Someone mentioned to me in Internet email that the centuries-long
shrill ranting among Christian brand names about who is a "true
Christian" and who isn't a "true Christian" evidences its origins
in a phenomena which doesn't get underscored directly.  Indirectly
the phenomena is well understood and acknowledged -- by non-believers,
any way.

The phenomena is the way that Christian deity constructs change over
the years.  The argument about who is a "true Christian" and who
isn't a "true Christian" is an artificial construct which is itself
predicated in the fact that the Christian deity constructs mutate
with time, economics, social circumstance and, of course, political
expedience.

A religion is defined by what the religious _do_ -- their actions --
not by what's written in a religion's mythologies.  The Christian
myths are perfectly suited toward supporting or defeating _any_
belief or claim one wishes to make.  It has always been so, from the
horrid way Christopher Columbus treated the populations of the New
World, through Hitler's genocide of the pretend "Chosen" Jews, to the
enslavement of blacks on the North American continent -- Christianity
has always been defined by _actions_, not words.

Later generations point at all those which proceeded it and glibly
pronounce, "Oh, they weren't TRUE Christians" and then go on to
enumerate the activities of what the Christians did which some how
makes them "not true Christians."  Said generations -- in the act
of pointing at the activities of Christians before them -- are doing
so because they, too, understand that it is _actions_ -- not words
-- which define who is a "True follower" and who is not.

The contemporary Christian is the only Christian who has the
_possibility_ of being a "True Christian."  Of that smaller pool there
exists thousands of brand names, sects, factions, and fractions, some
of which acknowledge the "True Christianity" of others, most of which
do not -- always based upon a selection criteria that is ambiguous and
itself changes from day to day.  When the next generation of
Christianity comes along, the contemporary generation is relegated to
the realm of "not True Christian."

I think this summation -- and the phenomena of the changing deity
constructs which drive it -- has a great deal of merit.  What is
permitted under the gods one day is socially, morally, politically,
or economically frowned upon the next.  Humanity creates their gods
and goddesses to support the majority or minority agenda of the day
and the religious apply their ambiguous labels to an ideal which had
nothing rooted in historic fact.

I've always argued that when one joins a religion, one is making a
statement that one is in agreement with what that religion has
historically stood for.  The opposing argument has always been to
point at what the religion has historically instigated among its
followers and to glibly demand that they were "false" followers
some how.  This allows the claimant to retain club membership while
not having to admit their deity constructs have changed.

Another aspect of this phenomena, I think, has an analog to virus,
germs, and all the other species of plants and animals.

A species doesn't exist as a collection of organisms which hold a
specific set of attributes.  A species contains a number of
individuals which all hold a large variety of physical, emotional,
and cognitive differences.  The species is defined as a central
point around which all the differences revolve.  A mutation among
the species is described when the _center_ of the collection of
attributes shifts thereafter the physical, emotional, and cognitive
attributes of the mutated species resolves around the new center.

I think that a religion is like this -- it seems that this is
pretty much self-evident, in fact, inasmuch as we have a bewildering
variety of brand names, factions, sects, and fractions of a fairly
large number of religions.  There is likewise a _central_ focus
point which defines Christianity (and all other religions after they
reach a certain age) and, like a living organism, it mutates according
to the social, economic, and political expedience of the day, causing
the center to shift over time.