Do you agree with correcting the problem (over conflicts with the written scriptures)
by seeking agreement on the true meaning?
Not really, I think it's pointless. I think we already know the true meaning, as I said before, ad copy to sell a religion. Which wasn't my point here anyway; the point was the distinction between the actual words and actions of Jesus, versus what we're told are the words and actions of Jesus -- as told by third parties with agendas. The source is important.
In the case of the Constitution, there's no doubt what the words say. We have the original, written down. And it's not selling anything.
It boils down to a trust or distrust in God's ability to fully reveal His truth and His will to His creation. If you don't believe that an all-powerful God is able then the conversation is over. What else can anyone say? The alternative is to believe that God IS able to reveal His will and that He did so regardless of all the obstacles that would hinder His goal. I believe He did exactly what He wanted to do.
The problem with this is -- our source isn't God. It's Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, working from a distant memory, and the editors at Nicea. That's very different.
As for "selling" a religion, the same can be said of ANY religion.
Of course. If you're marketing an organized religion that depends on a quasi-spiritual tax base, it's essential.
But, as we all know, the only religion today to receive constant and emphatic frontal attacks is Christianity.
Speak for yourself; I don't know that. Check out Islam and Hinduism around the border between India and Pakistan for one.
But who's to say that Judaism wasn't "sold" in a similar manner? What makes Judaism more acceptable than Christianity? Who's the authority that determines or reaches that conclusion?
The end user.