I hear that. When I read the Sermon on the Mount, the call for not reacting to violence with violence strikes me as particular answer to a specific situation, not an adequate response to all situations. In many articulations of Christian belief, this issue keeps coming up with the whole range of being comfortable with being a soldier of God or renouncing War as such. — Paine

Absolutely, the call to non-violence is not universal. The devil is not treated as something to passively give in to. When I hear "turn the other cheek" I'm thinking more about when someone has wronged or offended you socially and you say something like "I'll pray for you" to let them know they haven't got to you. Responding with love can definitely be useful. I don't really read JC as primarily trying to advance an agenda of non-violence but surely others have taken his work like that.

Jews have always had an idea that fixed societies are inherently evil, as if you're closer to God if you're detached from cities and able to dwell in the desert, free from the corruption that inevitably creeps into city life.

Think of Jesus as attempting to inject this ancient ideal back into a world that had become fixated on law to the exclusion of the kind of morality that comes from the heart. — Tate

I'm not sure what you mean by "fixed society." I will say that Book of Genesis and JC have an anti-urban bias. I do find a link between Genesis and JC and I think this is a fascinating topic. I agree with you that JC definitely emphasizes the heart.

It's more about how you engage the society you're in than how to build a functional society. — Tate

Well yeah, I mean it's both -- in engaging with a society you're helping shape it.

If he is a man then he is a holier-than-thou nut. The Pharisees give to charity, JC just criticizes the manner in which they give. There's a lot of material on your question in the NT but in short he envisions a society where people flex by asking "how can I help you?" as opposed to "look how many people I have under me." It is a society of righteous people where outside behavior is apparently pretty rigidly constrained. It's kind of strange vision.

I don't think of Jesus as trying to provide social architecture. There was no need for that in his world. His target audience was oppressed and full of bitterness. That's what he and other preachers like him were trying to deal with. And of course, the end of the world was mixed in. — Tate

Certainly in contrast to the Pharisees he does have an alternative vision. He spends much of his time criticizing the Pharisees, not really preaching about the end of the world. He definitely envisions a radically different type of society.

The greatness of a moral teaching lies solely in the goodness of its contents. The person who repeats it, or even the person who invents it, are in my opinion not relevant at all to the worth of a teaching. — Tzeentch

It's relevant in the case of Jesus because if he is simply normal saying these things he's pulling stuff out of his ass or he's delusional and very certain of his delusions. Normal humans do not make definitive claims about the afterlife or special knowledge of God.

Indeed; but this is a philosophy forum. If Jesus is a great moral teacher, then we ought be able to cite his great moral teachings. But that is not what the posts here do. — Banno

Academic moral philosophy is largely secular; JC can use reason, but is in the context of a religious/dualistic/theistic metaphysic. He's almost more of an artist: JC paints a picture of a certain type of society, it's up to us to accept or reject that picture.

Altruism certainly does not enter the world through Christianity nor was it borrowed by the Jews from Buddhism. There were Jewish social reformers ("prophets") calling out rulers and Jewish cities for their injustice before the creation of Buddhism that became part of the Hebrew Bible. Noah and Abraham are praised for their righteousness and that text was written ~9th century BC. Judaism has a significant number of ancient texts from 9th or 10th century BC that promote caring/giving the poor and looking out for others.

Jesus paints an ideal. Perhaps in an ideal world the righteous among us, with their pure hearts and proper means and perfect environment, never sin -- but in the actual world "all [have] sinned" (Romans 5:12). We see the universality of sin in the OT too; King David is as righteous as a king can be but he is not perfect. I consider David's moral imperfection one of the core truths of the OT that no one is perfect. I see Jesus's strength as a visionary. It's like he paints a picture for us and we run towards it despite the difficulties of the world.

I guess in this sense I'm somewhat sympathetic to Paul in his view that the material world brings us down, and it even seem to have perhaps vague roots in JC: "the flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing." I find Paul to be a complex figure. Did he ever demand his teachings be treated as authoritative or was he just writing letters with his ideas that were later established as authoritative by the compilers of canon?

Unless it can be determined what Jesus actually said we cannot say what is the word of Jesus. Here we return to the intertextual disputes and the suppression of texts based on self-appointed authority of the Church Fathers. — Fooloso4

I'm new to NT, but for me I just accept that there's some things we'll never know, such as what Jesus's last words on the cross were -- especially if there's contradictions between gospels. I'm more focused on his general ethical/social teachings, particularly ones that appear in several Gospels + gThomas. If the teaching appears in multiple places I think we can say with a high degree of confidence that JC preached it. There do appear to be common threads. If something is mentioned only once I would tend to view it as less authoritative. It's similar to the Hebrew Bible -- if something is mentioned several times it's likely of greater importance.

I'm just impressed by JC's teachings. It's not his apocalyticism that is salient for me. His social teachings are quite different from Jewish ethical teachings. The teachings in the gospels are very different from Pirkei Avot. He takes (?) maybe one line from Hillel but then provides a stronger and more aesthetic formulation of it (as it typical of Jesus his teachings are very demanding.) I actually prefer his formulation over Hillel's.

Pirkei Avot is a compilation of Jewish ethical teachings from around year 0. I recommend it and the teachings are sensible, often practical. The ethical/social teachings of Jesus are a different animal. In one stanza you have him yelling at a tree while in the next he's preaching very classy, advanced social behavior. He has one definitive vision of what society should be and goes all in with it. I think Jesus would have killed it with woman if he wanted to. In short the OT often presents what is justified; Jesus presents the ideal that one should execute if social conditions are right (turning the other cheek will do you no good in a Mad Max world). It's the combination of brilliance juxtaposed by seeming insanity that draws me in.

For me the jury is still out for Paul. He is a man and therefore not infallible. We could save a discussion on him for another time as I have already matched your length.

It often goes unnoticed how polemical the gospels are in response to each other. In addition, there were the debates over canonical NT texts and Council at Nicaea, which debated the ontological status of Jesus. — Fooloso4

I'm not familiar with this first topic.

Sure, and there were debates over canonical OT texts as well. Man chooses what is canon. Not everything in the canon is absolutely essential or of equal importance. Some books are more authoritative than others.

Christianity has the gospel taught by Paul as its foundation rather than the gospel preached by Jesus. — ThinkOfOne

You seem to be talking about Christianity from a more modern social perspective. From a theological and philosophical perspective I see nothing wrong with a Christianity that clings to the word of Jesus and disregards those of Paul. One could hold that view and still call oneself a Christian. I'm lukewarm on Paul but he was undoubtedly influential but I don't think anyone can call Paul infallible. I'm familiar with anti-Paul views but I don't hate the man. I'd be interested to know in what way he perverts the word of Jesus. Your dispute is with the compilers of the canon.

Jesus came to call sinners to righteousness much like the later OT prophets. God wants loyalty. Loyalty entails being righteous. The righteous do not sin. According to the gospel preached by Jesus, salvation, living in the Kingdom of God, eternal life all require that one be righteous.

Of course, Jesus also conveyed a different understanding from the OT as to what is and what is not righteous. — ThinkOfOne

Judaism and Christianity understand righteousness differently. Judaism understands righteousness through the lens of ethical conduct (i.e. action.) I am not quite familiar with how Christians understand the term.

Judaism has always been a religion focused on action over belief (or more generally it prioritizes the external over the internal.) If Jesus was initially preaching within Jewish communities his focus on the sinners is brilliant because the righteous believe that they're already saved due to their good deeds. The Jewish sinners have nothing to lose especially if they're already low on the social totem pole in addition to bleak afterlife prospects. His focus on them is brilliant.

It's still not entirely clear to me how one is saved under Christianity.

Right, and he cites the Hebrew Bible as his authority: — Fooloso4

Sure, but what's different about Jesus is how he prioritizes. Love is the most important commandment. Normal Jews don't speak with such certainty but Jesus is no normal Jew. Personally, I believe that on our death beds it is love that ultimately matters. Love is ultimately what matters in the universe.

which debated the ontological status of Jesus. — Fooloso4

I don't delve too deep into Christology I don't think we're ever going to understand it.

As the insane often do. — Fooloso4

The first time I read the NT I read JC as a disgusting false messiah. Then I read him again and he just got too many issues right: I love how he places love center stage, I love how he calls the sinner (what is a badly sinning Jew like myself to do?), I believe he's correct in that the Sabbath was made for man (and not man for the Sabbath). Also huge is his vision of a society where the servant is the master. He is a stunning visionary. The Torah says "an eye for an eye" (which is justified) but Jesus says "turn the other cheek" which is the next step -- that is ideal behavior, but *certainly* not always advisable. It takes a higher level of being. If the Law is the cake, JC is the frosting.

I've been reading the NT lately and I agree with Lewis's point. It's a shame that so many in this thread have tried to bypass it by saying insubstantial excuses along the lines of "oh well we don't really know whether JC existed" or "well how do we know those are the real quotes?" We're philosophers here, give the document a bit of a charity. It wouldn't even matter if the person of Immanuel Kant never existed if we have his work. We'd just deal with the ideas. That's how we should treat the ideas in the NT.

JC has many ideas but when I read him as someone who grew up w/ a Jewish background what strikes me first is how he puts love center stage in a tradition with many values. Jews love to debate and it's a hard to reach anything firm -- or rather Judaism will only be firm over a few limited issues; JC is firm and he speaks with an insane degree of certainty on matters no human should know.

Also what I love about JC is how he says in Mark "I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners." The sinful Jews are on the bottom of the totem pole so why not jump ship?

What I really hear you saying, however, is something more innocuous, which is that you're troubled by the idea that much religious doctrine is obviously man-made, so you want to hold to the notion that the Torah, at the very least, is a reliable, untainted, authentic statement of God, unmitigated by the imprecise hand of man. — Hanover

It is surely true that religious doctrine was written by man. The question is whether God exists and what is the range of feasible possible interpretations of his dictates.

Do you believe Moses existed? Jacob? King David? King Hezekiah? King Josiah? Tell me where you stop believing.

You're straw manning my position here on the Torah. I don't know what untainted means. Different authors? Certainly. Redactors? Certainly. What is tainted? There are contradictions in the Bible but on relatively non-important details and still adds up to a coherent narrative. In Philosophy a contradiction is damning but in narration its forgivable e.g. we'll never know whether it was the midianites or ishmaelites who brought Joseph down to Egypt but the result is the same.

From what you've said so far, it seems that what you actually have faith in is your own ability. Not in God, not in the Bible, but in yourself. — baker

This isn't about ability. Neither is it about me overcoming anything. It is about fundamentally framing/approaching the condition in a healthy way. The character of God frames disability wonderfully; better than any book or portrayal since - and in ~800 BC nonetheless. Very unusual for ancient lit.

I'll take other literature, fiction or not. Find me positive, strong examples of people who stutter and how the condition is presented. There's very few if any. The King's Speech was a decent attempt, but fell short -- it still perceived stuttering as a condition to be overcome through training and hard work, and that was one of the better ones.

Well, even more than that. There's a difference between the written law and the actual law. The idea that the Torah (the written law) is the law is simply false, not just to liberal Jews, but to Orthodox Jews and to Fundamentalist Christians as well. — Hanover

I suppose those laws require interpretation and contextualization.

The oral law (the Talmud) and the thousands of years of rabbinical interpretation are as primary and authoritative as the Torah. — Hanover

In a way I agree with you. I understand that these laws need to be interpreted, contextualized and implemented.

If I were to challenge your view here I would ask "which interpretations?" Are only rabbis allowed to interpret? Why? IMHO just because a rabbi, even a famous one, has an interpretation or follows a certain midrash doesn't mean we need to. A midrash as far as I'm concerned is an old wive's tale. Ultimately, we only bind ourselves to the extent that we want.

A lot of the traditions we follow now like wearing a kippah or the exact way that certain holidays are conducted e.g. Passover or Shabbat are not in the Tanakh, but rather oral tradition. However Passover is mentioned in the Tanakh (Torah, I believe) so that has a solid scriptural basis but the exact way that Passover ought to be celebrated outside of Scripture is oral tradition and in my view not equivalent in force to the scriptural prescriptions. For instance - not eating bread = scriptural prescription, the four drinks of wine = oral tradition.

On the contrary. I have tried to make sense of my predicament by turning to religion. It failed. — baker

I'm sorry to hear that. Did you dive into the text to get the root of the issue?

But from what you've said so far, it appears that you're framing your religiosity in a solitary, isolated way, and it's fully dependent on remaining that way. Are you a member of any organized religion? — baker

I'll likely write a paper on this to extrapolate on my views. Submit it to a journal.

Sure. But as long as you live in a secular country, your mental health is going to be assessed by secular/atheistic standards. You don't actually have the feedom to declare yourself mentally healthy on your own. — baker

I think we can certainly make meaningful observations on our mental health. My mental health has certainly improved since starting on the Bible. This is mostly just a solo endeavor now. People just need something to ground them. If you're not grounded well you're just going to be screwed. Who says value love? Why not just spend my time asserting dominance over other men? Or why not always talk about how awesome I am? A lot of the Bible is actually proper socialization that many people never received.

"Mental health", as assessed by secular, atheist psychology/psychiatry? — baker

I don't see mental health as a secular/atheistic concept. I see it as a human one. Mental wellness.

Perhaps if one first believed in the Bible, and only later became afflicted with a disability.
But having a disability first, and then trying to cope with it via adopting a religious narrative that was until then foreign to one doesn't seem like a viable course of action to me. — baker

You see things however you want; it's not your life at stake. You don't have that task.

A story depicting an adult male with an imaginary friend is "best ... for mental health"? — 180 Proof

Yes in terms of how one ought to frame their disability, I believe the exodus dialogue is uniquely special. You could frame a disability any number of ways, most of which are toxic.

But the archaeology and non-Biblical historical documents don't conform exactly to the stories. — schopenhauer1

How would archaeology confirm or deny God talking with Moses? What would that even look like?

Who knows whether it's true but I'm throwing in with it. We all have to throw in with something. The difference is my philosophy traditionally promotes growth and wisdom while yours just leads to trying to make humanity extinct. You make your own truth claims and I make mine. Mine are concerned with helping others while yours are seemingly aimed at nullifying humanity and existence. Maybe you're right, but mine leads to a happier life if I had to bet. That's why I'm not so much a philosopher anymore.

People take that for granted. But that is not necessarily proof that it is actually what happened. — schopenhauer1

I don't even know what proof would be. What would qualify as proof? I have no idea, I just have this beautiful dialogue. I don't even know what talking to God would be like. I'm just massively impressed with the Bible even if we can never confirm all the truth or claims written within it. We have confirmed some of the genealogy though, even as far back as Genesis. There's at least some truth in it, but a lot of it we'll never be able to confirm.

Sure they haven't killed themselves but how's their mental health? How do they view their own condition and place in society? That's the real question.

How healthy are they, mentally? IMHO the exodus narrative is the best one for mental health.

How do you know that you don't just like the authors of Exodus (various others and editors that compiled it from various sources presumably), and not the actual events? Does that matter to you, or is i the usefulness of the literary devices that enamor you (plot, character, narrative, theme, etc.). — schopenhauer1

It's not about the authors to me. It's about the bigger picture message. I'm mainly looking for bigger picture themes to extract. It's a truth-claim regardless of whether it was written by the Yahwist, Elohist or Priestly - the three authors identified.

I believe it is the best dialogue in disability ever written - and in the 8th or 9th century BCE nonetheless which is amazing to me.

I would actually certainly be dead. Suicide.

IMHO the greatest affirmation of the dignity of the disabled occurs in a dialogue between God and Moses beginning in Exodus 4:10. I am disabled. Likely the same disability as Moses. I need a way to frame that, and my experiences/observations are simply not a sufficient answer to that question. Gotta throw in with God on this one.

have also described Genesis a myth not to be taken literally. It's not just atheists. — Tom Storm

Oh absolutely. Jews, who have been studying this text far longer than Christians, have been operating under this assumption since the beginning. You never hear Jews describe Genesis as literal truth. Maybe days in Genesis are more like "periods" or "epochs" maybe some the flood in Noah was regional as opposed to worldwide? There are ancient Mesopotomian flood stories. What would truth mean in this regard i.e. what would it mean for the flood story to be true? It's an interesting question to think about.

I'm not trying to convince you if you're an atheist. That would be too big of a task for me. All I'm saying here is if we're going by the Bible then that carries certain implications, one of which grounds man's value via a divine being.

If you're asking me why you should believe it that's a whole different question. I can't be just given the task of convincing you to believe it all, that's too much for me. I don't believe in all the literal truth of Genesis.

Personally I basically have to believe in God otherwise I would probably be dead.

Because we're having a conversation on religious ethics?

Both secular ethics and religious ethics rely upon the subjective (or intersubjective) preferences of human beings. — Tom Storm

In Genesis it is very clearly stated multiple times that man was created in the likeness of God. There is no possible secular counterpart to this.

"What you find [harmful], do not do to others."
~Hillel the Elder — 180 Proof

You all realize Hillel doesn't just derive his maxims ex nihilio? He was a Jewish religious scholar heavily steeped in Torah. He wasn't just picking out sayings from midair against an atheistic metaphysic. You can't view his teachings independently from the background in which he taught them. I mean you can, but it doesn't make sense.

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter whether there's a perfect secular moral system (even it was "objective"). Even if there was, why should anyone care? Born from oblivion, pass to oblivion. Spend your time how you see best fit. Who am I to tell you how to live? I would say the same about religious frameworks if it were not for the fact that all get called to account before God according to Scripture.

Jesus gets girls and demonstrates high-value attractive behavior, but I wouldn't expect philosophers to understand this. Keep it up with the Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. Angry virgins are always right.

Is up to me but whatever I would do it would make some suffer or pain to others, for example my parents or others who care about me. It is not so easy to make "own decisions" — javi2541997

Suicide causes immeasurable pain and suffering to those who knew the deceased. Parents never get over it. You'd be causing immeasurable suffering to your parents and siblings.

That commandment, found in Deuteronomy, is from God.

At the end of the day you're going to make the final decision: Life or death. Love or lovelessness. It's up to you.

If you believe that you're already dead.

The Old Testament commands one to choose life.

Go find love, Javi.

But I am not agree. I just see it as the average religious subterfuge which only prolong our suffering. It is not fair the statement that I hurt God killing myself but not when I am suffering previously.
If we constantly use the argument of "not hurting" God we are forced to always suffer — javi2541997

I don't think suicide hurts God (God is all-powerful), but it is bad for one's soul if such a thing exists. If there is no soul we will already spend the vast majority of time in nothingness so nothing really matters, but in in the off chance there is a soul one ought to live as good as possible and heighten one's spiritual state as this life is not the end.

Everyone suffers, and often in their own unique way. Others can often help us alleviate our own suffering.

Doesn't matter how controversial suicide is I think is a respectful act which reflects individualism. We have to respect when someone decides to end their life and not condemn it. — javi2541997

This is true if we adopt value neutral individualism, but the Judeo-Christian tradition is not fundamentally individualistic. In Judaism -- out of which Christianity comes from -- our bodies are not on our own, but rather basically considered on loan from God. You're not allowed to self-harm either. The ten commandments tell us "thou shalt not murder" and suicide can reasonably be interpreted as "self murder" although the picture is not quite this black and white and the Bible portrays numerous suicides in various conditions, some of which appear to be condoned. When I write of suicide here I'm talking about suicide not under duress and of full consciousness of one's actions.

Suicide traditionally gets the worst treatment in Judaism in the afterlife. Only God has the right to give and take life and killing oneself is considered playing God. It was a mortal sin in Catholicism until 1983. It also leaves no opportunity for repetentence/atonement.

:100:

He sure read a lot of books, but didn't seem quite able to use any of them to aid his own well-being or guide his behavior. Thoughts and prayers. :pray:

I don't know who preached similar ideas, as "preach" has religious connotations. But the pagan philosophers taught the desirability of virtue, and to the extent Jesus did so he had many predecessors. Plato touted the four great virtues, Wisdom, Temperance, Justice and Courage. Aristotle's virtue of "generosity" is similar to the Christian concept of charity. Roman great men were expected to give benefits to the poor through public works. The Stoics taught the brotherhood of man, the common good, and love. According to Seneca, "No school has more goodness and gentleness; none has more love for human beings, nor more attention to the common good. (Seneca, On Clemency, 3.3) Friendship was valued by the Pythagoreans and Epicureans; Cicero believed it essential to good life. — Ciceronianus

Now that you mention it I'll have to give the Stoics another look. I haven't studied them in depth.

When I'm evaluating morality the central questions that I'm looking at is how a society deals with the poor and disabled. The Greeks do not have a stellar record on this; or rather I should say that they have the record that one would typically expect from an ancient civilization that prized certain ideal body forms and physical strength and skilled rhetoric. I'm not here to blame the Greeks or Romans for not being sufficently woke. Ancient life was tough and the strong survived.

The OT is actually insanely woke on these two issues -- so woke that I cannot pinpoint the source to anything in nature. Exodus 4:10-4:14 for instance directly addresses the issue of disability and I believe it is the most morally advanced position on disability to ever be written. The Greeks at their best will say that the disabled are just deficient (as opposed to cursed by the Gods) and in need of care & support; the OT will directly affirm their validity and deny that there is a deficiency for the deaf or blind or mute.... even today that position is radical. This is a statement by God. The OT is also amazingly consistent on caring not just for the poor but for the orphan, the widow, etc. IIRC they found a tablet from the 10th century BCE that had the aforementioned written on it.

As for Jesus he finds faults in a culture/society with a pretty strong moral track record by expanding their conception of sin and questioning their focus ("what about the sinners?") He calls for an externally facing society focused on duties and rituals to look inward. Hillel preaches something similar but Jesus goes past Hillel. The OT humbles kings and boosts the marginalized; Jesus focuses nearly exclusively on the marginalized and tells those in power behave like them -- thus, Christian humbleness/modesty. Money for the first time becomes a dirty word in the NT; that is a distinction from the OT, not that the OT idolizes money but it never carries that connotation.

I see a Jewish/ Christian motif here, of a God sending leaders (kings). — Athena

I believe it's Paul who ties the legitimacy of authority to God. However, if we read Samuel, God (and Samuel) are actually against kingship but the Israelite community overrules them and Saul is established as king. They choose him for this role because he is tall. This is mentioned several times. He is a head taller than his peers. He is mediocre.

Question it. Who’s to say that existence is pointless? What led you to accept that belief as true? What was the criterion on which you accepted that conclusion? Is your own criterion in that regard infallible?

If existence is pointless then why not create one's own meaning to the fullest possible extent? Replace God with political leaders. Create an enemy to contrast oneself to. Do everything possible to unlearn the bullshit religious morals that one has been taught.

Largely laudable, yes, but also a definite element of insanity/radicalness that frequently flies below the radar with modern Christians who use selective reading. Jesus says he's not here to bring peace, but division (book of Luke), the parables he uses to describe salvation are divisive and imho fairly terrifying like getting shut out of a narrow door and being left to suffer for eternity, the insane demands and self-abnegation he makes of his followers. I feel like this is lost on modern Christians but this man/God/whatever is genuinely terrifying. It's the contrast between the love he preaches and his other teachings. He is either very good or very bad.

Who else preaches what Jesus says in that time period? What's similar?

I got some ideas:

Do what God says.
Eat all rich people.
End suffering, destroy life.
Force happiness on all.

You should be thanking me. I made you smarter today. I’ll stop doing it.

It does not begin with Plato or Christianity. Read your old books. If nothing else it is a very useful fiction.

Why would being able to do magic tricks or 'miracles' be any evidence of a spiritual truth or divinity? — Tom Storm

Here's where we differ: Magic tricks have rational explanations, miracles by definition fall outside of the laws of nature. There are plenty of great magic tricks, but there's always an explanation behind them. Not the case for miracles.

If Jesus is just performing magic tricks and claiming them to be miracles then he is evil.

And then there's mythology more generally - Satan can do miracles too. — Tom Storm

I guess one could attribute Christ's miracles to the work of Satan but we're still within a religious framework where Christ is either the messiah or a false prophet sent by Satan/evil.