over, the gullible.

If you choose to accept documents whose validity is highly questionable, there is nothing I can do to convince you of the falsity of their claims. I’ll repeat, however, they were not contemporary with jesus, they didn’t write about him during his lifetime, and their sources were the very book (the bible NT) we’re questioning, and so their use as evidence of that book (the bible) circular and invalid.

This is not clear at all. Texts can be considered religious that were not chosen for canon (from dictionary.com, again: 1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.) by people who follow them. What determines a text’s religiosity is the belief of the texts followers, not whether or not a later council decided to include it in their bible.

Have I disputed this?


Again, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word propaganda. Any group spreading its beliefs is spreading propaganda.

And again, the people who came later may or not have had shady intentions—it’s possible they believed what they wrote and said, and were truly hoping (as many gullible people are today) to save the souls of the non-believers.
But the earliest one, the ones who first fabricated the myths, must have had a reason for creating this classic period scheme. To think that their reasons were pure is naïve, when the church clearly has always been about money and power.

Again, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word. I am deliberately spreading ideas that I hold (at least in this forum), and so, by definition, it is propaganda.

However, insofar as the word has negative connotations, I escape this. I am not asking for you to tithe to me, I’m not asking for you to deliver to me your judgment so that I can make your decisions for you--as the churches do.

I’m talking about what I know to be true, hoping that people will come to agree with me, and not going to get any remuneration for my time other than the satisfaction of having stood my ground in the face of people’s beliefs.

If you have proof, or further evidence other than the bible and related texts, that jesus existed, by all means, offer it up.

However, you’ll have to do better than people who wrote scores of years after his alleged death, who did nothing more than write about things that they’d read and heard about from believers, or writings whose authenticity is questioned by the majority of true scholars.

Solitary Man

That's simply untrue. Mega churches in particular have many amenities akin to a "community center", like pools and gyms and offer services like daycare, bible study, and consolation of the soul. Many people truly want to live after death, and the church promises them this, thus they are more content to live day through day.

Even the smaller churches can offer the latter services.

Solitary Man

My OED is already packed away, but let's look at this more carefully:

From answers.com

The key points are systematic progagation (spreading out systematically) and doctrine or cause. The second definition is merely the material stemming out of the first. If someone saw something, and they told their neighbor what they saw, is that propaganda? I don't see how, since it's not systematic. If that person published en masse large tractates pushing Jesus Christ as the one and only savior, that would be propaganda.

Most people (i.e. the people using the word in order to get our definition in the first place) do not associate the word propaganda with ordinary information sharing.