to think it's highly unlikely that Jesus was dead when they put him into the tomb?

[cunexttuesonline]

Crucified for 1 day with nails put in hands and feet and a spear wound on his side. I think he must have just been unconscious when put in the cave. Then 'came to' the day later and pushed the stone away with the sort of supehuman strength that, for example, women get whentheir babies are trapped under soemthing heavy. Guards outside tomb could have been sleeping or buggered off or something.

"Until they start trying to claim special privileges because they believe it, or expecting others to believe it too."

I used to listen to the JWs, when they knocked on my door, but they used to do just this, so I stopped listening in the end. They'd find some passage in the bible to 'prove' that they were right and my ideas were wrong, always attempting to coerce me that their ways of believing was the law, and claiming some special privilege at the same time. I just wanted a bit of a discussion to be honest.

What have you done today to make you feel proud.

The persecution thing - I remember in my misspent youth, as a member of the CU, there was a certain pleasurable frisson when people mocked, because, y'know, Jesus said "BLESSED are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5:10-12)

so oooh, goody we're being insulted and persecuted. Unbelievably immature and, well, tasteless (oblivious of real persecution of Christians/Jews/Atheists/whatever in other countries). Hopefully everyone there grew out of it one way or another, but I've seen (and maybe even experienced) the phenomenon.

You know I have never thought it mattered if there really was a man called Jesus or not. Most of the arguments I have are about the behaviour of Christians here and now. I'm happy to say that he might well have existed.

Still it bothers me a bit when (on just about every religious thread) someone says "oh well of course there is loads of evidence" because they heard it somewhere.

Even if you had a birth certificate (some people seem to assume that there was one) it would only mean that a man existed. Lots of men existed back then and probably quite a few of them were called Joshua. As I understand it this is the name the scholars know him as. Someone else already mentioned this further back. If that is so then strictly speaking Jesus didn't exist - Joshua did (but it makes no difference)

Now of course the Joshua you want is the one who went around preaching. That narrows it down a bit. Not too much though as there were many such people.

Perhaps that obscure reference you've seen in some book was to the son of the carpenter, but where does that get you? You would have very vague evidence that some guy went around preaching and that much later someone founded a religion and claimed it was based on that guy.

By all means believe it and by all means enjoy the story, but it's not proof of anything really and I'm sure that most scholars would agree with me. It's only a few people who have heard about it 4th hand who come on these threads and say "well of course there is loads of proof"

*"But if Christians choose to believe in the Son of God and the resurrection then that's up to them."

Absolutely it's up to them. Until they start trying to claim special privileges because they believe it, or expecting other people to believe it too.*

In which case you can choose not to listen if that's how you feel. No one is forced to listen to others preaching. You can turn over the page in the newspaper, switch channels etc. We live in a free society, the choice to listen/believe is with the individual.

's only a few people who have heard about it 4th hand who come on these threads and say "well of course there is loads of proof"

Or RE grads like me Onager?

There's evidence there was a wandering Mendicant / Charismatic at that time going by the name and whose story fits baguel;y with some of the stuff beleived- but can't remember details (sorry brain fuzz, in middle of research protocol and sufffering! half term BAD time to be given that!)

But absolutely that the man existed and nothing else; rest is just faith. You have it or you don't and neither is more or less special than the other. Some people use faith to inspire good deeds and as a crutch- good on them; the good deeds amy well have been inspired by anything I suspect but if that frameowrk works for them good on them. If they need a crutch (I would count myself in that happily, I feel no shame about it- I hope the first bunch as well but that's opinion I guess) so be it.

The issue IMO is when it inspires bad things. Difficulty in accessing condoms that risks exposure to HIV; homophobia; snotty nosed parishioners turning their noses up at famillies in need because they don't fit their blueprint. Different levels but IMO as far removed from the musings of a love based philosophy as they can be. And defintely not something I hope to ever promote. faith is faith in action- when we smile at the mum whose disabled child is giving her a hard time rather than judge, when we hand over an old frock to a school for teh prom kids whose parents can't afford dresses, when we chuck ten pence in a charity box. THAT is faith in action. Or it can be humanity in action, doesn;t matter as long as we get off our arses and give it a shot.

"*"But if Christians choose to believe in the Son of God and the resurrection then that's up to them."

Absolutely it's up to them. Until they start trying to claim special privileges because they believe it, or expecting other people to believe it too.*

In which case you can choose not to listen if that's how you feel. No one is forced to listen to others preaching. You can turn over the page in the newspaper, switch channels etc. We live in a free society, the choice to listen/believe is with the individual."

I would be delighted to be able to not listen. However, my children's schools are obliged by law to preach the Christian message to them. My government has a significant Christian voice. And my news bulletins are full of Christians claiming that hthey should ahve special privileges - everyone else has to agree not to wear jewellery to work - but I'm a special case because it's a Cross" "Everyone else has to agree to abide byequality legislation - but I don;t have to because I'm Christian.

Leave me alone and I;ll leave you alone.

I do find the Christian state schools thing odd...

Well Seeker I think you may find that is because this country has been a predominantly Christian country for some time which is why so many practices you bleat about are happening. The country is changing, and it takes time for change. People need to be tolerant while this happens ( or not if they so wish)

Precisely. It is still a Christian country, even whilst addressing some very necessary changes.

A serious question seeker, if you are so offended by any implied or obvious Christianity, why do you not live elsewhere? That is not meant to be offensive, I'm purely curious. Truly - if it upsets you so much, why live here?

I would not choose to live in (for example) Iran as I would be persecuted. You appear to feel (although I may well be wrong) that your right to freedom of expression and choice is infringed by living in a Christian country, which in itself is a form of persecution.

So I need to be tolerant of my children being fed Christian propagansda at school?
And Christian voices having a significant contribution to science and socail policy?

In what way is it changing?

Peachy, "evidence there was a wandering Mendicant / Charismatic at that time going by the name and whose story fits" yeah I'm ok with that. Just protect me from those who think the church has his fingerprints and baby photos :)

HalfPastWine, it will only change if we make it change. If people just accepted things because it's been that way for ages we'd still be savages without the secret of fire and thinking the thunder was caused by god.

That's why we have to keep joining in whenever it comes up.

Equality has leapt forwards in the last 100 years. In all sorts of ways. And it's not just Christian voices which often influence social policy in particular.

There is just as much anti-Christian, atheist propaganda which is fed to my children. I give them the balance at home. One day they will find their own way in the world and if faith plays a part in that, good. If they say to me that they have no faith then I will be sad but I won't make them feel small or stupid. Will you, if yours find they have a faith?

And no - you don't have to. If you really feel so aggrieved at living in such a Christian country, then there are others, far less religious. Although the UK is hardly religious!

Seeker If you are really that against the teachings at your current school, could you not consider moving them to a faith school more in line with your own beliefs. I know such places may be few and far between but have you made enquires?

'Seeker If you are really that against the teachings at your current school, could you not consider moving them to a faith school more in line with your own beliefs. I know such places may be few and far between but have you made enquires?"

Tell me more!

I wonder why you keep ignoring my questions seeker when they are directly related to statements which you are making?

Yes buttonmoon, thankfully voices from other religions (and even non-religious people) shape opinions in our society today

The difference is that the UK has an established religion (a particular branch of Christianity) which gives it a different place in our society (bishops have a place in the house of lords, blasphemy laws, head of state is head of church etc etc) which makes it different and which makes me pretty resentful.

I wish the UK was officially a secular society and then Christians would have to argue their case on a level playing field like everyone else

But why? Why should Britain become a secular society? It is officially a Christian country which has shaped it into what it is. However, it is encompassing other faiths (and non-faiths) into society.

Why is it ok to expect the UK to suddenly become a secular society? There are many other countries where religion and faith still play a part in life on a personal and national level. Why are they not expected to do the same?

Sorry, I didn;t think I was ignoring anyone's questions. Do you mean why don't I move to another country because I object to my child having to pray to a Christian god in order to attend a state school? I didn't think it was a serious question!

Are you really saying that in order to fully participate in life in Britain you have eot be a Christian? And if you are not a Christian you either have to pretend to or emigrate?

No. That's not what was said or implied.

This is what I wrote: A serious question seeker, if you are so offended by any implied or obvious Christianity, why do you not live elsewhere? That is not meant to be offensive, I'm purely curious. Truly - if it upsets you so much, why live here?

I would not choose to live in (for example) Iran as I would be persecuted. You appear to feel (although I may well be wrong) that your right to freedom of expression and choice is infringed by living in a Christian country, which in itself is a form of persecution.

You do appear to feel persecuted in your search for an anti-faith life. So I was just asking why, if you hate it so much, you remain?

I also asked this question (though I admit that I didn't refer to you specifically in the post):

There is just as much anti-Christian, atheist propaganda which is fed to my children. I give them the balance at home. One day they will find their own way in the world and if faith plays a part in that, good. If they say to me that they have no faith then I will be sad but I won't make them feel small or stupid. Will you, if yours find they have a faith?

Britian is alreadya secular society imho. I think the laws of the land should reflect that.

Do you honestly think that giving Christian Bishops a seat in the House of Lords to shape our laws, holds any kind of water in modern 21st century culture? It's one anachronism wrapped in another imho. Do you think France is less "Christian" than us because they have chosen to separate Church and state? Or India is not a spiritual / religious country because they are officially secular?

I have no problem with Christians (Muslims, Jews, Hindus whoever) speaking up and shaping our society. I do no agree that Christians should be granted special state-ordained privileges. HTH

Only in an ideal world could we function as a secular society leaving religion out of the workplace and education. It just wouldn't work imo.
I don't think as a society we are ready for such an advancement, not in the near future anyway.

Which other countries truly operate successfully like this, can someone tell me?

Why should Britain become secular? As you say yourself, Britain is a country that encompasses lots of faiths and beliefs. It seems a bit peculiar to pick just one as the one that gets special privileges - representation in the house of lords, mandatory worship in schools etc - while the others are treated as second-best.

While Christianity has had an influence on Britain as a country it's not the only influence of course. Invasions (in both directions), wars, trade, education, immigration, politics, the monarchy, industry and science have also had powerful influences on how this country has turned out.

Having a secular Britain wouldn't mean that religion is banned or that children wouldn't learn about various religious beliefs in school. It would just mean that one particular flavour of Christianity wouldn't retain the special privileges that it has held on to for too long.