"More popular than Jesus Christ"

[KarlMarx]

Back in 1968 at the height of their popularity, John Lennon of the Beatles made the claim that "The Beatles are more popular than Jesus Christ". Also at this time, it was popular and even chic to claim that "God is Dead".

Now, 37 years later, after the death of Pope John Paul II, the largest gathering of people in history, over 2 million souls came to pay their respects to the Vicar of Christ. It is estimated between 1 and 2 billion people watched the funeral on television.

John Lennon was shot in 1980, and while many grieved, nothing near the numbers gathered in his memory as did this Pope. George Harrison died just a few years ago, and perhaps, even fewer gathered in his memory.

The Beatles broke up in 1970 after less than a decade together.... the Church of Christ is still going strong after 2 millenia.......

So John Lennon had it wrong..... Christ is a lot more popular than the Beatles ever thought of being and His Father is alive and doing well!

How many times have rulers, dictators, kings, queens declared themselves something akin to God, and passed into history, most to be forgotten within a few years? Yet, the Church, which was founded at the time of the Emperor Tiberius at the height of the Roman Empire, still endures, and has more followers than the Roman Empire ever did, and certainly more fans than the Beatles!

 

[5stringJeff]

Quite true...

 

[gaffer]

Back in 1968 at the height of their popularity, John Lennon of the Beatles made the claim that "The Beatles are more popular than Jesus Christ". Also at this time, it was popular and even chic to claim that "God is Dead".

Now, 37 years later, after the death of Pope John Paul II, the largest gathering of people in history, over 2 million souls came to pay their respects to the Vicar of Christ. It is estimated between 1 and 2 billion people watched the funeral on television.

John Lennon was shot in 1980, and while many grieved, nothing near the numbers gathered in his memory as did this Pope. George Harrison died just a few years ago, and perhaps, even fewer gathered in his memory.

The Beatles broke up in 1970 after less than a decade together.... the Church of Christ is still going strong after 2 millenia.......

So John Lennon had it wrong..... Christ is a lot more popular than the Beatles ever thought of being and His Father is alive and doing well!

How many times have rulers, dictators, kings, queens declared themselves something akin to God, and passed into history, most to be forgotten within a few years? Yet, the Church, which was founded at the time of the Emperor Tiberius at the height of the Roman Empire, still endures, and has more followers than the Roman Empire ever did, and certainly more fans than the Beatles!

John Lennon said that as an example of their popularity. Meaning that more people would go to a Beatles concert than would go to a church service if given a choice. Especial among the young people. He was never coparing himself or the Beatles with Jesus. It was a statement that was blown completely out of proportion. I never agreed with his politics but in that instantance he was right. You would have to have lived through the times to understand the popularity of the Beatles. Especially among the younger generation.

Put it in perspective, if your 14 to 26 years old and you have a choice of going to a Beatles concert or a mass held by the Pope which one do you think you would attend? Where do you think the news coverage would be?

I remember when he said it and I remember the outrage by the religious zealots of the time. It was a simple statement of fact, in fact he was in awe of the beatles popularity himself. And was in no way comparing the Beatles to Jesus. At the time the media made it look bad for the religious right cause they appeared as a bunch of fanatics burning Beatle records and denouncing the Beatles when in fact there was just a small number actually doing so. The media made it appear there were thousands of protests especially in the south. And they looked foolish and fanatical. Which is what the media wanted to portray in the first place. It would support their later efforts to marginalize the church.

In those days a Beatle couldn't fart without the media picking it up as some sort of statement.

As the saying goes, "you just had to be there"

 

[dilloduck]

John Lennon said that as an example of their popularity. Meaning that more people would go to a Beatles concert than would go to a church service if given a choice. Especial among the young people. He was never coparing himself or the Beatles with Jesus. It was a statement that was blown completely out of proportion. I never agreed with his politics but in that instantance he was right. You would have to have lived through the times to understand the popularity of the Beatles. Especially among the younger generation.

Put it in perspective, if your 14 to 26 years old and you have a choice of going to a Beatles concert or a mass held by the Pope which one do you think you would attend? Where do you think the news coverage would be?

I remember when he said it and I remember the outrage by the religious zealots of the time. It was a simple statement of fact, in fact he was in awe of the beatles popularity himself. And was in no way comparing the Beatles to Jesus. At the time the media made it look bad for the religious right cause they appeared as a bunch of fanatics burning Beatle records and denouncing the Beatles when in fact there was just a small number actually doing so. The media made it appear there were thousands of protests especially in the south. And they looked foolish and fanatical. Which is what the media wanted to portray in the first place. It would support their later efforts to marginalize the church.

In those days a Beatle couldn't fart without the media picking it up as some sort of statement.

As the saying goes, "you just had to be there"

Agreed--it was almost said out of embarassment and blown sky high by zealots

 

[Blashyrkh]

Back in 1968 at the height of their popularity, John Lennon of the Beatles made the claim that "The Beatles are more popular than Jesus Christ". Also at this time, it was popular and even chic to claim that "God is Dead".

Now, 37 years later, after the death of Pope John Paul II, the largest gathering of people in history, over 2 million souls came to pay their respects to the Vicar of Christ. It is estimated between 1 and 2 billion people watched the funeral on television.

John Lennon was shot in 1980, and while many grieved, nothing near the numbers gathered in his memory as did this Pope. George Harrison died just a few years ago, and perhaps, even fewer gathered in his memory.

The Beatles broke up in 1970 after less than a decade together.... the Church of Christ is still going strong after 2 millenia.......

So John Lennon had it wrong..... Christ is a lot more popular than the Beatles ever thought of being and His Father is alive and doing well!

How many times have rulers, dictators, kings, queens declared themselves something akin to God, and passed into history, most to be forgotten within a few years? Yet, the Church, which was founded at the time of the Emperor Tiberius at the height of the Roman Empire, still endures, and has more followers than the Roman Empire ever did, and certainly more fans than the Beatles!

The Catholic Church is the world's largest terrorist organization.

 

[5stringJeff]

The Catholic Church is the world's largest terrorist organization.

Wow. Any proof to back up that perposterous claim?

 

[Blashyrkh]

Okay, that might be a little harsh. But what can I say about a organization that tells their believers in the AIDS-infested continent of Africa not to use condoms? Some cardinal even said that condoms actually transmit the HIV virus!
On top of that, the current structure of the catholic church is designed to supress people. It's time to reform it drastically or to just ban it.

 

[5stringJeff]

Okay, that might be a little harsh. But what can I say about a organization that tells their believers in the AIDS-infested continent of Africa not to use condoms? Some cardinal even said that condoms actually transmit the HIV virus!
On top of that, the current structure of the catholic church is designed to supress people. It's time to reform it drastically or to just ban it.

First, it's not just that the Catholic Church says to not use condoms; it's that they encourage people to abstain from sex outside of marriage in the first place. Abstinence, after all, will prevent more STDs than condoms.

And how exactly would you go about banning the Catholic Church? We do have that small thing called freedom of religion in America, you know.

 

[Said1]

Okay, that might be a little harsh. But what can I say about a organization that tells their believers in the AIDS-infested continent of Africa not to use condoms? Some cardinal even said that condoms actually transmit the HIV virus!
On top of that, the current structure of the catholic church is designed to supress people. It's time to reform it drastically or to just ban it.

Why ban just the Catholic church? There are other repressive religions. Why not start with some other orthodox Christian denomonation first,then work your way up to the grand tomate.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Yes, and freedom of religion is a very good thing, as everybody may believe in anything. It's just weird when its organized in such a way as the Catholic church (btw, I only mention the Catholic Church as an example)

And abstinence won't work.

 

[dmp]

And abstinence won't work.

uh..it will work until one fails. (shrug). Abstinence does work; how can you say the only 100% fool-proof way to prevent std's and pregnancy and other emotional problems, does 'not' or 'will not' work?

 

[Said1]

The Catholic church doesn't have to make acceptions,there are other groups perfectly able to hand out condoms.

 

[Blashyrkh]

uh..it will work until one fails. (shrug). Abstinence does work; how can you say the only 100% fool-proof way to prevent std's and pregnancy and other emotional problems, does 'not' or 'will not' work?

Technically it works off course: but what I mean is that you can't expect teenagers to wait until they are married before having sex. Puberty and adolescence are the times to explore ... also in the sexual area.

 

[dmp]

Technically it works off course: but what I mean is that you can't expect teenagers to wait until they are married before having sex. Puberty and adolescence are the times to explore ... also in the sexual area.

You sure don't give teenagers enough credit. Puberty and adolescence are the EXACT times NOT to explore sexually...it's at those times kids are not emotionally ready to deal with the consequences.

 

[Blashyrkh]

No, not without proper sexual education.

 

[dmp]

No, not without proper sexual education.

Education does not equate to 'wisdom'. Children do not possess the wisdom to make good choices based on their education.

Thus, teach our kids - insist, on, perhaps, they abstain from sex.

Easy.

 

[Yurt]

And abstinence won't work.

Well by this logic, we should just ban all US laws because they don't work. People still commit crimes. Hey, let's just ban freedom too, because it has not worked in all the world.

So just because people can't control themselves you think the Church should change its tune? Maybe we should ban the 10 commandments too, because people break those everyday.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Education does not equate to 'wisdom'. Children do not possess the wisdom to make good choices based on their education.

Thus, teach our kids - insist, on, perhaps, they abstain from sex.

Easy.

If sex is something free to discuss, something you don't have to be ashamed of and considered a part of growing up than teenagers know when they are ready for it. Having sex as a teenager does not mean emotional problems!

 

[dilloduck]

If sex is something free to discuss, something you don't have to be ashamed of and considered a part of growing up than teenagers know when they are ready for it. Having sex as a teenager does not mean emotional problems!

Maybe not but it's pretty risky behavior.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Maybe not but it's pretty risky behavior.

If you approach it in such a way it can be. Sex is natural so we better learn children about it instead of telling them to wait until they are married.