ALGOREisRICH, 6:36:16 PM

Of course the Church was - and is - a tad more than morons following some messiah figure (I doubt the Jesus story is based on a single self-appointed one).

Many emerging religions or cults of the time competed in the religious vervor of the time - such as Mythracism, Zoroastrianism, Docetism(1), Montanism, Arianism, Marcionism, etc.. Many shared stories or versions of stories with early Christianity as we know it or as it is now portrayed. Many share key figures, such as Tertullianus who promoted the concept of Trinity developed in the late 2nd century!, before moving to Montanism.

Early preachers were often at each other's throats, jostling with each for the religiously "correct" high-ground.

Pauls epistles are mystical and gnostic-like, and ironically written before the key stories of Jesus - the synoptic gospels - had appeared. Yet, Paul wrotes ideological epistles to followers in far-flung places mostly with quotes from the Old Testament (2).

Paul is zealously preaching the christian message...but actually says nothing about the message that this Jesus preached? Is this not remarkable? A message without the founder's message? Without a single saying?

We know christianity finally emerged as the primary belief system when supported and promoted by Constantine, Eusebius and the Nicene Council as the State religion for the Roman Empire.

Ironically, the Christianity that emerged was probalby the most heretical of the time yet, as the victor, called all the other sects heretical.

Another irony is there is no evidence for Paul outside the Bible, either.

(1) one of the earliest heresies the early church faced was Docetism, known before 100AD (probably what the writer of 1 John had in mind with "spirit of Antichrist" which denies that Jesus has come in the flesh). The Docetists believed his humanity was only apparent (dokein = to seem or to appear), therefore he not really suffered on the cross.

(2) The Jesus story emerged from earlier stories favoured because they fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament.

Mr McReal,
Zoroastrianism I do like the sounds of that one, can ya sign me's up for a crash course, does yah thinks I could be a High Priest or something by say next Monday, no need to rush, Mondays fine with me's. Is there any vestal virgins, cause I like the idea of vestal virgins, well just a couple for now. Please don't tell me mum, she say those kind a girls are no got for a sweet young boy like me, besides she says at 36 I'm still much to young for girls. .

L.B.Loveday

When the climate change followers start demanding their own scripture classes, there might be some sense in the argument. As for climate change, there are some that choose not to believe, that is their right. I keep an open mind but find when a big majority of the world scientist agree it exists to some extent; I am inclined to believe they may have something.

Squeers

Are you suggesting that we humans have a 'religion' hole that if not filled with a religion means we are somehow incomplete?

I have never been religious, nor were my parents - I have no sense of ennui or existential crisis that your claim of incompleteness without a religious substitute would suggest. My goals in life is to love and be loved (tick), try to live without harming others (mostly a tick) and enjoy this wonderful life for the short amount of time we humans have here, my only regrets are that dogs don't live as long as humans - they deserve to, I have never met a dog who has tried to impose his or her belief system on mine. In fact a big tick to all non-humans - you never bully or proselytise.

Johny Rotten,
I agree with all that 100% and I've never held a belief either.
Nevertheless, human culture's have (I think) to be predicated on something---actually, they could do a lot worse than the values you've laid down. But what they are predicated on is nothing so inspirational. They pay lip service to humanism but practice a form of humanist apartheid; moreover even their humanism is a form of speciesism and is generally destructive. Putting that aside, we still have the problem of what value to put on life besides living in the moment etc.
I'm saying we need a mission statement, a set of ethics to live by that values life above mere sensation.
The trouble with the modern, scientistic push to worship at the shrine of rational empiricism (which is based on its own metaphysics), is it's a form of scepticism for its own sake
So what ethics do we teach our kids and on what do we base them?

Squeers

I was taught "Live and let Live". Works in most situations except when someone is coming at you with a knife.

Whereas I wouldn't advise "treat others how you'd like to be treated yourself" to a sado-masochist - I think that golden rule has an inbuilt escape clause.

Cheers