A Comment on Daniel McClellan's On Going Social Media Efforts

[Secret Alias]

I really like his spotlight on crazy theories about the Bible. He's very good at what he does. He even tries to avoid humiliating the influencers which is great. But I think they are killing the spread of religion even inadvertently. Religion is supposed to be stupid. I am not sure that Christianity expected everyone to be a textual critic. As one noted critic said:

Whenever these venerable concept idolators revere something, they kill it and stuff it; they suck the life out of everything they worship. Death, change, old age, as well as procreation and growth, are to their minds objections — even refutations. Whatever has being does not become; whatever becomes does not have being.

Maybe these idiots on social media are idiots. But maybe religion needs idiots to survive. Maybe this is what Paul meant by "for there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Did he or whatever "apostles" people imagine existed in antiquity really expect to raise scholars to save the religion of Christianity. Maybe Christians were supposed to be like social media influencers.

Like the retarded monkeys randomly hitting keyboards on this forum, maybe Paul expected numbskulls to be the bread and butter of Christianity.

[StephenGoranson]

Without a link or quote or reference, your personal reactions are mere self-important diary notes.

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus tells us there were these make believe apostles who wanted to keep a "canon of faith" alive and Irenaeus, late in the second century was rekindling their wish. What if he's lying? What if Paul was like the owners of Youtube, Facebook and Tiktok? What if he just wanted content?

[Peter Kirby]

Well, I never heard of someone losing their faith because of how much effort they put into celebrating at worship, how much time they spent praying, or how much they gave to the poor. So maybe you have a point?

[Secret Alias]

I am just saying what if Irenaeus's definition of Christianity is at odds with Paul's.

[Peter Kirby]

Okay I might have missed the argument then.

[Secret Alias]

Like we're trained to think that there was some point, some master plan behind Paul. What if he just created a platform for content Creator's. What if there was no religion?

[Secret Alias]

Why did someone have to invent the Pastorals where Paul is this rule maker if the historical Paul was already this rule maker? Maybe he was looking for answers as much as everyone else.

[Peter Kirby]

Sure, ok, the hints on Paul's "opponents" can suggest diversity.

[Peter Kirby]

You may be rediscovering a widely accepted idea here?