jesus christ superhero?

[duke_aldhein]

On tomorrow morning's Radio Sheffield Breakfast, we have a local RE-teacher-turned-academic who apparently 'sees many parallels between Jesus and Superman'. This, the Daily Torygraph informs me, is her idea for making RE relevant to kids who've never been to Sunday School

Comments

[anonymous]

I agree absolutely that the evil done by over-powerful religious figures or hierarchies can't be used as a general argument against religion in all its shapes and forms. And I wouldn't for a moment suggest that organized religions are conspiracies conceived in order to dupe and manipulate docile herds of believers.
However, it is not hard for me to believe (what is important, it is less hard for me to believe than the alternative(s) might be) that, at some point, certain figures in history have exaggerated or invented details in the story of a man's life, quite probably with the express purpose of making that story more powerful and more likely to be taken to heart.
Now that is not to say that those intentions are necessarily dastardly and self-serving. Far from it, in fact. There are plenty of good arguments to be made for the social benefits to be enjoyed by a community that subscribes whole-heartedly and en masse to one religion or another. Individuals find solace and support, and the fabric of society is strengthened as a result.
I wouldn't presume to criticize anyone who holds that view or anyone in the docile populus whose needs are met by religion. However, I would suggest that the frankly utilitarian argument for religion can surely never be enough to make a true believer of anyone. A religion surely loses its power over the individual as soon as it is seen to be a serviceable story, a social technology (however gradually and unguidedly it has evolved). For a religion to be effective, its followers really need to maintain an unquestioning, literal belief in the stories of their religious tradition, as the overwhelming majority of religiously-inclined people no doubt do. But, if you follow what I have said above, then the flock have truly been taken in, for better or worse, by those who contributed to the development of the stories in the first place.
If you do dismiss literal interpretations of religious stories, how do you deal with the language of "belief" and "faith" that so pervades religious discourse?

[anonymous]

No comment, Duke?

[duke_aldhein]

In the past three weeks, I've moved house, worked 14 days for the BBC and made three trips to London on other projects, so I haven't had much time to take up theological disputes with anonymous disputants. I will do my best to respond to your comment in the next few days.

[anonymous]

Sorry Duke. I really didn't mean to be rude. It's just that my last reply was so delayed I wasn't sure if you had noticed it. I thought perhaps a revised comment count would draw your attention to it. But I wouldn't presume any great claim to your time, seeing as you're clearly a busy fellow.
It's an interesting question, though, so I look forward to seeing anything that you do get round to posting. As for the "anonymous disputant" - I don't keep a blog, I'm more of a trawler and temporary resident of other people's sites, so I don't have a web identity to use. You can call me JJ if you like.
JJ

[duke_aldhein]

Apologies for my bluntness earlier - I'll look forward to trying to explain how I see these things. As you say, an interesting question.

[duke_aldhein]

JJ - I have, finally, attempted to answer your question. I hope you'll forgive the delay, and my tendency to verbal pugilism. And I hope what I have written makes some sense to you.