The Greatest Debate Never Debated... (Was Jesus an admirable moral teacher?)

Great Debates
21

lekatt, I understand what you are saying about the oneness of all things. We’ve talked about our experiences before. But in retrospect, I was taught that concept in Sunday School as a child too – taught that God is omnipresent. Maybe that is not one of Friar Ted’s beliefs, but it’s not considered “New Age” either. Does omnipresence have a Biblical basis? I’d not really questioned it.

I believe that the divine side of the Master was perfect, but I believe that the human side was not and that he knew it and struggled with it. That’s why he lost his temper with the moneychangers and why he was fearful in the garden the night before he was crucified. It was a great comfort to me as an educator that the greatest teacher ever still had a student who flunked out.

As for the OP, I like it that he taught that peacekeepers are blessed and that we should take care of each other.

22

Amen

You are truly one that understands.

23

That depends on what part of the Bible you read.

That’s not very peaceloving and compassionate. Besides, let’s take a look at the actual record of Christianity. IMHO, all the various Crusades, genocides, enslavements, forced conversions, book burnings and so forth done in the name of the Christian God outweigh all the good Christianity could ever possibly do. You can argue that his message was perverted, but the fact is for most of Christianity’s history, people have heard the call to arms, not the call for compassion. If he wanted people to be nice, he failed. If he didn’t, he’s a bad guy. Either way, that’s not good oral teaching.

Which brings up something else; while I’m sure someone else can play dueling Bible quotes and come up with something about how nice he was, that’s due to Jesus’s poor teaching technique. If he really wanted to set down a clear basis for moral behavior that would last without being hopelessly distorted, he should have had it written down personally. I’m no Bible expert, but even I know that the accounts of J’s life were set down well after his death, written by multiple people.

If Jesus had written/dictated his beliefs when he was around, people who wanted to could follow what he said; instead they have to follow the multiply removed and translated accounts of people who had their own agenda. If he really was well meaning, he should have written his beliefs down in clear, concise language, so that it would be far harder for people to put words in his mouth.

24

Der Trihs, I agree with you totally that the Scriptures seem to be contradictory at times. That’s why I try to look at the overall picture and why I don’t think that Jesus was perfect. I wish that he had had time to write down his thoughts. Maybe he did – and they weren’t preserved. Maybe a lot was thrown out that should have been included. And maybe a lot that was included should have been tossed in File 13.

I would love to see pure Christianity (whatever that is) in action. What we’ve seen in the last 2,000 years are sinful Christians in action. Not the same at all!

Paul of Tarsus pretty much spelled it out at the beginning when he said that he didn’t do the things he should do and did the things he shouldn’t do. Yet he went around telling everybody else what to do. Sound familiar?

(Mea culpa.)

25

The problem with all that “everyone should love each other” stuff is that it’s not practical. It’s nice, but it doesn’t really tell me how I should live my life. I actually prefer Paul, because in his letters, you can get some idea of practical moral behavior…what you should try to do, what you should stay away from.

26

Der Trihs
---- If Jesus had written/dictated his beliefs when he was around, people who wanted to could follow what he said; instead they have to follow the multiply removed and translated accounts of people who had their own agenda. If he really was well meaning, he should have written his beliefs down in clear, concise language, so that it would be far harder for people to put words in his mouth.

Amazing:
----- The problem with all that “everyone should love each other” stuff is that it’s not practical. It’s nice, but it doesn’t really tell me how I should live my life.
Well, I for one am willing to cut the historical J of N some slack. His life was cut short fairly early in his ministry, soon after he attempted to extend his ministry to the big city of the time. I can’t fault Jesus for not systematizing his thinking, or perhaps conveying the details of his scheme, if he had one.

The Biblical Jesus knew what was coming though. I’m not sure what to make of that morally, though it has substantial salience spiritually.

Zoe:
In defense of Paul:
I think it acceptable to implore people to do what you want them to do, when you know that they don’t take you that seriously anyway. Heck, I see such behavior all the time on this board.

27

To answer the OP, I don’t think he was. The fundamental point I get off of Jesus’ communist-ascetic-globalist teachings is that to be moral, Man must act in ways that are contrary to his true nature, which I believe is essentially hedonistic/anti-privation/selfish/tribal.

IMHO, that’s just [del]fu[/del]messed up. Causing people to act against their nature is a recipe for repression, deep-seated psychological trauma, societal corruption and hypocricy. We still see the fruits of it today, and people have the gall to intimate that modern Western Christian people are assholes in spite of following this guy’s teachings, or because they are “weak” and “fall short of the glory”. I say it’s the teacher and his teachings that are at fault, not the students.

And don’t get me started on the essentially eschatalogical nature of his teachings, and how that never encourages moral behaviour in the here-and-now.

28

I guess that depends on how you interpret what he said. IMHO I see Jesus teaching that total communion with God through the Holy Spirit was what he did and what all should strive for. He said he was one with God but he also said we could be in him as he was in God. “Oneness” "I am the way the truth and the light " can be read as “follow my example” then again, this thread is about his moral teachings aside from those claims.

29

I think in these verses Jesus was saying that we must be as commited to the truth as he was. Totally “The truth will set you free” The point was that if your attachment to material possessions and your social standing are more important to you than the truth, then you don’t really want what he was teaching. If you’re more concerned about family tradition and what your parents or siblings think than you are seeking the truth, then you won’t get what he is saying.
Dad" Son, don’t hang out with those gentiles and be kind to them, you’re embaressing the family. Just spit on them as they go by like a good boy"
Son “No Dad I won’t , that’s not right”
Dad, “That’s it you’re out of the family.”
Jesus’ commitment to the truth led to his own physical death.

Jesus taught that the key was within each one of us. “The kingdom of Heaven is within you” and not in any book. Christianity is a great example of how having it written down doesn’t work unless people look inward. IMO the fact that CHristianity places the Bible in such an authoritative position as well as other distorted teachings of Jesus, is a stumbling block. People look first to a 2000 year old book for direction instead of within themselves. They have more faith in tradition and what someone told them “the Bible means” than they do in their own ability to discern the truth.

30

Jesus taught that it wasn’t just about behavior but also about where your head was at. If you want to cheat on your wife but don’t for fear of getting caught then you’re not making moral or emotional progress.
It’s nice to have more specific guidelines but if we really seek to “love one another”
or “love thy neighbor as theyself” then we will ask ourselves over and over as we go through life. “What does love require of me in this situation?” Jesus said look within yourself. The answer is there but you have to have the tenacity to seek it and the courage to act on it when it comes to you. There are many things in the world we call love witch are not love at all.
“I had to kill my ex girlfriend, I loved her too much to let her go”

By asking the “love” question as we go through day to day experiences we will refine our understanding of what love requires of us and grow as people.

31

What Jesus taught was that ultimatly we are all members of the same tribe. Take the basic principle that we function better when we work together and cooperate than when we fight each other and take it to it’s logical conclusion.
He also taught that everyone deserves respect and consideration and that social structure should not prevent us from treating each other with kindness and sharing our resources. When one group elevates themselves to a place of superiority and begin to feel they deserve more than others then it will lead to social unrest and violence. History seems to show that’s true.

32

So you agree, a communist-globalist ethic.

But a tad unrealistic, I think. Tribalism and hierarchy are deeply ingrained in our natures - hell, they’re deeply engrained in our chimp relatives too. Jesus’ teachings are a nice example of what we could be, if we weren’t who we are.

En masse, that is, I’m well aware that those (true) teachings of Jesus are actuallised to a degree in some (members of monastic orders, mostly), but the bulk of the adherents of the religion founded in his name cherry-picks his own words and ignores the hard parts. Why? Because giving away all your possessions and truly giving respect and consideration to everyone (be they Abortionist, brown man, poor man, atheist) is harder than the watered down version they follow.

I’m not saying the ideas in your quote aren’t nice ideas, but so (IMO) is theoretical Marxism, and that doesn’t work too well in practice either. Human nature is a wall, a lot of ideologies beat their heads against it.

33

Not much arguement form me on this post. People seem to like the idea that by syaing they believe in Jesus they are getting some eternal reward and they don’t really have to make any effort other than to be reasonably decent to their fellow man. What is amazing about Jesus to me and those like him {boy I’m gonna hear about that one} is the dedication to be true to those truths about our humanity and to continue to teach them unwaveringly in spite of the knowledge that few would follow.

Of course we’re staying away from the spiritual meaning of his teaching in this thread.

34

If the gospels are to be believed, Jesus wasn’t always consistent in his rejection of tribalism. Sometimes he had to be talked (or grovelled) into it:

35

In the scripture you quoted Jesus was IMO trying to teach the woman and his disciples something about faith. Several times in the Bible Jesus points out that miraculous healings have a lot to do with the faith of those involved. In the end he again demostrated that in faith we are not seperate tribes.

36

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).

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.

I should admit that I don’t have a cite for this. ( History-of-Religion Dopers, am I off base here? )

37

my 0.02

First I’m going to assume the accuracy of the Bible’s account of Jesus for the purposes of this thread. The Jesus depicted in the Bible is the Jesus people turn to for moral guidance, so that’s who should be discussed, even if we don’t know the relationship of Bible Jesus to the real Jesus. Besides there are people who base their morality on John Galt, a wholly fictional character, so discusing a morality that is attributed but not proven to belong to Jesus does not seem that unreasonable.

First I’ll say that I’m struck by the general compassion shown by Jesus in the Gospels. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” “Whatsoever you do to the least of these you do to me.” “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Jesus’ imperative is not just to behave morally, but to actually be compassionate, which is a far different thing. I can see why the Muslims would refer to him as “the prophet of the heart.” (And thanks pravnik, I did not know that.)

However, the other thing that strikes me are the terrifying demands Jesus lays on his followers. Take the command to turn the other cheek. At first glance this just seems like an injunction to walk away from a confrontation, sound general advice we’d all agree. But look at what he’s saying. Don’t just walk away, actually turn to get punched again. If someone steals some of your stuff, don’t just write it off, give him even more of your stuff. And look at the ultimate commandment. The Golden rule just tells us to do unto others, in other words to act benevolently and to keep other peoples well being in mind. (Frankly, I prefer Kant’s negative formulation but that’s another story.) Jesus on the other hand tells us to Love our neighbor has ourself. Is that even possible? Can one really have as much concern for every single person in the world as one does for his or her own life. I think that to even attempt this level of interest would drive one insane. Every atrocity, every bad thing, Katrina, Darfur, 9/11, whatever, would all have to be felt on the same intense level as if it were happening to you personally. I think this is impossible, even for good-hearted people.

There’s something C.S. Lewis said once that made sense after hearing some Paul bashing. He said something like "Everybody praises Jesus and criticizes Paul. But When I read the teachings of Jesus I am terrified of the demands he places on me. Paul humanizes Christianity and makes it a religion one can practise in the world.

In short while I find Jesus a moving teacher, and one who touches the core of the human heart, I too find his morality terrifying and impossible. I do not believe his moral teachings can be seperated from his spiritual mission and his belief that he was not of this world.

Again, I make no claim to scholarship. These are just my impressions from reading the New Testament.

38

Some googling reveals that I am confused.

The Axial age is apparently a construct by Karl Jaspers: " The major figures of the Axial Age includes Socrates of Greece, Isaiah of Israel, Zoroaster of Persia, Buddha of India, and Confucius of China." Cite.

Jesus came later. It doesn’t sound like the Roman empire was pre-Axial, given the influence of Socrates. ref.

Permit me to stop digging and simply retract my previous post.

39

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).

40

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).