Christian Writers Please read

[CowboyPride]

Afternoon everyone,

I've been in hiatus over my writings and wondering how any other Christian writers deal with conflicts of faith. I want to write erotica and I have a good amount of stuff I have written since I posted my first story back in 2005-06 while I was in college. When I wrote that story I thought I was gay, forward to present and I have now figured out that I am bi.

I have a lot of stories that I have written but not published out of conflicts with my inner conciseness. While most Christian writers will say just write stories about consensual married sex that would be inline with faith but I like to write much more then that.

Is there anyone else here who as struggled with the publish, don't publish demons?

Since the first story I published back in college I have written many more but currently wanting to publish them but holding back.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

My first question would be what style of Christianity you believe. For a Fundie, writing erotica is a real problem. Those of us whose beliefs are more mainstream consider it a very minor offense, if any offense at all. Think hard, with a universe fifteen billion years old containing galaxies with billions of stars each and the planets surrounding them, can God really care about something so trivial as your sexual daydreams? Go back and look really hard. There is not one single word in the New Testament about the sexuality of unmarried people, not one! Worth a ponder, no?

 

[Pure]

note to voluptuary

voluptThere is not one single word in the New Testament about the sexuality of unmarried people, not one! Worth a ponder, no?

no. you forget or overlook multiple passages.

hence the OP's question is entirely valid. if it's agreed that porn writing advertizes or leads to anything beyond jerking off, outside of marriage, it's questionable in traditional mainstream xianity.

KJV mentions 'fornication' multiple times, and the newer translantion, 'sexual immorality' is broad enough to include fornication in the narrow sense. the Gr. term is porneia

-- And so Paul warned them to "Flee fornication" (KJV) - 1Co 6:18

"18": Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.

http://executableoutlines.com/1cor/1co6_18.htm
I. DEFINITION OF FORNICATION

A. GENERAL TERM...
1. The Greek word translated fornication (KJV), sexual immorality (NKJV) is porneia

2. "Used generally to refer to any sexual sin" - The Complete WordStudy Dictionary

3. Thus it includes any form of "illicit sexual intercourse - adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, etc." - Thayer
--
I Cor 7:2
"2": Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Mark 7:21 [also Matt 15:19]
"21": For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

I Thessalonians, 4:3
"3": For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

Romans, 1:29

 

[voluptuary_manque]

voluptThere is not one single word in the New Testament about the sexuality of unmarried people, not one! Worth a ponder, no?

no. you forget or overlook multiple passages.

hence the OP's question is entirely valid. if it's agreed that porn writing advertizes or leads to anything beyond jerking off, outside of marriage, it's questionable in traditional mainstream xianity.

KJV mentions 'fornication' multiple times, and the newer translantion, 'sexual immorality' is broad enough to include fornication in the narrow sense. the Gr. term is porneia

-- And so Paul warned them to "Flee fornication" (KJV) - 1Co 6:18

"18": Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.

http://executableoutlines.com/1cor/1co6_18.htm
I. DEFINITION OF FORNICATION

A. GENERAL TERM...
1. The Greek word translated fornication (KJV), sexual immorality (NKJV) is porneia

2. "Used generally to refer to any sexual sin" - The Complete WordStudy Dictionary

3. Thus it includes any form of "illicit sexual intercourse - adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, etc." - Thayer
--
I Cor 7:2
"2": Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Mark 7:21 [also Matt 15:19]
"21": For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

I Thessalonians, 4:3
"3": For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

Romans, 1:29
"3": For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

I disagree. I believe that the newer translations read that word to mean adultery. The KJV's Greek is 500 years old. We've learned a lot in the intervening centuries, especially since 1976 when a treasure trove of Koine Greek documents allowed for a much more nuanced translation to be made. The KJV is wonderful poetry but theologically it has many gaps.

 

[Pure]

reply

[one of pure's quotations from NT, re 'fornication']
Mark 7:21 [also Matt 15:19]
"21": For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
===

[...]
voluptI disagree. I believe that the newer translations read that word to mean adultery. The KJV's Greek is 500 years old. We've learned a lot in the intervening centuries, especially since 1976 when a treasure trove of Koine Greek documents allowed for a much more nuanced translation to be made. The KJV is wonderful poetry but theologically it has many gaps.

i'm sorry, you're simply mistaken. the list at Mark 7:21, in New Revised Standard [1990] reads

For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intention come,
fornication [porneiai], thefts, murders, and adulteries [mocheiai]


the presence of both items on the list, as well as the commonly accepted meaning of the terms, suggests that fornication/sexual-immorality is not merely adultery.

you have no sources, quotations, or references in favor of your proposal. Perhaps you're confusing the New Testament of Literotica-- Munoo, 2:3: for adults, if it feels good and harms no one, do it--

and the Christian Scriptures.

lack of concern [rules] for the behavior of the unmarried is a 20th century doctrine, from the liberal wing of Xianity, one that has departed from close adherence to scripture.

 

[Pure]

note to cowboy

cowboy
I have a lot of stories that I have written but not published out of conflicts with my inner conciseness [=conscience?]. While most Christian writers will say just write stories about consensual married sex that would be inline with faith but I like to write much more then that.

i think you're overlooking a basic distinction: writing about 'sins' or immoralities has long been done by xian writers. from Shakespeare to Nathaniel Hawthorne [Scarlet Letter] to Graham Greene--they have written about adultery and murder, and lots of other nasty things.

i think what you're talking about, is Literotica style, pornographic writings on certain events which tend to dramatize them in a positive way; writings which apparently are--because of the explicit detail-- aimed at evoking the sexual reactions of the readers. it's too much to say this is 'advocacy,' but it's certainly, in general, putting some acts in a positive light, or failing to indicate anything negative as regards to consequences, conscience, etc.

i know of no reason to say that any topic or type of act is outside of what may be treated in a serious way, by a xian writer. but if you simply want to exploit a topic and have your readers jerk to it, maybe there is cause for concern, or searching the conscience. if i may use an analogy, you're in the same situation as the designers of Grand Theft Auto, for murder and violence.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Actually I do have a reference. Try The Source New Testament by Dr. Ann Nyland, an internationally acclaimed Greek scholar out of Australia. Also Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality by John Boswell. Unfortunately, I don't read Greek myself so I can only defer to those scholars whose reputation is well established.

Carry on.

 

[Pure]

Actually I do have a reference. Try The Source New Testament by Dr. Ann Nyland, an internationally acclaimed Greek scholar out of Australia. Also Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality by John Boswell. Unfortunately, I don't read Greek myself so I can only defer to those scholars whose reputation is well established.

well, would you be so kind as to quote them, as to the points at issue?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Some other night. First I'll have to dig through a pile of books and then find the relevant passages. That might take some time. I will make an effort.

 

[TE999]

Listen cowboy, the Big Guy gave you the ability to express yourself through words, He didn't say you can only write nursery rhymes and 'nice' stories...go for it. He's busy checkin' on those sparrows anyway and prolly won't notice.

 

[driphoney]

Listen cowboy, the Big Guy gave you the ability to express yourself through words, He didn't say you can only write nursery rhymes and 'nice' stories...go for it. He's busy checkin' on those sparrows anyway and prolly won't notice.

You know enough to be dangerous!

 

[Pure]

further examples

volupt There is not one single word in the New Testament about the sexuality of unmarried people, not one! Worth a ponder, no?

Paul's famous advice to the unmarried, in 1 Corinthians.

7:8
To the unmarried and the widows i say that it is well fo rthem to remain unmarried as i am. But if they are not practicing self control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. (NRSV)

earlier, as to prostitutes:

6:13-16
the body is not meant for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. ...Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should i therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never. ... whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her....

this concern with lust, including among the unmarried, is not simply Paul's 'thing', imo. it echoes the famous passage of Matthew


Matt 5:27-8 You have heard it said, 'You shall not commit adultery'. But i say to you that every man who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her, in his heart.

it's hard to construe such a passage as a license to entertain all manner of 'harmless' fantasies.

===

Note: i'm generally far more in sympathy with xian liberals. i agree with them that it's possible to place to much emphasis on Paul's views of sexuality, its dangers and its controls, though Paul is of course a major piece of the NT. the Gospels' views of sexual ethics, while not so liberal as you (Volup) suggest, certainly give them a significant place in righteous conduct, though not perhaps the core, as some zealots have suggested.

i am just trying in these posts to be accurate about the mainstream of xianity, as represented in the Catholic and Baptist churches, not to deify the exact wording of scriptures.

 

[DeeZire]

A common trait among Christians seems to be picking and choosing passages from the Bible that support their lifestyle, and ignoring passages that don't. Slavery comes to mind.

Looking at it another way, if you want to be true to yourself, you need to consider whether or not your religious beliefs allow you to do so. For example, if I was gay, I wouldn't join a church that doesn't accept gays. If I believed in the equality of the sexes, I wouldn't join a church that doesn't allow women the same rights it allows men.

I think the purpose of religion is to enrich your life. If it's having the opposite affect, perhaps it's time to research other denominations.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Personally, I don't see how you can justify writing perverse porn and publishing it, and claim Christian morality. Really. If adultery and general fornication are sins in your belief system, then you're going to have to accept that.

On the other hand, you might find some support and sunshine in this thread; http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=310134

And on the gripping hand, it might be time for you to rethink your philosophy.

 

[ishtat]

I don't particularly want to buy into this argument save to make one or two perhaps tangential observations.

1 Pure is on tricky ground quoting St Paul because the later gospels attributed to him almost certainly were not written by him and regularly contradict his earlier work particularly with respect to women and authority.

2 Outside of Mark and to a lesser extent Matthew the whole of the NT is essentially propaganda for the Pauline and later the claimants of the Pauline view. They are almost silent on Jesus' (ethical) teachings.

3 VM says the KVJ is theologically unsound. It would be more accurate to say that it is simply an appallingly bad translation. In particular it relied on Erasmus' Greek translation which in itself relied on a bad 12th century translation from a Latin text not the Greek original.

4 I can read biblical Greek, not that well but well enough to realise that the Greek of NT times was much more nuanced than its translations into Latin and later English. Dogmatic interpretations are primarily a product of Western Europe and America and much of that is attributable(I think) to the nature of the languages employed.

5 Ann Nyland is as well known in OZ for endurance riding as Greek scholarship. Her point of view is interesting and she likes to stir up orthodox thinkers as the author of the Gay and Lesbian Study Bible. Her work is sound but can be reasonably argued with.

http://gayandlesbianbible.com

6 A parable for Cowboy Pride:

God said to Adam "If you eat the fruit you will surely die"

The Serpent said "If you eat the fruit you will gain great knowledge"

Adam lived, he gained great knowledge. The Serpent told the truth, God was a liar.

Do we rip into God for being a liar , No. We let the priests rip into us for disobeying his lie.

Conclusion ??.

 

[sr71plt]

You forgot to mention that Stella apparently hasn't read Song of Solomon.

 

[bronzeage]

When people ask me if I am an Christian, I acknowledge that I am, with the warning, "I am not a very good one."

 

[Stella_Omega]

You forgot to mention that Stella apparently hasn't read Song of Solomon.

I got bored with the sheaves of wheat and stuff. My porn has fucking in it-- and rope and whips, clothespins and cages and orgasms.

 

[Dvision]

Normally I never post my stories because I don't want making people more lustful then they already are That is because of my christian belief.

Porn always makes somebody in the story a lust object and that contradicts to love. Sexuality is also something personal.

I write because of feelings of lust but I also see that some of my stories deliberate decrease women in their value. For me that is personal and there fore I don't publish them. I probably decrease women in their value because I have been hurt in the past and there fore I kind of take revenge in my stories. Other people who read those stories don't feel the underlaying reasons or pain.

 

[bronzeage]

I got bored with the sheaves of wheat and stuff. My porn has fucking in it-- and rope and whips, clothespins and cages and orgasms.

It depends on where you look. It lacks a few details, such as how big his cock is, and she doesn't squirt enough to soak the drapes, but it's a good outline.

Tamar took the cakes she had made and brought them to her brother Amnon in the bedroom. 11She went to him so he could eat from her hands, but Amnon grabbed her. He said, “Sister, come and have sexual relations with me.”
12Tamar said to him, “No, brother! Don’t force me! This should never be done in Israel! Don’t do this shameful thing! 13I could never get rid of my shame! And you will be like the shameful fools in Israel! Please talk with the king, and he will let you marry me.”
14But Amnon refused to listen to her. He was stronger than she was, so he forced her to have sexual relations with him. 15After that, Amnon hated Tamar. He hated her more than he had loved her before. Amnon said to her, “Get up and leave!”

 

[Stella_Omega]

It depends on where you look. It lacks a few details, such as how big his cock is, and she doesn't squirt enough to soak the drapes, but it's a good outline.

The incest crowd would mostly hate that-- they like happy ever after endings, as far as I can tell...

 

[Pure]

comments to ishtat

very interesting post, ish, with several good points. i must however demur in some details.

ishtat //1 Pure is on tricky ground quoting St Paul because the later gospels[sic] attributed to him almost certainly were not written by him and regularly contradict his earlier work particularly with respect to women and authority.// {all of ish, and only ish is in italics, here and below}

pure: After my first post #3, I quoted mostly from 1 Cor, which is generally accepted as genuine and not late. Secondarily i quoted from 1 Thess; again, early; not 'pseudoepigraphic'. Usually i used NRSV

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Pauline_Chronology.htm
---
ish //2 Outside of Mark and to a lesser extent Matthew the whole of the NT is essentially propaganda for the Pauline and later the claimants of the Pauline view. They* are almost silent on Jesus' (ethical) teachings.//

* pure's bold.

pure: About a quarter of the NT is Paul's or Pauline material, the former being the earliest NT mss. Whether that's propaganda, depends on your camp. If by "they" you include Paul's own epistles, no, i wouldn't say silent, except in respect of direct quotes. Jesus' teaching on sexual ethics are few, excepting the prohibition on divorce (found in Paul) and the injunction against lusting after a woman. Pauls covers more topics in that area, possibly because he was giving advice to communities.

Paul is hardly silent on Jesus' general ethical teachings, their principles; the following is Paul's excellent summary:

Romans 12.
9 Let love be sincere; hate what is evil, hold on to what is good;
10 love one another with mutual affection; anticipate one another in showing honor.
11 Do not grow slack in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord.
12 Rejoice in hope, endure in affliction, persevere in prayer.
13 Contribute to the needs of the holy ones, exercise hospitality.
14 6 Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them.
15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
16 Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
18 If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.
19 Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
20 Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head."
21 Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.
----
Romans 13
8 2 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

ish //3 VM says the KVJ is theologically unsound. It would be more accurate to say that it is simply an appallingly bad translation. In particular it relied on Erasmus' Greek translation which in itself relied on a bad 12th century translation from a Latin text not the Greek original.//

pure: Your points about KJV are well taken; my first post used it, for convenience only. I have used modern translations in all subsequent posts, and the points about fornication remain.

=
A main claim in this thread is Volupt's

VM: //There is not one single word in the New Testament about the sexuality of unmarried people, not one! Worth a ponder, no?//

i've amply demonstrated that this is incorrect. perhaps it would be fine, in the view of some, if every single adult could righteously fuck every other one in every orifice with the clothepins on the nipples as Stella proposes. i'm not commenting on that view; but let's be clear it is not OT or NT or mainstream xian teaching (as Stella agrees). unfortunately here, liberals like Volupt make exactly the error of their "fundie" opponents-- reading their views into the texts.

The OP asked about writing porn and being xian. I have no proposals to offer, here, about making pictures or texts to incite, or how often it's healthy to jerk off to them; or who's to fuck whom. Let each do as he or she considers proper. Lacking harm, I'm for toleration. I'm simply dealing with the atttempt by volupt and TE to put a mantle of xianity around wholesale fuckfest; it doesn't fit. (the post by dvision is closer to the mark, IMO).

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Normally I never post my stories because I don't want making people more lustful then they already are That is because of my christian belief.

Porn always makes somebody in the story a lust object and that contradicts to love. Sexuality is also something personal.

I write because of feelings of lust but I also see that some of my stories deliberate decrease women in their value. For me that is personal and there fore I don't publish them. I probably decrease women in their value because I have been hurt in the past and there fore I kind of take revenge in my stories. Other people who read those stories don't feel the underlaying reasons or pain.

I've never really understood this "porn is demeaning to women" argument. How does the exploration of someone's sexuality and desires demean them?

Does exploring someone's athletic ability demean them because we see them as 'athletic objects'? Does concentrating on someone's artistic vision demean them because we see them only as artists? Why do we single out sexuality and treat it as something degrading and demeaning?

Sexuality is a deep and vital part of who we are as humans, and it seems to me that denying it or ignoring it is demeaning, because it denies a significant portion of our humanity.

I'm not a Christian, so from where I stand the Christian equation of with sex with evil seems just downright pathological, a Westernized version of enforced burkha-wearing. In order to believe that sex demeans a person, you have to believe that sex itself is demeaning, and there's something deeply wrong with that attitude.

 

[Verdad]

I've never really understood this "porn is demeaning to women" argument. How does the exploration of someone's sexuality and desires demean them?

Does exploring someone's athletic ability demean them because we see them as 'athletic objects'? Does concentrating on someone's artistic vision demean them because we see them only as artists? Why do we single out sexuality and treat it as something degrading and demeaning?

Sexuality is a deep and vital part of who we are as humans, and it seems to me that denying it or ignoring it is demeaning, because it denies a significant portion of our humanity.

I'm not a Christian, so from where I stand the Christian equation of with sex with evil seems just downright pathological, a Westernized version of enforced burkha-wearing. In order to believe that sex demeans a person, you have to believe that sex itself is demeaning, and there's something deeply wrong with that attitude.

Well, to be fair, sex doesn't have to be inherently 'evil' to be of interest if you're in the business of laying down the rules. It suffices that it's an area of human relations and conflicts. The OT had a few words to say about it too (none too kind to gays, or to guys who, um, spill it in wrong places), as does every society, if only to say "it's a really bad idea to fuck your mom."

Pauline suspicion of sexuality does make you wonder, but if I read charitably I can see cautions against 'fornication' as an (over)elaboration of general principles. If you're supposed to treat another with kindness and respect rather than with callousness and naked self-interest, you're supposed to treat them that way when sex is involved, too. Which is not to say (or shouldn't be) "therefore, no spanking" but it is to say "in sexual as in other things, don't forget you're dealing with other persons, don't see others as nothing but means to your ends, don't be guided by nothing but insta-gratification, etc."

Boiled down to that, it makes good sense, though I might be overly generous in reading. Whether Paul and co. thought along those lines or not, though, it certainly got embellished and rigidified and twisted out of shape in Christian practice, and for that I have no sympathy at all.

 

[ishtat]

very interesting post, ish, with several good points. i must however demur in some details.

ishtat //1 Pure is on tricky ground quoting St Paul because the later gospels[sic] attributed to him almost certainly were not written by him and regularly contradict his earlier work particularly with respect to women and authority.// {all of ish, and only ish is in italics, here and below}

pure: After my first post #3, I quoted mostly from 1 Cor, which is generally accepted as genuine and not late. Secondarily i quoted from 1 Thess; again, early; not 'pseudoepigraphic'. Usually i used NRSV

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Pauline_Chronology.htm
---
ish //2 Outside of Mark and to a lesser extent Matthew the whole of the NT is essentially propaganda for the Pauline and later the claimants of the Pauline view. They* are almost silent on Jesus' (ethical) teachings.//

* pure's bold.

pure: About a quarter of the NT is Paul's or Pauline material, the former being the earliest NT mss. Whether that's propaganda, depends on your camp. If by "they" you include Paul's own epistles, no, i wouldn't say silent, except in respect of direct quotes. Jesus' teaching on sexual ethics are few, excepting the prohibition on divorce (found in Paul) and the injunction against lusting after a woman. Pauls covers more topics in that area, possibly because he was giving advice to communities.

Paul is hardly silent on Jesus' general ethical teachings, their principles; the following is Paul's excellent summary:

Romans 12.
9 Let love be sincere; hate what is evil, hold on to what is good;
10 love one another with mutual affection; anticipate one another in showing honor.
11 Do not grow slack in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord.
12 Rejoice in hope, endure in affliction, persevere in prayer.
13 Contribute to the needs of the holy ones, exercise hospitality.
14 6 Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them.
15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
16 Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
18 If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.
19 Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
20 Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head."
21 Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.
----
Romans 13
8 2 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

ish //3 VM says the KVJ is theologically unsound. It would be more accurate to say that it is simply an appallingly bad translation. In particular it relied on Erasmus' Greek translation which in itself relied on a bad 12th century translation from a Latin text not the Greek original.//

pure: Your points about KJV are well taken; my first post used it, for convenience only. I have used modern translations in all subsequent posts, and the points about fornication remain.

=
A main claim in this thread is Volupt's

VM: //There is not one single word in the New Testament about the sexuality of unmarried people, not one! Worth a ponder, no?//

i've amply demonstrated that this is incorrect. perhaps it would be fine, in the view of some, if every single adult could righteously fuck every other one in every orifice with the clothepins on the nipples as Stella proposes. i'm not commenting on that view; but let's be clear it is not OT or NT or mainstream xian teaching (as Stella agrees). unfortunately here, liberals like Volupt make exactly the error of their "fundie" opponents-- reading their views into the texts.

The OP asked about writing porn and being xian. I have no proposals to offer, here, about making pictures or texts to incite, or how often it's healthy to jerk off to them; or who's to fuck whom. Let each do as he or she considers proper. Lacking harm, I'm for toleration. I'm simply dealing with the atttempt by volupt and TE to put a mantle of xianity around wholesale fuckfest; it doesn't fit. (the post by dvision is closer to the mark, IMO).

I probably over generalised in my previous post but rather than answer point by point would suggest that Paul and his followers were generally obsessed by the idea of resurrection and this was the dominant theme of their teaching rather than JC's ethics.

There is a very sharp change of emphasis between JC the teacher of the Jewish law in the gospels and the Pauline story of the risen 'son of God'

When I think of the NT as propaganda that is not necessarily the propaganda of a single group. For examples Mark seems to predate the breach between James and Pauls 'churches'. Matthew offers a more Jerusalem based view. Luke is perhaps primarily an elegant edit and John is a bit odd, almost gnostic, probably wouldn't have made it into the canon without its unequivocal view of resurrection and its justification of an intermediary church.

The early writings definitely attributable to Paul are a great 'sell' of the resurrection theology to a pagan population used to the idea of a resurrected godman (so common in Pagan religion at the time). Then the later writings eg Timothy attributed to Paul but written by later followers who were clearly using his name to give authority to their own opinions on the operation of the church, the function of priests and the (non) role of women.

Thus all in my view are propoganda but for differing interests.

I haven't considered Revealation - it makes my head hurt.