Jesus a "great teacher"

[belorg]

Well, now you’re begging the question again.

Try a different answer, belorg. One that doesn’t beg the question.

There si no begging the question here. Just logic. You should try it some time.

 

[belorg]

Precisely! The answer is not yet forthcoming…

The answer , Tony, is not relevant to this thread, in which I ‘judge’ Jesus’ moral teaching solely on the basis of internal consistency.
I am perfectly willing to answer this question in great detail in another thread, but not here. Feel free to opne a thread on it, and I will participate, but there is a time and a place for everything.

 

[belorg]

This article by Edward Feser on the difference between classical theism and personalistic theism may add some insight into this discussion.

Three key paragraphs:

*…theistic personalists and classical theists also differ radically in their understanding of what it means to characterize God as good. For the theistic personalist, since God is a person comparable to us, only without our limitations, His goodness amounts to a kind of superlative moral virtue. Like us, He has moral duties; unlike us, He fulfills them perfectly. But for the classical theist, this is nonsensical. Virtue and duty have to do with habits and actions that allow us to realize the ends set for us by nature and thereby to perfect ourselves. But God, being pure actuality, cannot intelligibly be said to have ends He needs to realize or imperfections He needs to remedy. Accordingly, He cannot intelligibly be said to be “virtuous” or to have “duties” He needs to fulfill.

To say that God is good is for the classical theist to say something very different, and something that it is, frankly, not easy to summarize for readers unfamiliar with certain key metaphysical doctrines characteristic of classical, and especially Scholastic, philosophy, such as the doctrine of the convertibility of the transcendentals, the notion of evil as privation, and the principle of proportionate causality (all of which are explained in my book Aquinas). Briefly, though, according to the first of these doctrines, being is “convertible” with goodness, so that whatever is pure actuality or Being Itself is necessarily also Goodness Itself. Furthermore, evil is a privation rather than a positive reality – the absence of good, as blindness is merely the absence of sight rather than a positive attribute. Whatever is pure actuality, and thus Goodness Itself, therefore cannot intelligibly be said to be evil or deficient in any way. Finally, since according to the principle of proportionate causality, whatever is in an effect must in some way be in its cause (“eminently” if not “formally”), God as the cause of all possible good must have all possible good within Him, eminently if not formally.

The point for now is just to indicate how different the classical theist’s conception of divine goodness is from that of the theistic personalist – and, for that matter, from the conception taken for granted by atheists who suggest that the existence of evil shows that God, if He exists, must in some way be morally deficient. While God is not a Platonic Form, for the classical theist, to suggest that God is in some way morally deficient nevertheless makes about as much sense as suggesting that Plato’s Form of the Good might be morally deficient. The suggestion is unintelligible both because characterizing the God of classical theism as either virtuous or vicious is unintelligible, and because characterizing Him as deficient in any way is unintelligible. An atheist could intelligibly deny that such a God exists at all (just as he could intelligibly deny the existence of Platonic Forms), but to suggest that the God of classical theism might be morally deficient merely shows that such an atheist does not understand the view he is criticizing (just as an opponent of Platonism who suggested that the Form of the Good might be unloving or vicious would only show thereby that he doesn’t understand what sort of thing a Form is supposed to be).
*

I am actually reasonably familiar with Feserism, a religion which, by its proponents and by its founder, Edward Feser, is very often confused with Catholicism, and I could write a few volumes about what is wrong with Feserism. Howver, in this thread I am going to assume FTSOTA that Feser is right.
So, to summarize Feser’s position: God, if He exists is pefret in everysense, including in morality (whatever that’s supposed to mean in this context)

So my argument becomes

1 If God exists, He is perfect
2 Internal inconsistency is an imperfection.
3 (conclusion) The God described in the Bible and through the moral teachings of Jesus, is not the ral God.

 

[tonyrey]

The answer , Tony, is not relevant to this thread, in which I ‘judge’ Jesus’ moral teaching solely on the basis of internal consistency.
I am perfectly willing to answer this question in great detail in another thread, but not here. Feel free to opne a thread on it, and I will participate, but there is a time and a place for everything.

No sooner said than done…

 

[PRmerger]

There si no begging the question here. Just logic. You should try it some time.

Look, belorg. To say “Jesus is deluded because he claimed to be God!” and "I know he’s not God because Jesus is deluded! is circular reasoning.

It’s like the absurd argument that some Protestants proffer: “I know it’s Scripture because it’s in the Bible!” and “I know it belongs in the Bible because it’s Scripture!”

So try to give us the multitude of examples you have that prove Jesus was deluded.

If you outside historical sources that would be great. Try Josephus or Tacitus.

But don’t use circular reasoning, belorg.

 

[Peter_Plato]

1 If God exists, He is perfect
2 Internal inconsistency is an imperfection.
3 (conclusion) The God described in the Bible and through the moral teachings of Jesus, is not the ral God.

I’m not sure what this “ral God” is, that Jesus apparently has been proven not to be!

The flaw in your argument is that you have not shown “internal inconsistency” but merely that one act (throwing a few tables about and lashing a cord of rope), which appears (to you only) as violent, is inconsistent with the nature of “love” that you define uniquely as being nothing more than “nonviolence.”
Your case:
Jesus didn’t show love (once) because he was violent, once.
What is love? Being non-violent all the time.

Yes your case against Jesus being God has been meticulously developed and convincingly portrayed. Jesus is not the ral God.

But is he the real God, that is another matter!

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, to summarize Feser’s position: God, if He exists is pefret in everysense, including in morality (whatever that’s supposed to mean in this context)

This is not even close to being a summary of Feser’s (and the traditional Catholic philosophical/theological) position. It is more like:

Perfection is actualization of potential.
God is the self-existent, first cause of all actualities.
Any and all perfections, including moral perfections, that exist are due to God as First Cause.
Whatever perfections are actualized by God’s creative fiat derive their perfection from the nature of God Himself.

Therefore, it is nonsense to claim that God is morally imperfect because the very definition of moral (maintaining the perfection of things actualized) is the resulting condition of God’s action.

Claiming God is immoral would be like a clay pot saying that the potter that created it is not round or smooth or thin enough. Descriptions that describe the perfection of the pot do not apply to the potter.

In other words, we as moral agents have a moral responsibility to maintain the rightness and goodness of beings around us that have been actualized (brought into being) by God as part of our creaturely status. However, God has no such compulsion. God’s actualizing of potential as a free unwarranted act, means that he could return actualities back to mere potential by the same free unwarranted act as He created them. It is His “right” so to speak to uncreate anything He does create.

This understanding of God as the ultimate cause and sustainer of creation has been part of Catholicism as far back as its origins in the Old Testament. Feser is very traditional on this, following Aquinas and others. It is clear to me that you do not understand Feser’s work nor traditional Catholicism if you think, “Feserism, a religion which, by its proponents and by its founder, Edward Feser, is very often confused with Catholicism.”

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Belorg, I hope you never have to undergo the surgeon’s knife. Because, if that’s the surgeon’s recommendations, and you’re being consistent to your view regarding “violence”, you ought to run away as fast as you can from this surgeon.

 

[belorg]

The flaw in your argument is that you have not shown “internal inconsistency” but merely that one act (throwing a few tables about and lashing a cord of rope), which appears (to you only) as violent, is inconsistent with the nature of “love” that you define uniquely as being nothing more than “nonviolence.”

Jesus gave specific examples of what ‘loving your enemies’ is about. And that one act (actually two acts) you describe is a clear counterexample. So, yes Jesus’ teachings are clearly intrenally inconsistent.

Your case:
Jesus didn’t show love (once) because he was violent, once.
What is love? Being non-violent all the time.

My case: Jesus didn’t show love (once) because he was violent. What is love according to Jesus? Depending on the mood Jesus was in, it can mean being non-violent all the time, ignoring people at some times, throwing over your enemies tablesd sometimes and chasing after them with a whip made of cords, always turming the other cheek etc. As I said, internally inconsistent…

But is he the real God, that is another matter!

No, he isn’t.

 

[belorg]

Look, belorg. To say “Jesus is deluded because he claimed to be God!” and "I know he’s not God because Jesus is deluded! is circular reasoning.

Yes, that is circular reasoning. But I have never said that Jeus is deluded because he claimed to be God.

So try to give us the multitude of examples you have that prove Jesus was deluded.

I do not need a multitude of examples.

 

[belorg]

This is not even close to being a summary of Feser’s (and the traditional Catholic philosophical/theological) position. It is more like:

Perfection is actualization of potential.
God is the self-existent, first cause of all actualities.
Any and all perfections, including moral perfections, that exist are due to God as First Cause.
Whatever perfections are actualized by God’s creative fiat derive their perfection from the nature of God Himself.

Summarized as: God, if He exists is prefect in every sense.

Therefore, it is nonsense to claim that God is morally imperfect because the very definition of moral (maintaining the perfection of things actualized) is the resulting condition of God’s action.

Yes, so?

Claiming God is immoral would be like a clay pot saying that the potter that created it is not round or smooth or thin enough. Descriptions that describe the perfection of the pot do not apply to the potter.

Yes, so?

In other words, we as moral agents have a moral responsibility to maintain the rightness and goodness of beings around us that have been actualized (brought into being) by God as part of our creaturely status. However, God has no such compulsion. God’s actualizing of potential as a free unwarranted act, means that he could return actualities back to mere potential by the same free unwarranted act as He created them. It is His “right” so to speak to uncreate anything He does create.

Might makes right, yes. But even if that’s the case, internal inconsistency is still an imperfection.

This understanding of God as the ultimate cause and sustainer of creation has been part of Catholicism as far back as its origins in the Old Testament. Feser is very traditional on this, following Aquinas and others. It is clear to me that you do not understand Feser’s work nor traditional Catholicism if you think, “Feserism, a religion which, by its proponents and by its founder, Edward Feser, is very often confused with Catholicism.”

That God is the ultimate cause and sustainer of creation has been part of Catholicism since the origins of the OT, but Aquinas’ understanding of how this is, his pure act etc. is his own invention (or rather, he borrowed it from Aristotle). Thomism is not traditional Catholicism, and Feser’s own version of it,most certainly isn’t either.
But veen if it was, my argument still stands.

 

[belorg]

Belorg, I hope you never have to undergo the surgeon’s knife. Because, if that’s the surgeon’s recommendations, and you’re being consistent to your view regarding “violence”, you ought to run away as fast as you can from this surgeon.

Stop making these nonsensical comparisons.

 

[tonyrey]

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

On your part!

NB In the welter of posts it is easy to overlook these responses.

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.

What do you mean ‘forced’? I thought it was of his own free will.

Do you never force yourself to do anything?

                                                                                                   .

The real test is not what we say…

No, it’s in what we do. So, merely saying ‘love your enemy’ without living up to it does not mean anything. IIRC that was my point. Thank you for agreeing with me, Tony. That’s a sign you really do love your enemy, you even go as far as to help them make their arguments against your position.

There is far more evidence that Jesus lived up to His teaching than your

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

“Love me or burn in hell forever” sounds a bit self-centered to me. Another inconsistency.

Your distortion of Christ’s teaching is undoubtedly inconsistent and self-centred in its rejection of any higher moral authority than your own opinions - for which you have failed to offer any rational foundation.

“Love yourself to the exclusion of others” is a far more appropriate motto for those who reject the need for humility and compassion because they are obsessed with the craving for power and total independence. There is plenty of evidence of the hell created by men for themselves in this world, let alone the next.

The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian doctrine of Karma reflect the fact that our vices incur their own punishment and we all get precisely what we deserve in the long run. Cosmic justice is not an illusion. And negativity is undoubtedly self-destructive…

 

[melekali]

To call Jesus (merely) a “great teacher,” in other words, just another Ghandi or MLK, is to break the 2nd (?) Commandment, “Do not take the Lord’s name in vain.”

This stumblimg block denied me access to the Lord (the Son) in my spiritual life all my life long, taught to me on a daily basis. I took Him “for granted,” Obviously, you do not revere a mere man as Holy and Immortal. Indeed, this line of reasoning, used by many as a cop-out for fence-sitting, is grossly undermining to the faith. If you do not acknowledge that Jesus is immortal then, first of all, obviously you are calling Him insane even while calling Him a great teacher, or merely ignoring I-don’t-know-what percentage of what He said. Moreover, obviously you are calling him a bastard.

Sorry, no fence-sitting. Either you believe or you don’t.

This “line of reasoning” has blocked me in my spiritual life since I was young, because of the source. Perhaps others have a different take on it.

I agree. Jesus was either the Son of God & the Son of Man or he was a lunatic. I believe the former.

 

[Auntie_A]

I used to toy with the “Jesus is just a nice guy/great teacher” theory and I suddenly realized that the fruits of His life, His work, and His suffering make Him the Greatest Teacher and therefore God. No matter how much someone wants to water down His divinity, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are most unique, amazingly humble, and greatly miraculous. Measure Him against any other “great teacher” or spiritual leader, and then read the Scriptures and you will see that Jesus comes up the most divine person who ever walked the earth. He said who He was, He lived who He was, He died for who He was, and returned from the dead as He said He would. And those brief years of His life have changed the world.

 

[belorg]

Do you never force yourself to do anything?

No I don’t.

                                                                                                   .

There is far more evidence that Jesus lived up to His teaching than your

I have never claimed that Jesus never lived up to His teachings.

Your distortion of Christ’s teaching is undoubtedly inconsistent and self-centred in its rejection of any higher moral authority than your own opinions - for which you have failed to offer any rational foundation.

That’s a nice assertion.

“Love yourself to the exclusion of others” is a far more appropriate motto for those who reject the need for humility and compassion because they are obsessed with the craving for power and total independence. There is plenty of evidence of the hell created by men for themselves in this world, let alone the next.

And the relevance of this is?

The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian doctrine of Karma reflect the fact that our vices incur their own punishment and we all get precisely what we deserve in the long run. Cosmic justice is not an illusion. And negativity is undoubtedly self-destructive…

Those Greek and Indian concepts predate Jesus by a few hundred years. I am glad you admit now that Jesus’ teachings weren"t that original.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, that is circular reasoning. But I have never said that Jeus is deluded because he claimed to be God.

Excellent.

Then tell us why you believe Jesus was deluded.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you never force yourself to do anything?No I don’t.

If we always did what demands the least amount of effort we would rarely attain truth and justice…

There is far more evidence that Jesus lived up to His teaching than your

I have never claimed that Jesus never lived up to His teachings.

Then He must be a great teacher because that is a most difficult achievement - only superseded by love for one’s enemies.

Your distortion of Christ’s teaching is undoubtedly inconsistent and self-centred in its rejection of any higher moral authority than your own opinions - for which you have failed to offer any rational foundation.

That’s a nice assertion.

The truth is sometimes unpleasant - as the Pharisees discovered to their cost - but we don’t help others by hiding it.

“Love yourself to the exclusion of others” is a far more appropriate motto for those who reject the need for humility and compassion because they are obsessed with the craving for power and total independence. There is plenty of evidence of the hell created by men for themselves in this world, let alone the next.

And the relevance of this is?

Your remark about burning…

The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian doctrine of Karma reflect the fact that our vices incur their own punishment and we all get precisely what we deserve in the long run. Cosmic justice is not an illusion. And negativity is undoubtedly self-destructive…

Those Greek and Indian concepts predate Jesus by a few hundred years. I am glad you admit now that Jesus’ teachings weren’t that original.

Your habit of misrepresenting my case doesn’t make your assertions true. Jesus went far beyond cosmic justice. He was inspired by the greatest love the world has ever witnessed.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus gave specific examples of what ‘loving your enemies’ is about. And that one act (actually two acts) you describe is a clear counterexample. So, yes Jesus’ teachings are clearly intrenally inconsistent.

He is the Divine Physician, belorg.

And, as such, he ought to be able to cut off, “violently”, like any surgeon does, things which are malignant to the body.

Or do you believe that surgeons ought not perform this “violent” act?

 

[belorg]

Excellent.

Then tell us why you believe Jesus was deluded.

I said that if Jesus claimed he was God’s son and if it is not true that Jesus was God’s son **then **Jesus was deluded. I used deluded and not ‘a lunatic’ because not all people who are deluded are lunatics.