Ignoring the element about whether Jesus was a deity, or if he actually existed at all, or who wrote the bible many people consider the teachings of this man to be the pinnacle of philosophical thought and revolutionary for there time, but are the teachings actually any good in comparison to other philosophies or other religions, and were they really as revolutionary as some like to believe?
I think not and do not see anything special about any of the teachings that appear in the bible, infact I find them to be less thoughtful than previous philosophers and theologians had posed due to the "god says" nature that is presented. I also consider some of the teachings to be awful.
(I thought I would start with one example rather than listing loads so others can add to the topic)
To begin with and probably the most well known philosophy that is attributed to the teachings of Jesus is the golden rule. I think everyone can agree with as positive message but this thought can not be attributed solely to christianity, the earliest recordings of this idea can be found in the Code of Hammurabi (1780 BCE - Ancient Babylon) and more directly in the story of The Eloquent Peasant (2040 - 1650 BCE - Ancient Egypt) which says "Now this is the command: do to the doer to cause that he does to you". It is also found in almost every religion predating christianity and those thereafter. Here are a few examples (I have just chosen one example from each of the main religions but there is more than one for each).
Buddhism - "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
Hinduism - "One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behaviour is due to selfish desires."
Confucianism - "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."
Taoism - "The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." (I personally see this to be more like the platinum rule)
Islam - "...and you should forgive And overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving."
Judaism - You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD."
Most of which predate christianity so not particularly revolutionary, and that isn't even touching the greek philosophers or ethics of ancient civilizations and communities. The term we use for this idea "the golden rule" is thought to be attributed to Confucius (according to Rushworth Kidder, its appearance in western thought gives this a very strong case) so if correct its quite strange that it is perceived as being a christian idea. There is also the argument raised against this idea that not everyone wants to be treated the same and has in my opinion been improved upon by Karl Popper which has been given the term the platinum rule - "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by".
Is there anything that you consider to be not so great about the teachings of Jesus? Or teachings that you do consider to be great? To the Christians who frequent this board; why do you consider the teachings of Jesus to be superior than that of any other religion or philosophy?
good post Crow. I'll add one from the daddy of the Greek philosophers;
Plato (through the mouthpiece of Socrates);
'Tell me, then, whether you agree with and assent to my first principle, that it is never right to do wrong or requite wrong with wrong, or to defend ourselves by doing evil in return for evil.'
As a philosophy, I'm pretty neutral to it. It's nice in theory, and might work if everybody behaved that way, but people aren't that nice in practice. Some people would look at it as an opportunity to make you a human carpet and walk all over you.
For me, the important point is that it was nothing new, and was centuries old by the time of Christianity. Personally, I stuggle to find anything particularly new in the teachings ascribed to Jesus, and totally agree with everything you said. The first pagan critics of Christianity said exactly the same thing 1800 years ago. Celsus wrote,
'You Christians have a saying that goes something like this: "Don't resist a man who insults you; even if he strikes you, offer him the other cheek as well". This is nothing new, and it's been better said by others, especially by Plato'
Plotinus similarly wrote, 'All their terminology is piled up to conceal their debt to ancient Greek philosophy.'
Of course pretty much all works even remotely critical of Christianity were banned and burned in the fourth and fifth centuries when the Christians gained power, which is a shame because it would be interesting to know what else Christianity's earliest critics had to say.
The Golden Rule...
Who says a person wishes to always get treated the way "we/I" wish? Would most people like to get treated like a masochist from a masochist? The Rule only seems laudable because we convey our own individual concepts. Doing unto others has various meanings to other people. The Rule mirrors or sets up selfish motives for a person or a group instead of a system for a diverse society. It is a false sense of morality.
Considering that maybe, treating people the way they would like to get treated works better than the way you would like to be treated.
And I invite you, Crow, to read:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8400.0
Quote from: Gawen on October 20, 2011, 12:38:43 PM
The Golden Rule...
Who says a person wishes to always get treated the way "we/I" wish? Would most people like to get treated like a masochist from a masochist? The Rule only seems laudable because we convey our own individual concepts. Doing unto others has various meanings to other people. The Rule mirrors or sets up selfish motives for a person or a group instead of a system for a diverse society. It is a false sense of morality.
Considering that maybe, treating people the way they would like to get treated works better than the way you would like to be treated.
And I invite you, Crow, to read:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8400.0
Hi Gawen,
I read your post and really enjoyed it, it was one of the reasons I didn't create a big list of what I think are awful about the teachings as you had highlighted so many and thoroughly expanded upon them far better than I could have. I was attempting to try and get a dialogue running on the area so people could express their opinion on the topic (though seemingly failing to do so).
The teachings of Christianity has affected everyone that lives or has lived in the west through its strong cultural roots so I think it is important to have this discussion, are those teachings on morality and ethics that have been subliminally passed on through various cultural media and the generations any good; if not are there any better philosophies and what are they, if so why are they good. I was tempted to bring in the influence Confucianism has also had on the Wests perception of morality and ethics and why did they become so popular in the 17th - 19th century but I am interested to know your thoughts on this area, as the west was suppose to already have a strong ethical and moral foundation due to Christianity, yet it became hugely popular without any proselytizing. so why if the teachings/actions of Jesus are so great have the christian faith always been willing to adopt other teachings.
I also agree with your comments about the golden rule and was the reason I included Karl Poppers quote towards the end.
Honestly, Crow...I'm sadly dilinquent in other philosophies. There are just so many of them. And many of those mesh in certain ways to some degree or other. I basically only dabble in Christianity, Judaism and to a very small part, Islam. Because Christianity is dominant where I live and fundamentally locally, I feel my part in life is to tear it down as best I can.
Quoteare those teachings on morality and ethics that have been subliminally passed on through various cultural media and the generations any good
Those ethics and morals are no where near subliminally passed down. But to answer your question, there may a nugget or two buried within the entire Biblical moral message. But the moral and ethical message of the new testament, taken as a whole is no good and never was. It is a poison made for those that are superstitious, willing to swallow the religious disease and then the religious cure. The morals within the New Testament, imo, serve to conjure a selfish outlook on life brought on by a fear and reward system. Christianity is despicable, insidious and sinister.
I'm sure someone here might know something of the lesser philosophies, such as Shintoism, Bahai, Jainism, Sikhism and others. I hope so, I wouldn't mind reading the thread.
Quoteso why if the teachings/actions of Jesus are so great have the christian faith always been willing to adopt other teachings.
An excellent question. Many answers. No time (at lunch).
Can't wait to read others replies to this.
Been thinkin'....
Kinda depends on what you mean by philosophies or adopted myths, festivals and the like.
Quote from: Crow on October 18, 2011, 06:06:55 PM
Is there anything that you consider to be not so great about the teachings of Jesus? Or teachings that you do consider to be great?
I don't really care whether or not a teaching is unique to a particular philosopher or wandering preacher, to me it's just as meaningful to promote a good idea as to originate it.
As for teachings that weren't so great -- I'm not sure if this qualifies as a teaching or a hissy fit, but that business with the fig tree was absurd. Not that I think anything supernatural happened; I expect nothing happened at all. I rather think some follower thought this story a good demonstration of godlike abilities, started spreading it around and eventually it got into the canon. I always thought it put Jesus in a very bad light, but I've clearly been in the minority with this opinion.
As for the good teachings, I've posted elsewhere my admiration for him taking up the cause of treating outsiders as well as one treats insiders ("love your enemy") --a teaching still vastly unpopular in our time, never mind his. I will admit to liking most of the Sermon on the Mount. There are some things I question (I've never been that sure about the value of turning the other cheek, and counting thinking about nookie as adultry is a bit much) but on the whole I think it has a lot of good advice.
QuoteTo begin with and probably the most well known philosophy that is attributed to the teachings of Jesus is the golden rule. I think everyone can agree with as positive message but this thought can not be attributed solely to christianity
Esp. since Jesus never claimed it as original -- the verse where he reminds people to do this also reminds them that it's the law of the prophets.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtcI will admit to liking most of the Sermon on the Mount. There are some things I question (I've never been that sure about the value of turning the other cheek, and counting thinking about nookie as adultry is a bit much) but on the whole I think it has a lot of good advice.
If you liked the sermon on the mount, read this thread and then please post your thoughts here?
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8400.0
QuoteEsp. since Jesus never claimed it as original -- the verse where he reminds people to do this also reminds them that it's the law of the prophets.
No, Jesus does not lay claim to the saying, but many Christians believe he's the one that started it.
Quote from: Gawen on October 20, 2011, 06:38:14 PM
Honestly, Crow...I'm sadly dilinquent in other philosophies. There are just so many of them. And many of those mesh in certain ways to some degree or other. I basically only dabble in Christianity, Judaism and to a very small part, Islam. Because Christianity is dominant where I live and fundamentally locally, I feel my part in life is to tear it down as best I can.
Quite a statement. What value do you create by doing this?
Quote from: Crow
Ignoring the element about whether Jesus was a deity, or if he actually existed at all, or who wrote the bible many people consider the teachings of this man to be the pinnacle of philosophical thought and revolutionary for there time, but are the teachings actually any good in comparison to other philosophies or other religions, and were they really as revolutionary as some like to believe?
Might be on the fringe of what you'd ascribe to him as "teachings", but His actions themselves are considered by many to be the most instructive teachings of all. Washing the feet of His followers, always taking time to love the person in front of Him, knowingly walking into Jerusalem to face certain torture and death at the hands of the establishment, and asking God to "forgive them, they know not what they do" in the middle of it.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 08:48:59 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 20, 2011, 06:38:14 PM
Honestly, Crow...I'm sadly dilinquent in other philosophies. There are just so many of them. And many of those mesh in certain ways to some degree or other. I basically only dabble in Christianity, Judaism and to a very small part, Islam. Because Christianity is dominant where I live and fundamentally locally, I feel my part in life is to tear it down as best I can.
Quite a statement. What value do you create by doing this?
I'm not Gawen, but I will throw in that this is how scientific theories are tested to help determine their validity. If you do your best to tear something to pieces and can't, that's fair sign you may have something worthwhile on your hands. On the other hand, maybe Xtianity is just a burr under Gawen's skin and trying to get rid of it helps make the burr less irksome.
Quote from: Gawen on October 21, 2011, 02:35:33 PM
If you liked the sermon on the mount, read this thread and then please post your thoughts here?
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8400.0
I followed that thread without posting because, honestly, it was much too heavy for me. In any case, my thoughts are that Xtianity itself is neither moral nor immoral but can easily be used either way (the most infamous example of that being slavery, which was both defended and decried by people using Xtian scripture) because the new testament is just as contradictory as the old one.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 08:48:59 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 20, 2011, 06:38:14 PM
Honestly, Crow...I'm sadly dilinquent in other philosophies. There are just so many of them. And many of those mesh in certain ways to some degree or other. I basically only dabble in Christianity, Judaism and to a very small part, Islam. Because Christianity is dominant where I live and fundamentally locally, I feel my part in life is to tear it down as best I can.
Quite a statement. What value do you create by doing this?
I have a growing fervor that is the opposite of evangelicals.
We've all heard this saying. It's the first time I've seen it on a portable sign in front of a church. It went up last week. I want to help stop crap like this:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv298%2FGawen%2F100_1586.jpg&hash=2cde1de66f806a2185efe71d0ae7fc78c0ec29c1)
QuoteMight be on the fringe of what you'd ascribe to him as "teachings", but His actions themselves are considered by many to be the most instructive teachings of all. Washing the feet of His followers, always taking time to love the person in front of Him, knowingly walking into Jerusalem to face certain torture and death at the hands of the establishment, and asking God to "forgive them, they know not what they do" in the middle of it.
If his words are suspect, his actions should be as well. Causing a ruckus in the temple, withering someone else's fig tree, stealing a colt because he was too lazy to walk, suicide, forsaking his family, pulling men away from their families and livelihood to become beggars, calling a Gentile woman a dog. Indeed, his entire ministry was built on a false assertion; that the end of the world was near. Oh yeah, he was a real nice guy.
This is God's love? I've already trashed the Sermon on the Mount. Here's a sprinkling from throughout the New Testament:
Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Luke 22:36
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
Matthew 8:21-22
And another of his disciples said unto him, "Suffer me first to go and bury my father." But Jesus said unto him, "Follow me and let the dead bury their dead."
Matthew 10:35-37
"For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Matthew 12:46-50
While he yet talked to the people, behold his mother and brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, "Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with you." But he answered and said, "Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, "Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (So much for honouring his mother)
Matthew 19:29
"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life."
Mark 3:33-35
"Who are my mother and my brothers?" [Jesus] asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
Luke 9:60
"Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
Luke 9:61,62
Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good bye to my family." Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."
Luke 12:49-53
"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
Luke 14:26 (John 3:15 and 4:19-21)
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple."
(NOTE: The Greek word "miseo" always means hate; it has no alternative meaning.)
Luke 19:27 (In a parable)
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me."
John 2:4
Jesus saith unto [his mother], "Woman, what have I to do with thee?..."
John 12:25
"The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life."
John 15:6
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
1 John 3:15 (Luke 14:26?)
"Anyone who hates his brother (believer in Christ) is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him."
1 John 4:19-21 (Luke 14:26)
"We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother (believer in Christ)."
And that's just from the Gospels.
Quote from: Gawen on October 22, 2011, 12:31:45 PM
QuoteQuite a statement. What value do you create by doing this?
I have a growing fervor that is the opposite of evangelicals.
We've all heard this saying. It's the first time I've seen it on a portable sign in front of a church. It went up last week. I want to help stop crap like this:
Here's another one for you Gawen. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anvari.org%2Fdb%2Fcols%2FFunny_Church_Signs%2FGod_Does_Not_Believe_In_Atheists.jpg&hash=cdca93c97b58b87daf57fe51007147d6477e81e3)
Quote from: Attila on October 22, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 22, 2011, 12:31:45 PM
QuoteQuite a statement. What value do you create by doing this?
I have a growing fervor that is the opposite of evangelicals.
We've all heard this saying. It's the first time I've seen it on a portable sign in front of a church. It went up last week. I want to help stop crap like this:
Here's another one for you Gawen. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anvari.org%2Fdb%2Fcols%2FFunny_Church_Signs%2FGod_Does_Not_Believe_In_Atheists.jpg&hash=cdca93c97b58b87daf57fe51007147d6477e81e3)
Hmm seems like they didn't read the bible - "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." and "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
Quote from: CrowHmm seems like they didn't read the bible - "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." and "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
There are some truly sick, twisted, sadistic motherfuckers out there. Who wrote that shit? You don't give a reference. Is it from the book of Moron?
Quote from: Gawen on October 22, 2011, 12:31:45 PM
We've all heard this saying. It's the first time I've seen it on a portable sign in front of a church. It went up last week. I want to help stop crap like this:
Why? That's my question. Why do you want to help stop it?
Can Gawen or any other likeminded atheist present an exhaustive, well-reasoned argument that puts a value on "stopping crap like this" and defend why this relative value ranks higher than other pursuits (e.g., sensory pleasure)?
Quote from: Attila on October 22, 2011, 05:44:06 PM
Quote from: CrowHmm seems like they didn't read the bible - "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." and "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
There are some truly sick, twisted, sadistic motherfuckers out there. Who wrote that shit? You don't give a reference. Is it from the book of Moron?
Apologies sir that was from the regular bible, the first quote was John 3:18 and the second was John 15:6.
Quote from: Gawen on October 22, 2011, 12:31:45 PM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv298%2FGawen%2F100_1586.jpg&hash=2cde1de66f806a2185efe71d0ae7fc78c0ec29c1)
Well, at least they're right about that, even if they've chosen the wrong side of it.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 22, 2011, 07:24:53 PM
Why? That's my question. Why do you want to help stop it?
Are you seriously asking why anyone would want to help stop the devaluation of reason?
Quote from: Gawen on October 22, 2011, 01:16:09 PM
And that's just from the Gospels.
And he's credited with saying a lot of stuff that was the opposite of that, too. It occurs to me that if Jesus did exist and was one person (and not dozens of different people over many generations whose stories all got mushed together) a lot would be explained if he were bipolar.
I mean, reason IS the greatest enemy faith has isn't it? I feel like that's an argument for our side...
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 22, 2011, 09:53:02 PM
Are you seriously asking why anyone would want to help stop the devaluation of reason?
That's exactly what I'm asking. By what standard or set of norms does an atheist consider this valuable? We're animals, isn't it all about pleasure?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 23, 2011, 01:04:53 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 22, 2011, 09:53:02 PM
Are you seriously asking why anyone would want to help stop the devaluation of reason?
That's exactly what I'm asking. By what standard or set of norms does an atheist consider this valuable? We're animals, isn't it all about pleasure?
This is so stupid I'm beginning to think you are just trolling the forum.
Quote from: Tank on October 23, 2011, 01:43:35 AM
This is so stupid I'm beginning to think you are just trolling the forum.
Your response seems to imply that there is an absurdly obvious a priori value to helping stop devaluation of reason. My question is why you believe that. We're animals with between 0 and ~80 years here, so I'm interested in learning why stopping the devaluation of reason gets a "place at the table" in his agenda.
"To prevent the further pain caused by religious wars and bigotry"
Why? What allegiance does one animal have to another?
"Because proving someone wrong activates the release of dopamine in my brain"
Gotcha, thanks!
"Because it helps me feel vindicated against the injustice of the thing?"
What is justice and why should other animals care?
I'm sure there are oodles of other reasons as well!!
Quote from: bandit4god on October 23, 2011, 01:04:53 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 22, 2011, 09:53:02 PM
Are you seriously asking why anyone would want to help stop the devaluation of reason?
That's exactly what I'm asking. By what standard or set of norms does an atheist consider this valuable? We're animals, isn't it all about pleasure?
I swear, just living in a bubble.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 23, 2011, 02:15:37 AM
My question is why you believe that. We're animals with between 0 and ~80 years here, so I'm interested in learning why stopping the devaluation of reason gets a "place at the table" in his agenda.
Why? What allegiance does one animal have to another?
What is justice and why should other animals care?
I'm sure there are oodles of other reasons as well!!
Animals, animals, animals. Are your questions rhetorical? or are you truly ignorant? It would be nice of you to furnish a definition if "animal" so one can calculate what logically follows from the statment "we are animals". Is that equivalent to saying "there are large carbon molecules in our composition"? Question 2: are you a rationalist? Could you be wrong on this or any other point? If not I won't take the trouble of communicating with you. Being an animal I'm guessing you'll understand.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 23, 2011, 02:15:37 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 23, 2011, 01:43:35 AM
This is so stupid I'm beginning to think you are just trolling the forum.
Your response seems to imply that there is an absurdly obvious a priori value to helping stop devaluation of reason. My question is why you believe that. We're animals with between 0 and ~80 years here, so I'm interested in learning why stopping the devaluation of reason gets a "place at the table" in his agenda.
"To prevent the further pain caused by religious wars and bigotry"
Why? What allegiance does one animal have to another?
"Because proving someone wrong activates the release of dopamine in my brain"
Gotcha, thanks!
"Because it helps me feel vindicated against the injustice of the thing?"
What is justice and why should other animals care?
I'm sure there are oodles of other reasons as well!!
So you can't see the difference between a pig and a person?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 22, 2011, 07:24:53 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 22, 2011, 12:31:45 PM
We've all heard this saying. It's the first time I've seen it on a portable sign in front of a church. It went up last week. I want to help stop crap like this:
Why? That's my question. Why do you want to help stop it?
Can Gawen or any other likeminded atheist present an exhaustive, well-reasoned argument that puts a value on "stopping crap like this" and defend why this relative value ranks higher than other pursuits (e.g., sensory pleasure)?
In another thread, perhaps. This one is about Jesus's teachings and their greatness, or lack of it.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 22, 2011, 07:24:53 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 22, 2011, 12:31:45 PM
We've all heard this saying. It's the first time I've seen it on a portable sign in front of a church. It went up last week. I want to help stop crap like this:
Why? That's my question. Why do you want to help stop it?
Because people believe this:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8400.msg128799#msg128799
If you would like to show us how Jesus's ethical and moral teachings are just that, please feel free. Since I've already covered the book of Matthew, you can start there (link above)
Quote from: Gawen on October 23, 2011, 01:14:59 PM
Because people believe this:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8400.msg128799#msg128799
If you would like to show us how Jesus's ethical and moral teachings are just that, please feel free. Since I've already covered the book of Matthew, you can start there (link above)
Such an odd response to the question I asked, "Why do you consider it valuable?" You're putting so much work into your colossal refutations, but have you ever stopped to ask yourself what value you ascribe to the activity and
why?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 03:56:56 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 23, 2011, 01:14:59 PM
Because people believe this:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8400.msg128799#msg128799
If you would like to show us how Jesus's ethical and moral teachings are just that, please feel free. Since I've already covered the book of Matthew, you can start there (link above)
Such an odd response to the question I asked, "Why do you consider it valuable?" You're putting so much work into your colossal refutations, but have you ever stopped to ask yourself what value you ascribe to the activity and why?
Once again, you try to derail this thread with subject matter that does not pertain to the OP. Start another thread if you wish.
Gawen, the only thing I'd like to add to the list of quotes from the gospels is this. By presenting them out of context, you've cherry picked items to support your assertion that the teachings of Jesus were not that great.
I honestly don't want to get very wrapped up in this thread, because I'm just not willing to spend a lot of time in it. It's a good topic, and worth discussing, though. I'm glad it's on the forum. And I also agree that many, most, or even all of what Jesus said can be found elsewhere, often times predating him, and often times better stated. But that doesn't devalue the philosophy necessarily, or the teachings. People have been repeating shit all throughout human history. Sometimes it takes someone different to say the same thing in a slightly different way for others to finally "get it".
Being intimately familiar with the gospels for all of my life, 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.
A very thought-provoking post, McQ, thanks for sharing that.
Another twist on "were the teachings of Jesus really that great?" This thread has heretofore considered "greatness" through the lens of "worthwhile" or "morally sound". I'd suggest they were great from a slightly different perspective in that the groundswell of response was tremendous, even before Constantine made it the official religion of the world. One could argue about the groundswell being for the good or bad, but it causes me to question the reason for this groundwell. Would sensational oratory skills have been enough? Would not the groundswell, the deafening "thrum" of this perplexing beehive in the first two centuries AD, necessarily had to have been sparked with more than mere words?
The Jefferson Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible) no God required.
Quote from: Tank on October 25, 2011, 04:29:32 PM
The Jefferson Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible) no God required.
By what amplificatory forces did Jesus' life have such ongoing impact? How would Christianity have ever gotten off the ground--while thousands of its proponents were dying
peacefully for it--if not based on actual words AND events?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 04:38:41 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 25, 2011, 04:29:32 PM
The Jefferson Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible) no God required.
By what amplificatory forces did Jesus' life have such ongoing impact? How would Christianity have ever gotten off the ground--while thousands of its proponents were dying peacefully for it--if not based on actual words AND events?
b4g, you seem to be ascribing to the same questionably biased view of history that your fellow Christian Bruce put forward in another thread. The evidence from the Roman sources is that many early Christians weren't peaceful in the slightest, a lot were fairly fanatical and actively seeked out martyrdom, promoting it as the best way to gain access to heaven.
It's debatable how many Christians were actually killed by the Romans, they were only ever officially persecuted for five years. On top of that there were a few smaller localised persecutions no doubt. Far more Christians were killed by fellow Christians in the doctrinal disputes of the fouth century than the Romans ever killed in the preceding three centuries.
And it's really quite illogical to suggest that Christianity 'got off the ground' because it was based on actual historical words and events. By the same logic Heracles, Zeus and Mithras must have been real historical people. Otherwise how come they had so many followers?
Christianity was undoubtedly a fairly popular mystery cult in its first few centuries, but before Constantine, it's estimated that it represented about 10% of the empire's population. Constantine's conversion and the subsequent brutal persecution of all other religions by the Christian emperors that followed him are why Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire and later Europe. It had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. All other religions were outlawed and people were told to either become Christian or they'd be killed, and over time most people became Christian. The same tactic would work for any ideology.
Quote from: McQ on October 25, 2011, 03:57:48 PM
And I also agree that many, most, or even all of what Jesus said can be found elsewhere, often times predating him, and often times better stated. But that doesn't devalue the philosophy necessarily, or the teachings.
Just to clarify for any readers this wasn't my intention to devalue any of the teachings but rather create the basis for people to look at the teachings devoid of the mythical aspects for people to make up their own mind if they deem the teachings to be good. Nor did I want to try and persuade anyone that they are bad.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 25, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
It's debatable how many Christians were actually killed by the Romans, they were only ever officially persecuted for five years.
If we focus narrowly on the first ~30 years after Jesus' death, the persecution actually came from the Jews. With the available primary sources on that period, it takes no small amount of tap dancing to explain away how a few dozen uneducated Jews grew to tens of thousands in a climate of scathing persecution.
QuoteAll other religions were outlawed and people were told to either become Christian or they'd be killed, and over time most people became Christian. The same tactic would work for any ideology.
Then why didn't it work against the first century Christians?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 07:39:29 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 25, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
It's debatable how many Christians were actually killed by the Romans, they were only ever officially persecuted for five years.
If we focus narrowly on the first ~30 years after Jesus' death, the persecution actually came from the Jews. With the available primary sources on that period, it takes no small amount of tap dancing to explain away how a few dozen uneducated Jews grew to tens of thousands in a climate of scathing persecution.
what 'primary sources' are these pray tell? To my knowledge none exist. And please don't mention any NT book as a source, as they are far from objective, reliable or historical, and were written decades after any supposed events. I don't think there's any evidence of early Christians having to live in a climate of 'scathing persecution'.
QuoteQuoteAll other religions were outlawed and people were told to either become Christian or they'd be killed, and over time most people became Christian. The same tactic would work for any ideology.
Then why didn't it work against the first century Christians?
because there's no solid evidence that Christians were persecuted in the first century. We actually don't have very much evidence for Christianity per se from the first century. Christians only properly enter into the historical record in the second century.
The Christian emperors issued laws outlawing all 'pagan' religions under the penalty of death in the fifth and sixth centuries. To my knowledge, no pagan or Jewish rulers ever issued such draconian edicts against Christians. If you know of any, please enlighten me.
Quote from: McQ on October 25, 2011, 03:57:48 PM
Gawen, the only thing I'd like to add to the list of quotes from the gospels is this. By presenting them out of context, you've cherry picked items to support your assertion that the teachings of Jesus were not that great.
QuoteBeing intimately familiar with the gospels for all of my life, 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.
I have listed the Sermon on the Mount in another thread. The Sermon, taken in context with all Jesus' other teachings is the end of the world is near and these are the ways to gain salvation to the afterlife. Jesus's entire time on earth (for those that believe it) preached the end of the world and the Kingdom of God was at hand...and the ways to get there. I have taken nothing out of context...as all his teachings can be related to precisely to getting to Heaven.
QuoteI honestly don't want to get very wrapped up in this thread, because I'm just not willing to spend a lot of time in it. It's a good topic, and worth discussing, though. I'm glad it's on the forum.
That's a good thing
QuoteAnd I also agree that many, most, or even all of what Jesus said can be found elsewhere, often times predating him, and often times better stated.
Yes, some of it can be.
QuoteBut that doesn't devalue the philosophy necessarily, or the teachings.
That other people have said it previously does not negate or devalue the philosophy, I agree. The teachings Jesus is said to have uttered can be devalued on their own merit. Never does Jesus say "do the right thing because it's simply the right thing to do". It all boils down to a promise of an afterlife singing praises unto the Lord or tortured for eternity.
What I need people to do is show me where I have failed....not only that I have.
Quote from: Crow on October 25, 2011, 06:23:49 PM
Quote from: McQ on October 25, 2011, 03:57:48 PM
And I also agree that many, most, or even all of what Jesus said can be found elsewhere, often times predating him, and often times better stated. But that doesn't devalue the philosophy necessarily, or the teachings.
Just to clarify for any readers this wasn't my intention to devalue any of the teachings but rather create the basis for people to look at the teachings devoid of the mythical aspects for people to make up their own mind if they deem the teachings to be good.
It's a great topic.
QuoteNor did I want to try and persuade anyone that they are bad.
I have tried to show that they are not really that great.
Quote from: Crow on October 25, 2011, 06:23:49 PM
QuoteNor did I want to try and persuade anyone that they are bad.
I have tried to show that they are not really that great.
I agree with the majority of what you have posted in other posts, sure some examples were out of context but they aren't always taken in context.
Living in a traditionally Christian country I have noticed that a lot of the teachings are ingrained within a lot of people regardless of their beliefs and why is this still so when the majority of the population are arguable secular, its worth questioning not just the god aspect but the philosophies that are being passed on. A lot of western atheists have a worldview (in terms of philosophy) that is aligned with those of Christianity due to its deep routed nature even if they dislike or even despise Christianity, rather adapting a humanist form of the philosophies. It doesn't matter to me if people still think this is the best option out of the many we have but is certainly what we should be questioning. On the flip side there are elements that I do consider to be good but that is cherry picking a small few out of a slew of concepts. My own worldview has always been more inline with that of Taoism, maybe that's why I think it is an important question because my own view is so at odds with Christianity.
We're finishing up page 3 of this thread. May I ask a very simple question? Can anyone give me just one (as in 1, uno, ein, ichi) example of something Jesus taught that is (a) good (never mind great) and (b) not something that anyone who wasn't a moral monster wouldn't have already known long before JC appeared on the scene? It may be a useful way of resolving the question. If no one can give even one example of the above sort, would we not be justified with the conclusion that JC's teaching were not great and, in fact, not even very good.
Apologies if one has already been given. Perhaps in got lost in the sea of verbiage (especially mine) that is featured above. Thanks to all for your patience.
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 01:36:47 PM
We're finishing up page 3 of this thread. May I ask a very simple question? Can anyone give me just one (as in 1, uno, ein, ichi) example of something Jesus taught that is (a) good (never mind great) and (b) not something that anyone who wasn't a moral monster wouldn't have already known long before JC appeared on the scene? It may be a useful way of resolving the question. If no one can give even one example of the above sort, would we not be justified with the conclusion that JC's teaching were not great and, in fact, not even very good.
Apologies if one has already been given. Perhaps in got lost in the sea of verbiage (especially mine) that is featured above. Thanks to all for your patience.
Why does stipulation (b) have to be fulfilled? That adds something not included in the original point of the thread. All that (b) demonstrates is that the teachings may not be original. Has no bearing on whether or not the teachings were all that great.
As to (a), there have already been some answers given. And for a quick sampling, try these, directly attributed to Jesus (keep in mind that I'm a non-believer, and in my opinion, these were words written by not just whoever decided to put them in the bible, but also by many other people over human history):
From the gospel of John, chapter four:
Feed the hungry. Give drink to the thirsty. Clothe the naked. Shelter the homeless. Visit the sick. Visit the imprisoned. Bury the dead (this was a very important thing in that time period, as it was an important spiritual ritual and not being buried was an insult to the dead).
Counsel the doubtful. Instruct the ignorant. Admonish the sinner (can be interpreted as "correct misdeeds"). Forgive injuries. Bear wrong patiently. Pray for the living (meaningless to me). Pray for the dead (same).
Love your enemies....
Ok, the point here is you asked for one. I've provided many, and this is the halfway point of Jesus' speech. If you can't find one useful or pretty good teaching here, I suggest that you will never find a useful teaching anywhere.
So my answer to the original question is that yes, the TEACHINGS of Jesus (or again, as I believe, the teachings that are attributed to a maybe real, maybe not real person who that we call Jesus, are useful, good, and remain relevant today.
Quote from: McQ on October 26, 2011, 03:33:28 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 01:36:47 PM
We're finishing up page 3 of this thread. May I ask a very simple question? Can anyone give me just one (as in 1, uno, ein, ichi) example of something Jesus taught that is (a) good (never mind great) and (b) not something that anyone who wasn't a moral monster wouldn't have already known long before JC appeared on the scene? It may be a useful way of resolving the question. If no one can give even one example of the above sort, would we not be justified with the conclusion that JC's teaching were not great and, in fact, not even very good.
Apologies if one has already been given. Perhaps in got lost in the sea of verbiage (especially mine) that is featured above. Thanks to all for your patience.
Why does stipulation (b) have to be fulfilled? That adds something not included in the original point of the thread. All that (b) demonstrates is that the teachings may not be original. Has no bearing on whether or not the teachings were all that great.
I beg to disagree, McQ. I'm a teacher and have been all my working life. I do no service to my students teaching them something that's already known. They can find that out for themselves. If I'm doing my job, then I giving them something they can only get from me. It may be crap or it may not but it is original. Again I'm sorry to say it but "feed the hungry" is not rocket science. Was JC only preaching to the choir? or was he dealing with a set of moral degenerates? My comments apply to the other examples as well. C'mon let's get serious here.
Quote
Ok, the point here is you asked for one. I've provided many, and this is the halfway point of Jesus' speech. If you can't find one useful or pretty good teaching here, I suggest that you will never find a useful teaching anywhere.
No sorry. You haven't proved anything. The list of slogans you give hardly constitutes "teaching" in any meaningful sense of the term. "Be a good person" sums it up and is hardly a contribution of JC. So again, nothing really impressive here.
QuoteSo my answer to the original question is that yes, the TEACHINGS of Jesus (or again, as I believe, the teachings that are attributed to a maybe real, maybe not real person who that we call Jesus, are useful, good, and remain relevant today.
I guess we live in two very different worlds, McQ. Everything you cited above doesn't really amount to much. I have no experience with christianity or any other religion for that matter but if that's all it is, I don't see what the big deal is. I guess I just can't see why anyone would think the examples you gave characterise a great teacher. It doesn't make any sense; there so banal and so obvious.
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 04:07:24 PM
I guess I just can't see why anyone would think the examples you gave characterise a great teacher. It doesn't make any sense; there so banal and so obvious.
We may be overlooking that the message itself is only one facet of teaching... one could argue that the other two legs of the stool are the trustworthiness of the teacher and the way he/she delivers the message.
I had a physics teacher in high school who made it a point, wherever possible, to help us learn by doing/seeing for ourselves. We would spend 5 minutes in class discussing how the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, then go outside and drop tennis balls for an hour and discover for ourselves that he was right. His teachings were great, not because they were novel, but because he taught them in a way that made us learn.
So while you may question the novelty/value of the message (which McQ rightly refutes), I'd say you'd also have to address Jesus's trustworthiness (in the eyes of a first century AD person) and the way he delivered the messages.
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 04:07:24 PM
I beg to disagree, McQ. I'm a teacher and have been all my working life. I do no service to my students teaching them something that's already known. They can find that out for themselves. If I'm doing my job, then I giving them something they can only get from me. It may be crap or it may not but it is original. Again I'm sorry to say it but "feed the hungry" is not rocket science. Was JC only preaching to the choir? or was he dealing with a set of moral degenerates? My comments apply to the other examples as well. C'mon let's get serious here.
First, I don't know why you would disparage me by accusing me of not being serious in my responses. Uncalled for and incorrect. Second, congratulations on being a teacher. Being a teacher, then you know the value of having multiple examples of similar teachings. I may understand a concept coming from one person by being taught it in a certain way, yet not from a different person, who teaches the same concept in a slightly different way. It is hubris to think that every single teacher in existence must be the only one to teach certain concepts. In my lifetime, I have also had to re-learn things many times to reinforce the knowledge I already possessed too. So hearing the "same old thing" has been beneficial to me.
Add to this the mistaken assumption you have made that all of the people jesus spoke to had heard it all before. You are looking at them from the perspective of 2000 years of continued learning, and the repetition of these same things over and over since his life. Of course
we've heard it all ad nauseam! To the people he was addressing this may never have been heard before. If history of the time is even remotely accurate, this is probably true, since people didn't travel outside of their own immediate areas, had no access to books, no contact with other cultures, even with the Roman Empire governing them, and only their direct ancestors' knowledge and learning passed down to them.
And even IF they had heard much of what jesus purportedly taught already, you are once again dismissing the teachings as irrelevant because someone else may have also taught them. This is simply not true.
(again, try to understand that I am NOT a believer in any god, including jesus - I am addressing this whole issue from the perspective of devil's advocate regarding the teachings themselves, wherever they may have come from)
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 04:07:24 PM
No sorry. You haven't proved anything. The list of slogans you give hardly constitutes "teaching" in any meaningful sense of the term. "Be a good person" sums it up and is hardly a contribution of JC. So again, nothing really impressive here.
I simply disagree with you. I don't know why you dismiss these acts as not teaching. I also don't know why you consider them meaningless. Is the didactic method not teaching? Are those concepts that I took the time to type out not concepts that people can utilize to better themselves and others around them? I would have to say that
my being taught to help the poor, feed the hungry, clothe and shelter those without (I currently work with local shelters to do all of these and I
go into schools and teach these things to children) have been extremely meaningful. I'm sorry you don't find them so.
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 04:07:24 PM
I guess we live in two very different worlds, McQ. Everything you cited above doesn't really amount to much. I have no experience with christianity or any other religion for that matter but if that's all it is, I don't see what the big deal is. I guess I just can't see why anyone would think the examples you gave characterise a great teacher. It doesn't make any sense; there so banal and so obvious.
Perhaps we do. I live in the eastern United States. The people whom I deal with every week in the shelters seem to believe these things amount to a great deal. I had to be taught these things. I didn't learn them automatically. My fist teacher of these concepts was my mother. She was repeating what someone had taught her, who was repeating what someone had taught him, etc.
I then also had those concepts reinforced by learning the gospels. I then had the concepts taught again and reinforced from the Red Cross, my anthropology professor in college, my step father, our local shelter, and others. I consider all of them great sources which cemented the concepts into my consciousness.
Again, by stating that these are banal and obvious, you are throwing a filter over the original concepts. You impose 2000 years of continued learning on them in order to justify saying they are obvious. But you've been taught them already. When you first learned any concept or teaching, including these, they were new to you. They were not obvious. As most people in society, you learned many things without realizing that you were learning at the time. Afterwards, they do become "obvious".
To me, it's obvious that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. But I was taught that. To many other, it is not obvious, and to others, it is "obvious" that the universe and earth are only 6000 years old (they're incorrect, but to them it's "obvious").
All said, my point, in short, is in answering the original question. The question is, "Are the teachings of jesus all that great?"
My answer is that yes,
some of them are pretty good, and worthwhile. I never said they were original, just that they are worth learning, worth repeating, and worth practicing. I personally know lots of formerly hungry, homeless, and otherwise unloved people who agree with me.
I hope you don't dismiss this out of hand as you did my last response, as I assure you, I am quite serious about it.
If I may take and summerize a slightly different approach from both Attila and McQ, some of Jesus' teachings, such as feed the poor, love thy neighbour, etc are inherently good, but I do see the value in having people as continued examples to others, even if just to teach or show them what they know intuitively should be done to make the world a better place.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 26, 2011, 06:22:56 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 04:07:24 PM
I guess I just can't see why anyone would think the examples you gave characterise a great teacher. It doesn't make any sense; there so banal and so obvious.
We may be overlooking that the message itself is only one facet of teaching... one could argue that the other two legs of the stool are the trustworthiness of the teacher and the way he/she delivers the message.
I had a physics teacher in high school who made it a point, wherever possible, to help us learn by doing/seeing for ourselves. We would spend 5 minutes in class discussing how the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, then go outside and drop tennis balls for an hour and discover for ourselves that he was right. His teachings were great, not because they were novel, but because he taught them in a way that made us learn.
So while you may question the novelty/value of the message (which McQ rightly refutes), I'd say you'd also have to address Jesus's trustworthiness (in the eyes of a first century AD person) and the way he delivered the messages.
First, apologies for the misspelling in my message ("there" for "they're"). Just another sign of senility I guess. But straight to you comments... You are speaking of method, not content. You are speaking of teenagers not adults. You also make a semantic error in confusing "his teachings were great" with "he was a great teacher" (your example refers to the latter in case you hadn't figured that out.) I don't think there is any question at all whether "feed the hungry" originated with JC. Obviously not. Your notion of "value" is so murky that I won't go near it. In any event the question was "Were the teachings of Jesus that really great?" No mention of value there. How do we test this? Apply his exact words as quoted by McQ to the context of a task force charged with improving the life of all citizens within their purview. It's a nice, if banal, sentiment. Who could be against it? But great, what planet are you living on? "Why are there poor at all and what can we do to eliminate the necessity of being poor?" That would have been an intelligent thing to see (IMO obviously) I don't see any action plan emerging from JC's contribution. And what about overweight people? They're (see I've spelled it right this time) hungry all the time. Feeding them would be a full-time job. You must admit it's rather simplistic advice to put it mildly and definitely nothing great about it. As to his teaching methods, I didn't know videotapes existed back then. Did he have a voice like Mick Jagger? Did he crack jokes? I'd think he was rather boring, no? But we don't know, do we? Finally McQ (all power to him) didn't refute anything. He disagrees with me, which is fine. But if he came up with any refutations I failed to see them. But enough. I've had my say. now do your worst. :)
edited for grammatical mistakes
Quote from: bandit4god on October 26, 2011, 06:22:56 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 04:07:24 PM
I guess I just can't see why anyone would think the examples you gave characterise a great teacher. It doesn't make any sense; there so banal and so obvious.
We may be overlooking that the message itself is only one facet of teaching... one could argue that the other two legs of the stool are the trustworthiness of the teacher and the way he/she delivers the message.
I had a physics teacher in high school who made it a point, wherever possible, to help us learn by doing/seeing for ourselves. We would spend 5 minutes in class discussing how the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, then go outside and drop tennis balls for an hour and discover for ourselves that he was right. His teachings were great, not because they were novel, but because he taught them in a way that made us learn.
So while you may question the novelty/value of the message (which McQ rightly refutes), I'd say you'd also have to address Jesus's trustworthiness (in the eyes of a first century AD person) and the way he delivered the messages.
For one who believes in a god/afterlife then yes, however if you remove that angle the teachings lose any of there impact. The example you used of your physics teacher is a good example of a teacher due to the way he is able to teach something regardless of belief or knowledge through experience and evidence. For those who want to believe in the idea of a god, or those that do already then the methods presented in the bible of Jesus' teachings are a good example of a teacher for those people, but far from good for those that do not. Jesus is heralded as a great teacher but in my opinion is far from so, and is only considered to be one due to the god aspect, the teachings may have spread across the western world but with the rise of educational standards more and more people are branching away from it in far higher numbers. Also take the the Middle East, South Asia and Asia Pacific the teachings have never taken off in those countries, who have had no shortage of Jesuits and other missionary's trying to convert the various nations, these countries have all had deep routed philosophies built into their societies and has usually been seen as inadequate to what was already in place, or in the case of India just another god into a see of hundreds where all the teachings in Christianity already existed.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2011, 07:17:43 PM
If I may take and summerize a slightly different approach from both Attila and McQ, some of Jesus' teachings, such as feed the poor, love thy neighbour, etc are inherently good, but I do see the value in having people as continued examples to others, even if just to teach or show them what they know intuitively should be done to make the world a better place.
I'm not sure of that. I don't believe that "feed the poor" is inherently good. Could it not be construed as accepting a society that is inegalitarian? Wouldn't "change the system so there are no poor" be inherently better? And "love thy neighbour" and what about the non-neighbour, do we hate them? Wouldn't love everyone (neighbour or not) be inherently better as well. Maybe we give JC a C- and suggest he try a bit harder.
edit: typos fixed
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 07:50:59 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2011, 07:17:43 PM
If I may take and summerize a slightly different approach from both Attila and McQ, some of Jesus' teachings, such as feed the poor, love thy neighbour, etc are inherently good, but I do see the value in having people as continued examples to others, even if just to teach or show them what they know intuitively should be done to make the world a better place.
I'm not sure of that. I don't believe that "feed the poor" is inherently good. Could it not be construed as accepting a society that is inegalitarian? Wouldn't "change the system so there are no poor" but inherently better? And "love thy neighbour" and what about the non-neighbour, do we hate them? Wouldn't love everyone (neighbour or not) be inherently better as well. Maybe we give JC a C- and suggest he try a bit harder.
Well, I've watched interviews of people with Communist inclinations quote Jesus to validate their worldview, cherry-picking and choosing the context, as people do with the bible, is a possibility, but then again I wouldn't attribute any attempt at changing the system to him. So in that case, I see him as more of a provider of comfort blankets to those least able to change their situation than a revolutionary in the modern sense.
He's a good propagator of some good memes, though not necessarily a teacher.
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 07:41:03 PM
You are speaking of method, not content.
If this thread were titled "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?
- the message
- the trustworthiness of the teacher
- the delivery method
In Jesus' case, the delivery method was words AND actions. He taught a great deal without saying a word. Do these not qualify under the heading "teachings"?
Quote from: McQFirst, I don't know why you would disparage me by accusing me of not being serious in my responses. Uncalled for and incorrect. Second, congratulations on being a teacher. Being a teacher, then you know the value of having multiple examples of similar teachings. I may understand a concept coming from one person by being taught it in a certain way, yet not from a different person, who teaches the same concept in a slightly different way. It is hubris to think that every single teacher in existence must be the only one to teach certain concepts. In my lifetime, I have also had to re-learn things many times to reinforce the knowledge I already possessed too. So hearing the "same old thing" has been beneficial to me.
"c'mon let's get serious" is a figure of speech. You are making the (I will refrain from saying "absurd") claim that I don't or haven't taught divergent points of view in my lectures. But I have to deliver the goods sooner or later. I can bad-mouth certain theories to my heart's content but my students are sitting there thinking "ok, so what do you have to offer that's better?" I hope that's clear. On the other hand, please tell me if JC did the same. Your knowledge is greater than mine so how many alternative views did JC present in his "feed the poor"/"love thy neighbour" speeches? As to your assessment of JC's teachings, I have argued in another posting on this thread how they might be improved. C- is what I'd give them.
QuoteYou impose 2000 years of continued learning on them in order to justify saying they are obvious.
In fact I don't but in fairness, you have no way of knowing that. I have lived in villages which had little or no contact with christians and their behaviour, unshackled by any form of christian civilisation[sic], could only be described as ....divine. All the virtues were present. JC had absolutely nothing to teach them.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 26, 2011, 08:18:04 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 07:41:03 PM
You are speaking of method, not content.
If this thread were titled "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?
- the message
- the trustworthiness of the teacher
- the delivery method
In Jesus' case, the delivery method was words AND actions. He taught a great deal without saying a word. Do these not qualify under the heading "teachings"?
In the absence of Jesus videos, we're stuck with the words. There is
Life of Brian but I have doubts about its historical accuracy. But, hey, if it works for you...
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 08:24:24 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 26, 2011, 08:18:04 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 07:41:03 PM
You are speaking of method, not content.
If this thread were titled "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?
- the message
- the trustworthiness of the teacher
- the delivery method
In Jesus' case, the delivery method was words AND actions. He taught a great deal without saying a word. Do these not qualify under the heading "teachings"?
In the absence of Jesus videos, we're stuck with the words. There is Life of Brian but I have doubts about its historical accuracy. But, hey, if it works for you...
The same sources that report His words also report many actions, including:
- washing the feet of his followers (Last Supper)
- calm in times of crisis (sea voyage)
- compassion for enemies (healing the soldier Peter struck)
- kindness to His betrayer (Judas)
- kindness to children (called them to Himself)
- non-violence against His oppressor (trial and crucifixion)
- friendship with the outcasts of society (dining with tax collectors, rescuing an adulteress)
- appreciation for diversity (conversing with a Samaritan woman, commending a Roman centurion)
- responsibility for the basic needs of his followers (feeding his audience)
Of course we can question the historicity of His actions, but then we could also question the historicity of His words as well. In that you have demonstrated you are willing to take His words as written in the gospels for the sake of this discussion, why do you demand "Jesus videos" for His actions in addition to what is written there?
Quote from: bandit4god
Of course we can question the historicity of His actions, but then we could also question the historicity of His words as well. In that you have demonstrated you are willing to take His words as written for the sake of this discussion, why do you demand "Jesus videos" for His actions?
Perhaps because you yourself brought the subject up?
Quote from: bandit4god
If this thread were titled "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?
Perhaps I was unclear... Ildiko's post makes me think I probably was, so my apologies.
I meant to close my comments in my last post with, "In that you (Attila) have demonstrated you are willing to take His words as written in the gospels for the sake of this discussion, why do you demand "Jesus videos" for His actions in addition to what is written there?"
Quote from: Attila on October 26, 2011, 08:19:43 PM
Quote from: McQFirst, I don't know why you would disparage me by accusing me of not being serious in my responses. Uncalled for and incorrect. Second, congratulations on being a teacher. Being a teacher, then you know the value of having multiple examples of similar teachings. I may understand a concept coming from one person by being taught it in a certain way, yet not from a different person, who teaches the same concept in a slightly different way. It is hubris to think that every single teacher in existence must be the only one to teach certain concepts. In my lifetime, I have also had to re-learn things many times to reinforce the knowledge I already possessed too. So hearing the "same old thing" has been beneficial to me.
"c'mon let's get serious" is a figure of speech. You are making the (I will refrain from saying "absurd") claim that I don't or haven't taught divergent points of view in my lectures. But I have to deliver the goods sooner or later. I can bad-mouth certain theories to my heart's content but my students are sitting there thinking "ok, so what do you have to offer that's better?" I hope that's clear. On the other hand, please tell me if JC did the same. Your knowledge is greater than mine so how many alternative views did JC present in his "feed the poor"/"love thy neighbour" speeches? As to your assessment of JC's teachings, I have argued in another posting on this thread how they might be improved. C- is what I'd give them.
QuoteYou impose 2000 years of continued learning on them in order to justify saying they are obvious.
In fact I don't but in fairness, you have no way of knowing that. I have lived in villages which had little or no contact with christians and their behaviour, unshackled by any form of christian civilisation[sic], could only be described as ....divine. All the virtues were present. JC had absolutely nothing to teach them.
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.
And what does JC teaching or not teaching divergent views have to do with anything? That's moving the goal posts. The question was whether or not the teachings, as they are, are all that great. 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.
Don't know how to make my point any clearer.
And of course you have used the filter of 2000 years of learning to look at this issue, and so have I. How can you not, unless you've had zero contact with all of humanity during your entire lifetime? It's simply information we have learned one way or another in the time we've been alive. Doesn't matter where we learned it or from whom. We have, and that's our filter.
As for living in other places, I would fully expect you to have witnessed what you did in those villages. Of course. Who said the only place people could have learned those virtues was from JC? But again, my point there is that the source for them wouldn't matter, as long as they learned them. And if the lessons were reinforced by them hearing it from JC, what's the problem? None. It's just reinforcement of the same ideas.
Not sure where you're trying to go with this, but I've spent more time on the subject than I wanted to already. You can say I'm wrong, disagree, whatever you like. It's fine, then we just disagree. World still turns. I never claimed I was going to refute anything, either. Don't know why you tasked me with that. I'm not even trying to refute whatever it is you think I am (that was very confusing!) Not trying to win any contest, just trying to give my opinion to the OP.
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.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on October 26, 2011, 11:10:52 PM
.....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.
Haha! Thanks. I'm not either. ;D
Quote from: McQ on October 26, 2011, 09:51:38 PM
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.
Quote from: McQThis 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:
QuoteYou 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? QuoteThat 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
Quote"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.
[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?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtcI 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?
Quote from: Scissorlegs on October 26, 2011, 11:10:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on October 27, 2011, 11:43:37 AM
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. ;D
Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 12:16:11 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on October 27, 2011, 11:43:37 AM
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. ;D
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...
Quote from: Scissorlegs on October 27, 2011, 01:41:39 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 12:16:11 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on October 27, 2011, 11:43:37 AM
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. ;D
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.
Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 10:43:51 AM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 28, 2011, 03:00:31 AM
Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 10:43:51 AM
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?
Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 07:15:36 AM
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.
QuoteDid 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.)
QuoteIt 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.
QuoteAren'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.
QuoteAs 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.
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?
Quote from: bandit4god
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.
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:
Quote...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.
Quote from: Gawen on October 29, 2011, 12:41:08 PM
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?
Wow, Ildiko...how apropos!...*grinnin*
Quote from: Gawen on October 29, 2011, 12:13:54 PM
Well, bandit...McQ and any other Christian reading this or anyone who thinks Jesus's teachings were good...
Gawen, I'm not a Christian, or haven't you noticed. I'm an atheist and a charter member of this forum.
Quote from: Attila on October 29, 2011, 05:37:31 AM
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?
I'm probably the worst person in the world to be doing this since my web-surfing skills stink. I did find an interesting site called Death Penalty Information Center that had some numbers that were generally backed up in other, less informative sites (one place only polled attitudes among white Xtians, which seemed to me very skewed).
One thing I found is that approval of the death penalty overall in America is very high (around 80%) which did surprise me -- I knew it was high, just not that high. As for the percentage of religious opinions, according to a 2004 Gallup poll, mainline Protestants approved the most (71%), Catholics came in second (66%) and a category called "no religious preference" was last (57%). That "no religious preference" category irked me since I thought it was so fuzzy as to be useless.
But anyway. There were some other interesting statistics -- among the religious, approval in the death penalty went
down the more a person attended church services. Not by much, admittedly, but still it was a definite trend. Also there was a Zogby poll in 2005 that recorded a substantial drop in Catholic approval of the death penalty -- down to 48%. That's such a huge difference in one year that it makes me wonder how the two polls were taken. I found a poll on another site that I can't remember the name of which indicated that death penalty approval among fundamentalist Protestants was lower than among mainline Protestants, again not by much, something like 68% I think, still that really surprised me. I'd have guessed it would be higher for fundamentalists than mainliners, and I wonder if an increased tendency among fundamentalists to go to church was part of it.
At this point I couldn't guess how much of approval in the death penalty is religious and how much is cultural or some other influence, and without being able to easily separate those influences I'd be reluctant to dismiss Jesus' teachings as worthless or even harmful, esp. since increased church-going exposure to them tends to decrease approval of the death penalty.
Oh BooksCatsEtc, now I feel guilty. I didn't mean to make you work. I thought you might have some ideas off the top of your head being closer to the area of interest than me. You are quite right about trying to get reliable data and what we read informally can be quite misleading of flat-out wrong. I agree completely with your conclusions. Back to the question of the thread, it does seem clear that there is no discernible christian effect on attitudes towards the death penalty. If anything christians of many different groups seem to favour it more than non-christians (also of many groups). I believe the RC's have officially come out against it but consider murder by the state to be somewhat less sinful than masturbation. Consider the reaction to figures like Pinochet or Franco compared to response to "liberation theology" whose proponents were summarily ex-communicated (as would be any functionary who ordained a woman). I conclude that the teachings of JC were utter crap if the behaviour of his students is anything to go by.
Thanks again.
Quote from: McQ on October 29, 2011, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 29, 2011, 12:13:54 PM
Well, bandit...McQ and any other Christian reading this or anyone who thinks Jesus's teachings were good...
Gawen, I'm not a Christian, or haven't you noticed. I'm an atheist and a charter member of this forum.
Oh no, I know you are an atheist, McQ. I used a poor choice of words. Sorry.
Quote from: Attila on October 30, 2011, 04:50:29 AM
I conclude that the teachings of JC were utter crap if the behaviour of his students is anything to go by.
No need to feel guilty, I was curious myself. My only hang up here is that it's only
some of his students -- admittedly it appears to be the majority, at least in some places, but I can't dismiss those in the minority or discount how much of the majority's behavior may be affected by other influences.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 30, 2011, 06:35:12 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 30, 2011, 04:50:29 AM
I conclude that the teachings of JC were utter crap if the behaviour of his students is anything to go by.
No need to feel guilty, I was curious myself. My only hang up here is that it's only some of his students -- admittedly it appears to be the majority, at least in some places, but I can't dismiss those in the minority or discount how much of the majority's behavior may be affected by other influences.
This is true but if we are using this criterion (judging the the greatness of teachings by the actions of those receiving them) you would have to claim that the majority who behave rather disgustingly were not so influenced whilst the minority who do not behave disgustingly were influenced by his teaching. This is really forcing things a bit, don't you think? It's making the case for greatness at all costs. Secondly judging by the numerical minority of the decent ones and the violent vociferous nature of the disgusting ones who probably claim or believe that the
are following JC's teaching and certainly have been exposed to it rather intensively, then the case for greatness by this criterion seems very weak indeed .
And of course we can return to the content of his teaching which is trite, unoriginal and leaving very much to be desired according to the examples of it given on this thread. To use a different example it would be like claim that Thomas More was a decent human being.
Quote from: Attila on October 30, 2011, 06:53:10 PM
This is really forcing things a bit, don't you think?
I kind of agree, and I kind of don't. Just like with Jesus' teachings.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 31, 2011, 12:00:06 AM
Quote from: Attila on October 30, 2011, 06:53:10 PM
This is really forcing things a bit, don't you think?
I kind of agree, and I kind of don't. Just like with Jesus' teachings.
And I totally respect your point of view. In fact I would die defending it. One final question (I promise), if you took those teachings, forgot complete about JC, and put them in the mouth of say Billy Graham (or whoever has replaced him), would that change your opinion of them at all?
Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 03:42:19 AM
One final question (I promise), if you took those teachings, forgot complete about JC, and put them in the mouth of say Billy Graham (or whoever has replaced him), would that change your opinion of them at all?
I don't think it would -- I grew up listening to preachers after all and there were still teachings I disagreed with (however much I may have held my tongue at that point), as well as those I thought good ideas.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 31, 2011, 06:40:17 AM
Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 03:42:19 AM
One final question (I promise), if you took those teachings, forgot complete about JC, and put them in the mouth of say Billy Graham (or whoever has replaced him), would that change your opinion of them at all?
I don't think it would -- I grew up listening to preachers after all and there were still teachings I disagreed with (however much I may have held my tongue at that point), as well as those I thought good ideas.
Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree about the value of those teachings. Thanks.