So, just what was Jesus' message?

Great Debates
82

One problem here is the multiple choice question usually presented by Christians, not atheists, traceable (I believe) to something said by C.S. Lewis: Jesus – Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?

This is, after all, the person who is recorded as having said “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)–that is (and this is certainly how Christians have historically understood it) “I am God”. If someone doesn’t believe Jesus was God (and atheists, obviously, don’t believe Jesus was God), this claim by Jesus is difficult to reconcile with the “great moral teacher one ought to respect even if one doesn’t accept the religion founded in his name”. If he’s not the Lord, and if one accepts the “red-letter” bits of the Gospels as his actual words, then “liar” may be a bit harsh–after all, according to those premises he did go to a horrible death rather than flee to a different province–but one would have to conclude he was a bit touched in the head.

Of course, there is really a fourth answer to the “liar, lunatic, or Lord” question: I can’t really come up with a snappy word that starts with the letter “L” (“he was libelled”?), but that is to say that the historical Jesus of Nazareth never said some of the things (perhaps many of the things) he is recorded to have said in the Gospels. Of course, if we say there is doubt as to whether he said the things we find problematic or troublesome, we have to admit there is doubt as to whether he said the things we find inspiring or admirable as well, and the historical Jesus of Nazareth becomes a rather enigmatic figure; there is also a danger he will become a sort of human inkblot, onto whom everyone will project their own beliefs. (To liberals, he was a liberal; to libertarians, he was a libertarian; to communists, he was a communist; to gays, he was a champion of gay rights–maybe even gay himself; to conservatives, he was a conservative; to feminists, he was a feminist; etc., etc., etc.)

Earlier, Polycarp objected to Czarcasm’s summing up of Jesus’ message as “You should follow me because I can do a few tricks and make a few vague predictions that will be hard to define, but it doesn’t matter because I’ll be long gone by the time you realize what’s going on.” Polycarp also said that he would still follow Jesus even if every single one of the miracles recorded in the Gospels could be debunked. The Gospel according to John claims that Jesus said “the miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me” (John 10:25). John 2:11 speaks of “miraculous signs” (in this case, the famous miracle of turning water into wine) which “revealed his glory” and caused his disciples to “put their faith in him”. The idea that the miracles performed by Jesus are evidence for his Messiahood or Godship isn’t just something mutually made up by fundamentalists and literal-minded atheists; it’s something which can be traced back to the Bible itself.

83

If you could accept that Jesus taught such ideas, why didn’t you just say that in your first post? I am glad to see Tris’ comments to you because they were a correct assessment of your behaviour.

Some of us don’t see ourselves separate from Him, therefore, when you make comments that maybe He was nuts, etc., we do indeed take it personally.

As an aside, perhaps you would like to start a thread to discuss all who taught messages such as “love one another”, etc. It seems to be a very important issue to you, but I don’t believe that such argument belongs in this particular thread, So, just what was Jesus’ message?

My reply for the summary:

To love one another. Everything else provides examples on what love is or isn’t. It’s also the greatest challenge we could ever undertake.

84

And again, Czarcasm, you ignore my point. I begin to feel that you are either incapable of conducting an honest discussion, or fear to face the truth about your own “logical discourse” on this board.

Someone asks what is the message of Jesus.

Here is your reply:

Are you now maintaining that this is in fact the message of Jesus? Do you believe that I found this message in His words? Do you aver that this post is not intended as a denigration of those who believe in Christ, or any other Messiah?

Please answer this question honestly, with a yes or no. Is this post intended as an insult?

Your next reply was to Muad Dib’s jibe that you would burn in hell as a heretic. I have some doubt as to any serious intent of Muad Dib to describe this as a fundamental tenet of Christianity, but you certainly express an undeniable belief that that is so. I would not dream of claiming that no such belief is held among Christians. I have certainly never espoused such a belief, nor have any of the people who have objected you the dishonest way you have denied your intent in the original post.

No one has proselytized to you here in this thread. No one has made denigrating generalizations about you. But you cannot reasonably expect that you can snidely cast aspersions on the intelligence of whole social and religious communities, and not have it recognized as rank bigotry. Hate me if you wish, that is a free choice. You can have contempt for my beliefs simply because you find them unoriginal. You can decide for your own pleasure that only stupidity could possibly prevent me from seeing the truth of your point of view. But I too have a mind, and some verbal ability. If you aren’t trying to offend Christians, you need to learn to express yourself much better. Trying to weasel about it after the fact is laughable.

Tris

This line intentionally left blank.

85

The fact that you find challenges to your belief system to be hateful attacks does disturb me. Though you might not want to acknowledge it, the teaching that an atheist such as myself is bound for hell is a fundamental tenet of most branches of Christianity, your personal beliefs notwithstanding. This is one of the major problems inherent when you misidentify criticism of Christianity as personal criticism of yourself. When I wish to address your personal belief system, I will, of course, address the criticism to your beliefs(but NEVER you) personally.
The fact that no-one has denigrated me personally does not, in any way imaginable, preclude me from giving a different opinion in this thread.
Unless, of course, you wish to bring forth the opinion that every subject, except this one, is open to debate.

86

Please Czar, just a yes or no.

Did you intend your opening post in this thread as an insult?

Do you understand that it does not involve any sort of rational criticism of my belief system?

Do you really think that it was just a reasoned statement of difference of opinion?

Tris

87

An insult to who? IMHO, Jesus(if he ever existed) never wrote a single word that is attributed to him. As far as I know most, if not all, of the words attributed to him in the Bible were written by people who got it second-hand at best from very biased followers who were at the time trying to promote their belief system over quite a few others at the time. We cannot pin down what he said, who wrote down what he said, or even when they wrote it. Add to this this the near impossibility that the words you attribute to Jesus were passed down through the centuries accurately.
No, my opening post was not intended as an insult to either a supposed historical figure you now refer to as “Jesus”, nor to those Christians who cannot distinguish between religious criticism and personal criticism, nor to you personally. If I do wish to criticise you personally(a habit I personally find distasteful), I will address you personally.
As far as a reasoned statement of difference of opinion, perhaps not-perhaps you can tell me how to criticise the religion of those who state that criticising their religion is the same as criticising them personally. It seems that, in this thread, the opinion that Jesus’ message is sacred and pure and simple is not to be trifled with.

88

Czar’s first post looks to me like it was intended as a joke, so I guess if joking about christianity is insulting to you you could take it as an insult. The reason why the post is likely to anger people is that it doesn’t make much sense. Most Christians probably wouldn’t say that they witnessed Jesus’ “tricks”, or that their belief is based on his “few vague predictions”. The reasons to follow Jesus are faith, and his message. If Czar wanted to post a cynical response that actually made sense, it could have said that Jesus’ message is that “you should follow me, because I’ve cornered the market on goodness, and you aren’t gettin any if you don’t give yourself to me”.

Where I do agree with Czar, and what you all really don’t want to consider, is that I don’t like Jesus’ supposed message. The good parts of the message are rather obvious things, and yet they give credibility to some arbitrary and terrible things. Yes, I have read the bible. And I could make a mix tape of Jesus’ greatest hits that would be really nice. But taken as a whole, it just seems horribly wrong to me. It’s like, just because Jesus had that one hit about everyone being loving to each other, we are all forced to critically praise the rest of his songs, which just suck. But I’ll stop now, because I know how people take it personally when you insult their favorite band.

89

We have long endured his comedy and denial. “Jesus sucks, but I mean that in a nice way.” A school bully often giggles as he stomps around doling out his noogies.

90

Just a suggestion, but you should consider focusing your brand of criticism to the message instead of the messenger. You obviously failed to do that.

91

Lib, I am getting a bit tired of your insults and deliberate misquotes and misunderstandings of my position. I never made the quote you made above, nor the one about about taking a sword up. See if you can understand, and quote accurately, the following statements:
I do not hate you.
I have not, despite your convoluted logic, attacked you.
I have not seen enough evidence that Jesus existed, let alone said the things attributed to him.
I do not hate Jesus, because it would make as much sense to me as hating Lex Luthor.
I do not believe that the “god” you worship even exists, therefore it would be silly of me to hate him.
At most, I terribly regret those horrible actions throughout history that have been done because of, and in the name of, religion. I dispair of the artificial walls that are built up between people by all the different sects and cults, all in the name of that which cannot be seen, heard, or felt(tactile feeling, not emotional feeling). Sometimes I feel regret that I am imcapable of blind faith, because it would mean I get to make fewer moral decisions on my own.

When you want to attack me, or my position, Libertarian, could you kindly refer to the paragraph above?

92

Oh, Czar. Even a ninth grader knows the difference between a paraphrase and a quote. What statement from Jesus were you quoting in your original ridicule on page one?

When did He say that? And if He didn’t say that, then either apologize or else admit that you know that I was paraphrasing.

You seem to love to twist the words of others, but hate (yes, hate) to perceive your own words as twisted. You seem to love to insult others, but hate what you perceive as insults. As an example, take this:

Either your ignorance knows no bounds or else you deliberately imply that we don’t make moral decisions on our own. That is insulting to the hilt. We do our own thinking and make our own decisions.

Here’s something else:

An atheist, Joseph Stalin, slaughtered, starved, beat, tortured to death, or otherwise killed 20,000,000 people. Did he do that in the name of God? Another atheist, Mao Tse Dung, murdered even more tens of millions. And nobody even has a clue how many people Kim Jong-Il, another atheist, has killed.

You’re throwing stones in a glass house, Mister.

Silly to hate Him, indeed. But pathetic to desparately ridicule and attack Him like Madalyn Murray O’Hair on steroids, the way you do. You even reference Him in quotation marks for the deliberate purpose of showing disrespect to Him and to those of us who believe in Him. Otherwise, you would just write it out like anyone else.

I can’t recall you saying bad things about Lex Luthor.

I do not believe you.

You are simply incapable of posting anything about God without some backhanded slap at Him and those of us who know Him, as this thread and nearly your entire history testifies. Why don’t you just stop it?

Your whole tone comes out as (warning for the rhetoric impaired: paraphrase follows) — “I’m so superior to you because you believe in magic and I don’t.” What you believe is your business, but your Lolo act is getting old.

You bullied your way into a thread that asked “What is Jesus’ message?” just to post a drive-by insult, and you got called on it. If, unlike Cecil, you don’t even think He existed, then why didn’t you just mosey on to another thread. This one isn’t about His existence, but you took the liberty to hijack it all the same.

Please leave us alone if all you intend to do is ridicule and disrespect. Otherwise, please frame your comments and arguments as though you are mindful of the respect that we are due as members in good standing of this message board.

93

I am sorry if the only positions you claim are possible are hatred and blind acceptance. I have tried to spend my time here explaining my position and clarifying over and over your mistatements on my position. In my opinion, you have spend far too much time attacking me and attributing to me positions and emotions that I do not have.
I do not hate you, or anyone else.
I do not hate what I consider to be imaginary beings.
I think that trying to define what exactly Jesus’s Message *is/i] is important, and that using the Bible as the soul source of his message might not yield the best results, for reasons I have previously stated.
I fully realize that you were paraphrasing-I was trying to point out that you were, repeatedly, doing so inaccurately.
I am in no way a bully or a hater, you have little call to tell me to “mosey” away, and just for once you might trying showing me half of the respect you are demanding. I haven’t called you names, nor have I said that you were silly. What I believe may indeed be my business, but I have just as much right to state my beliefs here as you do, sellf-percieved slights notwithstanding.

94

“You should follow me because I can do a few tricks…”: a rather snide paraphrase of “The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me”. (John 10:25)
[snide]"…make a few vague predictions that will be hard to define…"[/snide] = “The time has come. The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15)

“…it doesn’t matter because I’ll be long gone by the time you realize what’s going on.” All right, I don’t think I really buy this part. If I had to choose between “liar” and “lunatic”, based solely on what’s recorded in the Gospels (and we don’t really have anything else to go on at this point), I’d have to choose “lunatic” over charlatan or con-man.

95

Czar,

At last, although carefully equivocated, you provide an answer to my question.

So, you perceive no insult in your post.

Many people do consider it an insult to have a ridiculous proposal attributed to them as a core belief, and find the underlying presumption of stupidity implicit in your first post to be obviously insulting to all of them. Yes, I understand that you find that fact further evidence of intellectual failing among those who find ridicule to be unreasoned as an element philosophical debate. Nevertheless, many people do feel that such a form of discourse does show contempt for all people who believe in Christ, or God. Few people not already in agreement with your personal prejudices would be convinced to rethink their opinions on the basis of your original post.

Now comes another question, perhaps even more difficult than the yes, no question that took five attempts to arrive at an answer; What did you wish to accomplish, with your first post? You must have had some particular intent. If it was not to denigrate, or insult, please let us know. What was your intent?

I have had many discussions with other people, some Christians, some proponents of other faiths, and some Atheists. (Is Atheist supposed to be capitalized? In deference to Ath?) Yours is not the only voice I have heard proposing that my beliefs are based on less than rigorous analytical methodology, or compelling evidence. Yet in those discussions I have not felt any contempt, or personal animus from the opposing view, or posters. The fact is that in most cases, in this forum where I have had acrimonious exchanges on the subject of religion, the opponent was espousing a Christian theology, not an Atheist view.

Tris

96

I do not have contempt for those whose ideology differs from mine, though at times I have been shown contempt for not being a “good” atheist(i.e. keeping my opinions to myself in the face of overwhelming opposition). While every oppositional argument and idea I have come up with is called “hatred” and “contempt” by some, and “personal attacks” by others, those that are equally vehement in their views, and who repeatedly and obviously mis-state my position and answer my position with (paraphrasing now) “You have nothing to add to this conversation, and your thoughts are not worthy of us, so mosey away until you can show the proper amount of respect to your betters.” do not get equal response.
I have no contempt for those who see evidence where I do not, for maybe they are in a position to see something where I am not, as long as you can consider the possibility that you might be seeing something that just might not be there. My vision is only 20/20, and it doesn’t provide me with the automatic ability to tell truth from lie, good from evil, or reality from fantasy. These abilities are gained through years of study and experience, and no two people on Earth have achieved these in equal proportion.
And no one person, including me or you, has ever perfected these abilities. It is when you are 100% sure that what you know is truth that you must step back and re-examine that “truth” twice as hard as you would anything else in your entire lifetime, for it is the 100% Truth that will bite you in the ass the hardest, every time.

97

So should I ask the second question a second time, or can I go ahead and put both the second and third reiterations in one post so you don’t have to wait for the third time to answer.

What did you intend to accoplish when you posted your first message in this thread?

What did you want to have happen that you felt your first post in this thread made more likely?

Tris

98

Perhaps I meant to establish that the simplistic “God Is Love” message that usually pops up whenever this question is asked, just might not be as universally understood as you think. Remember the title? Now how many posters gave the standard Sunday school response, and how many provided the a halfway decent examination of the actual words attributed to him in the Bible(not just the standard favorite verses)?
The question was “So just what was Jesus’ message?”, and I gave a somewhat flippant answer, of which I still pretty much support except for maybe the last part. But, in my humble opinion, the original question has still been glossed over in favor of feel-good generalities.

99

Ok, I will move away from your first response, then, Czar, after mentioning one thing. If you wished to understand the message that “God is love,” or even wished to reveal the inadequacies of the “standard Sunday school responses,” a less “flippant” response would be more likely to elicit a theological reply, rather than an emotional one. Enough of that now.

So, on to your objection that the views offered here as “the message of Jesus” are simplistic. I think you confuse simple, with simplistic. The message is not arcane, or complicated. Yes, I know it is not uncommon to find vastly different interpretations of the Bible in almost every aspect of Christian doctrine. I have never pretended to be a scholar of Biblical verses, although some posters here are. I often quote the words ascribed to Jesus, but just as often give the meaning that those words convey to me without quotations.

In a detailed examination of some specific verse it is very likely that I will respond very briefly, if at all about what a particular translation seems to say to me, but more likely still, I will not post at all. But when someone asks such a simply worded question as the OP, I speak out. I speak in simple words, of simple things. Love. It may be intellectually dissatisfying from a rhetorical point of view, but my answer is not meant to prove anything to anyone. I share my faith, with hope. I don’t think it is simplistic, and they teach it in Sunday School because it is what children need to hear.

Yes, it is intellectually possible that I am entirely wrong, and that God does not exist. Perhaps you could prove it. Even so, the message of Jesus, now proven to be a plagiarized message about an imaginary being would still be the same. Faith Hope and Love, abide these three things. And the greatest of these, is Love.

Tris

100

Thanks, Homebrew!

However, as noted above, the sentiment is not original!:wink:

Tris

101

Are there any other messages to be found in the words of Jesus, other than “Jesus is Love”? Perhaps another message could be derived from Matthew 10:34(“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I am come not to send peace, but a sword.”), Luke 12:51(“Suppose ye that I come to give peace on earth?, I tell you, Nay, but rather division.”), and Luke 14:26(“If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”)