T
- Status
B
belorg
Guest
To reject Jesus as a great moral teacher only requires assessing the consistency of one’s moral teachings. Jesus’ were not consistent and his action were not consitent with his teachings. I do not need a higher moral top make that assessment, and neither do you.
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
Much of the thread has been the repeated assertion “Jesus was not such a great moral teacher because he didnt publicly and explicitly condemn slavery”–which reminds me of the heaps of criticism Pope Pius XII has had dumped on his reputation because he likewise did not do useless or even harmful “grandstanding” in regards to the Nazi genocides. (Please do NOT divert the thread into a Pius XII and the Holocaust issue–I bring it up as a parallel example of those who go to any lengths to discredit either person)
If Jesus had explicitly and publicaly condemned slavery, what would have happened? About 60 years prior to his birth, the Romans crucified some 6000 slaves along the Apian Way in the aftermath of Spartacus’ Revolt and they were just has ruthless regarding any other slave revolt or rebellion. Twice Roman legions would smash Judean civilization into the rubble (70 & 133 AD) when the fanatics got their way and tried the military-political “solution” to Roman rule.
Its a fine comfortable thing to say Jesus’ teaching was lacking because he didnt do things in a late-20th or early 21st Century way–doing press conferences and issuing “position statements” in accordance to political correctness of our current “chrnological snobbery”. It’s quite a different thing when Roman (or Nazi) legions are awaiting the slightest sign of actual rebellion…
If Jesus had explicitly and publicaly condemned slavery, what would have happened? About 60 years prior to his birth, the Romans crucified some 6000 slaves along the Apian Way in the aftermath of Spartacus’ Revolt and they were just has ruthless regarding any other slave revolt or rebellion. Twice Roman legions would smash Judean civilization into the rubble (70 & 133 AD) when the fanatics got their way and tried the military-political “solution” to Roman rule.
Its a fine comfortable thing to say Jesus’ teaching was lacking because he didnt do things in a late-20th or early 21st Century way–doing press conferences and issuing “position statements” in accordance to political correctness of our current “chrnological snobbery”. It’s quite a different thing when Roman (or Nazi) legions are awaiting the slightest sign of actual rebellion…
B
belorg
Guest
The evidnece suggests it, but it does not completely rule out that He didn’t. He made a whip out of cords and threw over tables. While it’s not recorded in the Gospels, it’s highly unlikely that the money changers would have just walked away. The most obvious reaction would have been to reject, after all, Jesus did not hav a whole army behind him. And it is cery likely (although not 100% certain) that he beat those men. In any case: throwing over tables is an act of violence in itself.
I am making a claim based on the most likely scenario. Bear in mind that we do noy have neutral records of the event, only reports by some of his admirers. And even those admirers describe an act of violence.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I should have pointed out that I’m not concerned with your morals but the basis of your moral beliefs which enables you to reject Jesus as a great moral teacher.
B
belorg
Guest
If objective morality exists, then God can do no such thing. In a moral system everybody is considered equal.
There is no such thing as ‘authorship rights’ over free creatures. If Jesus teachings really are as bad as you describe them here, then he indeed was not a great moral teacher.
But if he had been God, he would have lived up to his teachings.
A human cult leader would make such demands. and most human cult leaders are deluded, but not all of them are complete lunatics, so the trilemma still does not make sense.
T
tonyrey
Guest
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
I’m sure you are personaly a moral person–its just your philisophical-religious position gives you no real firm basis of doing so, other than expediancy.
Your criticism of Jesus as a great moral teacher is actually derived from Jesus’ own teaching–which is based on who He is, who He claimed to be.
There was almost no effective philosphical or religious opposition to slavery in the ancient world–or even through most of the non-Western world of today. The only real exception were the Hebrews–even though their are some “treading the line” verses in the “scriptural slave code” of the Torah, in the whole it was an enlightened system that humanized what was universaly elsewhere pure chattel slavery and exploitation. I personaly see that OT slave code in the same manner of the OT laws regarding divorce–an accepted, inherited evil, which Jesus declared was never God’s intent, even though it ended up in “The Law”
Jesus teachings were and are a “time bomb” of sorts. While certain slavery apologists cherry-picked the OT to justify chattel slavery and the slave trade (and read into it their convienent “eiegesis”) others, including Unitarians and Calvinists (“John Brown’s body lies a moldering in the grave…”) condemned such interpretations as blasphemy. There are at least 3 Papal Encyclicals prior to the 19th century condemning the slave trade and enslavement of non-christians (and Spanish and French “catholics” ignored them–or even the dictates of Isabella of Spain!)
The abolitionist movement of the 18th Century and the 19th came out of Christianity (especially nascent Evangelical), when the actual circumstances of slavery started coming to light. It did not come out of “the Enlightenment” with its secular, non-religious (or anti-religious) philosphy
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
Indeed:thumbsup:
“Christianity is a paradoxical religion because the Jew of Nazareth is a paradoxical character. No figure in history or fiction contains as many multitudes as the New Testament’s Jesus. He’s a celibate ascetic who enjoys dining with publicans and changing water into wine at weddings. He’s an apocalyptic prophet one moment, a wise ethicist the next. He’s a fierce critic of Jewish religious law who insists that he’s actually fulfilling rather than subverting it. He preaches a reversal of every social hierarchy while deliberately avoiding explicitly political claims. He promises to set parents against children and then disallows divorce; he consorts with prostitutes while denouncing even lustful thoughts. He makes wild claims about his own relationship to God, and perhaps his own divinity, without displaying any of the usual signs of megalomania or madness. He can be egalitarian and hierarchical, gentle and impatient, extraordinarily charitable and extraordinarily judgmental. He sets impossible standards and then forgives the worst of sinners. He blesses the peacemakers and then promises that he’s brought not peace but the sword. He’s superhuman one moment; the next he’s weeping. And of course the accounts of his resurrection only heighten these paradoxes, by introducing a post-crucifixion Jesus who is somehow neither a resuscitated body nor a flitting ghost but something even stranger still—a being at once fleshly and supernatural, recognizable and transfigured, bearing the wounds of the crucifixion even as he passes easily through walls….The boast of Christian orthodoxy, as codified by the councils of the early Church and expounded in the Creeds, has always been its fidelity to the whole of Jesus……[Where heresy says which one?] Both, says orthodoxy….The goal of the great heresies, on the other hand, has often been to extract from the tensions of the gospel narratives a more consistent, streamlined, and non-contradictory Jesus.*” --*Ross Douthat, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Irrefutable!
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thanks for that fascinating list of simplistic distortions of Christ’s character. The truth is easily twisted to suit preconceived conclusions…
T
tafan
Guest
I am having a hard time understanding how an atheist can believe anything is Inherently wrong. Where does that morality originate?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
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.
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 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 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.
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. 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?
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.
P
Portofino
Guest
For those who would want to understand why non-believers with humanistic leanings are troubled by some aspects of Christ’s character as described in the Gospels, I offer the following Biblical citations.
The first is from John the Baptist, though is still apropos:
“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?.. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
What it looks like to a humanist – an angry threat, a venting of spleen. John Paul II or Benedict would never speak thus; for one, it would be counter-productive.
William Blake wrote: “Damn braces; bless relaxes.”
Now on to Jesus:
“You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?”
What it looks like to a humanist: abusive language; resorting to an epithet or insult. A verbal slap in the face, which is not treating others with respect. A bad example, especially, to a human being, unless Christ said, “mind you, only *I *can talk like this to my neighbor, not you.”
"*Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign!*"
Same as above; God may be permitted to speak thus, but it is setting a bad example for sinful mankind. Thus Luther would write, “I have no better remedy than anger. If I want to write, pray, preach well, then I must be angry.”
Elsewhere, Jesus proclaims, with great compassion (compassion for those who tortured and killed him): “forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” This mood is not maintained consistently, throughout the gospels.
“O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?”
What this looks like – impatience; belittlement. I personally have a hard time reconciling it with Paul’s conception of love in Corinthians (“love is patient; love suffers all things; love is kind”).
The most loving human beings in our current world - the Mother Theresas, the Gandhis, the Pope Benedicts or John Paul’s II’s–do not speak like this. However, I know many people who speak like this, to their children, their spouses, or to perfect strangers – and they are not among the most loving individuals I know.
"Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’*
“I never knew you” is reserved as punishment, by human beings, for the worst forms of betrayal. It is a refusal of forgiveness, as when someone says, “you are nothing to me, now.”
"Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
What it looks like to a humanist – petty and small-minded; kicking the cat
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
What it looks like to a humanist – abusive; belittling; accusatory.
*Another disciple said, “Lord, let me go first and bury my father.”
“Follow me: and let the dead bury their dead.”*
What it looks like to a humanist – insensitive; “let them eat cake” Jesus wept when Lazarus died, yet a man who expressly wants to bury his father is told, “let the dead bury their dead.” How unthinkable it would have been, for someone to say that to Mary.
"He came back and found his disciples sleeping. So he said to Peter, “Can’t any of you stay awake with me for just one hour?"
What this looks like – recrimination; resentment. Not an ideal example of unconditional love, though a very human example of a man who needs his friends in a time of great tribulation. Indeed, friendship is not agape; it needs reciprocity. So perhaps Jesus, too, loved with a human love, with all of the vulnerability that entails.
"Why do you call me good? Only God is good."
A paradoxical statement, from the lips of God incarnate, though one that I appreciate.
I would like to believe that some of these statements, at least, were never uttered by him, or that some of them were distorted in the telling. Most Christians, of course, are not permitted to say, “Christ never said that.”
The first is from John the Baptist, though is still apropos:
“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?.. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
What it looks like to a humanist – an angry threat, a venting of spleen. John Paul II or Benedict would never speak thus; for one, it would be counter-productive.
William Blake wrote: “Damn braces; bless relaxes.”
Now on to Jesus:
“You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?”
What it looks like to a humanist: abusive language; resorting to an epithet or insult. A verbal slap in the face, which is not treating others with respect. A bad example, especially, to a human being, unless Christ said, “mind you, only *I *can talk like this to my neighbor, not you.”
"*Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign!*"
Same as above; God may be permitted to speak thus, but it is setting a bad example for sinful mankind. Thus Luther would write, “I have no better remedy than anger. If I want to write, pray, preach well, then I must be angry.”
Elsewhere, Jesus proclaims, with great compassion (compassion for those who tortured and killed him): “forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” This mood is not maintained consistently, throughout the gospels.
“O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?”
What this looks like – impatience; belittlement. I personally have a hard time reconciling it with Paul’s conception of love in Corinthians (“love is patient; love suffers all things; love is kind”).
The most loving human beings in our current world - the Mother Theresas, the Gandhis, the Pope Benedicts or John Paul’s II’s–do not speak like this. However, I know many people who speak like this, to their children, their spouses, or to perfect strangers – and they are not among the most loving individuals I know.
"Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’*
“I never knew you” is reserved as punishment, by human beings, for the worst forms of betrayal. It is a refusal of forgiveness, as when someone says, “you are nothing to me, now.”
"Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
What it looks like to a humanist – petty and small-minded; kicking the cat
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
What it looks like to a humanist – abusive; belittling; accusatory.
*Another disciple said, “Lord, let me go first and bury my father.”
“Follow me: and let the dead bury their dead.”*
What it looks like to a humanist – insensitive; “let them eat cake”
Jesus wept when Lazarus died, yet a man who expressly wants to bury his father is told, “let the dead bury their dead.” How unthinkable it would have been, for someone to say that to Mary."He came back and found his disciples sleeping. So he said to Peter, “Can’t any of you stay awake with me for just one hour?"
What this looks like – recrimination; resentment. Not an ideal example of unconditional love, though a very human example of a man who needs his friends in a time of great tribulation. Indeed, friendship is not agape; it needs reciprocity. So perhaps Jesus, too, loved with a human love, with all of the vulnerability that entails.
"Why do you call me good? Only God is good."
A paradoxical statement, from the lips of God incarnate, though one that I appreciate.
I would like to believe that some of these statements, at least, were never uttered by him, or that some of them were distorted in the telling. Most Christians, of course, are not permitted to say, “Christ never said that.”
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I appreciate the engaging tone of inquiry in your post. You are asking important questions by taking an “open to answer” stance with regard to where they might lead.
First of all, the paradoxical nature of the words of Jesus have been used to defend the authenticity of these words. Early Christians, with a view to convincing reasonable people would have expunged these from Scripture to save themselves the trouble of trying to explain them. The fact that they are present is a testament to the fact that the early Church was more concerned with authentically passing on the words and actions of Jesus no matter how problematic, than with presenting a reputable portrait. His disciples must have been convinced of the authenticity of his life, death and message and therefore tried to keep all their memories about him intact.
The words are problematic, not because they lead necessarily to the conclusion that Jesus could not have said those words, but to the question of what was it about each specific situation that would have moved Jesus to choose the words and actions he did. What did he see and know that might escape us from our self-satisfied perspective of goodness?
His words open the possibility that God is not just, as Peter Kreeft said, “a vague grandfatherly benevolence, a senile philanthropist,” not just a syrupy decent chap who follows all our expected rules about what God should be and do. He was obviously not an example of Dawkin’s ethical ideal of “superniceness.” There is something about him …
P
PRmerger
Guest
Huh?
The evidence would be the entirety of the Good News, which includes the 4 Gospels.
No evidence suggests that Jesus beat anyone. Rather, the evidence proclaims loudly and vociferously that Jesus, Love Incarnate, loved, loved, and died loving.
Yep.
Okay. So maybe they ran away. That would be the smart thing to do.
Be very careful here, belorg. That could be construed as a very contemptuous remark about Jesus.
Not to mention a remark that if you brought it up in a court of law, with the evidence you’ve thus provided, you’d be thrown out of the courtroom.
Well, only if you can say that giving your child an immunization “is an act of violence in itself”
Again, only if you consider a surgeon’s incision to be an “act of violence” as well.
P
Portofino
Guest
Thank you, Peter Plato
Yes, I really tried to convey that and hoped that this was, in fact, what I was conveying.That is a very fair point. I confess that I did wonder if, perhaps, it may have been an attempt to make Jesus sound more like Yahweh, like God the Father. I thought, perhaps, that the evangelists could have felt that the Jewish people could not accept a Messiah whose voice they did not recognize, in terms of the more stern or reprimanding tone of Yahweh. On the surface, “love your enemies” may (ironically) not have been as impressive.
But your own point is fair and quite possible, it seems. And part of Jesus’ humanity is what could only be described as emotional vulnerability. He did weep when Lazarus died; he was hurt, in a sense, when his disciples fell asleep in the Garden. There is a sense in which he “needed them” in that moment, and drew comfort from their presence.
It occurs to me that some of it might have been humor (“what a wicked and adulterous generation!”); and some of it might have been spoken with a certain feeling-tone that is not easily grasped. For example, he could have said, with great compassion, locking eyes with the man whose father had died: “follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.”
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.
Thanks again for taking my words in a generous spirit – not as answers, but questions.
T
tonyrey
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
'zactly!
B
belorg
Guest
All moral beings should be treated equal? If that includes antw and dung beetles, then yes, they should be treated equal.
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?
So you think we are robots. If that’s the case, I withdraw my claim.
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?
Since I do not believe in ‘might makes right’, no I do not think so.
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.
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.
- Status