For popular or very good threads
I liked the analysis. Didn't get at first what phrase you were referring to until I reread your title.

Another point I get from reading your passage is to see how easy divides can start which probably explains why we have so many different Christian denominations out there. At least in this case we had a central figure in Paul that tried to keep things together, but I think later on there wasn't any more like him to keep things together and different denominations started.
I think your comment perhaps inadvertently exposes the fragility of the Christian narrative—not as a unified divine truth, but as a socially managed construct that required central authority figures (like Paul) to keep it from fragmenting.

This observation aligns seamlessly with the idea of Christianity as a Useful Fiction—a system that depends on institutional control to maintain coherence. When figures like Paul were no longer around to enforce a singular interpretation, the fiction naturally began to splinter into multiple denominations, each interpreting the story to fit their own needs.

This begs the question: If Christianity were truly divine in origin, why would it require continuous human intervention to keep its doctrine from falling apart? Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful God allow His "one true message" to be interpreted in thousands of conflicting ways—all supposedly inspired by the same Holy Spirit?

The reality is, the moment Paul/Rome ceased to be a unifying force, Christianity began to fracture along human lines, not divine ones. That’s exactly what we would expect if Christianity were not the revealed truth of an omniscient deity, but rather a socially engineered belief system maintained through political influence, doctrinal control, and strategic adaptation—all hallmarks of Useful Fiction.

Re "Useful Fiction" I am also arguing this HERE - so feel free to take a peek and use whatever quotes you want to, here in this thread.
 
  • Exceptional post!
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
This is a classic authoritarian reinforcement technique.
That was a good theory. I'm open to God being involved although your explanation sounds very reasonable. I'm sure there's evidence of your explanation taking place. Even some Christians would admit to that when it comes to other religions or even non-mainstream Christian denoms that are still flourishing, like Mormonism.

It is a good theory. (Present tense). I certainly have no closeness to a "God" being involved provided we don't misstate whatever it is we are meaning by using the word.

For me this involves the necessity of Mindfulness + Creativity and of course "invisibility" (but not necessarily immaterial in nature).

And if I can communicate with this Mindfully creative "Ghost" of a "thing" - given my lowly station (being in the human experience primarily) I best not presume that "God" is anything short of hearing it from its own mindfulness of its own self.

Nor do I necessarily think that the Bible doesn't contain snippets of such mindfulness weaved into the overall fabric of that or any other religion planted and watered by human intervention.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
I believe that was Paul's intent. Paul wanted to remove attention from human activity and turn the spotlight on God. As a preacher of the Gospel, I completely understand Paul's motivation. Unfortunately, there are men today who are in the ministry who want the glory for what the Lord is doing. I realize that while God uses me and works through me, He does not need me. He could just as easily work through someone else. So regardless of what is accomplished through my ministry (planting or watering) God gets the glory because He is the force behind any good that I do. That was the message Paul was giving to the Corinthians. While he planted and Apollos watered, it was God who brought forth the fruit of the Gospel. So, neither Paul, Apollos nor any other man (myself included) should stand in the glory that belongs to God.

What happens when we shift focus from divine agency to the structure of the system itself?
Then you are moving the spotlight from the Creator to the created and are guilty of the same thing the Corinthians were doing.

I believe your explanation here is theologically sound. It is the message that Paul was trying to get across. He explains his role, that of Apollos, and God's role.

What William and I have brought up is an issue beyond that involves questioning if God is really involved and if such reinforcing, such as what Paul did to squash the divisions in Corinthians would hold up. Personally, I'm entirely open to the idea that God may very well be involved but the number of different Christian denominations out there doesn't look good.
 
This begs the question: If Christianity were truly divine in origin, why would it require continuous human intervention to keep its doctrine from falling apart? Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful God allow His "one true message" to be interpreted in thousands of conflicting ways—all supposedly inspired by the same Holy Spirit?
God's one true message has remained intact for over two thousand years: Man is sinful, but Jesus took our sins upon Himself and died as our substitute. The only way to Heaven is by faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The Gospel has not changed since it was first preached. There are divisions over minor topics such as can a divorced man be a pastor or not; Is speaking in tongues required; Is water baptism necessary? These debates have existed since the foundation of the church. Any time man is involved in something we complicate it and eventually screw it up. Communication has always been poorly practiced by most people. So, the issue is not with the Gospel, God's one true message, but with man's interpretation and application of that message. This is why I am part of the Baptist denomination. I just feel we align closer to the doctrines of the Bible. But that does not mean I hold animosity toward the Church of God, 7th Day Adventists, Pentecostals or any other denomination. We just differ over the minors. As Augustine is claimed to have said "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity."
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
724
In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.

This isn’t about thoughts and language. This is about behaviors and actions.

There is no limit to personal improvement – perfection is a relative ideal

Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail

Exploring the Relationship Between the Mind-Field, Jesus, and Superheroes

The above are phrases which coincide with each other under the same number value. Make of them what you will.

Re your post. The claim is "God's one true message has remained intact for over two thousand years: Man is sinful, but Jesus took our sins upon Himself and died as our substitute. "

Should actually read "Christianity's claim as to what "God" and the "one true message" claim has remained intact for over two thousand years because is has been a Useful Fiction - to proclaim that Man is sinful, but Jesus took our sins upon Himself and died as our substitute."

Christianity was primed for institutionalization because:
It demands obedience to a central authority.
It structures its teachings around hierarchy.
It preaches submission to rulers

There is a better Useful Fiction than Christianity alone...
 
Re your post. The claim is "God's one true message has remained intact for over two thousand years: Man is sinful, but Jesus took our sins upon Himself and died as our substitute. "

Should actually read "Christianity's claim as to what "God" and the "one true message" claim has remained intact for over two thousand years because is has been a Useful Fiction - to proclaim that Man is sinful, but Jesus took our sins upon Himself and died as our substitute."
I’m sorry, that may be your opinion, and you are welcome to whatever opinion you desire, but you do not have the privilege of rewriting the Gospel. The good news is the good news whether you like it or not. The Gospel remains the good news of God’s redemption of mankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ at Calvary.
 
Re your post. The claim is "God's one true message has remained intact for over two thousand years: Man is sinful, but Jesus took our sins upon Himself and died as our substitute. "

Should actually read "Christianity's claim as to what "God" and the "one true message" claim has remained intact for over two thousand years because is has been a Useful Fiction - to proclaim that Man is sinful, but Jesus took our sins upon Himself and died as our substitute."
I’m sorry, that may be your opinion, and you are welcome to whatever opinion you desire, but you do not have the privilege of rewriting the Gospel. The good news is the good news whether you like it or not. The Gospel remains the good news of God’s redemption of mankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ at Calvary.
Actually I think I do unless you are arguing that this forum allows for the canon of the Bible to be considered authoritative with respect to the historical consensus of the canon's content.

Since you have chosen to project your beliefs in this forum, any claim you present which is based upon the opinion of Christian belief is open to critique and any critique should be treated accordingly rather than dismissed on the grounds of personal belief.
 
Re your post. The claim is "God's one true message has remained intact for over two thousand years: Man is sinful, but Jesus took our sins upon Himself and died as our substitute. "

Should actually read "Christianity's claim as to what "God" and the "one true message" claim has remained intact for over two thousand years because is has been a Useful Fiction - to proclaim that Man is sinful, but Jesus took our sins upon Himself and died as our substitute."
I’m sorry, that may be your opinion, and you are welcome to whatever opinion you desire, but you do not have the privilege of rewriting the Gospel. The good news is the good news whether you like it or not. The Gospel remains the good news of God’s redemption of mankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ at Calvary.
Actually I think I do unless you are arguing that this forum allows for the canon of the Bible to be considered authoritative with respect to the historical consensus of the canon's content.

Since you have chosen to project your beliefs in this forum, any claim you present which is based upon the opinion of Christian belief is open to critique and any critique should be treated accordingly rather than dismissed on the grounds of personal belief.
Hahaha…so you feel qualified and privileged enough to rewrite the Gospel as a nonbeliever?….hahaha. Well, good luck with that. Just know that as an actual practicing Christian and preacher of the Gospel I will always proclaim the true message.
 
@Scooter and @William

The Bible is considered authoritative in this forum section (Christianity section 1), so questioning its validity or getting into points that would require going beyond what the Bible/theology says would be against the guidelines here. I apologize to Scooter for contributing to questioning the Bible. One exception would be questioning some part of the Bible's message based on another part of the Bible's message/theology.

The Christianity Section 2 forum is the best place to question Christianity since the Bible is not considered authoritative in that section.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scooter