When we rely on other authorities to tell us what he meant or how to act, then we’re not following Jesus, we’re following another authority... — Possibility

Jesus didn't write anything therefore we have to RELY ON OTHER PEOPLE namely the writers of the gospels who passed his teaching to posterity. Just like Socrates who didn't write anything its from Plato that we are getting the formers philosophy. But I don't think many christians have a problem with that. Jesus appointed his disciples who then wrote down his teachings. An analogy might be a spokesperson for an organization , we generally accept that that person is passing on the truthful information that management gave out because they were appointed by management.

He/she seems to have their own definition of "worship" and "follow". How can we have a discussion without a definition of terms? — Apollodorus

Ok to clarify the issue:,-
Following Jesus means a radical abandonment of the pursuit of things like money, possessions, addictions, and sin. Following Jesus means you’re pursuing Him by reading the Bible, obeying it, praying, and growing as a new believer.
The above is what I read in a religious magazine.
Now to me the last part they say about praying to God and obeying the Bible seems to me to involve the act of worshipping Christ

I get that. But my question was how does a Christian love his or her neighbor in practice? — Apollodorus

Doesn't Christ make it clear what one should do to show love. Now I'm not a Christian and I'm not very knowledgeable about the content of the gospels, except what I remember from going to mass as a youngster and reading about the philosophy of religion. I did a philosophy degree in college and that covers a bit about religion.
To get back to your question. Didn't Jesus say what a Christian should do to show love, to visit the sick, to help the needy, to be patient, kind and helpful, to forgive those who hurt you. It's encapsulatef in the first Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians:
Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury[/b]

Perhaps not of debate but of interpretation. How are we to "love our neighbor"? — Apollodorus

Loving kindness (metta) in Buddhism includes love for all living things. I think what's missing from Christianity is that it doesn't emphasize loving all living creatures as in Buddhism.

Bro Bro Bro, how is this not a philosophical theory. I mean, Jesus is telling us how to live. IF that is not a philosophical question then I don't know what is. — I love Chom-choms

It's not a theory it's a moral injunction

It’s not just about loving or not loving your neighbour, for instance, but about recognising that the value we attribute to others is no indication of their potential. — Possibility

I'm afraid I don't understand this point. Jesus said one should love your neighbor. I think that's fairly straightforward. What other way can one interpret that. And the historical and cultural apects have nothing to do with it. The ethics in Christian teaching are supposed to be timeless , to apply to all periods. Of course the Bible has a lot of things which are no longer acceptable example it's discrimination against gay people. But the core message about love , etc is timeless.

I think that it is not about not believing in the sermon or not. Rather it is not accepting the words of Jesus at face value but asking why? — I love Chom-choms

Why would one want to question Jesus,s saying to love your neighbor. you either agree with his ethical teaching or you don't. of course all the people who murder, rob, and abuse others reject Jesus,s teaching. They reject the notion of loving others. Unlike Socrates or philosophers Jesus was not debating whether or not one should love ones neighbor. He believed as millions of others in the world who agree with him, be they religious or non believers, that it is the right thing to do. Love is at the heart of Christian teaching . It's not a matter of debate. It's not a philosophical theory. without it it doesn't make sense.

You don't have to think they are the literal words of Jesus to think the sentiment is useful and spiritually sound. — Tom Storm

Im not a Christian, but I was brought up a Catholic and was told that the gospels were literally the teachings of Christ. I was not brought up to believe that it was just a story or an allegory. Of course Genesis is an myth but I don't think the Catholic view is that the sermon on the mount is allegorical or just a story. It is believed to be the literal teaching of Christ, love your enemies, forgive those who hurt you etc are taken as the literal words of Jesus. If one starts to question these in my opinion one is not really a Christian , maybe they are what one calls nowadays an a la carte christian , that is they cherry pick what they want from Christ's teaching and reject what doesn't suit them. You either believe in loving your neighbour or you don't, there's no halfway .

Sure, some Christians think the story book is factual. But many also see the New Testament as allegorical. — Tom Storm

In that case then I don't see the point in christians worshipping Christ and trying to follow his teachings if what you say is correct that we don't know what Christ taught or even if Jesus existed. That makes Christianity untenable. The sermon on the mount expresses the essense of Christ's teaching , if that is called into question then Christianity doesn't make sense. An analogy might be that one claims to agree with the policies of a political party but rejects the fundamental arguments made by the leader of the party. That doesn't make any sense to me. One either believes in the teachings of the sermon on the mount or doesn't believe , in that case theyre not a Christian.

Of course we don't really know what Jesus/Yeshua might have said, — Tom Storm

I disagree We definitely know what Jesus said. It's perfectly clear in the gospels and they are regarded by the church and Christians all over the world as the word of God. There's no ambiguity in Jesus,s teachings , eg the sermon on the mount is very clear in it's message. Scholars are not in disagreement about what it meant

wonder why. The text you quote does not say "worship". It says "follow", does it not? — Apollodorus

By follow he means the same thing as worship. He just uses a different word. When christians worship Christ they are FOLLOWING his teachings .

did I say that Christianity is better than Buddhism — Ross

There's an error in my point above. It should read nowhere did I say Buddhism is better than Christianity

Your motivation here seems to be throwing dirt at Christianity, not doing philosophy. I’m not here to defend Christianity as a religion, but your argument that ‘Buddhism is better than Christianity because’ just doesn’t stand up when you compare like for like. — Possibility

I'm not "throwing dirt at Christianity" if you read my intial thread you would see that I said that there are many similarities between Buddhism and Christianity in their emphasis on love, compassion etc. Secondly Christianity is not a philosophy unlike Buddhism. If you read a philosophy book you will often find a section on Buddhism but you won't find one on Christianity. Thirdly nowhere did I say that Christianity is better than Buddhism , if you look at my initial thread I framed my point as a QUESTION : Christianity is a more popular religion so does that mean that more people are interested in attaining salvation through faith in Christ than living wisely in THIS world, and Buddhist philosophy does not preach faith in a supernatural Being.
By the way Jesus did say the words I mentioned and he is the son of God, God is speaking to us through Jesus.

But Jesus never spoke of “a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him” — Possibility

In John 10:27–28 Jesus states that: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life;
They're the words of Jesus himself. That appears to me like God granting eternal Bliss to those who worship Him as I mentioned in my blog.

practical wisdom in either Buddhism or Christianity (as in any philosophical approach to life) strives for an interactive balance between logic, quality and energy. So you won’t notice it unless you’re looking for it. — Possibility

I'm afraid I don't understand this point. I don't know if you answered the central question in my thread which was that Christianity is focused on salvation whereas Buddhism is not. It focuses on overcoming suffering and achieving happiness in THIS world not some kind of eternal Bliss in another world, which Nietszche criticizes Christianity especially for, it's turning away from this life. Marx also attacks religion, (and I'm sure he had Christianity in mind) for it's false promises of happiness in the hereafter as a way of ignoring the suffering and plight of the oppressed in this life. In my opinion Buddhism differs , firstly it does not believe in a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him .

Good point but I'm only interested in the Philosophical aspect of Buddhism not the religious part. And the philosophy in my opinion is neither chauvinistic to my knowledge and is full of practical wisdom. What do you mean it falls way short of the Greek effort to know truth with its science and political leaning. What science are you referring to. Greek and Roman Stoic philosophy has many similarities with Buddhist philosophy. They may have influenced each other as a result of Alexander the greats conquering of the Middle East and the fusion of Greek and Eastern culture in the Hellenistic period

I suppose wisdom may be a subjective term but I didn't know what other word to use . Wisdom means different things to different people, but I suppose one could say that it essentially is about how to live well, how to achieve well being, something akin to Aristotle,s concept of Eudaimonia. That's what I mean. I think a major weakness in Christianity is that it's aim or goal is not happiness, but rather salvation. Buddhism does not believe in a supernatural God and we cannot know ultimate reality. That is for me a core wisdom in it.
I agree that Christianity like any religion that is dogmatic in it's belief in a God the saviour by its nature lends it's to fanaticism and extremism. Why is it that not more people in the world are embracing Buddhism , perhaps there would be less religious extremism if it rather than Christianity or Islam were the dominant religions. It seems to me a sign that the majority of people in the world are more interested in salvation rather than in wisdom or Eudaimonia , or how to live a good life. Despite the enormous advance of science in the past century and it's challenge to many traditionally held religious views, religion still remains hugely popular in the world, except i
only in western Europe.
I don't know if my post is relevant for a philosophy forum, perhaps for the philosophy of religion.

I suppose wisdom may be a subjective term but I didn't know what other word to use . Wisdom means different things to different people, but I suppose one could say

The article on Existentialism you mention at the end, who is it by? I wonder how good a philosopher is Woody Allen. Is he really exploring the genuine themes of Existentialist philosophy or is it just pseudo philosophy?

I didn't follow exactly your analogy with the chess game. The fundamental critique Pierre Hadot makes of modern philosophy is that it has become divorced from the real life of real people and become a theoretical enterprise, an analogy with modern physics might be appropriate here. The man on the street does not understand quantum mechanics and modern physics. The same perhaps is the case with a lot of modern philosophy which is being done mostly by academics and written for other academics. Its probably due to the institutionalization of philosophy which started in the middle ages with the first appearance of universities and it was only an educated elite within the Church who were doing philosophy. This academic approach seems to have continued in the Western tradition till today. This is partly responsible I think for the popular conception of the philosopher today as somewhat of an ivory tower figure engaged in highly abstruse and abstract thought of little relevance to ordinary people's lives. I think there has recently been an attempt to bring philosophy back into the streets , with the emergence of many books on popular philosophy like the bestseller Sophies World. This is the way philosophy was conducted in the Ancient world, there was the Roman slave Epictetus who became a philosopher and The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius also a famous philosopher and their writing is accessible to the ordinary reader. So are we seeing a return to Philosophy as it was done in the Ancient world, as a way of life.

Unfortunately don't understand everything you say in the blog. I can follow some of it. I'm not as knowledgeable about Wittgenstein as about Socrates. Ancient Greek philosophy is one of my favorite areas and more knowledgeable in and some modern continental philosophy. I didn't follow whether you think Socrates method is better than the other philosophers' method. I didn't understand you're comparison between Socrates and the others.
I have a question which has puzzled me for a long time. Why does Nietszche dislike Socrates so much. He criticizes him for setting Western thought on the wrong path. Nietszche preferred the presocratics. Isn't there a little bit of similarity between the two of them in the sense that both are skeptical of system and theory building in philosophy and neither are propounding any doctrine. I think Socrates method is a very good one , the idea that philosophy should be lived, that it takes place in the discourse between people, not an academic pursuit

Socrates method of doing philosophy which he seems to have pioneered has given rise to The Socratic method which has become famous and to my knowledge is even used today in some educational settings and in some areas of discourse. If as you say other philosophers use a similar dialogue method or other questioning method as in the examples you give, why is it that Socrates gets so much credit for this approach to philosophy, ie The Socratic method is named after him. You were saying that Socrates knew the answer to the questions he asked , is that really true. He called himself a metaphorical midwife , because he was "giving birth" to new ideas, then I don't see how he could already have known the answer. Didn't Socrates famously say "I don't know anything".

There's an error in the above. It should be Philosophy hasn't continued to be done in the form in which Socrates started.

You were saying that language imposes limitations on what one can express and Nietszche was aware of this. Didn't Wittgenstein also point out the limitations of language . But how else can we communicate ideas apart from through language. It may not be a perfect system but it's all human beings have. Of course alot of communication is non verbal. Perhaps Plato was right in saying that philosophy should be conducted through real life dialogue between people because then it's taken away from the abstractions and limitations of the written word and all the non verbal aspects are included. Most philosophy nowadays seems to be done through the written word . However there is also a lot of Philosophical debate too.

Fine. I take your point. I've been told by many that the quote is out of context.
On another matter Id like to discuss and that is , Is Nietszches attack on the value systems of traditional philosophy correct, not only Christianity but on secular ethics of both ancient and modern philosophers. He attacks The whole Enlightenment tradition of the values of freedom, liberty and equality and democracy. He thinks they are part of the herd mentality, or offshoots of the slave morality of Christianity. I agree with him that the ideas of sin, salvation, hell and damnation are unhealthy and ridiculous Ideas, used for purposes of power over others.
Heres a thought experiment, it's my own idea.
What if Nietszche had been a peasant or an intellectual living under the autocratic monarchy of King Louis IV around the time of the French Revolution where nearly all intellectuals and philosophers of the time, like Voltaire, Kant, David Hume , Thomas Paine, and many writers etc supported the ideals of the Revolution- Liberty, Equality and Freedom, ideas which Nietszche attacks. Now would Nietszche, had he been living at that time not shared their ideas. Because these ideas were universally accepted by nearly everyone outside of the ruling classes.
During Nietszches time it became very popular for thinkers to attack religion, and many traditional values, Marx, Freud, Schopenhauer, the list goes on , 19th was a much more radical age. My point is does this not suggest that Nietszches ideas are what Hegel describes as products of the zeitgeist.
Would he not have been a champion of Freedom if he had been living under an autocrIc monarchy where people were imprisoned for expressing certain ideas

That's interesting but why can't Nietszche express himself more clearly and if he has a positive view of women why didn't he just make that clear instead of leaving himself open to misunderstanding. As far as Im aware most other famous thinkers throughout history from Plato and Aristotle to Hume , Betrand Russell, Stuart Mill, Satre and Camus, and many more , all of them express themselves clearly, they are not readily open to misunderstanding, and thinkers like Camus use fictional techniques , like philosophical novels to express their ideas. Yet it's clear what all these thinkers ideas are. Why Nietszche has to be so ambiguous . Every time I read an article about Nietszche it says some scholars interpret Nietszche this way and then there's another camp who interprets him in a different way. Who are you supposed to believe.
For me Aristotle's Ethics , though not without problems are very well thought. I'm very impressed with them. They seem to me firstly to be full of common sense and secondly they're all based on sound careful logical reasoning and drawn from many case studies and empirical research that Aristotle undertook. They are not based on a belief in God or any religion. Nor are they based on a set of rules. Why does Nietszche have a problem with them? I can understand his attack on Christianity as a slave morality. I would agree he has many valid points there. But you can't describe Aristotle's Ethics or Stoicism as a slave morality. In my view it takes a lot of courage, inner strength, resilience and fortitude to live according to the virtues. In fact I think it was Epictetus who said that many people wouldn't have the strength to be a true Stoic. Nietszches famous injunction Be yourself. The Stoics would completely agree with that

As a matter of fact many of the classes I have in recent times are adults, some who actually have degrees in philosophy themselves , and we have loads of debate. Actually I encourage debate in my classes and Ive had lots of opinions and disagreement in the classes. I actually prefer debate, it's more boring just lecturing at people without any discussion. Anyway if you object to my expressing opinions on this blog perhaps it's you don't respond to them. I would prefer not to continue this discussion anymore. I'm a bit sick of it at this stage.

That's fine. I understand your point about backing up ones point with proper argument. To a certain extent I was playing the role sometimes of the devil's advocate in order to provoke debate. I wasn't accusing Nietszche of being a misogynistic and denigrating him I was merely drawing attention to some provocative statements he made and and debating what he meant by them. I was puzzled why such a brilliant genius like Nietszche who is so popular today would make such statements. I Know it's taken out of context but nevertheless if a philosopher today was to make such pronouncements I think he/she would be severly attacked for what seems discriminatory. And the argument that Nietszche is a product of his times doesn't hold water for me because other 19th century thinkers like John Stuart mill expressed more enlightened views about women.
what about one of the other bloggers on this thread who said Nietszche was like a Germanic version of Oscar Wilde. Is his/her opinion also just empty rhetoric and should not be on a philosophy blog?

I'm very sorry it was someone else who clearly has taken umbrage with my opinions about Nietszche who made that comment. I was accused of being a Buddhist evangelist when in fact Im not religious.

As a matter of fact I had already decided that I'm done with this ridiculous fencing match of a discussion. You think I m the worst academic you've ever come across well I happen to think likewise that you're the worst blogger I've ever come across. I have never from all my students or colleagues in my 16 years of teaching literature and philosophy been attacked for my views in so virulent a manner .

So you're saying I shouldn't be blogging on this site because I'm giving opinions without hard evidence. I find that an unfair comment. Show me please where it says in the administrators ground rules on this blog that people are not allowed express their OPINIONS on this site unaccompanied by hard evidence.

Right. Ok then . Give me examples of hard evidence that Nietszche provides to BACK UP his ideas, not just clever aphorisms, or mythical narratives, like Zarathustra, concrete examples, case studies of REAL people in REAL LIFE situations, including data, empirical findings. Because as far as I'm concerned without these his opinions remain just opinions, as you yourself have indicated that most people's opinions don't count.

Am I wedded to Enlightenment rationalism. The answer is no. I think there are SOME good aspects to it. The 18th century Enlightenment was primarily a reaction against the dogmatism, religious and political intolerance, superstition of the preceding age which had torn Europe apart in religious wars and persecution. Thinkers like, David Hume, Kant, Locke and Voltaire hoped to usher in a new age of freedom, liberty and democracy. While I think they are profound and great thinkers their belief in rationalism and utopian ideals about a society based on human Reason are naive and even led to the horrors and barbarism of The French Revolution and Napoleonic imperialism. Human beings are not rational creatures. Their psychology was amateurish.
No, I am more wedded to Stoicism and Buddhism. and Existentialism. I also am very interested in Ancient Greek philosophy. For me they provide my source of values for living and a treasure trove of wisdom. By the way Nietszche was an admirer of Buddhism.
My view is that too many western philosophers are ignorant of Eastern philosophy. They have a too west centric perspective. It's after I made some Chinese and Indian friends that it opened up my eyes to another culture. Eastern philosophy wasn't included at all on my Degree in philosophy unfortunately. I wish I had discovered it when I was a young lad back in college, It might have changed my life!

That's an interesting point and the quote from Nietszche is interesting. He seems to be a hard philosopher to pin down because of his highly metaphorical style. What do you mean he didn't have a clue about women? Even Plato 2000 years ago who was living in a much more patriarchal society, a society where women weren't even allowed to perform any public role, did not go to school or did not even learn to read and write. Yet Plato, compared to Nietszche was enlightened enough about women to advocate that they should receive the same education and opportunities as men. And here we have Nietszche, one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century saying that he would prefer to fall into the hands of a murderer than a lustful woman. That sounds like an attack on the secular Enlightenment and progressive philosophy which was trying to usher in a more Enlightened culture free from the Catholic misogynistic culture of the old older in Europe.

Ok. They are interesting , thought provoking points you make. I note your point that on a philosophy blog proper arguments need to be made. I have been studying philosophy since I was 16 and my Degree from university is in Philosophy. I've been teaching it in schools part time for 11 years. Now Im not trying to be a know all and much of my knowledge of Nietszche is from secondary sources. Actually he used to be one of my favourite philosophers. I still think he's a profound thinker. I'm not comparing him unfavorably with Buddhism .
Look I think the discussion has digressed completely away from my original post about a week ago where I made the SUGGESTION that Nietszche hates the virtues of Love, compassion and kindness and pity which are fundamental ancient virtues of Buddhism. Now that's not a bias or a misunderstanding of Nietszche. I'm merely making a statement of fact. And it seems on this blog that SOME people have taken umbrage at that remark. Im not a Buddhist evangelist. It's not fair to label me as such. I just think that these above virtues in my opinion, which HAPPEN TO BE part of Buddhist philosophy are good ones. As I said before I think Nietszches critique of Christianity as a slave morality has a grain of truth. But I disagree with his attack on the virtues of love , etc. He somehow seems to think that these virtues encourage the weak and a slave morality. But I disagree. I think I'm entitled to have that opinion. I'm sure there are millions of others who would share that opinion. I don't think I need to back up my view about the merit of these virtues with Philosophical argument. And if Christian and Buddhist or Islamic extremists have abused certain ideas or beliefs for power that's a reflection on those evil individuals , it's nothing to do with the virtues themselves.

I seem to have ruffled a few feathers on this blog just because I took a quote from Nietzsche and described it as a rather outlandish remark. Nietszche was not living in the middle ages when people used to have such highly superstitious, dogmatic, misogynistic ideas. He was living during the 19th century in a modern , industrialized country. I don't know of many other of his contemporary philosophers, apart perhaps from Schopenhauer who were in the habit of making inane statements like the one I quoted. Maybe he was trying to be provocative or controversial which is a great way, nowadays to draw attention to your writing or ideas. It seems to especially the rage in the modern media and maybe in academia too.

Here is a passage I found in Wikipedia as follows:-

Nietszche admired Buddhism, writing that: "Buddhism already has - and this distinguishes it profoundly from Christianity - the self-deception of moral concepts behind it - it stands, in my language, Beyond Good and Evil."[23] Nietzsche saw himself as undertaking a similar project to the Buddha. "I could become the Buddha of Europe", he wrote in 1883.

Firstly I disagree that Nietzsche's comment should be only viewed in the context of his society. John Stuart mill another 19th century thinker who lived during the same patriarchal victorian society as Nietszche had a far more enlightened view of women, attacking his society for the oppression of women. Nietszche in company with Aristotle and Schopenhauer however seemed to have thought women were inferior.
Secondly in relation to your point about extremists and Buddhism here's a quote from Wikipedia
In Buddhism, one should not harm other sentient beings. ... Happily the peaceful live giving up victory and defeat." These elements are used to indicate Buddhism is PACIFISTIC. It's Christianity and Islam which are dogmatic intolerant religions and not philosophies that are responsible for so much historical oppression and extremism.

I'm simply giving you what seems to be a famous quote from Nietzsche and giving you my opinion that it's a rather inane statement also seems a rather misogynistic comment. I'd like to know what women would think about it. As far as I'm aware Nietzsche didn't have a very high opinion of women anyway.
There's absolutely nothing pseudo about selecting a quote from a famous figure. Journalists, academics etc do it all the time. Perhaps Nietzsche should have been more careful about the some of the outlandish statements that he made. It takes away from some of his other very intriguing and thought provoking ideas.

Buddhism has been around for thousands of years and has stood the test of time as a philosophy that today 500 million people find brings them peace and happiness. Stoicism is another ancient philosophy of timeless wisdom which is experiencing somewhat of a revival . I don't agree with every precept of Buddhism, such as asceticism and it's religious beliefs. I wonder will Nietszche stand the same test of time. I know he's admired by 10s of millions of people today as one of the most popular thinkers , but Freud and Marx in the early to mid 20th century were also lionized , but who have gone out of vogue today. l wonder how fashionable Nietszche will be in 50 years time.