Can you explicitly state why you think that Jesus was "not a great moral teacher"
based on the verses that you cited?

From what I can tell, what you have is a problem of conception.

Consider the definition of powerset:
"the collection of all subsets, empty set and the original set itself".

All that needs to be decided is whether or not to allow "all subsets" of "all that exists" to be members of "all that exists".

Either way:
1. There is a set of "all that exists"
2. There is a powerset for "all that exists"

Doesn't this get to the essence of your "problem"?

BTW, allowing "all subsets" to be members of the set of "all that exists" doesn't seem to make logical sense. "All subsets" are merely derived from the "original set" and are not a part of the "original set" proper.

For all intents and purposes, the underlying concepts of the Pauline gospel are antithetical to the underlying concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus. As such, it's absurd to include Jesus in the line from "Paul-scribe-translator-king james version- local church pastor - worshipper". I'm hardly the first to have come to that conclusion.

Consider the following:

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart." - Thomas Jefferson to William Short, Monticello, 13 April 1820[1]

Pasted from <http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/dupes-and-impostors-quotation>

It's not a matter of "degrees of separation". Christianity does not have the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth as its foundation. If it did, then your assertion about "degrees of separation" would be reasonable. But it doesn't. I can understand your confusion given the number of Christians who call Jesus "Lord" and themselves "followers of Jesus". Paul of Tarsus is the "leader" of Christianity by "degrees of separation". Perhaps this is another thing that you "have no idea about"?

In what way do you believe Jesus "continues to be the leader of a billion or so people"? Christianity follows the Pauline gospel rather than the gospel preached by Jesus while He walked the Earth.

Plus there's the fact that while He walked the Earth, Jesus never claimed to be God.

That is to say, you can't understand Confucious really unless you understand what China was going through in the 500s BCE. The same with Jesus in Judea ruled under the Romans. — schopenhauer1

Actually Jesus can largely be understood without understanding the historical context. To be clear, I am speaking of the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth as documented in the Four Gospels as opposed to the mythology the NT writers wrapped around them. I agree that the historical context should be considered when attempting to understand that mythology.

Also I suspect that you didn't read my first post on this thread which can be found at the following:

The following makes Lewis' argument a non-starter.

As documented in the Four Gospels, while He walked the Earth Jesus never claimed to be God. Wherein Jesus claims to be literally God. — ThinkOfOne

↪Dermot Griffin ↪Baden ↪ThinkOfOne
Why was C.S. Lewis so anti-historical in his analysis of the Gospels? The problem with ancient writers is they wrote fan fiction and people were and still are allowed to take it seriously as if it is documented history of what the person written about said and did. — schopenhauer1

By "seriously" I take you to mean "literally" for all intents and purposes. The Bible is steeped in allegory, metaphor and other uses of figurative language. Unfortunately, many Christians seem to believe that taking the Bible "seriously" entails taking it largely "literally". That said, there is much wisdom contained in the Bible which should be taken seriously - particularly the gospel preached by Jesus much of which is remarkably deep and profound all things considered. This should not be confused with the Pauline "gospel" that serves as the basis for Christianity.

Demonstration by parody. — Baden

Glad to hear it. Seemed most likely what you were going for, but not knowing whether or not you're Christian...

So obviously circular that CS Lewis couldn't have written it because he was a smart guy. But it seems obvious to me that CS Lewis did write it, so however strange or unlikely it is that it's not circular nonsense, I have to accept that it's actually a great argument. QED, Jesus was and is God. — Baden

It's as if the crux of your argument is that you believe Lewis to be "smart guy" therefore it's a "great argument" therefore "Jesus was and is God". This despite your assessment that it be "strange or unlikely it is that it's not circular nonsense". In the words of John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious".

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." - Mere Christianity, pg. 54-55

I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ. — Dermot Griffin

The following makes Lewis' argument a non-starter.

As documented in the Four Gospels, while He walked the Earth Jesus never claimed to be God. Wherein Jesus claims to be literally God.

Yes, He claimed to be a "son of God". But He called for everyone to become "sons of God" as He was a son of God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9).
It's a theme that runs throughout the gospel preached by Jesus. For example, someone "born from above" IS someone "born of the spirit [of God]" IS someone who has God as their Father IS a "son" of God.

Yes, He claimed to be "one" with God. But He called for everyone to become "one" with God as He was "one" with God.
I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. “And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.
(John 17:20-23)

Jesus repeatedly makes a clear distinction between Himself and God. As but a couple of examples:
"He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. “He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me." (John 12:44-45)
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." (John 14:10)

I've yet to have seen a cogent argument that Jesus claimed to be God while He walked the Earth. Can you make one?

I think science and technology play a role here.
Now that we know better how genetics work, don't you think heterosexuality should have a kind of social advantage because of the fact that they re the ones transferring their ADN to their children? Or you think this does not make any difference? — Raul

Not sure what you have in mind. What "social advantage[ s ]" do you believe should be given to heterosexuality?

So rather than have another poll, I'd like to pose the question again but keeping in mind what I've said above -- that is, if these problems are mere symptoms, than what is the root disease? — Xtrix

Failure of individuals to mature beyond allowing their biological incentive systems (aka emotions, reward/punishment systems) to control beliefs, thoughts and actions. For all intents and purposes, a large percentage of the population have the mental maturity of a typical13-year-old or less. With others the mental maturity of a typical late teen or less. With others the mental maturity of a typical 25-year-old or less.

Following are but a few symptoms:
irrational views
self-centered views
believing that things are true because they believe them
believing that things are true because they know others that believe as they do
use of alcohol and other mood altering substances including caffeine
unhealthy eating
gambling
hoarding
adventure seeking
greed
racism
homophobia
misogyny

The list goes on and on...

Have you considered the conception that God is truth? Literally? Truth as in that which corresponds to reality? Reality as in based in facts, sound evidence and sound reasoning? Anthropomorphism does not apply. Interestingly this conception of God fits reasonably well with the God of the gospel preached by Jesus as opposed to the God of Christianity which is based on the Pauline "gospel".

It's interesting that some people think this is about humans being "special".

I've always interpreted it in the sense of, "Even though humans are so bad and evil and undeserving, God still loves us! Isn't God great!!" — baker

That's interesting. The vast majority of Christians that I've known seem to interpret it as "even though humans are so bad and evil and undeserving, God still loves us because we are so special to Him". But of course that includes only those who believe that Jesus paid the penalty for their sins by dying on the cross. And of course they often append a "Isn't God great!!" as part of the false humility that seems all too common amongst Christians: "God is God and I am not. I am just a spec of dust... " or what have you.

Ezekiel 33
13When I say to the righteous that he will certainly live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits injustice, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but for that same injustice of his which he has committed he will die. 14But when I say to the wicked, ‘You will certainly die,’ and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness, 15if a wicked person returns a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing injustice, he shall certainly live; he shall not die. 16None of his sins that he has committed will be remembered against him. He has practiced justice and righteousness; he shall certainly live.
30“But as for you, son of man, your fellow citizens who talk with one another about you by the walls and in the doorways of the houses, speak one with another, each with his brother, saying, 'Come now and hear what the message is that comes from the LORD.’ 31And they come to you as people come, and sit before you as My people and hear your words,but they do not do them; for they do the lustful desires expressed by their mouth, and their heart follows their unlawful gain.

The Fine-Tuning Argument says “that the present Universe (including the laws that govern it and the initial conditions from which it has evolved) permits life only because these laws and conditions take a very special form, small changes in which would make life impossible.”

The argument is fine as far as it goes. (No pun intended.) If certain physical constants (speed of light, mass excess of neutron over proton, etc.) were different, even slightly, even one part in ten million, then life as we know it could not exist. Material life. Living matter. What was once called protoplasm.

So, if God exists and wanted to create living beings that are physical and material, then God would need to create a suitable universe for those beings to live in. The fine-tuning argument says, more or less, that is exactly what happened: we live in a universe fine-tuned for us. — Art48

Isn't the fallacy with the "Fine-Tuning Argument" more fundamental than what you've proposed? The argument presupposes that there is something special about US: We are so special that God created this universe especially for US.

For those who don't hold such a self-centered view of themselves, the argument is a non-starter.

Taking it up a level of abstraction:
Many Christians love to cite the following verse. Aren't WE special?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16.

An interesting fact about that verse": Despite that fact that so many attribute those words to Jesus, a really strong case can be made that it is commentary made by the narrator of John 6 about what Jesus said to Nicodemus just prior.

It is simple induction (or sometimes called abduction): inference to the most reasonable or probable explanation. E.g. We do not know with certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet it is very reasonable given our experience of the world up to now.

Keep in mind you could always remain agnostic. But let's say we had to choose. Then we should assume that the unverifiable claim is true, because the fact that there is a precedence for truth and not falsehood is a sufficient reason to tip the scale.

But also, the argument gets stronger with more verifiable claims; which better represents the case for the Christian claims. — A Christian Philosophy

Despite the lack of intellectual honesty of your last response, I'll give it one more try.

Has it not occurred to you that most posters on a philosophy forum are well acquainted with inductive reasoning? Your understanding seems to be very superficial and simplistic. You don't seem to understand that inductive reasoning has its limitations. You don't seem to understand that its usefulness is in drawing general conclusions about a given subject from specific observations about that very same subject. You also don't seem to understand that it works best when dealing with concrete subjects. It is less reliable when dealing with in the abstract. The more abstract, the less reliable. Anyone who understands these things is not going to buy your argument that it is reasonable to believe unverifiable claims on the strength of verifiable claims. Unverifiable claims are not only NOT the same subject as verifiable claims, the subject is far too abstract for it to be reliable.

Some years ago, a friend of mine used a similar argument for reincarnation: The verifiable claims of Buddhism are true, therefore it is reasonable to believe that reincarnation is true. Are you buying? Why or why not?

↪ThinkOfOne Hello.

Just because A, B, C are true, it does not reasonably follow that X, Y and Z are necessarily true.
— ThinkOfOne
It does not necessarily follow, but it it reasonable. I explain this argument in the video Part #4 haha.
But I'll give you the summary here.

If all A's we can observe are B, then it is reasonable to infer that "all A's are B", because the other possible explanation, "some A's are B and some are not", fails Occam's Razor. And if all A's are B, then the A's we cannot observe are also B.
E.g. If all swans we have observed so far are white, it is reasonable to infer that all swans are white, and we expect the next swan to be white.

Here is a closer example to the argument in the video: Suppose a fortuneteller claims he can predict what will happen to you tomorrow. He claims A (something that is not reasonably foreseeable) will happen, and indeed, A does happen the next day. Then he does it again, and again for 100 days in a row. Is it not reasonable to believe his next prediction? — A Christian Philosophy

Actually it isn't reasonable. X, Y and Z each stand or fall on their own accord. Since they are unverified, at best all that anyone can reasonably say about any one of them, is that it might possibly be true. Neither the number of verified claims, nor the number of unverified claims is relevant.

Keep in mind your argument: "if all the verifiable claims from a source are verified to be true, then it is reasonable to infer that the remaining unverifiable claims are also true, being that they come from the same source".

Consider the following:
Let's say a given source only makes two claims. One verifiable. The other unverifiable. The verifiable claim is verified to be true. According to your argument, if the verifiable claim is verified to be true, then it is reasonable to infer that the unverifiable claim is also true.

As a matter of curiosity, when you referred to a "single source" what did you have in mind? The Bible (Old and New Testament) as a whole? A subset of the Bible? God? The Holy Spirit?

A christian philosophy would be the search for truth under the starting point of reason and observations of the natural world (like any other philosophy), and then attempt to uncover the same conclusions as the christian theology. This is explained in my video Part #3 (I will not put the link because I think the moderators of the forum don't like this). — A Christian Philosophy

Took a look at "Part #3".

Seems like the crux of your argument rests in the following:

Our goal is to get familiar with philosophy in general,
then, move on to use philosophy to examine the theological truths that are verifiable,
And then, once a trust has been built, we take a leap of faith to consider the unverifiable theological truths.

Note that this leap of faith would not be blind, but supported by reason;
Because if all the verifiable claims from a source are verified to be true, then it is reasonable to infer that the remaining unverifiable claims are also true, being that they come from the same source.

This doesn't hold water. Just because A, B, C are true, it does not reasonably follow that X, Y and Z are necessarily true.

and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
— ThinkOfOne

Yes. If you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword. — Tate

Superficially they sound similar, however the underlying meanings are very different. Context is everything.

↪ThinkOfOne I offered my interpretation of the idea of "karma" ↪180 Proof. You've dismissed it without thoughtful (i.e. non-trivial) consideration, which exposes your dogmatic vapidity. I won't waste anymore of your time or mine; the last thoughtless word is, of course, yours ... — 180 Proof

Seriously. Take reading comprehension and critical thinking classes. It can only help you.

↪ThinkOfOne C'mon, you keep trying to pin me down to the scripture you've repeatedly cited throughout this thread discussion. That's dogmatic. My "reading comprehension and critical think" are fine, ThinkOfNone; it's your own inconsistency / disingenuousness that's troubling you. — 180 Proof

If your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills were improved, you might just be able to understand what others post. It's unfortunate you let your pride get in the way.

↪ThinkOfOne You're the one in denial. :point:
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6
— ThinkOfOne
Scriptural dogma. :sweat: — 180 Proof

Yet another illogical leap by you. It does not logically follow that I am concerned with "scriptural dogma" rather than "conceptual analysis" just because I cited scripture. I only cited the scripture as a way of introducing a couple of talking points. You should consider taking classes in Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking. Seems like you are also in denial of your deficiencies in those areas.

Deliberately training yourself in some way or, as you say, self-conditioning your unconscious, is one thing and karma is another.

In the last paragraph of the OP you seem to suggest that your conception of karma is the pure original and what exist today is a corrupted version. That’s a remarkable claim, if that is your meaning. — praxis

Yes. What exists today, as it's commonly understood, is a corrupted version.

As I responded to another poster earlier:

Seems likely that the underlying concepts of karma, as it's commonly understood today, are rooted in a fear of living in an "unjust" world.
Seems likely that the underlying concepts of reincarnation are rooted in the fear of death.

Neither hold up to scrutiny. They are the products of irrational thought as a way to alleviate the anxieties of those fears. Many believe them today for those very reasons.

On the other hand, the original underlying concepts of karma, as given in the OP, are reasonably sound. — ThinkOfOne

It's really simple:
The original is reasonably sound.
What exists today are products of irrational thought.
As such, what exists today is a corrupted version.

You appear to be dismissing pre-Buddhist metaphysics. — praxis

What do you have in mind?

Parallel to that, the refusal to believe that the consequences of one's actions will come back to haunt one is what makes people refuse to even consider karma and reincarnation/rebirth.

If you believe that if you lie, someone will lie to you, would you still lie?
If you believe that if you steal, someone will steal from you, would you still steal? — baker

You seem to have in mind a point that you haven't explicitly stated. Can you explicitly state it or at least elaborate on it?

↪ThinkOfOne I see. You're concerned with scriptural dogma and I'm concern with conceptual analysis. My mistake for attempting to draw you (& others) out of a mythological cul de sac and into an open philosophical discussion. Pax. :victory: — 180 Proof

Actually I'm much more concerned with "conceptual analysis" rather than "scriptural dogma". You just make one illogical leap after another and instead of owning it, you choose to DENY it.

My mistake, I only glanced at the quotation in the OP, not that that’s a good excuse. Nevertheless my point remains, there’s underlying metaphysics that you appear to be dismissing.
— praxis

Wouldn't that be the "underlying metaphysics" according to Buddhist doctrine?
— ThinkOfOne

No, you pointed that out yourself. — praxis

Isn't this the "underlying metaphysics that [ I ] appear to be dismissing"?

Because the underlying metaphysics include concepts like the twelve link chain of dependent origination, etc etc. — praxis

How isn't the "twelve link chain of of dependent origination, etc etc." referring to Buddhist doctrine

Well, you seem to have lost the context again. Even after my last post laid it out for you. Doesn't seem to be any point in trying again.

You seem to be trying to find ways for belief in "karma" to be rational not unlike Christians who believe in the Trinity or that by believing in the "atoning sacrifice of Jesus" they receive "eternal life".

My mistake, I only glanced at the quotation in the OP, not that that’s a good excuse. Nevertheless my point remains, there’s underlying metaphysics that you appear to be dismissing. — praxis

Wouldn't that be the "underlying metaphysics" according to Buddhist doctrine? This doesn't help your case either.

Let's see.

↪180 Proof
How are the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 not "pragmatic"? It incorporates how you interpret karma. Plus is much deeper and profound. — ThinkOfOne

↪ThinkOfOne The difference is that I interpret "karma" without the non-pragmatic bits. — 180 Proof

That doesn't address the question. Tell you what, I'll rephrase:
Which of the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic"? — ThinkOfOne

Reread my first post ↪180 Proof. Whatever you find missing from my conception answers your quesrion. — 180 Proof

This gets us back to the first question quoted above. You're talking in circles.

Evidently you are unable to articulate how the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic". Or even which of the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic". Why don't you just admit it?

The difference is that I interpret "karma" without the non-pragmatic bits. — 180 Proof

That doesn't address the question. Tell you what, I'll rephrase:
Which of the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic"?

I might have a better idea of where to begin if you explained more, if only a little. — praxis

It's your assertion. You don't know what you had in mind when you made it? Thus far your responses have been extremely brief. You are the one who needs to "explain more". You have things backward.

Because the underlying metaphysics include concepts like the twelve link chain of dependent origination, etc etc. — praxis

It's as if your objection is that the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 don't fit with with the underlying concepts of Buddhist doctrine. Are you unaware that the Upanishads have been around much longer? So the pertinent question is how did Buddhist doctrine make that leap rather than how did I make that leap. Once again you have things backward.

And that's what I find troubling.
When people only do good for some future reward, not for 'good in itself'.
And some are judged as deserving of their illness or misfortune because they must have been bad in a previous life. 'What goes around comes around'.
The linked concept of reincarnation I find unacceptable. — Amity

Seems likely that the underlying concepts of karma, as it's commonly understood today, are rooted in a fear of living in an "unjust" world.
Seems likely that the underlying concepts of reincarnation are rooted in the fear of death.

Neither hold up to scrutiny. They are the products of irrational thought as a way to alleviate the anxieties of those fears. Many believe them today for those very reasons.

On the other hand, the original underlying concepts of karma, as given in the OP, are reasonably sound.

How are the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 not "pragmatic"? It incorporates how you interpret karma. Plus is much deeper and profound.

That’s quite a leap. How exactly were you able to make it?

I was referring to the underlying concepts of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6. How was that "quite a leap"? It's pretty much a distillation of what it says.

Obviously it is not the case that our unconscious is ultimately self-conditioned, though we certainly can consciously condition it to an extent.

How is it "obviously..not the case" in regards to "pretty much all unconscious desires and behaviors"?