Why is teaching Jesus' message even relevant?
Certainly is not relevant to millions of hindus, buddhists, and other non christian religions.
Are you gonna ram it down our throats, like most Christians do????

You need to teach a message. What one would you have me spread? kill all unbelievers? kill all communists? let the poor die? blame the poverty in our society on the failures of the poor? stop me when i hit the nail on the head.

Why can't you teach a message that has some things in common with what "Jesus" said? It doesn't have to be Jesus' Message.

also, first assume we live in a christian majority country which happens to be secular (like america) and require that someone teachs a message, this thread is coming from someone who doesn't claim Jesus of Nazereth was the saviour or the son of God.

There are other messages i'd like to talk about, but firstly i'm disheartened that most religious conversation start and end with worrying about whether God exists - which misses both the important points of Jesus's message (how you should live your life) and never achieves anythign of value.

As i was raised in a Christian country, going to a catholic school called "St. Mary's" i think it's fair to see this as a way to bring teaching which is going on into the present, and not forcing this message down he throats of others who aren't living in a christian society to begin with.

What is Jesus' Message? Can you give a quick summary?

Wake up and look around you. The increasingly secular Western society is still for a large part driven by Christian values. The idea of progress and salvation, the value of personality and of the body, freedom and equality of the law... all Christian or even pre-Christian (Greek) concepts we now adore with a secular clowth.

The problem is not that we haven't got the teachings, but that we have lost the soul and meaning of these concepts.

you don't need to teach jesus message to those who don't care to hear it - no bread for the dogs when there are hungry children. focus on articulating the christian community itself rather than those who don't care to be part of it.

Ursa +1

The problem is not that we haven't got the teachings, but that we have lost the soul and meaning of these concepts.

As far as I learned, Jesus' message is perfectly summed up in "treat your neighbour as you would be treated". If you want to teach his message then teach that, no need to bring a god of Jesus into it, just teach a message that anyone from religion or atheism can understand and appreciate.

I think thus far the thread seems to be answering itself. The questions "Why that message when there are others" & "Why not just take part and discard the rest" seem to indicate that if the message is not sacred, then there is little reason to revere it for most people.

I maintain (as you've rightly indicated) that the message and the messenger are sacred. If I believe them to be sacred, then I will continue to respect and revere them. It goes back to successful ideas as you put it in another thread. Christianity is certainly a sucessful idea in it's present form. It may transform with the addition of each new member, but it has steadily grown for centuries. Even the present secularism in Europe isn't hindering the growth of the church. Indeed people in Africa and the USA are looking to Europe as the next big mission field.

In addition to what PhilMan said, teach to encourage and give constructive criticism to others.

That's just stupid. If the message isn't worthy in itself, then Jesus wouldn't have said it to begin with.

I'll agree that you need to believe in something, but certainly not some fairy tale fiction superstition. Why not believe in potential goodness of humanity from a rational perspective? That's what I do. You don't need Jesus for guidance, trust me on this one. God and Jesus are unnecessary for me, although maybe you need the sense of stability that religion can offer, that's not my bag though. Best of luck to all believers. I'm not up for cussin' and yellin' today, I'm waaaaay too sleepy/over caffeinated and I'm feelin' pretty chill, otto, out! peace

I'm glad that you seem to agree that Jesus would not spread an unworthy message, but the issue (if you were referring to my post) was that it's message that can be treated as sacred or not. If one believes it to be sacred then it will not be amended easily. If not then it will. The previous posts on the thread indicate that's exactly the situation whether it would seem "stupid" or not.

"You don't need Jesus for guidance, trust me on this one."

.... another deliciously ironic statement there otto. "Follow me instead" ;-)

Sleep well ..peace.

i know it's ironic, i love subtle irony, don't you, good night!

@Crazy Anglican: i think the point behind my idea was that you will have more success getting people to listen to the idea if you drop the bits which some people find objectionable.

As has ben pointed out the ideas are still with us, but if the heart has been lost then it needs to be articulated in a clear an concise way. You are right in saying that there are other valueable ideas, and they can be discussed aswell, but my aim is to get this one message into a form which atheists will not find objectionable, rather one which they will be happy to embrace and spread (while still being open to other ideas and messages)

@Otto: you don't NEED Jesus for guidance, but that doesn't mean there is no value in the guidance offered in his teachings. I'm not talking about ramming this down people's throats, i'm not talking about the sense of stability which religion provides some (or the sense of security of knowing there is an all loving god and that the afterlife awaits them if only they will live a good life) i'm talking about actually looking at what Jesus preached (or as close as we can get) without any of the rest of the baggage which was accumulated in the past 2,000 years. Also i'm not a believer.

we have "treat your neighbour as you would be treated" - what else?