Jesus a "great teacher"

[belorg]

That is true. And what we do know is how the “spirit of Christ” has been understood – for example, no pope would ever berate someone, or speak words out of pique or anger. A pope is absolutely reliable in that respect – he can be stern in his judgment, but it is always expressed calmly.

Well, that is probably true for the last couple of popes, but I am not sure that this has always been true.

 

[belorg]

I am having a hard time understanding how an atheist can believe anything is Inherently wrong. Where does that morality originate?

And we all know that if we have a hard time understanding something it can’t be true.

 

[Peter_Plato]

belorg:

Originally Posted by Peter Plato
I am not clear what you mean by this. Like things should be treated in like ways. In any moral system, similar moral beings are treated in like ways, i.e., equally. So human beings that belong to a human moral system because they are like in important respects should have equal rights in that system. However, unlike creatures, say ants, dung beetles or tadpoles are not treated as equal to human beings. To be accorded equal rights it would have to be demonstrated that the creatures in question deserve equal treatment because they are equal to other moral creatures in that system in all important respects. We do not include dung beetles in our deliberations about property rights, the right to life or the right to adequate health care. Why not? In your moral system all creatures should be considered equal.

You said: All moral beings should be treated equal? If that includes antw and dung beetles, then yes, they should be treated equal.

I take your bold faced use of moral to be that you recognize a relevant difference between ants, dung beetles and humans. So you do see that differences in types of creatures would be morally important. My point was there is an infinitely larger difference between God and ourselves than between ourselves and dung beetles, etc. That means there is a prima facie reason for God having different moral rights from ours. You honestly don’t believe ants and dung beetles should have the same moral rights as humans, do you?

In my system they are not accorded the same rights because they are not the same in important respects. If God is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of all that exists then He is in many important respects not “the same” as human beings. He is infinitely greater than human beings in all important respects just as human beings are greater than ants or frogs in important respects. If we have any reason by which to treat frogs differently, morally speaking, than human beings, we also have every reason to think that God would also have morally relevant differences to humans. His rights as Creator of the universe would or could supercede our rights as merely contingent beings, just as our rights supercede those of ants because we are different beings with different capacities.

You said: ** And we have also every reason to treat president Obama differently from Okd George, a poor fellow who does not happen to be very intelligent? **
I didn’t claim relative differences in human intelligence are morally relevant. In relevant respects, i.e., both are human beings, they should be treated the same

You would have to first convince me that human beings are inherently free creatures. I would suggest that our freedom is actually contingent upon the freedom of God. Without the grace of God we are impotent with respect to free choice.

You said: ** So you think we are robots. If that’s the case, I withdraw my claim. **
You don’t seem to get some subtleties at all. I am claiming that all humans are potentially free beings with a capacity to make free choices. The fact that many humans often do not do use the power of free choice available to them does not make them inherently free creatures but potentially so. My claim does not imply we are robots. Freedom can be achieved by any human, but it is not a given fact of existence.

You don’t believe in authorship rights? When you write a novel, paint a masterpiece, father a child or compose a musical score you have no additional rights with regard to your creation? So any other creature in your moral system has exactly the same rights as you to that created artifact? That hardly sounds fair and just to me. I am not sure I want to live in your moral universe.

You said: ** I had to read that three times before I could believe my eyes. So writing a novel and painting a masterpiece are on par with fathering a child ,in your opinion?
I once painted a picture, but when I had finished it I realised that it wasn’t beautiful at all. Sio I destroyed it. My son has done some things that I do not approve of. Do I have the right to destroy him? I have authorship rights, don’t I? **

Again you have difficulties with subtleties. Authorship rights may not be exactly the same for every “product” created. Writing a novel entitles me to certain kinds of rights, but fathering a child entitles me to other kinds of rights (and responsibilities) with regard to the child. There are different kinds of authorships, different kinds and qualities of products and therefore different attending rights. With a child, I have rights to expect a certain level of respect and obedience that other men would not have from this particular child. By the way, I do not believe that authorship rights ** necessarily or ever ** include the right to destroy the object, depending upon what it is. Someone who discovers a cure for cancer, for example, could have a moral obligation to share it and not a right to keep it hidden. However, that may be too subtle a distinction to get into at this moment.

In fact this post is longer than allowed. So continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

… Continued from previous.

Do you honestly not think that the omniscient Being who has the potency to bring the entire universe into being from nothing and maintain it for billions of years should have no additional rights or say in how things should be than any human being, who Is without any substantial merit, capabilities or intelligence except that created and bestowed by the Creator.

You said: ** Since I do not believe in ‘might makes right’, no I do not think so. **

I never said might makes right, you are falsely inferencing this. Again, subtleties are not your forte. It is the combination of full knowledge of alternatives, the power to alter causes and effects and the omnibenevolent will to always undertake the best course of action that would give God the right and even the responsibility to overrule limited human will and choices that are based upon sinful, distorted or otherwise inadequate deliberation. This is not a question of might makes right, but who is in the best position to make the best decision.

Surely, the simple fact of omniscience should be enough to say that God at least knows better than we do with regard to the running of the universe and how a moral system should be organized. Do you honestly think you are more capable than the omniscient, omnibenevolent God to determine what is best for all?

You said: ** If an omniscient omnibenevolent God existed, He would know better than I. And He would not allow His son to say and do the things He allegedly said and did. **

And you, from your limited perspective 2000 years removed from the situation, with only hearsay evidence available, could be sure of that, how? You are clinging onto a fatuous point, admit that and let’s move forward.

God could certainly make any demands He sees fit. Omniscience and omnibenelovence give God the right to do so overruling any limited thoughts or perspectives we might have in such matters. The trilemma makes perfect sense if you could only have enough humility to recognize that God may know better than you about matters of right and wrong. Omniscience might sound deluded to belorgniscience just as Einstein’s musings on physics might be baffling to the brain of a slug.

You said: ** If an omniscient God tells us to love our enemies, then we should not use violence against them. There is only a very little piece of belorgscience needed to see this.
Unless love is something completely different from its usual definition of course. **

That is a point you keep asserting but have not shown at all. Police officers may be called to restrain, forcibly constrain, fire upon and in many ways do violence and even kill others to protect the innocent and the rule of law in society and that is totally consistent with “loving.” To love others necessarily means you will love the social, political and environmental conditions that allows others to flourish as human beings. When those conditions are threatened by individuals who do not love (enemies or not) then sometimes violence is a necessary means of protecting the conditions that allow love to flourish among people of good will. Violence can be appropriate and even necessary. Let’s not be dogmatic about this, Belorg!

 

[belorg]

I take your bold faced use of moral to be that you recognize a relevant difference between ants, dung beetles and humans. So you do see that differences in types of creatures would be morally important. My point was there is an infinitely larger difference between God and ourselves than between ourselves and dung beetles, etc. That means there is a prima facie reason for God having different moral rights from ours. You honestly don’t believe ants and dung beetles should have the same moral rights as humans, do you?

The difference between ants and humans is (probably) that ants are not moral creatures and humans are. If morality is objective, as most people, incluing most Christians believe it is, then yes, it does follow that every moral creature should be treated in the same way.

I didn’t claim relative differences in human intelligence are morally relevant. In relevant respects, i.e., both are human beings, they should be treated the same

Well, how is it possible to define ‘relevant’ respects? You say that God, because he is (very, very, very… much more intelligent than we are should be tretad in a differnt way. Then why not treat Stephen Hawking better than Old George who can barely spell his own name?

You don’t seem to get some subtleties at all. I am claiming that all humans are potentially free beings with a capacity to make free choices. The fact that many humans often do not do use the power of free choice available to them does not make them inherently free creatures but potentially so. My claim does not imply we are robots. Freedom can be achieved by any human, but it is not a given fact of existence.

The point is; humans are either free or they are slaves, but free beings should not be treated as slaves.

Again you have difficulties with subtleties. Authorship rights may not be exactly the same for every “product” created. Writing a novel entitles me to certain kinds of rights, but fathering a child entitles me to other kinds of rights (and responsibilities) with regard to the child. There are different kinds of authorships, different kinds and qualities of products and therefore different attending rights. With a child, I have rights to expect a certain level of respect and obedience that other men would not have from this particular child.

The right to expect a certain level of respect and obedience from a child is not an authorship right. You have the same right in the case of an adopted child, which you didn’t ‘author’.

 

[belorg]

…

I never said might makes right, you are falsely inferencing this. Again, subtleties are not your forte. It is the combination of full knowledge of alternatives, the power to alter causes and effects and the omnibenevolent will to always undertake the best course of action that would give God the right and even the responsibility to overrule limited human will and choices that are based upon sinful, distorted or otherwise inadequate deliberation. This is not a question of might makes right, but who is in the best position to make the best decision.

That is true IFF it is the best decision, but a decision to use violence against somebody who by God’s own rules must be loved, is not the best decision.

And you, from your limited perspective 2000 years removed from the situation, with only hearsay evidence available, could be sure of that, how? You are clinging onto a fatuous point, admit that and let’s move forward.

I concede for the sake of the argument that the “hearsay” evidence of the Gospels concerning Jesus’ actions is actually true. If it isn’t, there is not much to discuss.

That is a point you keep asserting but have not shown at all. Police officers may be called to restrain, forcibly constrain, fire upon and in many ways do violence and even kill others to protect the innocent and the rule of law in society and that is totally consistent with “loving.” To love others necessarily means you will love the social, political and environmental conditions that allows others to flourish as human beings. When those conditions are threatened by individuals who do not love (enemies or not) then sometimes violence is a necessary means of protecting the conditions that allow love to flourish among people of good will. Violence can be appropriate and even necessary. Let’s not be dogmatic about this, Belorg!

In every democratic country, the use of violence is restricted to when it is absolutely inevitable. If there was any hint that Jesus’ violence was really inevitable, you would have a point. But there is no such hint. Money changers had been in the temple for years and there is no indication that on that particular day they were doing anything special. If violnece had been inevitable when Jesus used it, it would also have had to be inevitable all those yeasr before that, when Jeus was already on his mission.
So, maybe violence can be necessary, but it was not necessary in that situation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The difference between ants and humans is (probably) that ants are not moral creatures and humans are. If morality is objective, as most people, incluing most Christians believe it is, then yes, it does follow that every moral creature should be treated in the same way.
Well, how is it possible to define ‘relevant’ respects? You say that God, because he is (very, very, very… much more intelligent than we are should be tretad in a differnt way. Then why not treat Stephen Hawking better than Old George who can barely spell his own name?

No, intelligence is not the only relevant respect. God is not a human being and human beings are not ants. It is not the mere level of intelligence that makes a difference, it is the ontological state of the being that does.

The right to expect a certain level of respect and obedience from a child is not an authorship right. You have the same right in the case of an adopted child, which you didn’t ‘author’.

Adopting a child is assuming or taking over the “authorship” rights of the biological progenitor because they are unable or unwilling to do so. Adoption still assumes that the distinct rights of the parent (assumed by the adoptive parent) are different from rights owed by the child to all other adults in the society.

The rest of your points are just restatements that have little bearing on the topic.

 

[Portofino]

To love others necessarily means you will love the social, political and environmental conditions that allows others to flourish as human beings. When those conditions are threatened by individuals who do not love (enemies or not) then sometimes violence is a necessary means of protecting the conditions that allow love to flourish among people of good will. Violence can be appropriate and even necessary. Let’s not be dogmatic about this, Belorg!

From Matthew 5:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

This a hard teaching but, then again, so is the teaching against divorce, or against having adulterous thoughts. Jesus is specifically *amending *the law of Moses; it is pointed and deliberate.

And his own death was precisely an example of this teaching; he did not fight violence with violence, even though he could have. Peter, even, tried to fight for him, and Christ said, “those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.” Peter’s would have been the ultimate just war cause – defending the very person of Christ himself.

But it goes further than that, even. Peter and Paul, and countless other Christians, died a martyr’s death. They did not stage an insurrection or try to resist using violence. They would have been justified in doing so; after all, theirs was the true religion, and the others, those who were persecuting them, were in error. It is clear from their lives and their deaths that Christ’s comportment before his persecutors was not understood to have been meant for himself, only; it was also meant for those who would follow him (Matthew 16: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” So they followed him, even to Golgotha.

It would seem foolish – indeed, suicidal (and, in effect, it was). From a pagan perspective, Christian martyrdom was stupidity. But, as Paul said, “God made the weak things of this world to put to shame the strong; God made the foolish things of this world to put to shame the wise” (1 Corinthians, 1:27).

Even when Jesus says, “love your enemies”, he is not–as Catholics have pointed out, time and again, in other contexts – talking about “a feeling”, but about action and conduct as well. If I love my enemies as I love my friends, then I will treat them similarly. I will not love my friends, while embracing them; while, at the same time, loving my enemies, but in striking them down, or killing them. That is not “resist not evil” and “turn the other cheek,” either.

If this doesn’t work; if it is impossible; then it is Christ who counsels the impossible, and who did not adequately think of all possible scenarios in which I would be asked to love my enemy. He did not hedge his own bets; he allowed himself to be tortured and killed, and did not raise his hand to his persecutors (nor strike them dead). Instead he said, “forgive them” (“bless those who curse you; pray for those who persecute you”). He never once told his disciples not to consider him a morally definitive example in all things, and the fates of Peter and Paul testify to this.

Tertullian was very clear on this, as well: “For even if soldiers came to John and received advice on how to act, and even if a centurion became a believer, the Lord, in subsequently disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

From Matthew 5:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
"

There is a difference between moral ends and spiritual ends.

Moral ends pertain to life on earth. Spiritual ends pertain to eternal life.

It is necessary to act morally in any given situation, but sometimes it is necessary to act spiritually. The act of turning the other cheek when done under the influence of the Holy Spirit could make a difference to spiritual ends. It may make a difference to the salvation of the person doing the slapping or observers who see it as an act to diffuse a cycle of violence.

Sometimes, though - and this is where discernment is important - turning the other cheek is not the best course of action. The willingness of Allied forces to counter Axis aggression with force was crucial in halting the rise of fascism. Turning the other cheek would not have been a wise choice.

Jesus had this to say:

16“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
17“‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’
18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.” (Matt 11:16-19)

Sometimes Jesus advocates spiritual end courses of action, but sometimes it is necessary to take moral courses of action. Turning the other cheek is not a moral course, it rises above moral ends towards spiritual ends. However, this is not always the prescribed option.

Jesus chasing the moneychangers out of the Temple is an example of where spiritual ends superseded moral ends.

Eternal goods trump temporal goods, but not everywhere and in all circumstances. The key is deliberation, prayer and counsel of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gift_from_God]

Jesus isn’t just another teacher. Jesus came to show us that He is the way to salvation and eternal life. No spiritual teacher has offered salvation by following them

 

[belorg]

Jesus isn’t just another teacher. Jesus came to show us that He is the way to salvation and eternal life. No spiritual teacher has offered salvation by following them

That’s not true. Buddha also offered salvation by following his teachings. The difference is that salvation for Buddha was something entirely different and did not involve the vengeful actions of a God.
Another difference is that in order to get salvation, you follow the rules Buddha laid out. The person Gautama Siddharta did not matter. In Jesus’ case, it’s not enough to follow the teachings, you must also personally worship Jesus.
That’s another reason why I would not describe Jesus as a great moral teacher. His teachings are too self-centered.

 

[belorg]

No, intelligence is not the only relevant respect. God is not a human being and human beings are not ants. It is not the mere level of intelligence that makes a difference, it is the ontological state of the being that does.

Ontological state does not matter, what matter is whether entities are moral or not. If they are, objective morality applies to al of them.

Adopting a child is assuming or taking over the “authorship” rights of the biological progenitor because they are unable or unwilling to do so. Adoption still assumes that the distinct rights of the parent (assumed by the adoptive parent) are different from rights owed by the child to all other adults in the society.

Describing these rights as authorship rights is completeluy missing the point of what true morality is about. True morality is not about blind obedience just because you are the possession of somebody else. It is about respect for everybody. The rights of a parent have nothing to do with ownership, they have to do with respect and gratitude.
Everybody ‘owes’ graitude to everybody else who in any way helps him, and the more help, the more gratitude.
So do we owe gratitude to God if He exist and helps us? Yes we do. Do we owe him blind obedience? No we don’t. Does that mean He has the right to do whatever He wants and to be inconsistent? No it doesn’t.

 

[Peter_Plato]

… In Jesus’ case, it’s not enough to follow the teachings, you must also personally worship Jesus.
That’s another reason why I would not describe Jesus as a great moral teacher. His teachings are too self-centered.

You are missing the point of the argument, again!
The reason he appears so self-centered is because He is God who is the underlying reason for all that exists. He is the Centre!

The point being made by the “Jesus is either God, deluded or evil” argument is that if He is not God his actions and teachings would be those of either a self-centered lunatic or an evil deceiver. However, if He is indeed God then His teachings and actions are entirely consistent, i.e., humans would duely owe Him worship, thanks and praise because He is the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists.

Perhaps the point of the argument was too subtle?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Everybody ‘owes’ graitude to everybody else who in any way helps him, and the more help, the more gratitude.
So do we owe gratitude to God if He exist and helps us? Yes we do. Do we owe him blind obedience? No we don’t. Does that mean He has the right to do whatever He wants and to be inconsistent? No it doesn’t.

Who said anything about blind obedience. It is about truth and goodness. Do you think we should abide by or stand by or be loyal to the truth? Should we follow ideas that are false or deceptive or should we obey the determination of truth?
What is the truth? It is the reality of what is! If God is the ultimate Cause and Creator of all that is then God is the Truth. Should we obey and follow the truth? Yes!

Should we always strive to do good? The good is what is best for all. If God is responsible for bringing ALL into being, then He is responsible for the good that is in all. He is the ultimate Good of all because all good comes from Him. Should we be obedient to the good? Yes!

Perhaps it’s not God who is inconsistent, perhaps it is us.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s another reason why I would not describe Jesus as a great moral teacher. His teachings are too self-centered.

Jesus is the antithesis of egocentricity. To sacrifice one’s life for others is at the other extreme from rejecting the supreme reality of divine love in favour of one’s own opinions.

 

[belorg]

You are missing the point of the argument, again!
The reason he appears so self-centered is because He is God who is the underlying reason for all that exists. He is the Centre!
The point being made by the “Jesus is either God, deluded or evil” argument is that if He is not God his actions and teachings would be those of either a self-centered lunatic or an evil deceiver. However, if He is indeed God then His teachings and actions are entirely consistent, i.e., humans would duely owe Him worship, thanks and praise because He is the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists.

Perhaps the point of the argument was too subtle?

The trilemma is not God, deluded or evil, it is God, liar or lunatic.
If Jesus said the things he said without being the son of God, then of course he would be deluded, I have never claimed anything else.
My point is that, even if he didn’t claim to be the son of God, his teachings would not be ‘great’ and if he claims to be the son of God, and you truly believe that God is omnibenevolent, then his teachings are not consistent with that claim and indeed he would be deluded.

 

[belorg]

Who said anything about blind obedience. It is about truth and goodness. Do you think we should abide by or stand by or be loyal to the truth? Should we follow ideas that are false or deceptive or should we obey the determination of truth?
What is the truth? It is the reality of what is! If God is the ultimate Cause and Creator of all that is then God is the Truth. Should we obey and follow the truth? Yes!

Should we always strive to do good? The good is what is best for all. If God is responsible for bringing ALL into being, then He is responsible for the good that is in all. He is the ultimate Good of all because all good comes from Him. Should we be obedient to the good? Yes!

Perhaps it’s not God who is inconsistent, perhaps it is us.

Of course we should abide by the truth. And IF God’s actions and teachings described in the Bible are the truth, we should be loyal to them. But the point is that the teachings and actions of the God described in the Binle and of His only begotten son are demonstrably not the truth, since they lack internal consistency.
And maybe indeed it is the human beings who wrote the Bible who didn’t understand it and portrayed an inconsistent God and Jesus, and God is indeed truly omnibenevolent. then we should follw God’s teachings. The o,nly problem in thta case is of course deciding which teaching actually comes form God and which doesn’t. And we’d have to rely on our own rationality to decide this. But, that’s what I as an atheist do all the time.

 

[belorg]

Jesus is the antithesis of egocentricity. To sacrifice one’s life for others is at the other extreme from rejecting the supreme reality of divine love in favour of one’s own opinions.

Yes, if Jesus had really sacrificed his life for others, that would be a sign of selflessness. But the fact is that Jeus did not sacrifice his life. He suffered for some time, then was dead for a few days, and then he resurrected and was alive again.
If someneo offered me a choic

a. somebody will die of cancer in big agnoy and pain
b. I will be nailed to across and I will be alive and kicking after three days and the person in a would be cured of cancer
Then I would not hesitate and choose b.

 

[PRmerger]

The trilemma is not God, deluded or evil, it is God, liar or lunatic.
If Jesus said the things he said without being the son of God, then of course he would be deluded, I have never claimed anything else.

What evidence do you have that this man was deluded?

Is it only because he claimed to be God that makes him deluded? If that’s your rationale for claiming he’s deluded then you are begging the question again.

Please cite some other evidence for his lunacy.

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus is the antithesis of egocentricity. To sacrifice one’s life for others is at the other extreme from rejecting the supreme reality of divine love in favour of one’s own opinions.

You are assuming Jesus was absolutely certain He would rise from the dead,yet in His agony He cried out:

“My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?”

He had been aware of His Mission for years and knew He would be put to death. In Galilee and Judea crucifixion by the Romans was a common spectacle which left nothing to the imagination and was not easily forgotten, especially when you knew you were going to be forced to suffer the same agonising fate.

The real test is not what we say…

The charge that Jesus was self-centred is completely absurd.