Comments on: don’t forget to grieve

By: TheGeoffRe(y)port » Blog Archive » Reacting to the cross

TheGeoffRe(y)port » Blog Archive » Reacting to the cross — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:55:20 +0000

[…] This is my 50th post for this blog, and I’ve been hanging out to make it a good one. This year I’ve been a bit conflicted as to exactly how we’re supposed to approach Easter. I know that a lot of bloggers have cried out for the church to learn how to grieve over the cross (Phil’s post over at signposts called “don’t forget to grieve” was a quality, confronting example) but somehow I think my natural reaction is for that type of approach to send me into depression and self-condemnation, which is probably just something that I’m working through. […]

By: Janet

Janet — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 02:30:46 +0000

Enough people are interested to “generate much profit for the author”! Not that I’m denying the apathy of many others.

By: DonaldDuck

DonaldDuck — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:33:40 +0000

A book with a different slant on the Jesus story can generate much profit for the author. The cause may just be boredom with the orthodox version, which could become boring after so many repetitions. People like interesting stories.

I don’t think Christianity is such a target as you say. Many people, I would think, do not think about it.

By: Janet

Janet — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:50:55 +0000

It’s central to the Christian faith. Jesus’ death establishes a way for a right relationship with God, Jesus resurrection establishes his credentials as the unique son of God. Hence it’s a key area for people to attack or defend Christianity.

I think the media likes to beat up this issue because it arouses an interesting emotional response from Christian fundamentalists, and those who dislike Christians and the church (for all sorts of reasons) seem to relish this.

Does anyone recall the massive publicity Barbara Theiring’s book received when claiming to have discovered a new way of interpreting the bible (she had “discovered” a “code” in the gospels, which revealed… amongst other things… Jesus was crucified by members of his community, but taken down from the cross alive in an area near the Quamran caves. He married Mary Magdalen, he established a formal hierachy among his disciples… etc. etc.)

I read her book… well most of it… and it was probably the loopiest, most fanciful book I have ever read. There was not one… no not one… biblical scholar or historian who supported her findings, and there were holes in her logic you could drive a truck through. (Do a net search on this topic and you’ll find out how ridiculous her claims were). Despite this, she was on multiple shows on tv and radio… it was a media circus.

The recent flutter on the “gospel of Judas” (which has been around for donkey’s years) is yet another example of the absurd beat up the media engages in with anything that seems to contradict the gospel accounts… despite the extraordinarily high level of credibility these documents have compared to all other sources. And we can expect “Da Vinci code” hysteria to hit the headlines for a while to come, despite the fact it’s “historical” claims are mostly ridiculous.

What do others think? Why is Christianity such a target? Is it because the church falls short of the ideals of Jesus? Is it because people simply don’t want Christianity to be true?

By: DonaldDuck

DonaldDuck — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:57:31 +0000

Hmm. Interesting discussion. Just why does the death and resurrection story cause so much discussion?

By: Janet

Janet — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:50:49 +0000

A casual read suggests he doesn’t exactly have a doctorate in theology. Still… I’ll say this in favour of atheists… at least they engage in discussion about religion. I actually dislike the way so many people are terribly politically correct in relation to religion… these days you could turn up to a party and claim: “I believe in the tooth fairy”, and someone is bound to reply: “How nice for you… your beliefs must be a great comfort to you.” When I went to uni one could have rip-roaring religious debates, and one’s faith was put under the microscope. Those were the days. I’m getting old.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:58:15 +0000

Keith Cornish, btw, was the president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia.

By: Janet

Janet — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 05:36:06 +0000

I think Anon would have much more fun on some American fundamentalist site (if you’ll excuse the aspertions on your countrymen, Rev). Quoting a crock from some ill-informed athiest isn’t going to produce the histrionics he’d like on this site, alas. Nice try.

By: the rev

the rev — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 05:22:15 +0000

Thanks Anon, you have helped me so much, I will now turn my back on the faith and finally live in the real world of scepticism. That one post of completely original ideas that I have never been exposed to finally caused the penny to drop. You are such a helpful and thoughtful person. Thanks for coming to a website discussing Christian thought, and practice to share your disbelief. You have been such a helpful condescending egotistical evangalist for your views.

Oh and how brave you are, to share your real name and everything, man I want to be like you when I grow up.

the rev

By: Janet

Janet — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 05:00:32 +0000

I thought you didn’t even believe in God (based on your other post)… why are you bothering to post a critique of Christian doctrine? There’s no point nit-picking over doctrine if you don’t believe in God at all. Unless you’re only wanting to shit-stir Christians. Oh well, at least Keiran Green has some moral support.