Alright, so we don't even know these were Jesus' teachings... But let's say they actually were. I disagree with the supernatural aspect of Jesus. But as a moral teacher, what do you think of him? Some people say "I dismiss some of the bible and take just some. but I'm a believer" I say heck no. If you dismiss some parts, you are a snobby spoiled brat who is not reasonable enough to understand THERE IS NO REALITY IN THE BIBLE as to connection with "holliness". Anyway....

Here are two teachings of Jesus:

"If someone strikes you, turn the other cheek."

What do you think about it? Do you apply it in your daily life? (even when you are an atheist, you might, not because it is JESUS but because it comes like a natural moral to YOU)

thanks !

Tags: god, jesus, quotes

Views: 482

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

hmm, there are many "teachings" of jesus, but I reckon most of them to be more amoral, and suppressive...

eg, "turn the other cheek" could also be "don't stand up against your oppressor." I understand life would be better if everyone had a calm outlook, I consider myself a humanist but if someone wants me silent they have another thing coming.

I find my morality in rationality, and a bit of logic and common sense.  If someone hits you because you told them they were wrong about something, would you let them hit you again, try to calm them down or hit them back?

There's also Kwai Chang Caine's choice (from the TV series, Kung Fu): "Take away the stick," i.e.: stop their ability to attack you without necessarily having to counterattack.  Perhaps a bit more nuanced than Haysus managed to figure out, but then that's very little surprise to me.

Jesus was not always definitive in his utterances, which are sometimes ambiguous and (as has been pointed out) open to interpretation (a sure sign that they are man-made and not divine).

But, yes, some of what Jesus supposedly said is commendable (and some of it rehashes already existing concepts such as 'the golden rule'), but no more so than other philosophers/teachers of the time.
To be honest, philosophically speaking, I find what Jesus said pales next to what, in the previous few hundred years, the Buddhists had developed - Buddhist compassion, for example - which, to me at least, reads as more sophisticated.

Back when I was "in" church but while i was starting to pull away from it I liked to imagine Jesus as a kind old hippie guy whose teachings where pretty mellow and filled with messages of love.

I've since thought and read much about it an realise that most of this is plain rubbish.

One message that has stuck with me however is the so called golden rule;

"Do unto others what you would have them do to you"

I think that's a pretty strong message that is applicable to everyone's life.

Of course what you do with that message and how you apply it is the tricky part.

Like most areas in life be it political, philosophical, sociological or whatever else "ical" you what to append  I find its best to take inspiration wherever you find it. If you can find a nugget of gold in a book as evil as the Bible then I call that a win.

MB

"Do unto others what you would have them do to you"

Of course what you do with that message and how you apply it is the tricky part.

You're absolutely correct. Here's a simple scenario that permits abuse of the seemingly altruistic teaching:

Some guy thinks that he is a terrible sinner and that he deserves to be punished. He thinks that the only way to god is if he physically suffers, just like Jesus did. A flagellant, he may even hurt himself. 

Then one day he looks around his community and sees that they are all sinners (just like the bible says) and so decides to buy himself a baseball bat, go out into the community, and beat the crap of people so that they feel righteous pain. He thinks if they suffer (like him and Jesus), they too might be saved and find their way to god. He thinks he's doing them a favour. All the while he is thinking to himself "I am doing to others what I would have done unto me..."

Philosophical and religious soundbites and little moral quotes are absolutely useless unless they are in the context of a well-rounded, exhaustive and non-contradictory philosophical and moral system.

There is an exception to every rule.

In your case example however your friendly flagellent has bigger problems than just following a simple rule.

MB

Placing myself in the time frame of Jesus, I could see the attraction to his message. Although not perfect in any respect, it is quite the leap from stoning someone to death to "he who has not sinned cast the first stone". In this respect, he is (if he actually did any of this) a transformational leader and leagues beyond his time. I'm sure I'm going to regret posting something this positive, but I think it hold some merit. 

You can see this with many other transormational leaders like Abraham Lincoln. Most of his discussion were in their very nature racist and influenced from their time. Today, we give him much credit for the abolishment of slavery. A leader that was leagues ahead of his time. 

Now the writers of the books couldn't have been more variable in many of the messages leading one to think that if Jesus was in fact a deity he should have said "Now listen up closely because I don't want four different versions of this out there".

"In this respect, he is (if he actually did any of this) a transformational leader and leagues beyond his time."

As has been indicated before, much of Christ's preaching and ideals predates him. The Buddhists, for example, already had a 500-ish year tradition of compassion, morality and wisdom by the time of Christ.

"it is quite the leap from stoning someone to death to "he who has not sinned cast the first stone"


But it's not such a great leap from stoning people to advocating violence and conflict: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother... " etc etc (Christ in Matthew)

"As has been indicated before, much of Christ's preaching and ideals predates him. The Buddhists, for example, already had a 500-ish year tradition of compassion, morality and wisdom by the time of Christ."

True, but this also originated in Northern India, about 1500 miles-ish away. You could also imagine how well Buddhism would have been received in a Jewish community. They have only one god and he has sent down his rules for ages via their doctrine. It would take a new perspective on their doctrine to ignite change. 

""I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother... " etc etc (Christ in Matthew)"

Yeah, I often wonder the motivations behind some of these "quotes". Since obviously written some time after their origination, what would be going on the require this statement? Some of it is sort of intuitive right? For example, the only unforgivable sin is not believing in the holy spirit: since this is the hardest concept to believe in it would need a severe punishment to actually stick. How about eternal damnation? 
 

And let's not forget that Haysus contradicts himself more than once.  Sure, you hear this one in Sunday school all the time:

Luke 6:27 - But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you...

What you DON'T hear is what comes a few chapters later:

Luke 19:27 - But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

So ... which is it?

You are right Loren .. So many contradictions

Parable, beatitudes, commandments....Jesus was a philosopher (assuming he existed at all).

Many of the parables, such as the Good Samaritan parable, are nice little fables that can be inspiring and have been used throughout the ages to indoctrinate children.  I would argue that most adults already have these moral qualities and that Jesus was merely "preaching to the choir", as it were.  I suggest everyone read them for the literary quality, just don't except too much in the way of enlightenment.

The beatitudes, such as "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth", were given during the Sermon on the Mount.  Nothing earth-shattering here either, but still nice.  For instance, "blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted" sounds nice but raises more questions than it answers.  Who will comfort mourning?  When?  How?  How do you know?  etc.  Again, think "literary value" when you read these.

The Two Greatest Commandments:  Love god more than anything or anyone, including yourself; and, love your neighbor as you love yourself.  If you're a believer, this is inspiring, and makes your religion very simple to understand.  It's hogwash to us, but it's good to know that these are in their heads.

Some of Jesus' teachings, such as that found in Luke 14:26 (if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple) are just wrong.  Context, schmontext.  We get it...love god so much it SEEMS like you hate everyone else.  Blah blah.  It's still wrong.  Jesus was not the family man that many Christians claim he was.  He was all about his faith.

Faith will not make you walk on water, or cure leprosy or paralysis (let alone give you eternity in the sky), just as reading Jesus' teachings will not enlighten you.  But, given the society we live in, there's value to knowing this stuff.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service