Ake - Thank you! Your response on my behalf gave me a damn good guffaw! :-))) Perfectly true, too!

Fprince - If we're going to assume some common ground, we'd better make some effort to define what it is. I believe that Jesus was a historical entity. Myself, I believe that he was an obscure prophet of an obscure sect (the Essenes), whose teachings (nothing much original) progressively gained followers, mostly through a process of political expediency & 'borrowing' (i.e. straight theft) of various pagan (Roman/Celtic/Germanic) practices.

I must, however, confess, to a degree of ignorance concerning the early growth of christianity (i.e. over the first few centuries within the Roman Empire). Therefore, I admit that I'm more than a little unclear as to how christianity gained enough of a foundation to be sending out missionaries from the the 4thC CE onwards, though I'm pretty bloody sure what went on thereafter (power politics & intolerance, mostly).

I believe Jesus was a historically verifiable man. I do not believe he was "The Son of God", nor do I believe that the monotheist concept of an all powerful god is logically sustainable. If He is what He claims to be, He's made a monumental cock-up in trying to explain it to me, at the least, & to the rest of mankind, as far as I can tell, from all that I see of current & past history.

What Jesus the Man (read Barbara Thiering some time, she has an interesting take on him, & she is a believer!) would make of me... {shrug} He seems to me, from what little I can see of him, to be not a bad sort, but rather intolerant & monomaniacal (in that there is only "his" way). I suspect we would not get on, as such, but respect each other's honesty & integrity (I'd probably call him a few bad words & he'd get upset, cos he seems a bit uptight, but no real damage done, unless he's as fanatical as some of his followers have been... ;-) ).

In direct reply to your perfectly reasonable "nit", I will repay any attack with interest, as I see fit. Mindless abuse just isn't worth bothering with, & unless I'm feeling particularly evil, I won't bother responding at all. But any sort of attempt at a rational point, I'm willing to meet up to a point. The point being "I believe because I think...". People who "think because they believe..." usually give themselves away very, very quickly, & aren't worth arguing with because they never read/listen to your argument. Religion, politics, sex, guns, you name it, a fanatic is a loony *ahem* fanatic, whatever their preferred creed. Debate is pointless, wasted effort.

I respect anyone who can demonstrate that what they believe is based on what they think, what they have learnt, what they can see from the world around them (this includes, frex, Bobert, which some Catters might find surprising), regardless of whether I agree with them or not (frex, Bobert, often! ;-) ). After all, if I believe what I believe because that is where the data available has led me, who am I to condemen those who draw different conclusions? (Unless they're idiots, of course! ;-) ) I have very little time for anyone who fits their facts around their beliefs. The truly scary thing about humanity is the number of people who don't/can't/won't see that they are guilty of the latter fault.

I respond to attacks in kind. If someone attacks me in words I will respond (if I care to do so) in kind. If someone throws a punch, I'll flatten them. I don't believe in turning the other cheek so that it can be hit too! You're right, in that it often doesn't achieve a great deal. On the other hand, if I'm in the mood to respond... it at least relieves my feelings & I do enjoy the satisfaction of posting a well-ordered argument, even if the muppet on the other side isn't equipped to appreciate it! ;-)

Hope this answers your question.