The Conservatives have claimed Good Friday

You are right OnwardandUpward. I should have been more precise. What we moved to was Religious Exclusivism and a large number of posts containing exclusivist rhetoric.

Of course, had I been more precise at the time I expect the "needling" would have been about that.

Open minds would be good. Conservatives don't own Easter or the centre of Easter in the form of Jesus. Neither do any religions or individuals but some certainly think they do.

Or will it run until Christmas?

Perhaps Ascension Day?
13th May this year

OnwardandUpward

No one has moved the conversation TO faith. It started with "The conservatives have claimed Good Friday". And it ends with " they can try". But it's all about Jesus so good luck to them.

Gransnet is quite ridiculous at times. I have to keep taking BIG breaks haha.

Exactly.?

Because they don’t like it, Smileless ? They think it gets in the way of a good discussion??
For those of us who have found Easter, as usual, to be a good peaceful and reflective time thinking of the life and death of Jesus... we needn’t worry that others don’t.
Easter is over now, is this thread? Or will it run until Christmas?

But only about some people's view of Jesus, apparently Smileless. Because they have to been some sort of special insight and no one else is allowed a view or you come back with the Sunday School "let me explain" with no acknowledgement that you are just offering an opinion.

Do you really want to go on with this?

Exactly OnwardandUpward "it's all about Jesus" and I don't understand why someone would expect the discussion not to include posters who post from the perspective of their faith.

No one has moved the conversation TO faith. It started with "The conservatives have claimed Good Friday". And it ends with " they can try". But it's all about Jesus so good luck to them.

Gransnet is quite ridiculous at times. I have to keep taking BIG breaks haha.

Smileless, we began with an historical discussion - not a religious one. That has to be based on facts and knowledge - real knowledge, research and scholarship - not belief. That was an interesting discussion for the most part. This then moved on to faith and, time after time, you "explained" what something in the New Testament means - to you - and not accept that I don't see it in the same way. That doesn't stop you from believing it. I cannot influence you whatsoever and don't have any wish to so as I have repeated often. The sheer repetition, one way and another, of things I have already said I have don't believe are true, appears to be an attempt to override my stated view that I do not agree with what you. However, you have continued to show what you believe to be a "truth". I kept saying you are entitled to that opinion/perspective but, it seems that has not been enough.

So, once more, I accept that you are entitled to your perspective (faith/belief). I would defend your right to this. However, once we left the historical side of this discussion you have seemed, to me, to be determined to prove that your faith is based on facts that I have repeated, each time, I do not see as substantial proof of a different meaning to what the New Testament says. I accept that these interpretations underlie your faith and your belief. It is your type of Christianity and as far as I was concerned it was always "no thankyou". I am not sure how I could have made that clearer.

This discussion is getting us nowhere. The historical discussion was interesting until you moved us on to faith. I do not think there is any point in continuing this and I am sure you, like me, have better things you could be doing.

Oh for goodness sake Pippa "people died at the stake rather than be made to say they agreed with a particular belief" talk about an over reaction.

Your post doesn't make sense. On the one hand you've written "you are giving me nothing that would make me believe it" and then you've written I am haranguing you "because I (you) might choose to believe the actual written words".

I have not said you're not entitled to decide for yourself what it says in the New Testament, you however appear to be saying that to me about what I believe. So I find it ironic based on the majority of your posts on this thread that you should make this comment.

There are many different Christian denominations that's true but they are all Christ centred. My faith is not "one form of Christianity.

I have talked about my faith on this thread and have not sought to impose it on anyone else. This appears to be your default position when being disagreed with.

I understand and accept that "other people have a different perspective on this" what is pretty consistent in your posts, especially in response to mine, is that you don't extend the same courtesy.

I don't present my opinions and points of view from a perspective, I present them based on my faith.

I think you have a strange view of preaching Smileless. Is it the same if I "quote" from the Guardian? Would I be "preaching" because I quoted what someone had written? This is madness.

But Matthew 5 v 6 is a different quote Smileless and says something different. I am not sat in a Sunday School Class where that sort of double-think may be allowable. It doesn't prove, in any way, shape or form, that the first one is saying something different to what has been written.

Your view of the bible is an interpretation. You are giving me nothing that would make me believe it other than that you do and therefore think I am wrong if I do not. You are entitled to believe it but you are not entitled to harangue me because I might choose to believe the actual written words. People died at the stake rather than be made to say they agreed with a particular belief. Yours is one form of Christianity. Even before we look at other faiths there are many forms of Christianity. You cannot impose your belief on someone else. I don't need you to agree with me just to agree that I am entitled the decide for myself what the New Testament is saying - just as you are. Once we had that we might have been able to have a discussion but I really think you need to consider that other people have a different perspective on this and they are not wrong just because it it not yours.

It is not me who has a problem with being challenged Pippa that appears to be you. You are quoting scripture and I am responding, you are preaching and I am answering.

In Matthew 5 v 6 we read "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they will be filled". Spiritual sustenance.

or of

No, Smileless. You believe it's a reference to spiritual sustenance but that does not make it so, especially when the words do not say that. Yours is an opinion; it blatantly isn't a fact. Either you or I or, possibly, both of us may be wrong. There are at least two different views on here and there will be others. I once worked with a member of the Plymouth Brethren. If you and he got to discussing the New Testament I doubt you would always agree but both of you would believe you were right I think. The difference is he would preface what he had to say with "it's our belief" or "I believe". He showed great freedom or personal pride or arrogance when it came to his faith.

What I said was not to do with politics it was more to do with a way of thinking. There are Christian Conservatives; I believe there may even be a group of MPs in parliament who style themselves this way. However, that was not what I said. I used conservative with a small "c" - a way of thinking.

I entered the discussion because it was interesting. I have had great debates on the life of Jesus with the odd Vicar in the past and with one very radical Padre. Not everyone was ever going to come into this discussion telling all the other posters their view is the truth and that it is the only truth. However, those that do must expect, in all humility I would have thought, to be challenged.

It is a reference to spiritual sustenance and I would be very surprised if any Christians would disagree. Historians of course may not do so but I don't post on this particular issue as an historian, or a religious conservative but as a Christian.

This is the problem when politics and faith are mixed. There's no such thing as a conservative Christian. There are of course Christians who are also conservative but that's not the same thing.

It seems to me that anyone whose opinion differs to your own when it comes to biblical text is accused of preaching which makes me wonder why you bother to enter into the discussion to begin with.

This isn't a reference to physical sustenance, but spiritual sustenance

Who said? Which translation did they use? What is their past scholarship that tells them this meant something other than the actual meaning of the words reported to have been said?

It's the same for all the "meanings" religious conservatives, who don't want the boat rocking, put forward as "explanations" of reported words. I am sure it is what you have been taught but there are historians and Christians who would tell us it means exactly what is written so I your version should be seen as just one point of view rather than you knowing better/more than others, which is how you keep presnting your views.

Could you at least try "In my opinion" or "the explanation I was given" as it is very irritating to be preached at by someone in this way?

That's a very symbolic passage Pippa.

But woe to you who are rich
You have received your consolation

Material possessions and financial wealth are a mere consolation when compared to the spiritual wealth that comes from faith in God.

Woe to you who are full now
for you will be hungry

This isn't a reference to physical sustenance , but spiritual sustenance. They may not be physically hungry but spiritually they are starving. What sustains them in this life will not sustain them in the next. Matthew 4.4 "man cannot live on bread alone".

Woe to you who are laughing now
For you will mourn and weep

The abuse of power, wealth and authority may serve them well in this life but will be their downfall in the next.

I agree Callistemon that Jesus was very vocal with his anger especially toward the Jewish leaders who were feathering their own nests and using the law to subjugate their people.

It was first and fore most the peoples spiritual welfare he was concerned with. He was not politically or economically driven. "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God's.

Pay your taxes; give to him the coins that show his image and give to God your love, your faith and your hearts.

I agree. It did seem that he didn't have time for the hypocrisy of those in power. As for Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, I would put it on about the same level as The rich man in his castle, etc. They paint a very convenient picture for some.

We were taught, as children, that Jesus was gentle, meek and mild and that we should try to emulate him. He may have been gentle and kind to those who were suffering but he was also full of passion and anger towards their masters.

I couldn't agree more Callistemon. Firstly, the new testament is about the world of Jewish hope, Roman imperialism and Greek thought. It is not about Christianity. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. And, as a Jewish man, he was a thorn in the side of the conservative, law-breaking (Jewish Law) hierarchy of the Synagogue. Christianity did not exist at this point.

We do not read, in the New Testament that Jesus wondered about talking to God. He is not portrayed as a nice old hippy! He irritated the leaders of the Synagogue who had made a nice living and a cushy life for themselves while breaking Jewish Laws. He gained such a following that these leaders fitted him up as the "King of the Jews", the one charge they knew Pilate would have to put him to death for if he found him guilty.

You do not get to a point where the hierarchy running the Jewish population for their Roman overlords, want you dead, by walking about and talking to God. In Luke, he is reported as giving a sermon very close to the Sermon on the Mount (sometimes called the Sermon on the Plain) which, it is thought, may be a reporting of the same Sermon and he says:

But woe to you who are rich,
for you have received your consolation.
‘Woe to you who are full now,
for you will be hungry.
‘Woe to you who are laughing now,
for you will mourn and weep.

Can you imagine someone saying that now? That person would annoy a lot of those wanting a "get ever richer society". He/she would not be seen as someone who "didn't get in a twist". He would be seen as a rebel and possibly, on GN, a Communist, the worst abuse they seem to be able to find. He is written as a "better shares for all and obey the religious laws" guy not a simple wandering philosopher.

Come to this, I can't imagine Jesus getting in a twist about anything. He would probably advise going for a walk and talking to his Dad.

On the contrary, I think Jesus got in a twist, to coin a phrase, about very many things.

If he'd just gone for a walk and chatted to his Father we'd never have heard of him.

Good advice Onwardandupward.

Sometimes parents might not be coping with a "troublesome child" and they are impressed by the charismatic and persuasive Christian man who "knows his bible" and can help them BUT hes a paedo using the bible as his cover. Never leave your kids alone or trust someone you don't know- even if they can quote the bible backwards.

There are sheep and then there are wolves. Not just in church.

OnwardandUpward

I can't imagine Jesus getting in a twist over a Twitter post tbh. He would probably be busy elsewhere doing important stuff like changing people's lives for the better.

Come to this, I can't imagine Jesus getting in a twist about anything. He would probably advise going for a walk and talking to his Dad.

There are sometimes people in churches who don't have the best intentions- but you'll find those everywhere and anywhere. I'm not downplaying this, it's serious but at the same time, unfortunately in any large group of humans there can be some unsavory characters- of any religion or none.

Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a true follower of his teachings. In a secular job, I reported disclosures of abuse from children- the abuse happened at home in those cases. There are unfortunately mothers with few boundaries or awareness who have unsuitable partners that abuse their children and parents who are impressed by the Christian man who "knows his bible". I've also known of a Boys Brigade leader and a scout leader who also abused their positions of trust, caused much damage and caused their families much shame.

In this age of risk assessments and safeguarding, a public place should be a lot safer- yet people in their own homes still need a lot of help too.

lemongrove

Ah, professional outsiders Galaxy yes, that’s quite different, I was thinking of ( for anything to do with Church activities)
Volunteers.

I did refer to Ofsted when I first brought this up Lemongrove. You must have missed it.

As for volunteers in church, or anywhere else for that matter, I agree there are problems with asking for volunteers but all the churches I have ever known, bar one, continue with the policy of putting out a general notice saying something like - "We are looking for Sunday school teachers" in spite of being repeatedly told this is not a good idea. The one church that had a different policy discussed possible helpers beforehand and then approached them to see if they were prepared to "volunteer". It doesn't solve all the problems of course but it does put an extra layer into the recruitment process and weeds out some obviously unsuitable people.