We remember Jesus for the parables; metaphors for why his morals were correct. As explanations, I don't think they hold up. Beyond that, he doesn't really explain why doing certain things is moral so much as just assert them. Confucius and Lao Tzu may have been wrong, but at least their ideas of the moral had reasons behind them that could stand on their own.

Leaving aside the shit copied from the Greeks, what possible relevance could a pile of dreck aimed at ancient peasant farmers have in the 21st century.

Jebus is old hat.

Forgive me but I see no great morality in Jesus.

I see a man who thought only of Jews, as reliably reported, one presumes in Mark and Matthew. A man who judged others by that standard and that alone. I see a man who counselled turning the other cheek - which is a fine sentiment, but what if it is not you that is being attacked? Suppose it is your child or your spouse - would you turn their other cheek?

I see a man who put god above his fellow man. The most important commandment was to love God. Secondary was to love one's neighbour as oneself. And who is your neighbour - could he not have said fellow man? Who was he actually talking to? For whom was this message?

I see a man who was a product of his time. He knew nothing of the body nor its functions, made no mention of the bacterial or viral causes of infection, but, in common with men until the end of the middle ages, blamed evil spirits and demons. Yet, we ignore this.

He commands us to love God - as if such a command can be given. He tells us that through him, and only through him, can we get to the father - eliminating the good works of man, and, undermining the secondary provision to love your neighbour. Loving you neighbour is not enough, but loving God is.

He encourages converting minds too weak to understand, the most vulnerable, children. He preys of them as surely as any paedophile merely taking their minds (letting his priests have the rest).

He supports the status-quo. No instructions to rail against the tyranny of an absolute ruler, a king, a Caesar or even a fuhrer. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Two words never utter from his mouth, Democracy and Republic, and why should they? Most people recognise that these are the best and fairest systems of government humanity has devised, and yet, when it comes to heaven - lets race to the absolute and total dictatorship we are promised. We must love the leader - ring any bells at all?

He tells us the world will end and we will all be with God (well believers only, and obviously believers in the correct version, spouting the right prayers at the right time in the right kind of temple). Such promise of life everlasting and perfection (within the dictatorship suddenly no-one minds) are enough to make believers long for the end, dream of the four horsemen and await their ascension into heaven.

His words are the real nihilism atheism is accused of. He is poison personified. He is his father's son with the same unpalatable message dressed in better PR.

He stands by his father word in the OT. Oh boy, does he ever.

So tell me again of how I should admire his morality whilst the contents of my stomach rise towards my throat.

Here's my summary of what I really think on the subject.

To start with a positive I think the message in the Parable of the Good Samaritan is definitely a great teaching, and the story that is used to convey it could hardly be improved on.

I'm not sure that we can really blame the historical Jesus for tearing apart families, which is a typical feature of cults. Jesus apparently did call on disciples to follow him, but perhaps their wives came too. Certainly in the era following his death, Paul speaks of Peter being accompanied by his wife. In Matthew 10 we find an extreme statement: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. Anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." I could be wrong, but my best guess is that Jesus did not say this. Many of the texts in the gospels were inserted later by the church to meet its needs. It strikes me that this text deals with a life situation (Sitz im Leben) for the church decades after the time of Jesus, when the family might try to pull a recent convert away from the church, and the church just as much as the modern Moonies would tell their adherent that nothing is more important than his imaginary friend in heaven.

For much of the rest of his teaching I would say not so great.

He was, as I have mentioned before, an apocalyptic prophet who thought the world was going to end in his generation, most likely, was going to end in just a few years, and that colored almost all his teaching.

He was quite serious in his exhortation to take no thought for the morrow, because he believed there weren't going to be many morrows left.

What is precisely dangerous about his teaching is that he had considerable rhetorical talent. e.g., "Consider the lilies of the field, they spin not, neither do they toil, yet Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as one of these." The poetry impresses, and so does the hyperbole of a demand to "sell all that you have and give it to the poor" bad advice though it is.

BTW, with few exceptions like the Good Samaritan the parables are not moral teachings at all; they are analogies to convey his belief that the Kingdom of God will arrive soon and suddenly when many do not expect it.

Another objectionable feature of his teaching is the introduction of thought crimes, which would give so many people a guilty conscience. It's murder if you are temporarily pissed off with someone, and it's adultery if you look appreciatively at an attractive woman's cleavage ... which I certainly can't stop myself from doing.

Since the end is nigh for Jesus, marriage is contraindicated. It's better to be a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, which poor Origen apparently took literally a few centuries later. And of course Paul followed Jesus in the anti-marriage view, because for him too the end was near. Fundamentalists who prate away about "family values" would be hard pressed to find any support in the New Testament.

I have to mention one extreme teaching in particular, Jesus' well-known emphasis on non-violence. I think that both Gandhi and Martin Luther King traced their inspiration back to Jesus: turn the other cheek, if someone asks for your coat, give him your cloak also. It may have inspired them, but that was not what Jesus was talking about in his historical context. Again, the end is nigh, there is no point in standing up for your rights because God will soon wind up everything. I believe it was really Gandhi who added the essential element of confrontation, which made the method so effective. As for being a way to live apart from political confrontations, it is ridiculous to turn the other cheek. It's contrary to all our human instincts which include a demand for fair and equitable treatment.

No, I don't think he was a great teacher. I am not sure he even existed.

manowar

Isn't the thought crime thing meant to be extreme? We get the principle, and as usual, people can take that too far and distort the message into something the opposite of what was intended.

Supposedly it's meant to show just how much better Yahweh is, because he's so perfect that he just doesn't think unjustified thoughts, but it still serves no purpose. Taken at face value, it's demonstrably wrong. Just ask everyone I haven't killed, raped, stolen from, ect. I'm not sure what it's supposed to teach anyone, aside from the idea that no one is perfect. Well thanks. That's about as basic a lesson as "be nice to each other", which most people at least know, even if they don't practice it.

This might be comparable to the story about the legion of demons, to show that Jesus is so awesome that even a legion of demons is no match for him.

The idea that you're supposed to take the thought crime verse differently doesn't really help Jesus' case as a great moral teacher.

No it's to show that your actions are meaningless if you don't actually think what you're doing is right.

(March 24, 2014 at 10:30 am)Escherscurtain Wrote: “For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Matthew 10:35-37

You guys miss out on the good stuff by starting one verse too late!

Quote:Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34

---

(April 7, 2014 at 9:17 am)xpastor Wrote: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. Anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." I could be wrong, but my best guess is that Jesus did not say this.

Duh. As opposed to all the other stuff, which is verbatim from one historical person? Come on!

(April 7, 2014 at 9:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Isn't the thought crime thing meant to be extreme? We get the principle, and as usual, people can take that too far and distort the message into something the opposite of what was intended.

As a principle, it works in that it teaches that if we refine our attitudes, it becomes much easier to maintain self-discipline. If taken literally, it is extreme in that it makes man's struggle to control his nature meaningless: if you are to be hanged just for thinking of wrongdoing, then you may well decide that it's worth it to commit the crime you are being punished for. After all, there is a mechanism for wiping the actual sin off of the books.

I think where the teaching breaks down is in the all-or-nothing, you-can't-be-trusted-to-figure-this-out-yourself approach of teachings like the golden rule and turn-the-other-cheek. In essence, Jesus is telling people to let the world do as it will to them, because in the end god will fix everything up all neat and tidy. I think that even most Christians see through that and don't just let people run roughshod over them in their day-to-day lives. It's the sensible approach, but it requires that god have a bit of faith in you.