Jesus Christ is the third most popular role model for children in Britain, according to adults surveyed in a new poll released Friday.
British adults were asked who they would want their children to look up to in a poll conducted by Opinium Research. Family members topped the list, followed by multi-millionaire entrepreneur and daredevil Richard Branson in second place, according to Reuters.
Jesus Christ came in third in the poll, being less popular among younger Britons than older citizens. Nearly double those over 55 years old chose Jesus as the best role model for children compared to those aged 18-34.
In fourth place are teachers, followed by former South African president and freedom fighter Nelson Mandela. Princess Diana was the sixth most popular role model, followed by celebrity chef and healthy eating campaigner Jamie Oliver at number seven.
Former Prime Minister Winston Churchill ranked eighth, American civil rights hero Martin Luther King, Jr., ninth, and Microsoft founder and billionaire Bill Gates came in tenth.
Jesus and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. were the only two figures in the top ten list who were religious leaders, reflecting the decline of religion in British society.
A recent U.N. freedom of religion report revealed that more than half of British citizens say they have no religious adherence, countering a 2001 U.K. National Census which said nearly 72 percent of the population was Christian alone.
Pope Benedict XVI last fall lamented Europe’s religious decline and its increasing embrace of secularism and a new multicultural image. The pontiff reminded Europeans of the continent’s Christian roots and urged citizens to acknowledge the importance of religious faith.
“Europe cannot and must not deny her Christian roots,” declared the pope in September while in Vienna, Austria. He stated that Christianity has “profoundly shaped this continent,” according to The Associated Press.
A Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey found that while six out of 10 Americans responded yes to “Religion is very important to me,” a significantly lower percentage was found in Europe.
In Great Britain, 33 percent of those polled said religion was “very important” in their lives, compared to 27 percent in Italy, 21 percent in Germany, 11 percent in France, and 11 percent in the Czech Republic.
It is noteworthy that the role model list included no British celebrities, such as soccer star David Beckham – a surprise given Britain’s well-known celebrity-obsessed culture. Other than Branson and Oliver, who are seen as “go-getters,” there were no other celebrities on the role model list.
Comments
Steve,
It is fine to try to reinterpret something, but in interpretation the goal should always be to get closer to the original meaning, not further. For instance, if I say that I desire to reinterpret exactly what Martin Luther King did, that would be fine, perhaps our current understanding of that movement is flawed. But if I then say, "MLK was mostly definitely a white supremicist!" Then I would be overstepping my bounds of interpretation. Interpretation is only meaningful if it actually does get closer to the heart of an event/word.
(Sorry to use an example from the states, I am sure you know MLK though!)
Chris
Dear ironpillar, I think your getting rusty, Steve
Let's read what God's word says about idolaters - Rev.21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and IDOLATERS, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. What is the solution? Repent, turn from your sin and follow Jesus.
Side Note* Doesn't seem like a day has past since our Lord's crucifixion. Only changes are technologies and characters. Let's see what God says about stubborness 1Sam15:23 And stubborness is as inquity and idolatry.
"I see you have taken the discredit the evidence route"
Not at all, we both have the same writings before us, all I'm doing is interpreting them diffrently to you. Its what a good historian would do by asking how we are interpreting the material. Remember, until the lions have their own historians, tales around the campfire will always favour the hunter.
Steve
Also, it is always X vs Y, to say otherwise it to buy into a myth.
I say the Resurrection was a historical event and the Gospels accurately record that event, and you say that it was not. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we?
Either way, we can't both be right, one of us is wrong and has a faulty worldview.
Thanks for your time,
Chris
Steve,
Thanks for responding. I see you have taken the discredit the evidence route. That is fine and a valid form of criticism. First, I think it should be said that most view Mark's Gospel as the earliest written Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke reffered to it. It is true that the earliest manuscripts do not have the actual account of the Resurrection, but it does not give an alternative ending, rather it just ends somewhat abruptly. The addition was probably made because the ending was so abrupt, and was most likely modeled after Matthew and Luke. Nonetheless, the Gospel of Mark does acknowledge the Resurrection and says:
Mark 16: 6 "Don't be alarmed," he (the angel) said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him..."
It isn't that Mark doesn't have the Resurrection, it just doesn't have the details Matthew and Luke do.
The Gospel of John was written last probably towards the end of the 1st Century, and John was probably contemplating more on what the life and teachings of Christ meant. Though there are many differences, there are no contradictions in the message, and little reason to believe that it is not historical. This account was still written very close to the life of Jesus by ancient standards. I do challenge you on your assumption that John was influenced by the gnostic message. The entire NT was always clearly not gnostic, and John's Gospel is no exception.
In any case, you have brought some legitimate questions, but nothing that would make us say, "Well the Bible is obviously not accurate in its account of the Resurrection"
Hi Chris
But is it really evidence that I really need to discredit the , I don't think so. What needs to be done is understand the evidence for what it is, I don't see it as adverserial task.
An example would be to revisit the synoptic gospels and understand them as representing diffrent early Christian communites say Jerusalem and Antioch. etc.. Another interesting question to ask would be " why does the earliest versions of Marks gospel contain nothing abotut the ressurection, was that added later by another Christian community. Then we could ask why is Johns gospel so diffrent to the synoptics, why so gnostic influenced, what community does this represent. These are just starters...
I don't see it as X v Y, but rather to say we try to understood the context of the source documents correctly.
Steve
Steve,
Good to see you back! Yes I am envious, but my time is coming soon, going on a week long vacation with my wife and her family, towards the end of March.
No you wouldn't need outside of evidence to disprove something that has no basis in history such as say a unicorn. However, a unicorn has no real evidence in the first place. If someone said, "You will never believe this I saw a unicorn! And I have a video of it!" Then you would have something to deal with, but there is no such evidence. This is just the same as bigfoot, people sometimes swear by it and show videos, but there is no proof of a Bigfoot anywhere, not to mention there would have to be a semi large population of Bigfoots just to keep the species alive.
What we have in Jesus' case, is good historical evidence that He was a historical figure, and a strong argument that His Resurrection was grounded in reality. (See William Lane Craige VS Bart Erhman) Since we have positive evidence for this event, what a critic must do is either discredit the evidence (tried not accomplished) or find alternative sources that challenge the veracity of the evidence (tried, failed miserably). Of course this doesn't mean you have to accept it, but it does mean that it is fully rational to believe in this, and may be irrational to exclude the possibillity.
(With the unicorn it is not circular reasoning, we would say, "There is next to no evidence for unicorns, therefore I do not believe in them" With the Resurrection, you are saying, "Despite the evidence, I do not believe in the Resurrection, because resurrections do not happen" Do you see the difference?)
Chris
Hi Chris
Been away a few days and was no where near a computer ( yes I know your jealous, it was lovely).
You may be quite right that it is circular reasoning to say the ressurection did not occur because It does not happen in the world at all. What is wrong with that though, do I need an outside source to confirm that ressurections do not take place. I have never see a unicorn but I' don't think you would call it circular reasoning if I said that therefore I don't believe they exist
Steve
I believe that yes, there are other gods but these gods are demons and the devil. they can perform miracles but require something of you like your life. that is why there is such things as suicide bombers and Kamikazes and suicides. but God does not require that, that is why he is the true God. that is why God is so important to the formation of countries.
Eat,
Agentorange,
Several things should be said, first, miracles are not indicative of the truth. Jesus never said, "And you will know the true way, because it will be littered with miracles" Indeed, there is a warning in the Bible that others would perform miracles and claim to be the right way. In any case, there is more to faith than miracles.
In my case, it would have been impossible for a placebo effect. That being said, I am sure some genuine believers do experience something that might be deemed a "placebo effect" (I say might be deemed, because I believe all things are from God and so nothing is really a placebo effect) That is fine.
Finally, it is more than just evidence that makes up our faith. Yes the evidence we have (both personal and objective) strengthens our faith and reassures us, and yes God can use these means to bring us to Him, but our faith is based upon the work of the spirit in our lives. There is nothing I am surer of than the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
What I would challenge you to do, is see what worldview makes the most sense and is the most coherent, in its entirety. And while doing that pray to God that He would work in your life (if He exists). Of course, if you don't want an answer, or are happy with what you have, then by all means don't search for it! But I know the peace in my life, I see the Spirit working in my life, and I wish you could have the same thing too.
Chris
chris, I am not saying by other religons existing does it negate yours, but what I am saying is christianity and all its wonderous claims on miracles and the like are hardly unique. We have other devotees from other religons that swear by witnessed miracles....so the question goes back to this - why do followers of other religions experience the same sorts of *micracles* and credit their god (allah, vishnu, etc.) as being the deliverer of these gifts?
Why do we have people swear upon shamans and other mystics that alledgadly perfrom miracles? The point I am trying to make is, why do these other groups think they have answered prayers and miracles at all if they are, by your own admission, not following the correct deity?
Couldn't it be equally as likely that not only these devotees, but yours included are all victims of the placebo affects of wanting to believe in certain outcomes? IE they have belief in belief! Take for instance when a visiits the hospital for surgery and later they will (oddly enough) credit god as being the sole reason for their successfull surgery. Yes, say nothing of the medicine, nor of the surgeons or anyone else involved and credit with what they want to believe fixed them.
orange said " The average life span back then was 45 tops."
Where did you get that number? Outside of the Bible, life expectancy for that time period is merely conjecture.
Also,
Noah was not a Jew, Abraham came later.
The Bible is a very reliable historical document. Many old testament cities have been found right where the Bible said they were. Sodom and Gomorrah have been located and, through archaeogical digs, they've determined that it was destroyed the way the Bible says it was. The same is true for Jericho.