Opinion of Jesus Christ

[afleitch]

I can't vote. I have no idea who he was. I mean, I understand what he later became. I know the 'Christ', but I don't know who Jesus of Nazareth was so I'll pass on this. From what's been bastardized and collected about him he seems okay at times, unhinged at other times but generally unremarkable.

He was generally a bit of an ass to his fretful mother so that takes points off him. Hopefully his other siblings had a little more time for her.

[afleitch]

I can't vote. I have no idea who he was. I mean, I understand what he later became. I know the 'Christ', but I don't know who Jesus of Nazareth was so I'll pass on this. From what's been bastardized and collected about him he seems okay at times, unhinged at other times but generally unremarkable.

He was generally a bit of an ass to his fretful mother so that takes points off him. Hopefully his other siblings had a little more time for her.

You can call Jesus many things, but hardly "unremarkable".

As a person? Yes; when you actually compare him to his contemporaries.

[afleitch]

What Al said in another thread about the nature of the missing of the point being significant and communicating quite a lot deserves, I think, to be reiterated here.

Does it? Even if we were to accept the biblical tradition of Jesus' life and works, we can still comment on whether that makes him a moral or perhaps not so moral a person.

[afleitch]

Negative for the same but opposite reason I think highly of Michael Vick. Despite Vick's obvious negatives, I think he's had an overall positive impact on the people who derive value from the things he does and says and the people they impact. The exact opposite could be said of the cult of character surrounding Jesus Christ.

This is getting to the point of being not worth posting about. If people are going to jump down my throat without offering anything of note to combat what it is I've actually said, what is there to debate? Dibble of course has original notions worth considering, and we agree in general. My original derivation of blame is in perfect alignment with what he just said, yet has gone unacknowledged in the unfortunately shallow criticism of what I've said...what a disappointment. There's so much to talk about, but evidently either I'm completely incapable of communicating my points or there's no desire among my detractors to actually delve into what it is I've asserted.

You are correct. What I hate most about this particular topic is the assumption demanded of participants that Jesus is by default 'good' even if you don't believe in him. It's suggestive of an atmosphere on here that actually stifles genuine debate from a contrary position which is increasingly common.

[afleitch]

Negative for the same but opposite reason I think highly of Michael Vick. Despite Vick's obvious negatives, I think he's had an overall positive impact on the people who derive value from the things he does and says and the people they impact. The exact opposite could be said of the cult of character surrounding Jesus Christ.

This is getting to the point of being not worth posting about. If people are going to jump down my throat without offering anything of note to combat what it is I've actually said, what is there to debate? Dibble of course has original notions worth considering, and we agree in general. My original derivation of blame is in perfect alignment with what he just said, yet has gone unacknowledged in the unfortunately shallow criticism of what I've said...what a disappointment. There's so much to talk about, but evidently either I'm completely incapable of communicating my points or there's no desire among my detractors to actually delve into what it is I've asserted.

You are correct. What I hate most about this particular topic is the assumption demanded of participants that Jesus is by default 'good' even if you don't believe in him. It's suggestive of an atmosphere on here that actually stifles genuine debate from a contrary position which is increasingly common.

If you dont believe in him, you can call him a fraud, which is a fair point (but not one made from his detractors in this thread).
But:
1. Blaming Jesus for all the things committed in his name is pure nonsense.
 
2. In an evaluation of most of his deeds the question of faith is irrelevant. The moral value of working among the poor, combating prejudices (against, say, leppers or prostitutes), preaching pacifism and equality etc. doesnt depend on whether you believe him to be the son of God.

First off, I wasn't arguing in favour of the first point you raised. Secondly, the Jesus of the bible has very specific flaws which are contrary to the picture people paint.

Let me raise a few;

At the house of the Simon the leper, a woman pours expensive oil on him and people say "Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." but he responds ""Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me So he revels in his own luxury as she has 'anointed his body' despite the protestations that the money could have been used for the poor. He sends two of his disciples to go and steal an ass and a colt for the 'lords use.' He denied a follower of his time to bury their deceased father.

If we break it down, this is what he we have; Jesus' teachings were entirely compatible with a man who believed the end of the world was near asking his followers to cut off their relationships with their families and to elevate him above all others. He (or he instructed his disciples) to condemn whole towns for not welcoming him. Condemning three whole towns to hell because some of the inhabitants didn't care for his preaching is unhinged and again shows that he considered their to be an imminent apocalypse. He was even happy to instruct others to steal another person's property for his own use. He demanded obedience from his followers and essentially controlled their contact with people outside his own circles Saying; ""If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

You can argue very strongly against the idea that Jesus was 'good.'

[afleitch]

I'm kind of wondering why some atheists would consider voting FF for a man with an obvious God complex.

I think as has previously been mentioned, we have been conditioned to see Jesus as ‘good’ regardless of belief or non belief when (and you’re absolutely right) he had a god complex and a heightened sense of his own self worth. That in part makes him at the very least an amoral character to those who dispute or deny the claims of divinity thrust onto him. For those who believe, then you can take your foot off the gas when it comes to his character. He’s god so he can do as he wishes. He can get angry and steal, he can disrespect his mother, show disdain for his own disciples and be egotistical; makes him a little bit human after all. The same is true of the god of the Old Testament who to be brief (as this is not the place to discuss it) is an absolute tyrant. If you believe, these flaws need not cause you concern.

For those who do not believe the question is; is Jesus an exemplary character? In many ways he isn’t because he demands that you follow him above all others. Whether or not he really thought he was who Christians say he was I’ve partly addressed in another thread; even if he never claimed he was divine or that god spoke to him he demand obedience or claimed obedience as the vessel of the word of god. Does this state of affairs, do these demands therefore taint his ‘good’ teachings with which any right thinking person can admire? Even if it doesn’t, how spectacular and revolutionary are the concepts of Jesus’ ‘good’ teachings?

The Stoics were in many ways Jesus’ contemporaries. Seneca, Epictetus, Gaius Rufus.  Seneca in his Epistulae Morales states; “If you want to be loved, love” and “Take care not to harm others, so others won't harm you" and “No one can lead a happy life if he thinks only of himself and turns everything to his own purposes. You should live for the other person if you wish to live for yourself.” This is the Golden Rule; it exists outside of Jesus’ teachings. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius writing later, says; "When those about you are venting their censure or malice upon you or raising any other sort of injurious clamour…It is still your duty to think kindly of them, for nature has made them to be your friends." Jesus dealt with those who offended him with either passive statements or idle threats of damnation, punishment or loss; “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." There is so much to be found in stoic teachings and repeated almost as mantras of the philsophy that creep into the New Testament. Even Luke 17, when Jesus talks of the slaves it’s Seneca almost verbatim; “All night long they must stand about hungry and dumb. They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies. This is the kernel of my advice; treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters.’

And Celsus, the early critic of Christianity remarks; "We are told that Jesus judged the rich with the saying 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.'  Yet we know that Plato expressed this very idea in a purer form when he said, 'It is impossible for an exceptionally good man to be exceptionally rich.' Is one utterance more inspired than the other?"

And he is right. Absolutely right; the words of Jesus are the words of the Stoics but with demands made of those who listen to him. It all comes back to an earlier thread; how much of the real Jesus will we ever know,when those who knew him, the Jewish-Christians gave way to the gentiles? Christianity is syncretic; how much of it is actually independent thought?

[afleitch]

Well no, fictional characters are not real but they may be disproportionally more influential than those who have lived. They may even be more influential than the minds from which they came. Just as my great grandfather Gilbert was very real but probably wasn't influential. I have no qualms that Odysseus has a greater educational merit than Gilbert Leitch.