Were the teachings of Jesus really that great?

[Sandra Craft]

I say that for the most part, they are pretty good, useful, and still valuable. You keep moving away from that and throwing in non-essential points, like did he or did he not teach divergent views. Who cares? If he had, great. If not, so what? The teachings stand on their own. And again, who cares if they've been taught by other people in other places? That doesn't mean that in JC's time and location that they weren't ALSO good.

I agree.  I've written in other posts that I don't care about the various teachings originality, the fact that he (or they, or whoever) was promoting them was enough.  I also think it's clear that most of them do bear repeating now as much as they did 2000 years ago -- is there any doubt that "love thy enemy" hasn't really taken hold and can use whatever reinforcement it can get? And that's just one example.

I don't think people are necessarily morally deficient because they need to be reminded of such teachings on a regular basis, I think most of us (particularly those of us living in large, diverse cities) just have a tendency at times to get wrapped up in our own little worlds because it makes a hectic life a little bit easier.  And it's common to hear people say "charity begins at home" and while forgetting that it shouldn't end there.  These aren't bad people (at least I hope not because I'm one of them), but the occasional reminder is definitely a good thing.

[Attila]

This is simply a discussion about the OP, which I've addressed. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on that. So I've kept to the point and made sure not to assume anything of you, and neither have I made unnecessary personal comments. You've done it again, by using a straw man to say that I made the absurd claim that you don't or haven't taught divergent views. I never said it, wrote it, or thought it.

If this is what you are trying to say, then it certainly is not absurd but hardly relevant to my comments. I felt then and I still feel now that a "teacher" who has nothing original to say can not be considered great. I took your remarks to imply that I only taught my own view and ignored all others which, I agree, would not be a good thing. That is what I was responding to. I may still misunderstand you but you seem to agree that JC never taught anything original. You state:

You keep moving away from that and throwing in non-essential points, like did he or did he not teach divergent views. Who cares? If he had, great. If not, so what? The teachings stand on their own. And again, who cares if they've been taught by other people in other places?

That doesn't mean that in JC's time and location that they weren't ALSO good.

From this remark you seem to claim that originality is irrelevant is evaluating "greatness" in teaching. I do have trouble understanding what exactly you are stating so I may be moving the goalposts or indulging in personal attacks (pot, kettle, black???) but I guess that goes with the territory. The part I've emboldened is confusing. You seem to claim that his teaching were great (sorry, I mean "good") at some point in history and that this has been established. You then argue that this does not rule out the possibility that they were ALSO [emphasis original/Attila] good in JC's time. Of course if the premise is false (i.e. they were never "good" in any meaningful way) then nothing really follows.

I took this thread to refer to the contents and contents alone of what are reported to be JC's teachings. B4G seemed to want to include things like JC's  teaching style. I based this belief on his statement

"Were the words of Jesus really that great?", we would rightfully restrict our discussion to the content of his spoken words.  In that this thread is considering teachings, should we not consider all that goes into teaching?

To satisfy B4G (although irrelevant to this thread) we would need either eye-witness accounts of of how he delivered his message or a video of him delivering his message.

Finally, at other points in this thread I have questioned the actual contents of his teachings ("feed the poor" and "love thy neighbour") and attempted to show that these slogans were simply not all that good. You may or may not agree but the simple affirmation that JC's teachings were great/good merely states your opinion but is not evidence. I am truly sorry if that seems slippery, personal or goal-post-moving.

[Attila]

[FLASH! SHOCK!]My slippery sliminess and goal-posting moving explained and generally reprehensible behaviour explained! I was fooled by the thread title, to wit, Were the teachings of Jesus really that great?. I stupidly believed that the thread had something  to do with JC as in "teachings of Jesus". Now I learn that one can meaningfully speak of the teachings of Jesus without any implications of authorship. Being dimwitted (and slippery) I don't know if we are talking about the contents, in which case JC is irrelevant to this thread or whether we are talking about JC specifically. In the former case (contents) JC is irrelevant to the discussion and we are discussing the merits of views such as "love thy neighbour". If we are talking about the latter we can be referring to the delivery of said content (just like we can debate the relative merits of the Diana Ross vs. Kim Wilde version of You keep me hanging on.) in which case either (a) we would need a video or some eye-witness account(s) of his performance or (b) because of JC's unique position in the world, his saying something is more important than anyone else saying that same thing which seems to be B4G's position but maybe I'm mistaken yet again. If we are discussing (a) the JC's name bears no importance except as a label to identify the teachings in question. If we follow (b) we need to accept as historic truth various claims about JC such as that he existed, that he actually uttered these words and that he performed miracles and/or that he has some special status that gives what he says more weight.

A final point, not yet discussed, is that one empirical measure of the worth (dare I say "value"?) of one's teaching is the impact they have on his students. If his teaching were great or even good one would expect to observe a positive effect on those following these teachings versus those not doing so. In others words christians who I assume, perhaps falsely, are the ones who follow JC's teachings ought to be better in some sense than those who don't. One would then be justified in saying his teachings are good/great. To my knowledge there is absolutely no evidence of this effect and accordingly the claim that JC's teachings are good/great must be rejected if we are using this criterion.

So I am still confused what is at issue here. Could this thread be equally well called  "Were the teachings of Billy Graham/Jerry Farwell/etc. really that great?"? Or are we required to accept a special status/authority for JC?

I also think it's clear that most of them do bear repeating now as much as they did 2000 years ago -- is there any doubt that "love thy enemy" hasn't really taken hold and can use whatever reinforcement it can get? And that's just one example.

I beg to disagree. I think "love thy enemy" is rather dodgy advice at best. I'm sure the City/Wall Street Bankers are well served by the rabble following this advice. We can agree that the bankers are certainly our enemies (or maybe not) and I'm sure loving will not shame them into giving back the money they stole. When we're being marched to the next extermination camp by "our enemies" I don't think that "loving them" would do us much good but it would make their job much easier than if we ...uh.. resisted. Am I being shifty and evil by requesting some evidence to show that the contents of JC's teachings (among others) are good/great?

[Siz]

I'm with you McQ throughout this topic. I'm not personally clever enough or a sufficiently deft communicator to parry Attilas obtuse and slippery verbal jousting, but I want to register my support in your attempts to do so in this thread.

I'm sorry Attila, 'obtuse' is not a word that anyone could reasonably ascribe to yourself. I was wrong in doing so. You are, of course, quite the opposite.

I would like to change that to 'insidious', and assure you that I will in future check in the dictionary BEFORE using a word. My apologies.

[Attila]

I'm sorry Attila, 'obtuse' is not a word that anyone could reasonably ascribe to yourself. I was wrong in doing so. You are, of course, quite the opposite.

I would like to change that to 'insidious', and assure you that I will in future check in the dictionary BEFORE using a word. My apologies.

Thanks for that SL. Indeed I prefer "insidious" to "obtuse". It seems so much more sinister.

[Siz]

I'm sorry Attila, 'obtuse' is not a word that anyone could reasonably ascribe to yourself. I was wrong in doing so. You are, of course, quite the opposite.

I would like to change that to 'insidious', and assure you that I will in future check in the dictionary BEFORE using a word. My apologies.

Thanks for the SL. Indeed I prefer "insidious" to "obtuse". It seems so much more sinister.

Agreed. Luckily, your promulgations are too clever and inaccessible to be dangerous to wider society.

I can't help thinking of the Senate in Star Wars that were doing a reasonable job of keeping the peace in the galaxy (trade federation corruption aside) and built a formidable droid army in the name of the people. Then along came Palpatine (AKA (appropriately) Darth Sidious) who influences the course of events to take overall control of the senate under the guise of a clever, wise and noble politician. And using the political power (and with it control of the mindlessly subordinate army) invested by the peoples' representatives, creates an Empire under his own evil control.

Be afraid, people...be very afraid...

[Attila]

I'm sorry Attila, 'obtuse' is not a word that anyone could reasonably ascribe to yourself. I was wrong in doing so. You are, of course, quite the opposite.

I would like to change that to 'insidious', and assure you that I will in future check in the dictionary BEFORE using a word. My apologies.

Thanks for the SL. Indeed I prefer "insidious" to "obtuse". It seems so much more sinister.

Agreed. Luckily, your promulgations are too clever and inaccessible to be dangerous to wider society.

I can't help thinking of the Senate in Star Wars that were doing a reasonable job of keeping the peace in the galaxy (trade federation corruption aside) and built a formidable droid army in the name of the people. Then along came Palpatine (AKA (appropriately) Darth Sidious) who influences the course of events to take overall control of the senate under the guise of a clever, wise and noble politician. And using the political power (and with it control of the mindlessly subordinate army) invested by the peoples' representatives, creates an Empire under his own evil control.

Be afraid, people...be very afraid...

ROTFL Extremely funny, SL! Taking control is so boring. Really not my thing. Popping balloons is much more fun. My hero was R2D2: the first robotic ignostic. And totally pwning jesus Yoda  is.

[Sandra Craft]

I think "love thy enemy" is rather dodgy advice at best. I'm sure the City/Wall Street Bankers are well served by the rabble following this advice. We can agree that the bankers are certainly our enemies (or maybe not) and I'm sure loving will not shame them into giving back the money they stole. When we're being marched to the next extermination camp by "our enemies" I don't think that "loving them" would do us much good but it would make their job much easier than if we ...uh.. resisted.

You know, I have never in my life equated love with letting someone imprison me, or rob me for that matter.  To me, the basic meaning of "love thy enemy" is "no more scapegoats", no more treating someone strange, or different, or unliked, any worse than you would treat someone known, similar or liked.  People have a tendency to treat outsiders, "enemies", badly much more freely than we would insiders, our "neighbors", because we don't have to care so much about people who aren't one of us -- they're a safe place to vent.  "Love your enemy" means no more of that, and I think that's good advice.

[Attila]

I think "love thy enemy" is rather dodgy advice at best. I'm sure the City/Wall Street Bankers are well served by the rabble following this advice. We can agree that the bankers are certainly our enemies (or maybe not) and I'm sure loving will not shame them into giving back the money they stole. When we're being marched to the next extermination camp by "our enemies" I don't think that "loving them" would do us much good but it would make their job much easier than if we ...uh.. resisted.

You know, I have never in my life equated love with letting someone imprison me, or rob me for that matter.  To me, the basic meaning of "love thy enemy" is "no more scapegoats", no more treating someone strange, or different, or unliked, any worse than you would treat someone known, similar or liked.  People have a tendency to treat outsiders, "enemies", badly much more freely than we would insiders, our "neighbors", because the we don't have to care so much about people who aren't one of us -- they're a safe place to vent.  "Love your enemy" means no more of that, and I think that's good advice.

I agree with you entirely. But does JC? Ahhh there's the rub. Your wording is clear and meaningful. The original.......uh.....not so much. Ergo, your teaching are greater than JC's and I'm being serious here. Did you know that they still have the death penalty in the US? It is practised with revolting regularly in the state of Texas (or so I am told; apologies if this is an urban myth). Aren't there a lot of christians (including the present and past governors) in Texas? Is it fair to conclude that injecting poison into someone is the christian  version of "love your enemy"?
Is my reasoning faulty again? I'd love to know where I have gone off the rails here?
As for "love thy neighbour" think of the Texas or Arizona interpretation of that admonition with respect to people who are their (southern) neighbours. Can you blame me for being confused about the term "love" in a christian context?

[Sandra Craft]

I agree with you entirely. But does JC? Ahhh there's the rub. Your wording is clear and meaningful. The original.......uh.....not so much.

Well, that's the problem with the whole bible isn't it -- ambiguous and often contradictory.  People make of it what they will and that brings us back to whether any teachings, including those attributed to Jesus, can be considered good if the outcomes aren't uniformly good.  I have a problem with that standard but I can't put my finger on it.  I think part of it is the feeling that most teachings subjected to this test wouldn't pass but I don't know enough about assorted philosophies and their effects to say.   

Did you know that they still have the death penalty in the US?

Of course, we even still have it in CA tho it's use is "on hold" due to a variety of snafus (including, tho this isn't much talked about, finding doctors willing to to perform it.)

It is practised with revolting regularly in the state of Texas (or so I am told; apologies if this is an urban myth). 

It's not a myth, Perry brags about it.  Tea Party types cheer when numbers of the executed are announced.  Of course, they also cheer the idea of letting people without medical insurance die if they have the misfortune to come down something fatal.  And yes, I think most Tea Partyers are Xtians.

Aren't there a lot of christians (including the present and past governors) in Texas? Is it fair to conclude that injecting poison into someone is the christian  version of "love your enemy"?

No, I don't think it is considering that opponents of the death penalty are also often Xtians and use religion to explain why they oppose the death penalty -- even in Texas.

As for "love thy neighbour" think of the Texas or Arizona interpretation of that admonition with respect to people who are their (southern) neighbours.

Again, there are also Xtians in TX and AZ who oppose the mistreatment of illegals, and on religious grounds.

I'm more than willing to grant that Jesus' teachings, like any philosophy, can be used in negative ways as well as positive but it does seem to me that dismissing it as worthless is extreme and ignores the people who've put it to very good use.

[Attila]

Thanks for the useful and clear response. Could you do a bit of number crunching for me. Do you have an idea about the relative numbers of christians in the US who support/oppose capital punishment? My impression from afar was that it was enormously pro-death penalty. As always, I could be mistaken. Returning to the greatness of JC's teachings, it appears that either they have had no impact on his followers' behaviour or, if the bulk of christians favour the death penalty, they have  had an extremely adverse effect on his followers (assuming of course that we agree that capital punishment is twisted, sick and wrong).
Does this make sense to you?

[Gawen]

So while you may question the novelty/value of the message (which McQ rightly refutes)...

Throwing out a passage or two of a gospel (John) written 70 years after the alleged crucifixion refutes nothing.

Well, bandit...McQ and any other Christian reading this or anyone who thinks Jesus's teachings were good...

I'm going to set up a PayPal account where you shall give me 2% of your income. And why will you do this? Jesus commands it be done:
Matthew 5:42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Since there is no distinction of who does the asking, it is not just a charitable contribution after all. And I'm asking less than any church would require you to give.

Love those that hate you
Matthew 5:43-48: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

When you stop to think about this, there are no enemies until you or the other guy cause such to exist. This piece of morality does not take into account the cause of who started the process. This may have become marginally good advice if it encouraged tolerance, compassion and cooperation between all people. But it seems to apply only to the Christ Brotherhood Country Club. Of course, some Christians may follow this and love their enemy, but it is rare. And there is no reason to think it wise or moral or ethically sound at all. I submit, no one really loves their enemies and apparently Jesus doesn't either, as he's planning on torturing them forever.

How Jesus reconciles this with other passages that induce divisiveness is unknown and a contradiction.

[Gawen]

I notice in the last 2 pages that both camps lost sight of the crux of the teachings. Even McQ forgets, he who reminded us back on page 3:

...I can assure you that many of the items you posted are taken out of the context of their greater meaning, so again, my only bone to pick is that you are not treating the subject entirely fairly, in my opinion.

The Greater Meaning of feeding the poor and loving your enemies and all the rest of them are ways for the believer to purchase passage to Heaven because the kingdom of God was near. Salvation is the key. Once again, I have taken nothing out of the greater context.

On top of that, most, if not all of the teachings were meant for believers, if you read into the context. Feed and clothe a poor believer, don't hate a fellow believer that has become your enemy. Don't help the Gentile dogs unless they say they believe and grovel, etc., etc.
Jesus doesn't say to do these things because it is the simple and right thing to do and everyone should do them.  He says to do these things so one gets to Heaven.

[Ildiko]

Jesus doesn't say to do these things because it is the simple and right thing to do and everyone should do them.  He says to do these things so one gets to Heaven.

I'm now seeing JC as the teacher in Pink Floyd's The Wall:

If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you
have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?

[Gawen]

Wow, Ildiko...how apropos!...*grinnin*