Gerry on Jesus – The Revelation

It was a relief to see that Gerry’s search for Jesus didn’t result in a meeting of minds after all. Indeed it was all strangely detached, even a little wistful. Thankfully we were spared a wander round the Holy Land looking for Jesus the revolutionary, some parallels about blood sacrifice, a Christian justification for the IRA campaign. In the Channel 4 film, a theme of his accompanying web article was missing: “ Jesus is about equality, the poor and the disadvantaged.”. It was established that the historical account was dubious. He faced the central morality without embarrassment or irony, reading from the Sermon on the Mount. “Blessed are the peacemakers”.. “love thine enemies.” Asking a theologian what was the core, he was told “ In a word, forgiveness.” The limits of forgiveness was the main theme. Adds: I started wriiting this before I saw the posts below.. enjoy the diversity! From Alan McBride, the relative of a victim of the Shankill fish shop bombing, he wasn’t charged with direct blame but accepted his share of responsibility without ever defining it. Although a pall bearer at the funeral of one of the bombers, he exercised his customary freedom to label it as “a stupid operation,” adopting the familiar position of denier which, it must be recognised, has never seemed to compromise his authority as leader. Geraldine Finucane widow of solicitor Pat could not forgive but did not want revenge. As for Gerry the victim: “

I forgave those who beat me senseless.. I did negotiate the GFA which got out of prison those who shot me… But I do not forgive and cannot come to terms with those in powerful positions who sectarianised the differences.”

And there we have it : between Adams the political militant and Gerry the fallible Christian, there’s no contest.

“Let’s not get carried away. I’m a political activist. My religious beliefs are private. My actions are sometimes in tune with the Jesus message and sometimes not. You can pick and choose. We might not be right but we all do it… I am perfectly at peace. ”

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    I think you go too far to suggest Adams would ever attempt to massage the message of Christianity to fit his role in the conflict. To suggest he may have done so is ridiculous, is there a wee bit of dissapointment somewhere there Brian?

  • scarecrow

    I think I may have accepted it better had he said I was going about things wrong and had a damascus type revelation and realised the right way to go about change etc was peaceful, and so I changed from (militant?) revoloutionary, with responsibility for leading others in a armed conflict to a peaceful leader and tried to bring peace. You see I have a load of trouble with the idea that war had to be waged to get peace, I believe that change would have come through progress. As the ‘dark’ once labelled the GFA, got fuck all, it is true that ‘republicans’ got nothing from the GFA, none of their objectives met. Yet change came, in the form of civil rights, but the republican armed campaign wasn’t a continuation of civil rights like republicans are trying to claim.

    The revoloutionary Gerry trying to immitate the revoloutionary Christ is laughable. Christ took on the establishment totally different to Adams revolt. I doubt even with miracles at his disposal Christ ‘disappeared’ anybody ….

  • scarecrow

    1.I think you go too far to suggest Adams would ever attempt to massage the message of Christianity to fit his role in the conflict.

    I think Brian is spot on.

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    >>The revoloutionary Gerry trying to immitate the revoloutionary Christ is laughable. Christ took on the establishment totally different to Adams revolt. I doubt even with miracles at his disposal Christ ‘disappeared’ anybody ….< >I think Brian is spot on.<

  • scarecrow

    Only if the sarcasm was true.

    In the words of the prophet written on west belfast walls..

    You can pick and choose. We might not be right but we all do it…

    If Adams can ‘shop about’ for elements of the bible to fit his ‘dirty war’, then we can pick and chose if we want sarcasm to be reality in dealing with his rantings, can’t we, I mean it may not be right…….

    He stood on hte hill overlooking west Belfast like the devil looking down over the city, the man is judas incarnate, now where is john o’connell.

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    Yep he is the man yir lookin for right enough scarecrow as he might just get yir reasoning, best of luck………………….eh to John.

  • scarecrow

    PE – you say

    “1.I think you go too far to suggest Adams would ever attempt to massage the message of Christianity to fit his role in the conflict.”

    Why would Adams not attempt to massage the christian message?

    “To suggest he may have done so is ridiculous”

    Why’s that then?

    “is there a wee bit of dissapointment somewhere there Brian?”

    I see Brian is being sarcastic and dissapointed about? Nasty old brian eh?

    What is it about my reasoning you don’t get?

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    >>Why would Adams not attempt to massage the christian message?

    “To suggest he may have done so is ridiculous”

    Why’s that then?< >I see Brian is being sarcastic and dissapointed about? Nasty old brian eh?< >What is it about my reasoning you don’t get?<

  • Adams is probably the most intriguing and controversial Irish political character in the last half century and someone who has repeatedly publically wresteld with all comers in front of a TV audience of millions over the morality of the IRA campaign. What has made him such a cult figure for Nationalists, such a hate figure for Unionists and such a figure of interest to the British media has been his relative succces in potraying Republican violence within the historical context of Anglo Irish relations and this program was an excellent oportunity for him to reinforce his image as the thoughful revolutionary leader.

    .. and nicely timed for the forthcoming elections.

  • scarecrow

    Because that would be ridiculous…………..obviously!

    Why?

    >>I see Brian is being sarcastic and dissapointed about? Nasty old brian eh?<

    Taking sarcasm as fact PE? Oh dear – now you’re doing what you criticise others for.

    >>What is it about my reasoning you don’t get?<

    Take it slowly….piece by piece I’m sure even a slow learner like you can be brought along.

  • John O’Connell

    Gerry Adams was well put in his box by the Palestinian Christian man who told him that violence in response to oppression would just lead to tit for tat.

    That was wisdom, Gerry, something you showed no awareness of.

    But Gerry’s name comes out at 666 on my numeric alphabet and that is the reason he’s out looking for cover by doing this programme. And I can assure you that that’s the reason why he was asked.

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    Sic im john! I mean scarecrow not Gerry!

    scarecrow, look ma man it is self-explanatory why it would be considered ridiculous for Adams to do that. Brian over-reached, his hopes seemingly dashed that Adams would have, you read it wrong and made an erse of yirsel.

    Honest nae biggie ;¬)

  • Alias

    Folks are always interested in freaks and oddities… if such a platform was given to Adams’ equivalents such a West, Shipman, or a Kray it would have more shock value and present a bigger risk for C4 than a state-approved pacified putz like Adams.

  • scarecrow

    why it would be considered ridiculous for Adams to do that.

    You keep deflecting away from the answer, do you have one or not, or are you merely trying to distract the argument away from Adams to Brian and the rest of us. Thats trolling ma man!!!

    Why DO YOU think is is ridiculous for Adams to massage the christian message to fit his own role in the conflict?

    If you have no answer and nothing to add then all you are is simply a troll messing with the threads and trying to destroy the argument with nonsense.

    Do you have anything sensible to say….not that you have so far. Sometimes I’m too kind you know….

  • lamhdearg

    mu
    go back and watch it again, no sorry i wouldnt ask that of anyone, just run it over in your head again, this time try to cut out the conflict/sf speak (this was a program about jesus after all)and then tell me how you think he comes across, to me he sounded like an idiot and a man who has his view and its not for changing.side note anyone out there on the ground (west belfast)think his share of the vote will increase/decrease in the “general” no pun intended.

  • John O’Connell

    Adams was a bit unfortunate in that he fronted the programme when he was still a man and it was broadcast after he was emasculated by his father’s actions on him and his siblings. The contrast is very important and comes out when he says things like he was “ruthless”. Laughable now but true then.

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    scarecrow

    Before that dummy shoots itself over the north channel I will explain the “self-explanatory” part I mentioned before.

    It would be ridiculous for Adams to even think about comparing himself to JC because he would lose all credibility. An incredulous public would question his credence and decide he was an arsehole and no worth listening to anymore.

    Now love him or hate him, Gerry is far too smart an operater to do that. In any event the whole question of him doing it is ridiculous. You read Brian wrong, time to stop beating yirsel up.

  • scarecrow

    It would be ridiculous for Adams to even think about comparing himself to JC

    Aww I am disapointed that you felt you needed to move the goal post.

    Now lets get back to the original point you made which caused this namely:

    I think you go too far to suggest Adams would ever attempt to massage the message of Christianity to fit his role in the conflict.

    Now why is it going to far to suggest that Adams would massage the message of christianity to fit his role in the conflict. NOT compare himself to Jesus but massage the christian message.

    Do try and keep to the point PE even my kindness is limited….

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    scarecrow

    *politely*

    Away’n’chase yirsel. My boredom threshold has been reached.

    >>Do try and keep to the point PE even my kindness is limited….<

  • Fabianus

    John,

    You’re the religious expert here so maybe you can clear this up for me.

    Jesus was/is God, right? God arranged it so that he could meet a violent end at the hands of the Romans, thereby bringing peace to the world. Am I right so far?

    If this is the way God works, i.e. using violent means to bring about peace, wasn’t Gerry Adams simply following the divine example?

    You can conclude from my question that theology continues to perplex me.

  • scarecrow

    For once I agree – you are indeed boring, but as I told you up the thread I’m prepared to walk you through this step by step…

    first step

    why is it ridiculous to suggest Adams would massage the christian message to fit his role in the conflict?

    ??????

  • Alias

    Fab, peace in NI is simply the absence of organised murder gangs. There wasn’t any ‘war’ until they started it. The murder gangs rarely killed members of other murder gangs, thinking it safer to leave each other alone and focus on killing unarmed people instead – nor was there any ‘war’ outside the members of the murder gangs, with 99% of the population having no involvement in their activities.

    As Bertrand Russell said, “Homicidal maniacs would be well employed killing each other.” Sadly, that was too risky a strategy for them.

  • Fabianus

    Alias,

    Thanks for that, especially the Russell quote. I’m a great admirer.

    Alas, it doesn’t clear up my perplexity with regard to God and war.

  • Brian Walker

    prionsa
    I admit to a litte light irony but not anything too devastating. I wasn’t suggesting that he might have compared himself to Jesus, although there is the flavour of that in the 1916 blood sacrifice and the near-cult of Bobby Sands. Jesus the revolutionary is a familiar element in liberation theology as I understand it, although not in the Irish tradition. He might easily have compared and contrasted.

  • John O’Connell

    Fabianus

    If this is the way God works, i.e. using violent means to bring about peace, wasn’t Gerry Adams simply following the divine example?

    A few differences – Jesus has the violence done unto himself not others.

    – Jesus sword is the sword of embarrassment not brutality. He embarasses the Romans, not brutalizes them.

    – He begins non-violent protest, sacrificing himself, not never ending war that he has to give up in the end and sue for terms totally different to those he sought. Jesus got the result he wanted, undermining the empire, Gerry Adams has simply co-opted himself into the empire by using its methods.

  • granni trixie

    Adams/SF people just dont get it. They want credit for ‘peace’ which is actually undoing some of the practices they had insituted such as intimidation.

    Let me illustrate this with a little story: The wife of a SF Lord Mayor was making self congratulatory remarks at City Hall, because her husband had found a way to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph. It did not go down too well when I said to her “but sure this is only getting back to the days when it was live and let live…in Suffolk beside Lenadoon, we all went to drink in the British Legion club…until the RA blew it up and let it be known we would be legitimate targets if we cointinuesd to socialize there”.

  • granni trixie

    Actrually now I get it myself – I have really been drawing atttention to NORMALIZATION of the majority in relationships as ‘peace’.

  • Dixie Elliott

    Celebrity Big Brother, the Jungle Celebrity thing, whats next for Gerry?

    I know! Gerry’ll do Always look on the Bright side of Life with Daniel O’Donnell in aid of gullible people.

  • slappymcgroundout

    “Jesus got the result he wanted, undermining the empire”

    Yes, and the destruction of Jerusalem, diaspora, Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Trajan, etc., attest to how undermining it was. To borrow from the one soul, you live a life of illusion:

    The problem with pacifism is not that it’s mistaken or impractical (although it is), nor that it’s an illusion indulged in by people whose own safety is protected by non-pacifists (although it is), nor that non-violence has probably caused more loss of life and suffering than it has prevented (although it has) nor even that the record of pacifists in supporting brutal, corrupt and repressive regimes is at least as bad as that of the CIA (although it is). The problem with pacifism is simply that it does not exist.

    For the remainder, see:

    http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/ProblemWithPacifism.HTM

  • Mr E Mann

    >well put in his box by the Palestinian
    >Christian man who told him that violence
    >in response to oppression would just lead
    >to tit for tat.

    but the Palestinians face an enemy determined on to drive them out of what land they still have because they don’t belong to the right religion. It’s been 300 years since either side in NI tried to do that. Surely you don’t have to think the Palestinians should quietly turn over the rest of their country to foreign settlers in order to believe the PIRA’s bombing campaigns were excessive?

  • Kathy C

    posted by Kathleen Collins

    I was glad to see gerry state he is a Catholic…and Irish Catholic. For too long he has been stating his beliefs are more in tune to methodist.

  • slappymcgroundout

    “but the Palestinians face an enemy determined on to drive them out of what land they still have because they don’t belong to the right religion.”

    Those people must be stupid, since they missed a golden opportunity to drive them out when they took the territory from the Jordanians and the Egyptians during the Six Day War. Is here where I call you either ignorant or bigot? It’s one or the other.

    You might also try reading:

    “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered; it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

    The land is an Islamic Waqf precisely and only because it was taken in combat and then consecrated for future generations of Muslims.

    Oh, and moron or bigot, you decide for yourself, they teach genocide as well (from Article 7 of the Hamas Charter):

    “The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).”

    And it isn’t a reaction to Israel:

    The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem back in the day was a Nazi. Sorry to burst your anti-Jew bubble of ignorance or hate. You might check on Al Husseini’s activities following that war.

  • RepublicanStones

    Those people must be stupid, since they missed a golden opportunity to drive them out when they took the territory from the Jordanians and the Egyptians during the Six Day War. Is here where I call you either ignorant or bigot? It’s one or the other.

    Care to explain the continued land theft which occurs in the West Bank then Slappy?

    The land is an Islamic Waqf precisely and only because it was taken in combat and then consecrated for future generations of Muslims.

    You quote from the Islamic resistance movement. Are all Palestinians members? Or could it just be, that many palestinians love their land, because believe it or not, they are human, and have actual ties to the land they are from.

    Oh, and moron or bigot, you decide for yourself, they teach genocide as well (from Article 7 of the Hamas Charter):

    And Israel’s decleration of Independence states…

    …it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex;

    One curosry glance at Israeli society can see that that is not worth the paper its printed on.

    The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem back in the day was a Nazi. Sorry to burst your anti-Jew bubble of ignorance or hate. You might check on Al Husseini’s activities following that war.

    He was a Nazi? He was a arab nationalist who held unsavoury views about Jews. But of course the rise of zionism had nothing to do with this 😉 And if he was such a Nazi, why did Israel let him live in Lebanon for years up until his death? Why not attempt an Eichmann on him? And if you think being a nazi legitimizes the theft of others lands, how come Bavaria wasn’t given to the zionists?

  • BryanS

    Kathy C
    I am sure that methodists are quite pleased too.

  • sdelaneys

    >>The revoloutionary Gerry trying to immitate the revoloutionary Christ is laughable. Christ took on the establishment totally different to Adams revolt. I doubt even with miracles at his disposal Christ ‘disappeared’ anybody ….<

  • RobertNoonan

    Jesus had nothing to do Blantly anti Catholic bias that was part and Parcel of the 6 County State.For some that was the only answer, not something I could do , but I understand it.

    What your name. Colm, stand over there, whats your name William, off you go.What school do youu go to ? St Michaels, stand over there,and you red High off you, F this lets join the Provos

  • John O’Connell

    slappy

    The problem with pacifism is not that it’s mistaken or impractical (although it is), nor that it’s an illusion indulged in by people whose own safety is protected by non-pacifists (although it is), nor that non-violence has probably caused more loss of life and suffering than it has prevented (although it has) nor even that the record of pacifists in supporting brutal, corrupt and repressive regimes is at least as bad as that of the CIA (although it is). The problem with pacifism is simply that it does not exist.

    Then man is essentially evil. Do you feel evil?

  • Slappy,

    The problem with pacifism is not that it’s mistaken or impractical (although it is), nor that it’s an illusion indulged in by people whose own safety is protected by non-pacifists (although it is), nor that non-violence has probably caused more loss of life and suffering than it has prevented (although it has) nor even that the record of pacifists in supporting brutal, corrupt and repressive regimes is at least as bad as that of the CIA (although it is). The problem with pacifism is simply that it does not exist.

    So what’s your take on Gandhi then? Was he not a pacifist? And were his methods of passive resistance really worse than armed insurrection?