Jesus a "great teacher"

[tonyrey]

Passing by the obvious question, there are varieties of Christianity despised by nearly all Christians, and varieties of Christianity that have gone to war against each other yet have since found their way to detente. I would argue that the seeds of hatred are generally rational, but become irrational as we lose the compassion needed to see our opponents within the scope of our shared humanity.

In response to the OP, I agree that Jesus was not a great moral teacher, if the measure is how well his teaching has successfully changed our morality. That is, how should we answer the question, “Did his students learn?” If instead, the measure is how well his teachings conform to a morality on which we can all agree, independent of our belief in his divinity, a better case can be made for his success.

As ever, Jesse

The fact that the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of one Father in heaven and that we should love another as He loves us is compelling evidence that His teaching is not only true but divine.

 

[ReachingFaith]

Didn’t CS Lewis kill himself? I have been taught that is the surest way to get to hell, because it shows you have no faith in God, and you take His plan into your hands. If so, (maybe I’m thinking of someone else!), he obviously isn’t a great “quote” for Catholicism.

My humble apologies, I had the wrong guy. My source just reported this to me.

 

[tonyrey]

Love your enemies was already in the Egyptian book of death, centuries before Jesus. So, please check your sources before you start throwing around accusations.

Please cite your source with the exact words. Were people told to pray for those who persecute them and if necessary sacrifice their lives for their enemies?

Besides, Jesus using violence to toss people out of the temple is not such a good example of loving his enemies.

Love does not consist in encouraging and pandering to evil - such as exploiting the poor and defiling the House of God…

Where do you obtain your moral values?

 

[tonyrey]

Fidel Castro.

What claim does Fidel Castro have to be an original great moral teacher?

 

[tonyrey]

Any source to back this up? The merchants in the temple were there because it was easier for people coming from far away to buy wjatever they wanted to sacrifice in or near the temple itself instead of dragging it along withy them the whole journey.

There were strict rules about where the merchants and money-lenders should ply their trade. Moreover they were exploiting the poor and turning the Temple into “a den of thieves”…

That does not seem to be any more defiling than the practice in Catholic churches to sell candles. You can bring your own if you want, but you can also buy them in the church.

There are no traders in Catholic churches.

Besides, the point is not that Jesus did not have any good reason not to want those people in the temple, the point is that he used violence to toss them out.

There is such a thing as righteous anger. The caricature of Jesus as meek and mild doesn’t do justice to His condemnation of the vices that inflict needless suffering on the poor and the afflicted.

And that is inconsistent with his message of peace etc.

Peace is not attained by being a pusillanimous accomplice to wrong-doing and turning the other cheek when widows and orphans are being unscrupulously victimised by selfishness and greed. It is simplistic to condemn Jesus for upholding the rights of the down-trodden, protesting on their behalf and driving out the men who were desecrating the House of God.

 

[lao_tzu]

The fact that the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of one Father in heaven and that we should love another as He loves us is compelling evidence that His teaching is not only true but divine.

I suspect you’ve confused the teachings of Jesus with those of the French Revolution.
I do wonder how you align liberty with willingly adopting the role of a servant, and equality with adherence to a branch of Christianity notable for its supreme religious leader heading a hierarchical priesthood.

I could also point out that neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor the apostles are ever recorded in opposition to slavery, while many times recorded accommodating it in their beliefs and practices. The Old Testament goes further than mere accommodation, expressly codifying rules for who can be bought or sold, and compensation in the event of damage to slave properties. The commandment against coveting specifically includes slaves in a list that treats women as property as well.

As ever, Jesse

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of one Father in heaven and that we should love another as He loves us is compelling evidence that His teaching is not only true but divine.

A gratuitous assertion which evades the fact that the only rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is that we are all children of one Father in heaven - and not related solely by an accident of birth.

I do wonder how you align liberty with willingly adopting the role of a servant, and equality with adherence to a branch of Christianity notable for its supreme religious leader heading a hierarchical priesthood.

The Pope is the Servant of the servants of God (Latin: servus servorum Dei).
To reject all higher authority amounts to worshipping oneself. The Church also teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

I could also point out that neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor the apostles are ever recorded in opposition to slavery, while many times recorded accommodating it in their beliefs and practices.

Your criticism is refuted by the consequences of the Zealots’ advocacy of violent revolution which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Diaspora. Confrontation leads to conflict. Many followers of Jesus were killed like their Master even though they posed no threat to Rome but Christianity has transformed the world and endured for two thousand years because it advocates spiritual revolution. It is based on love which is ultimately the most effective means of minimising injustice and inequality.

The Old Testament goes further than mere accommodation, expressly codifying rules for who can be bought or sold, and compensation in the event of damage to slave properties. The commandment against coveting specifically includes slaves in a list that treats women as property as well.

It is absurd to identify the Old Testament with Christianity.

 

[tonyrey]

The commandment against coveting specifically includes slaves in a list that treats women as property as well.

If women had been regarded as chattels the last commandment would be superfluous. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods” would have been sufficient!

 

[belorg]

Please cite your source with the exact words. Were people told to pray for those who persecute them and if necessary sacrifice their lives for their enemies?

They were told to love their enemies… And can you cite your source that says ‘if necessary sacrifice your life for your enemies’?
Anwya, the point is that none of the teachings of Jesus were unique.

Love does not consist in encouraging and pandering to evil - such as exploiting the poor and defiling the House of God…

Where do you obtain your moral values?

Love consists of persuading those who do evil to stop doing it. It does not consist of using violence against your enemies.

 

[lao_tzu]

A gratuitous assertion which evades the fact that the only rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is that we are all children of one Father in heaven - and not related solely by an accident of birth.
The Pope is the Servant of the servants of God (Latin: servus servorum Dei).
To reject all higher authority amounts to worshipping oneself. The Church also teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

Hello again, Tony.

I can see you have issues accepting rational moral codes developed outside your religious tradition, and in fact seem willing to deny any other rational origin. In fact, it’s a short step, and entirely rational, to advocate liberty and equality for others as a way of ensuring liberty and equality for oneself, which goes a long way to explaining why these principles have been advocated across history and a wide spread of traditions, both theistic and atheistic.

I might point out how troubling your argument is to those of us who do not share your religious faith, as it paints us as either irrational, or immoral, or both, effectively demonizing us, and thus preventing meaningful interchanges. Other arguments are available, for example, that as the creations of your God, we have inborn moral traits shared generally among all humans, selected by evolutionary pressures themselves created by your God. This is an argument well known from the writings of apologists such as C.S. Lewis. Hence, the demonization consequent to your chosen argument is not merely offensive, but unnecessary.

Your criticism is refuted by the consequences of the Zealots’ advocacy of violent revolution which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Diaspora. Confrontation leads to conflict. Many followers of Jesus were killed like their Master even though they posed no threat to Rome but Christianity has transformed the world and endured for two thousand years because it advocates spiritual revolution. It is based on love which is ultimately the most effective means of minimising injustice and inequality.

Jesus was killed as an insurrectionist, a self-proclaimed “King of the Jews,” and hence a direct threat to Rome. It’s in all the gospels, evident in the sign under which he was crucified. It was the close association of the original apostles with an insurrectionist that brought them under threat, and indeed caused even Peter to distance himself.

Not that this aside serves to refute the simple statement that neither Jesus nor any of his adherents called for the abolition of slavery within your sacred texts. Indeed, Europe and the Americas, the predominant geographical domain of Christianity, did not lead and in fact were relative late-comers to advocating its elimination. The Southern Baptists, for example, currently representing the largest protestant denomination of Christianity in the US, split from their brother Baptists on precisely this issue, though it should be noted they have aggressively sought to reverse this course over the past decade.

It is absurd to identify the Old Testament with Christianity.

I dispute this, principally because it’s clear nearly all of the antagonism toward biological evolution stems from Christian readings of Genesis, though thankfully this is less evident within Catholicism. More pointedly, the gospel writers went to great lengths to cite the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. I don’t believe Christianity can so easily distance itself from its Jewish roots, and indeed, it would be absurd to make the attempt.

As ever, Jesse

 

[lao_tzu]

If women had been regarded as chattels the last commandment would be superfluous. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods” would have been sufficient!

How can one covet something one cannot own?

 

[tonyrey]

If women had been regarded as chattels the last commandment would be superfluous. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods” would have been sufficient!

One doesn’t have to own a woman in order to “possess” her…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Love consists of persuading those who do evil to stop doing it. It does not consist of using violence against your enemies.

Love may consist of using violence to protect the defenseless if there is no other option. To stand by and allow someone (enemy or not) to commit gratuitous violence against the well-being of another human being is tantamount to being a perpetrator of the act. Love does not abandon those loved to the whims of evil.

It is one thing to turn the other cheek in a one off act to make a point that Love is not compelled to mindless violence, but it is quite another to stand by and allow those with evil intentions to harm defenseless others.

 

[tonyrey]

I can see you have issues accepting rational moral codes developed outside your religious tradition, and in fact seem willing to deny any other rational origin.

A false deduction. I have lived in non-Christian societies for several years and respect their beliefs and values.

In fact, it’s a short step, and entirely rational, to advocate liberty and equality for others as a way of ensuring liberty and equality for oneself, which goes a long way to explaining why these principles have been advocated across history and a wide spread of traditions, both theistic and atheistic.

A step based solely on expediency is not a genuine moral value or principle.

I might point out how troubling your argument is to those of us who do not share your religious faith, as it paints us as either irrational, or immoral, or both, effectively demonizing us, and thus preventing meaningful interchanges.

Please point out any statement of mine which implies that those who disagree with me are irrational and/or immoral.

Other arguments are available, for example, that as the creations of your God, we have inborn moral traits shared generally among all humans, selected by evolutionary pressures themselves created by your God. This is an argument well known from the writings of apologists such as C.S. Lewis.

Christian apologists do not attribute the conscience to evolutionary pressures:

CCC1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm#1776

Hence, the demonization consequent to your chosen argument is not merely offensive, but unnecessary.

The demonization exists solely in your imagination.

Jesus was killed as an insurrectionist, a self-proclaimed “King of the Jews,” and hence a direct threat to Rome. It’s in all the gospels, evident in the sign under which he was crucified. It was the close association of the original apostles with an insurrectionist that brought them under threat, and indeed caused even Peter to distance himself.

As a supposed insurrectionist: a trumped up charge by the High Priests who hated Him because He had exposed their hypocrisy. Jesus said:
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s." Pilate could find no fault with Him because He made it quite clear that His kingdom was not of this world.

Not that this aside serves to refute the simple statement that neither Jesus nor any of his adherents called for the abolition of slavery within your sacred texts.

The precept to love your neighbour **as **yourself implies the principle of equality. Those who were faithful to His teaching freed their slaves.

Indeed, Europe and the Americas, the predominant geographical domain of Christianity, did not lead and in fact were relative late-comers to advocating its elimination. The Southern Baptists, for example, currently representing the largest protestant denomination of Christianity in the US, split from their brother Baptists on precisely this issue, though it should be noted they have aggressively sought to reverse this course over the past decade.

The failure of Christians has no bearing on the truth of Christ’s teaching.

I dispute this, principally because it’s clear nearly all of the antagonism toward biological evolution stems from Christian readings of Genesis, though thankfully this is less evident within Catholicism.

Only fundamentalists reject evolution.

More pointedly, the gospel writers went to great lengths to cite the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.

The truth of the Old Testament prophecies does not imply its moral teaching is Christian.
I

don’t believe Christianity can so easily distance itself from its Jewish roots, and indeed, it would be absurd to make the attempt.

Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” He perfected the moral teaching of the Old Testament which the self-righteous Pharisees and Scribes had distorted by insisting on the letter rather than the spirit of the Law.

 

[PRmerger]

Love your enemies was already in the Egyptian book of death, centuries before Jesus. So, please check your sources before you start throwing around accusations.

Whether the Egyptians, the Mayans or Hammurabi stated it first is irrelevant, IMHO, as Jesus did not come to be a moral teacher. Every morally sane person already knew it was better to give than to receive, to love one’s enemies, to give your cloak to the one who has none…

Jesus did not come to heal the sick, to preach the gospel or to proffer some new philosophy.

He came to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Besides, Jesus using violence to toss people out of the temple is not such a good example of loving his enemies.

Sometimes being “violent” is to love, belorg.

Are you a parent, by chance? If so, you will certainly understand this if you’ve ever brought your child to get his immunizations and had to participate in this “violence” done against him.

 

[lao_tzu]

Hello Tony,

I know we all are pressed for time nowadays, but I’d like to ask you to make a greater effort to follow the conversation. When you enter with …

A gratuitous assertion which evades the fact that the only rational basis …]

… and I respond that you don’t seem willing to grant other rational bases, how am I to reply to your rejoinder:

A false deduction. I have lived in non-Christian societies for several years and respect their beliefs and values.

Do you respect them, or do you think they are irrational? Which is it? I can work a conversation out of either one, but not both.

Note I’m asking you here to merely follow your own responses. If you say in one post that there is no other rational basis, and I dispute this, it is bootless to claim in the next post I’ve made a false deduction when I am simply taking you at your previously posted word.

And when I detail a rational basis for morality, you reply with:

A step based solely on expediency is not a genuine moral value or principle.

The question was whether they were rational, not genuine, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Tony, your position moves around too much to make any sensible reply, so I’m going to have to move on to other respondents.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Peter_Plato]

Jesus was killed as an insurrectionist, a self-proclaimed “King of the Jews,” and hence a direct threat to Rome. It’s in all the gospels, evident in the sign under which he was crucified. It was the close association of the original apostles with an insurrectionist that brought them under threat, and indeed caused even Peter to distance himself.

What the Gospels claim is that Jesus was killed at the instigation of the Jewish authorities for blasphemy (claiming to be God).

Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they dressed him in a purple robe. 3They kept coming up to him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ and striking him on the face. 4Pilate went out again and said to them, ‘Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no case against him.’ 5So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, ‘Here is the man!’ 6When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted, ‘Crucify him! Crucify him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him.’ 7The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.’ (John 19:1-7)

Notice that Pilate, representing Rome, twice found “no case” against Jesus. Jesus was not a threat to Rome. In fact, the mockery of the soldiers clearly demonstrated this. The soldiers mocked him because they found the claim that Jesus was a threat to the power of Rome to be absurd. The sign on the cross was meant in sarcastic terms, Pilate making a point that this “King” of the Jews was a sign of the powerlessness of the Jews against Rome and a backhanded taunt at the Jewish authorities (Pilate thumbing his nose back at the Jewish authorities by saying, “Yes, this really is your king!”) Pilate even wanted to release Jesus and offered to crucify a real insurrectionist, Barabbas, in his place. If Pilate really considered Jesus to be an insurrectionist and a threat to Rome, why would he barter a guilty and convicted insurrectionist to try to get Jesus off the charge?

The reason Pilate gave in to the Jews and crucified Jesus was because he was concerned that not doing so would create a civil disobedience problem in terms of a backlash from the assembled crowd. He was “testing the waters” so to speak by offering Barabbas.

Not that this aside serves to refute the simple statement that neither Jesus nor any of his adherents called for the abolition of slavery within your sacred texts.

This is beside the point. What Jesus called for was a complete transformation of the heart of each human being. It was not a call to cease particular activities, but a call to purify and convert the origin of all human activity, the source of all action at the centre of each human will, which would then organically eliminate evil effects such as social or political slavery.

While it may be true that the ethical principles of Christianity are not markedly different from the moral codes central to many religions, this is not unexpected because all human beings are made in the “image” of God, the Logos or Christ, so enlightened and earnest moral seeking should arrive at the genuine principles underlying natural goodness.

The difference between Jesus and other moral teachers is not that he espoused moral doctrine, but that he claimed to BE the moral centre of each heart. To be converted means to be changed into Him, to become one with Him who is the Reality, the Logos that underpins all creation including human nature. This is not merely a moral reform as espoused by other moral teachers, but a metamorphosis into what we truly are at the core of our being in communion with the eternal Being of God. We only become what we have been created to be when we harmonize our wills with the Absolute Truth that makes us who we are.

Jesus didn’t claim to know the way of goodness, truth or life, like other great moral teachers, He claimed to BE the Way, the Truth and the Life.

See this video on who Jesus was

Making particular rules against specific actions, in the long run is ineffective if the human agents behind the actions only follow the rules for externally sanctioned motives. Ultimately, a change at the core of behaviour is the only lasting solution to the problem of human evil. Condemning slavery is 'only a formality" unless a real change happens in the hearts of those who profit from it or are blind to the evil it brings. Jesus was aiming to “fix” the inherent cause of the problem, not a prescription to mask the political symptoms.

 

[tonyrey]

What the Gospels claim is that Jesus was killed at the instigation of the Jewish authorities for blasphemy (claiming to be God).

Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they dressed him in a purple robe. 3They kept coming up to him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ and striking him on the face. 4Pilate went out again and said to them, ‘Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no case against him.’ 5So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, ‘Here is the man!’ 6When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted, ‘Crucify him! Crucify him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him.’ 7The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.’ (John 19:1-7)

Notice that Pilate, representing Rome, twice found “no case” against Jesus. Jesus was not a threat to Rome. In fact, the mockery of the soldiers clearly demonstrated this. The soldiers mocked him because they found the claim that Jesus was a threat to the power of Rome to be absurd. The sign on the cross was meant in sarcastic terms, Pilate making a point that this “King” of the Jews was a sign of the powerlessness of the Jews against Rome and a backhanded taunt at the Jewish authorities (Pilate thumbing his nose back at the Jewish authorities by saying, “Yes, this really is your king!”) Pilate even wanted to release Jesus and offered to crucify a real insurrectionist, Barabbas, in his place. If Pilate really considered Jesus to be an insurrectionist and a threat to Rome, why would he barter a guilty and convicted insurrectionist to try to get Jesus off the charge?

The reason Pilate gave in to the Jews and crucified Jesus was because he was concerned that not doing so would create a civil disobedience problem in terms of a backlash from the assembled crowd. He was “testing the waters” so to speak by offering Barabbas.

This is beside the point. What Jesus called for was a complete transformation of the heart of each human being. It was not a call to cease particular activities, but a call to purify and convert the origin of all human activity, the source of all action at the centre of each human will, which would then organically eliminate evil effects such as social or political slavery.

While it may be true that the ethical principles of Christianity are not markedly different from the moral codes central to many religions, this is not unexpected because all human beings are made in the “image” of God, the Logos or Christ, so enlightened and earnest moral seeking should arrive at the genuine principles underlying natural goodness.

The difference between Jesus and other moral teachers is not that he espoused moral doctrine, but that he claimed to BE the moral centre of each heart. To be converted means to be changed into Him, to become one with Him who is the Reality, the Logos that underpins all creation including human nature. This is not merely a moral reform as espoused by other moral teachers, but a metamorphosis into what we truly are at the core of our being in communion with the eternal Being of God. We only become what we have been created to be when we harmonize our wills with the Absolute Truth that makes us who we are.

Jesus didn’t claim to know the way of goodness, truth or life, like other great moral teachers, He claimed to BE the Way, the Truth and the Life.

See this video on who Jesus was

Making particular rules against specific actions, in the long run is ineffective if the human agents behind the actions only follow the rules for externally sanctioned motives. Ultimately, a change at the core of behaviour is the only lasting solution to the problem of human evil. Condemning slavery is 'only a formality" unless a real change happens in the hearts of those who profit from it or are blind to the evil it brings. Jesus was aiming to “fix” the inherent cause of the problem, not a prescription to mask the political symptoms.

A superb, irrefutable post, Peter!

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is nothing that prevents somebody who has a few crazy ideas about himself to be a great moral teacher in other respects. The one simply hasn’t got anything to do with the other.
Besides, Jesus was not a ‘great’ moral teacher. He was not an utterly bad moral teacher either, but his morality was lacking too much to be called ‘great’.

So in order to make these absolutely astute judgements about the capabilities of great moral teachers you must be placing yourself above them all as a kind of “Chief Ethicist” above all great moral teachers. The saying, “It takes one to know one!” comes into mind here. So you must be greater than any of these moral teachers in order to have the purview necessary to rank order them as you do. As you blithely put it, "…his morality was lacking too much to be called ‘great’ …

This claim is unrivaled in audacity what it lacks in truth.

Apparently you implicitly have some “crazy ideas” about yourself and your abilities that don’t stop you from being a greater moral teacher than these others you so loosely rank.

 

[tonyrey]

A gratuitous assertion which evades the fact that the only rational basis…

A false dilemma. I respect them and I think they are rational within their context but they do not provide a rational basis for** the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity** - which is found only in Christ’s teaching that we are all children of one Father in heaven. Fraternity = brotherhood and sisterhood.

And when I detail a rational basis for morality, you reply with:

A step based solely on expediency is not a genuine moral value or principle.

The question was whether they were rational, not genuine, whatever that’s supposed to mean.

Then you must be unaware that doing what is right is often not in one’s interest and entails self-sacrifice. Moral values are not produced by evolutionary pressures - as materialists like to imagine. “survival” value is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust. The quality of life is far more significant than simply being alive. It is better to die fighting for freedom rather than live as a slave…

Tony, your position moves around too much to make any sensible reply, so I’m going to have to move on to other respondents.

You are welcome to do so. Since you have failed to respond to the other points in my post I assume you agree.