# The Greatest Debate Never Debated... (Was Jesus an admirable moral teacher?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2005, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085 "2005-09-11T09:04:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/41 "2005-09-13T19:19:02Z")
> [@meara](#): > > I’m not Christian and don’t usually approach this from a Christian viewpoint, but I think this is a very important concept that has just been interpreted in the wrong way. IMO, the key to universal compassion is not willpower, but rather a clear understanding of our situation. We can’t will ourselves to love other people – that just doesn’t work on any large scale. However, we can think about the world and convince ourselves that a) loving others is in our own “self” interest, b) “self” is a pretty fleeting concept to begin with, and c) we’re all part of one big, interconnected system (such that, in the long run, what happens to your neighbor is going to be just as important as what happens to you). True, you can not **will** yourself to love everyone, but you can **allow** yourself to love all others. This is the basis of all religions. But mankind is weak and doesn’t understand why this is important. Only after you do it, will you find the value of it. [http://www.aleroy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28](http://www.aleroy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28) ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/42 "2005-09-13T19:25:50Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > As I see it, “Love your neighbor” is not the same as “Love every single person in the whole world”; and your objection helps to explain why. Your _neighbor_ is, by definition, a person nearby—a person you can see and meet and interact with on a personal level. I think this is an important distinction, although things get murky if you try to define exactly who is my neighbor (a question that Jesus was actually asked; his response was the Parable of the Good Samaritan). He meant everyone as your neighbor. > [@](#): > > Matthew 5:38: Jesus said: > > Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. > > And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. > > Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/43 "2005-09-13T19:36:24Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > As I see it, “Love your neighbor” is not the same as “Love every single person in the whole world”; and your objection helps to explain why. Your _neighbor_ is, by definition, a person nearby—a person you can see and meet and interact with on a personal level. I think this is an important distinction, although things get murky if you try to define exactly who is my neighbor (a question that Jesus was actually asked; his response was the Parable of the Good Samaritan). OK, I understand what you and **meara** are saying. Perhaps my take on the “second great commandment” is overblown. But even on a more limited basis it’s still difficult. How much compassion do we show other people? I think I’m a reasonable person. I’ve given money to people. But at the end of the day, I’m still thinking more of myself than of anyone else–with the possible esception of family and a few very close friends. I don’t think of my neighbor as myself, and I’d guess that very few people do. I still hold that Jesus teachings are inseperable from his spiritual message and his claim to god-hood. Sure there is a basic message there to be compassionate. But one hardly needs Jesus to tell us that a certain compassion and benevolence are good things. The heart of Jesus’ teaching involves a renunciation of this world and all worldly things. This is a terrifying command and requires a grave spiritual commitment on the part of his followers. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/44 "2005-09-13T20:48:10Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > I respectfully disagree Mr. Dibble. > > Do you believe that Emperors should be held to a different moral standard than paupers (or, more to the point, the middle class)? Or are we all equal before the eyes of G-d? (Interpret that figuratively, if you wish). I personally don’t think moral standards, as I think you mean them, are the issue. Or to put it another way, there is no God, not even figuratively (not even sure what you mean), all our morality is self-created, and the only standard we have is societal. I don’t think there’d be much argument that societal standards of morality are very much relative. Society does hold the educated to a different moral standard from the ignorant, for example. > [@Measure for Measure](#): > > If you accept this rudimentary form of equality, then you have post-Axial age morals. That is, you have absorbed the **Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Buddhist** POV, which contrasts with the idea of an all-powerful and blessed emperor or oligarchy. One of these bolded religions is not like the others, kids. Can you tell me which one? That’s right, the one that doesn’t have a monotheos - which, BTW, is essentially an all-powerful emperor…_in the Sky_! So I for one don’t see the difference in the morals there ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/45 "2005-09-13T21:31:23Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Or to put it another way, there is no God, not even figuratively (not even sure what you mean), all our morality is self-created, and the only standard we have is societal. I don’t think there’d be much argument that societal standards of morality are very much relative. Society does hold the educated to a different moral standard from the ignorant, for example. Even the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis agrees that our moral standards arise from the common experience of mankind based on what works for a society and what doesn’t. Many who argue for a fixed moral standard and decry ‘situational ethics’ defend the ownership of slaves by George Washington on the grounds that such was acceptable in his time and place. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/46 "2005-09-13T21:44:05Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Even the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis agrees that our moral standards arise from the common experience of mankind based on what works for a society and what doesn’t. > > Many who argue for a fixed moral standard and decry ‘situational ethics’ defend the ownership of slaves by George Washington on the grounds that such was acceptable in his time and place. Moral standards can come only from a Higher Intelligence. I don’t think man would have come up with “love one another”, without defining conditions. Only God can say love one another unconditionally. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/47 "2005-09-14T05:53:12Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Moral standards can come only from a Higher Intelligence. 1. So humans can impose moral standards on animals? Hm. 2. Kant and Socrates would disagree with you. AFAIK, IIRC, etc. etc., JS Mill and Buddha would also disagree. **lekatt** ---- I don’t think man would have come up with “love one another”, without defining conditions. Jesus’ commandment to Love thy neighbor as thyself[sup]1[/sup] parallels that of Hillel, a contemporary: [That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder) Hm. I guess that does have conditions, in a way: Hillel is summarizing. But then again, Jesus provided a precis as well. Either way, I understand that Gurus often utter aphorisms that tend towards the simplistic --or essential if you prefer. Both rabbis recall Deut 6:4-5 (regarding God) and Lev 19:18 (regarding your neighbor). Buddha exhorted his followers to cultivate compassion: I don’t _think_ he attached conditions to that, though his advice was embedded within a broader approach to the human condition. **MrDibble** I’d rather drop my previous reply to you entirely: I have since learned that it contains bad and confused historical analysis. See post 38 for retraction. [sup]1[/sup]I’m not sure where lekatt gets, “Unconditionally”, but I am certainly no Biblical scholar. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/48 "2005-09-14T06:06:27Z")
I think Jesus had it right, but we have it all wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/49 "2005-09-14T09:52:44Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > **MrDibble** > I’d rather drop my previous reply to you entirely: I have since learned that it contains bad and confused historical analysis. See post 38 for retraction. > > [ That’s cool, although it did bring up an interesting debate point, IMHO. Overall, I guess my take on the thing is that Jesus’ morality is intellectually desireable, but functionally unrealistic, and that makes it flawed. A flawed morality is not admireable. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/50 "2005-09-14T11:36:03Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That’s cool, although it did bring up an interesting debate point, IMHO. > > Overall, I guess my take on the thing is that Jesus’ morality is intellectually desireable, but functionally unrealistic, and that makes it flawed. A flawed morality is not admireable. Unless his point was that even though it was not expected that we would actually reach the ideal, striving for that ideal is the way to make progress and mantain a balance against the opposite point of view. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/51 "2005-09-14T13:30:09Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That’s cool, although it did bring up an interesting debate point, IMHO. > > Overall, I guess my take on the thing is that Jesus’ morality is intellectually desireable, but functionally unrealistic, and that makes it flawed. A flawed morality is not admireable. There is no flaw in unconditional love. Most humans will not achieve it. But it is the mark we try for, the path we walk. There are great advantages to it, known only to those who try. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/52 "2005-09-15T07:52:39Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Unless his point was that even though it was not expected that we would actually reach the ideal, striving for that ideal is the way to make progress and mantain a balance against the opposite point of view. That would be a valuable point to make. Do you have a cite for Jesus _clearly and unambiguously_ making the point I’ve underlined above? Otherwise we’re back to flawed teachings which need interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/53 "2005-09-15T13:18:04Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That would be a valuable point to make. Do you have a cite for Jesus _clearly and unambiguously_ making the point I’ve underlined above? Otherwise we’re back to flawed teachings which need interpretation. No cite, If the point is to strive toward the ideal in order to continue to improve then wouldn’t it be defeating the purpose to acknowledge that it’s not actually expected. We acknowledge that different individuals learn and develop at different rates and achieve different things. As in school, we are all given the same basic goals to strive for and we’d all like to achieve the highest marks even though we know realistically that won’t happen. Why not morals and ethics as well? And so we have this. > [@](#): > > Matthew 5:48 > Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Seems incredibly unrealsitic doesn’t it? What’s the point? > [@](#): > > Matt 7: 24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. Consistant striving toward the ideal is a solid foundation. Each moral or ethical challange that comes into our lives we can deal with by considering the ideal. Doesn’t striving for an impossible ideal lead to frustration and a feeling of failure? > [@](#): > > Mark 11:25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. Dam clever the way our forgiveness for not achieving perfection is linked to forgiving others for their lack of perfection. What an emotionally healthy concept. Jesus also recognized that growth was a gradual thing and expected that striving to continue throughout our lives. > [@](#): > > John 16: 6 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. > 12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. Now looking at this in a non spiritual sense we can infer that Jesus was trying to teach his disciples to learn to look inward and learn to trust their own judgement in their striving. > [@](#): > > 1 Corinthians 3:2 > I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. As you say, it is a matter of interpretation and it is your interpretation that his teachings are flawed. IMHO teachings to continue striving and growing for our lifetime is not flawed but rather brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/54 "2005-09-15T13:21:34Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That would be a valuable point to make. Do you have a cite for Jesus _clearly and unambiguously_ making the point I’ve underlined above? Otherwise we’re back to flawed teachings which need interpretation. You and I and everyone else knows there is no such cite. But that still doesn’t make Jesus’ teachings flawed. It only makes your understanding of them flawed. You can’t apply science dogma to spiritual events. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/55 "2005-09-15T15:27:41Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Unless his point was that even though it was not expected that we would actually reach the ideal, striving for that ideal is the way to make progress and mantain a balance against the opposite point of view. As I read Matthew it seems to me His ideal was that all should accept his teaching without question and if you didn’t do that you should, and would, go to Hell. It’s easier to love those who agree with you than to love those who argue. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/56 "2005-09-15T16:46:10Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > There is no flaw in unconditional love. Most humans will not achieve it. But it is the mark we try for, the path we walk. There are great advantages to it, known only to those who try. No flaw ? Unconditional love - unconditional _anything_ is insane. After all, if an emotion is unconditional, by definition it is completely detached from external reality, not to mention ethics and self-preservation. “Unconditional love” is the sort of thing a self destructive abused wife feels for her husband; instead of running away, she puts up wth it because she loves him; caring about being beaten is a “condition”, you see. Unconditional love is a bad, bad thing to promote. If Jesus taught that, that alone makes him a bad moral teacher. > [@lekatt](#): > > You and I and everyone else knows there is no such cite. But that still doesn’t make Jesus’ teachings flawed. It only makes your understanding of them flawed. > > You can’t apply science dogma to spiritual events. Prove that Jesus’s teachings are not flawed. It’s rather arrogant to say that that someone who sees a mistake is automatically wrong. And yes, you can apply science to spiritual events. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/57 "2005-09-15T20:56:06Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > No flaw ? Unconditional love - unconditional _anything_ is insane. After all, if an emotion is unconditional, by definition it is completely detached from external reality, not to mention ethics and self-preservation. “Unconditional love” is the sort of thing a self destructive abused wife feels for her husband; instead of running away, she puts up wth it because she loves him; caring about being beaten is a “condition”, you see. > > Unconditional love is a bad, bad thing to promote. If Jesus taught that, that alone makes him a bad moral teacher. > > Prove that Jesus’s teachings are not flawed. It’s rather arrogant to say that that someone who sees a mistake is automatically wrong. > > And yes, you can apply science to spiritual events. Sure. Unconditional love by everyone, as Jesus taught, is the only thing possible to turn this world into heaven on earth. It could be done in seconds. Do you have something better. Remember we are assuming the viewpoint of God. As for science, never will science understand, measure, or produce spirituality. You have to do that all on your own. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/58 "2005-09-15T21:11:54Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Sure. > > Unconditional love by everyone, as Jesus taught, is the only thing possible to turn this world into heaven on earth. It could be done in seconds. > > Do you have something better. Remember we are assuming the viewpoint of God. > > As for science, never will science understand, measure, or produce spirituality. You have to do that all on your own. If we all go insane, the world will become a paradise ? Somehow I doubt that. We are _not_ “assuming the viewpoint of God”, whatever that is supposed to mean. God is either nonexistent or infinitely beyond human comprehension; either way, talking about his viewpoint is pointless. Either it doesn’t exist, or we can’t comprehend it. As far as spirituality and science is concerned, I talked about it in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=331967) thread. I’m not going to hijack this one to repeat myself. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/59 "2005-09-15T22:18:11Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > No flaw ? Unconditional love - unconditional _anything_ is insane. After all, if an emotion is unconditional, by definition it is completely detached from external reality, not to mention ethics and self-preservation. “Unconditional love” is the sort of thing a self destructive abused wife feels for her husband; instead of running away, she puts up wth it because she loves him; caring about being beaten is a “condition”, you see. > > Unconditional love is a bad, bad thing to promote. If Jesus taught that, that alone makes him a bad moral teacher. Of course, Jesus did not use the word “love”: he spoke in Aramaic (if I understand correctly), and the closest thing we have to original sources are in Greek. So you may well be thinking of something quite different than what Jesus actually meant. In particular, I don’t think the kind of love Jesus taught was an emotion or feeling. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085/60 "2005-09-15T22:57:57Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > Of course, Jesus did not use the word “love”: he spoke in Aramaic (if I understand correctly), and the closest thing we have to original sources are in Greek. So you may well be thinking of something quite different than what Jesus actually meant. In particular, I don’t think the kind of love Jesus taught was an emotion or feeling. I was less hung up on **lekatt’s** use of “love” than I was concerned about the word “unconditional”. Like I said, unconditional anything is insane. Absolutes seldom work well in the real world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-debate-never-debated-was-jesus-an-admirable-moral-teacher/321085.md?page=4)