Im with you Reada on that. Whether or not a guy named Jesus existed there certainly were radical preachers of their day in the outposts of the roman empire. They deserve credit and a place in our history. But like I say when it morphs into scientology type lunacy I tend to either poke fun at it or get the creeps depending on what type of humour Im in.

A man named Jesus Christ definitely existed, that’s fact. But whether or not he performed miracles and is the son of god and stuff like that is what Christians believe.

@Reada

You’re kind of retrospectively adding new meaning on Jesus’s teachings using modern day moral values and situations.

Take the tax on the poor thing, for example. There were no oppressed industrial working class, Communist revolutions or any class of Socialist movement in his day, or banking crises – it’d be unfair to align the teachings of a preacher from a small Middle-Eastern tribe 2,000 years back living in a buffer state of a massive empire to the history of the last two centuries. To even call him a “revolutionary figure” is a bit problematic – he was hardly the Davidic Messiah the Israelites were expecting, and they put him to death because of it.

There was no feminist movement in his day, and the woman’s place was in the home. Christianity didn’t do much to challenge this status quo and this is reflected in the fact that the vast majority of his disciples and all his apostles were male. And in the fact that to this day in “His Church”, all the priests are male. Again, not really appropriate to retrospectively place this tag on him 2,000 years earlier than the ideology’s emergence.

Many preachers of faiths the world over spoke in parables, including many preceding Christ. The Judeo-Christian prophets proselytised in a similar fashion, as did the Buddha, Guru Nanak, Muhammad, Confucius, Zoroaster etc. and Classical philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle used similar teaching methods hundreds of years before Jesus’s birth (curiously enough, Jesus met a similar demise to Socrates for challenging authority, yet we don’t worship Socrates…?).

I just can’t find a reason why Jesus was a stand-out act from the above. I mean his story is a Joseph Campbell-style, classic “hero story” found in hundreds of cultures, yet people seem to have this rather arbitrary reverence for/inspiration from him.

There’s no reason why you shouldn’t love all those heroes above as much as Jesus Christ, there was nothing particularly special about what he did in his lifetime in the grand scheme of things.

Brian. Maybe I do love most of them you’ve mentioned too. I always love people who challenge the status quo once they were advocating an improvement to human causes. I’ve read a few books in passing re other religions and beliefs but never with a view to finding one. I’ve no interest in looking for a religion. I’m grand as I am imo.

How Jesus treated women, or should i say what survived the male editing of same, was pretty radical for his day. I chose to believe that of course he had female disciples and apostles. I’m not trying to change this into a new religion or anything. It’s just my opinion. I won’t try to force-feed it to your children or anyone else’s.

Most of whom you mentioned were grand. What I’ve read on Islam frightens the shit out if me but as a mouthy Irish woman you might forgive me for that.

I wasn’t really looking for a row. I was just replying to Cyril. I know that once you do that you’re open to challenge and you’re welcome to challenge. I’ve always been a bit like that too so it’s fine.

Reada no harm in arguing your case. Im not the type of guy that says you have your ideas and I have mine. Ideas should clash for the benefit of people. Different cultures dont say well you have your cultures version of atomic physics and I have mine. The ideas clash not to hurt humanity but to benefit it. Then when all the bad ones have died scientists reach some degree of concensus. Christians can and should argue just so long as people dont get hurt in the process. We dont hear of one scientific lab fighting another along tribal factions. Argument is good. Its how we argue that matters. You do seem like a decent person too.

John while people may have regard for Fianna Fail we dont go around thinking we should not speak out against them for fear of hurting the sensitivities of people. Scientists dont go around thinking well I see there is no evidence for a hypothesis of another scientist but I really shouldnt argue with them.Scientists dont say lets just live and let live you have your version of quantum mechanics and I have mine. Intellectualism requires that ideas clash and even sometimes get ridiculed. Finally to say that old people shouldnt to exposed to the same critical arguments of their beliefs is a tad patronising. Criticising anyones ideas does not amount to disrespect of an individual just their position on any given idea. Homeopathy is very important to homeopathists but it is crazy without any evidence. While the individual believers in this may not like the arguments against sincerely held convictions it is necessary for the progress of humanity. Father Ted offended many when it first came out now even the most conservative are not bothered by it. Humans are very good at adopting better ideas once they are exposed to a culture of critical debate where the ideas they hold arent protected from argument or ridicule but that peoples human rights are.

Hi Cyril,
The thread is spun out now but I hope this gets to your e-mail.
I think you and I sing from the same hymn sheet (unfortunate analogy I know!) and I hope that the views expressed in the second paragraph of my comment cannot in any way be conceived to be a defense of the Roman Church which I prefer to call it.
The first paragraph of my comment could have went to ten volumes in the criticism of the Roman Church starting from when Constantine had his great conversion at the Milvian Bridge.
However, all that aside. What I’m trying to put across is the distinction between the dysfunctional hierarchical structures and the (deluded and brainwashed as they may be) followers who prop up their insidious edifice. Given reference you make to Fianna Fail I would like to carry the analogy a little further and draw the comparison of the Fianna Failers who now weep for real at funerals all over the country when they see their elderly voting base being decimated and not to be replaced. The Roman clergymen at the same funerals are crying for real now as well and for the same reasons.
The question of science and beliefs is a separate matter and I’ve read much of Richard Dawkins musings in this regard and, like him, I prefer to target the faireytale peddlers than the deluded followers and gullible believers. I’m sorry you see my understanding of the beliefs of elderly people as patronizing but I do not believe that the cause of Atheism can be furthered by ridicule and while I would hate to be seen as a canvasser for members I do not see how ridicule would further the cause or bring others into the fold.
As for ‘critical debate’ I’m all for it! But only where you can encounter someone of opposing views though not adverse to