Opinion of Jesus Christ

[fezzyfestoon]

FF (Normal)

There is really no good reason to sincerely vote HP except a knee-jerk animus towards anything redolent of religion, which is far more revelatory about the voter than about Jesus.

No good reason at all? Surely you're being facetious...

Why would you assume that?

Because of the multitude of valid reasons to view Jesus Christ negatively?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FF (Normal)

There is really no good reason to sincerely vote HP except a knee-jerk animus towards anything redolent of religion, which is far more revelatory about the voter than about Jesus.

No good reason at all? Surely you're being facetious...

Why would you assume that?

Because of the multitude of valid reasons to view Jesus Christ negatively?

You and I have very different definitions of 'multitude', 'valid', and/or 'negative'.

[fezzyfestoon]

FF (Normal)

There is really no good reason to sincerely vote HP except a knee-jerk animus towards anything redolent of religion, which is far more revelatory about the voter than about Jesus.

No good reason at all? Surely you're being facetious...

Why would you assume that?

Because of the multitude of valid reasons to view Jesus Christ negatively?

You and I have very different definitions of 'multitude', 'valid', and/or 'negative'.

Clearly. Centuries of injustices, persecution, murder, cultural dominance, and many more abuses count to me as a multitude of valid reasons to have a distaste for the one character it was all committed in the name of. I honestly have absolutely no understanding of how that can be completely ignored and brushed aside as either irrelevant, not negative, or invalid. So yes, there is certainly a massive disconnect between our understanding of those concepts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

FF (Normal)

There is really no good reason to sincerely vote HP except a knee-jerk animus towards anything redolent of religion, which is far more revelatory about the voter than about Jesus.

No good reason at all? Surely you're being facetious...

Why would you assume that?

Because of the multitude of valid reasons to view Jesus Christ negatively?

You and I have very different definitions of 'multitude', 'valid', and/or 'negative'.

Clearly. Centuries of injustices, persecution, murder, cultural dominance, and many more abuses count to me as a multitude of valid reasons to have a distaste for the one character it was all committed in the name of. I honestly have absolutely no understanding of how that can be completely ignored and brushed aside as either irrelevant, not negative, or invalid. So yes, there is certainly a massive disconnect between our understanding of those concepts.

Do you hate Karl Marx too?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

We are talking about the Man himself, not His impact.

[fezzyfestoon]

Do you hate Karl Marx too?

I don't hate either one, but I certainly don't absolve them of all the atrocious wrongs committed in their names. Not to mention the devolving of both into caricatures of their causes, most severely in the case of Jesus.

[John Dibble]

FF (Normal)

There is really no good reason to sincerely vote HP except a knee-jerk animus towards anything redolent of religion, which is far more revelatory about the voter than about Jesus.

No good reason at all? Surely you're being facetious...

Why would you assume that?

Because of the multitude of valid reasons to view Jesus Christ negatively?

You and I have very different definitions of 'multitude', 'valid', and/or 'negative'.

Clearly. Centuries of injustices, persecution, murder, cultural dominance, and many more abuses count to me as a multitude of valid reasons to have a distaste for the one character it was all committed in the name of. I honestly have absolutely no understanding of how that can be completely ignored and brushed aside as either irrelevant, not negative, or invalid. So yes, there is certainly a massive disconnect between our understanding of those concepts.

Unless Jesus actually advocated doing those things they should be blamed entirely on those who did them, not on him.

[fezzyfestoon]

So as long as you don't explicitly promote certain actions you're completely devoid of blame? I hate posting in the religion boards, you can't win no matter what you say or how much you try to hedge your assertions to avoid the deluge of unavoidable outrage at any criticism or acknowledgment of negative consequences. In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend. If taking the apparently arguable atrocities committed in the name of the legend of Jesus as an indictment of his legacy is radical or baseless, then paint me a bigot I suppose...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So as long as you don't explicitly promote certain actions you're completely devoid of blame?

In general? Yes; if you don't do or advocate something it's not considered your fault.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A fairy tale character isn't something that one is 'nothing more than'.

[fezzyfestoon]

How do I respond to a complete lack of substance? I'm at a dead end...

[Antonio the Sixth]

I won't comment on the second thing that Nathan said, but the first one is plain common sense.

[John Dibble]

So as long as you don't explicitly promote certain actions you're completely devoid of blame?

Implicitly as well, but yes, generally speaking. Especially long after your death when you can't do anything about it. If someone subverts another's message for their own purposes then the blame is on the one doing the subverting. Maybe an example would help.

Based solely on the biblical Jesus, I don't think there is anything he says that supports racism. (if anything his 'offer' is open to all humans, and he didn't say to love your neighbor only if he's got the same skin color as you) Even so, people used his name to do so. I blame the racists for that.

On the other hand, Jesus supposedly said "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything". Now, Jesus did not say anything about practicing slavery being wrong, so this could be interpreted as either implicit tolerance or support. This, along with OT laws, gave slave owners at least a somewhat more legitimate claim to Jesus being ok with slavery. How much is he culpable for this? Well, that kind of depends. As a human he would have been raised in a society where slavery was practiced for hundreds of years, so it wouldn't have been unusual for him to just consider that a normal part of human society - as such he'd hold about as much blame as anyone else from his time. As a divine being who is supposed to be morally perfect and knows all? Totally culpable, because he should have known to make it clear his followers shouldn't practice slavery and he did not.

Now, on subverting the message and how easy it is, that's just a problem with religion in general - you can twist it any which way you want and then claim an absolute authority backs your position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody called you a bigot, don't be melodramatic.

As far as his legacy goes, what other people do in his name does affect that because that's part of his legacy. But a man's legacy isn't the man himself.

[fezzyfestoon]

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.

[DC Al Fine]

So as long as you don't explicitly promote certain actions you're completely devoid of blame?

On the other hand, Jesus supposedly said "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything". Now, Jesus did not say anything about practicing slavery being wrong, so this could be interpreted as either implicit tolerance or support. This, along with OT laws, gave slave owners at least a somewhat more legitimate claim to Jesus being ok with slavery. How much is he culpable for this? Well, that kind of depends. As a human he would have been raised in a society where slavery was practiced for hundreds of years, so it wouldn't have been unusual for him to just consider that a normal part of human society - as such he'd hold about as much blame as anyone else from his time. As a divine being who is supposed to be morally perfect and knows all? Totally culpable, because he should have known to make it clear his followers shouldn't practice slavery and he did not.

Dibble, I'd argue that "obey your masters" is more indicative of the appropriate response to wrongdoing rather than approving of wrongdoing.

For example, Jesus said: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.  And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."

Obviously Jesus isn't arguing that assault and theft are acceptable. I'd argue the same goes for slavery.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I wouldn't consider something in Paul's epistles to be necessarily something Jesus said.

He gave his life up so we could have a chance to live. He was the only perfect person ever to exist, and he gave up that status as a sacrifice for our sins. He, a Deity, brought Himself to the level of a sacrificial goat for our sins. There can be no greater love ever to exist then the love that He has for us all.

Except according to the narrative he didn't give up his life - the resurrection was planned, was it not? It's not really a sacrifice if you plan on getting back what you're "sacrificing" in a mere three days, not to mention that for an eternal being to lose a mere three days in its corporeal form doesn't seem like that much of a loss in the grand scheme of things.

Death is death. As a human being, which Jesus was, he experienced the anxiety of death.  Holding hope in a resurrection doesn't mean that allowing oneself to suffer and be killed is not a meaningful demonstration of love.

[Beet]

It is a bit strange when Christians say (often implicitly) we should worship Jesus because he gave up his life so that we could have a chance to live. It's as if we worship him because he put himself below us. So it's as if we're worshiping ourselves. It's a bit.. narcissistic. The interpretation of Jesus' death that is less narcissistic is the idea that if God loved us, then how much should we love one another. It's less the idea that he died for us, personally, but that he died for everyone. But even so it's a bit narcissistic. The implication is that we're worthy of the death of God, which to some extent puts us on equal footing with God, which is just strange.

[Napoleon]

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.

I don't know if I would agree that Vick had a positive impact on his Eagles teammates.

[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.

[politicus]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Is this any question?  FF!!!!!!!

[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.'

[DemPGH]

Interestingly, the conversation proves that it depends upon interpretation. It's possible to see him as a rebel who opposed the awful legalism of the sadducees and religious bureaucrats, or as a cult leader who is not THAT different from the ones of today. In addition to what afleitch has pointed out, the parable of the gold coins is another passage that could be interpreted in a less-than-flattering light. But readings of Jesus Christ as an immoral person and teacher are underrepresented at least in American culture. Atheists will rarely argue this in my experience; rather, they play the game on the turf of religion - that is, to point how the actions of churches and Christians are not compatible with Christ. If atheism ever debated on its own turf, we might see the view that Jesus was actually immoral become far more standard. While I don't routinely listen to atheists or read atheist books, I seldom if ever hear this argument made.

I think Jesus Christ belongs among those ancient philosophers whose teachings survive only in snippets, and it's impossible to determine to whom to precisely credit those snippets. The miracles could have been easily staged or made up, we don't know, but they clearly were intended to enhance the legend of this teacher and philosopher, positive, negative, or perhaps ordinary.   

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

10 voters hates Latinos.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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

[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?