To think the parish newsletter is not appropriate

[NikoBellic]

I'm not talking about the notices regarding the horticultural society, nor am I referring to the village "300 Club", or Gwen's amazing contribution to the village hall this month...

...I realise that unless you live in a rural area, much like fibre broadband, you won't get this...

Each month the parish council post a newsletter through my front door. A quaint little wedge of folded paper with some useful information on local gas safe engineers and who is raising what for which charity, interspersed with reminders to pick up dog poo. The outer cover is usually a lot quality 1995 clip art file along religious lines, printed onto coloured paper of some sort. This month, for the start of spring and the Easter period, its a sort of yellow. Its the cover that I'm not completely comfortable with...

We always hear, particularly from the type of person who lives in a village and reads the parish newsletter, that children should not be subjected to images of violence, sex, and general "bad stuff"...

SO WHY IS OK TO POST A PICTURE OF A BLEEDING MAN BEING CRUCIFIED THROUGH MY LETTERBOX!? (Even if it is in 1995 clip art form).

If I were to post an image of a man being hung through someone's front door I'd have to face, at the very least, a police caution. Seems like double standards from where I'm sat.

In an area where Nigel Farage gets a pat on the back (a man who is offended by seeing a breastfeeding mother in a pub...) why does religion get special dispensation?

Is it OK because its, you know, Jesus?

Am I being unreasonable?

Limited

But you are. Sorry if you don't like that.

What do you want me to do on this thread? Explain to you all about Tacitus, Pliny Yr, Seutonius, Josephus?

Explain to you the nature of evidence and hearsay? What we know and don't know about the gospels and who wrote them?

I could. But if you were actually interested in facts, you'd go and read the thread. Or Google.

You are wrong. As is everyone else who asserts that there's evidence of Jesus existing.

I think the Romans added to Tacitus when they adopted the religion, to add legitimacy.

Most of the divinity aspect was also added afterwards.

There are also lots of pre Christ gods that share very similar stories.

This is interesting,

Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.” He was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” He was identified with the Ram or Lamb. His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

Also Attis of Phyrgia, Mithra, Zoroaster and, I feel, most importantly Horus.

I'm not having a pop at christians, I'm just hugely interested in the history of religion.

Caffe. From your narrow construct of what you deem as a valid opinion or belief, I I think you miss the point about Faith.

I don't think anyone is expecting you to believe in Jesus.

I don't actually have a strong opinion about Christianity nor am I a staunch atheist as some appear to be, but the arrogant tone of some of the posts here is unbelievable.

It's a common mistake though so I don't blame you

That is very gracious of you Caffe.

Yes, Lumpy there is certainly evidence that Tacitus has been fiddled with. But the scholastic jury is still out on that.

We have to be careful about trying to align Jesus too closely with other myths.

The most we can reasonably say is that he shared the "dying/rising sky god" theme with rather a lot of others - but he's not a facsimilie of anyone else and there are aspects of his story that are unique (although, not many).

If we are trying to find him an actual place in history, as Christians and some atheists continually try to, there's simply no credible explanation for the fact that the vast majority of the "Jesus story" can conclusively be ruled out as actual historical events.

The most important being the circumstances surrounding the crucifixion.

Is it the Parish council newsletter
or the parish church newsletter
as they are not the same thing

YABU to confuse the Parish Council and the church in your OP.

My limited understanding of it are that the unique bits are parts of the very early genuine story. Maybe a charismatic wandering teacher or Rabbi, and that the divine parts were possibly added by the romans or as the story snowballed.

There is no way of knowing but it's right for people to question how much religion is forced on an increasingly atheist population.

Queen My narrow construct? You mean my reliance on facts? Yes, how very narrow minded of me

I have long stopped caring how precious faith is to the people who have it. That's their issue, not mine. If you wish to make it your issue too, go right ahead - but kindly don't attempt to think for me. I don't need your help.

Limited Is that it? A sneery, irrelevant snark at your mistake being pointed out to you?

Oh well, since you have nothing else it's not altogether unexpected.

Honestly, Lumpy when you have a couple of hours to spare, do a search for "Did Jesus exist" on here and have a read of the very, very long thread.

It is true that a large amount of people, including many atheists, have been wrongly led to believe that some parts of the Jesus story are probably true. The simple fact of the matter is that there's simply no evidence to support that view historically. There really, really isn't.

The myth aspect is talked about, along with the provenance of the gospels.

You don't have to take the thread as "gospel" (no pun) - you can use it as a launch pad to do your own research. But at the very least, I think it does show that the assumption of Jesus's historical existence is highly, highly problematic.

I agree Cafe, there is little or no evidence. There were a lot of people recording back then but no mention at all. I think Flavius makes a brief mention but again that was probably added at a later date.

I tried really hard I promise but I got to page 7 and then skipped to the end. probably irrelevant now but the image wasn't the issue. As I read it, not even about religion or differing beliefs. Just that a violent image shouldn't be allowed to be posted through your door unsolicited. Regardless of where and who and why it is just wrong. (Will read the rest now, just was getting wound up and had to get that out, apologies)

I'll check out that thread, cheers.

I suggest OP contacts the Parish Council with her objections and then they can go with the majority decision- which I would guess would be that although it isn't a pleasant image, it is quite appropriate for Easter. At least she will have tried.

Is it from the church or the Parish Council? A Parish Council is nothing to do with the church, it is a political thing with some functions devolved from the district or county council. I know everyone is assuming it is the church but just wondered (I used to work for a parish council and everyone assumed it was to do with the church whereas in fact it was things like road signs, allotments and other exciting stuff.)

*newsletter not image in the first use.

Sorry, just read page 2 and not everyone assuming its the church.

cafe one fact to believe in is that you are being incredible rude.

Caffe. No one is asking you to "care" about the "issue" of rescuing themselves from their faith by your arrogant assertion of facts, just respect would do.

YABU. It is actually an image tht has a lot to do with Easter from a Christian point of view, let me remind you.

Page 15?? Jings!

OP doesn't actually know who is responsible for it. The first thing to find out. Ours parish mag is produced by the church and you have to pay to receive it.

OP has now confirmed it's produced by the Anglican Church.

The most likely response I would give her is to ask if she would like to get involved with the editing and distribution etc. I have the distinct impression OP is 'they should........' Rather than 'what can I do'.
It is generally my way 'If you don't like it - you do it'!