NationStates Jolt Archive

This isn't meant as a flamebait topic. I just really want to know what Jesus did that makes him such a great man.

Some of his ideas are just unworkable, like giving without counting the cost and not expecting anything in return. Also what's the deal with turning the other cheek? Does he really expect people not to defend themselves?

What did he really do anyway? It seems he merely wandered around and preached. He didn't rescue people from poverty, he didn't find cures for illnesses, he didn't bring peace to nations at war, he only preached. Lots of people preach. Why aren't they as highly regarded?

I realize that some people think he's the son of god and god made human. I'm not addressing that. I'm just asking what makes him a great man.

He was nice when he didn't have to be. That's enough for me.

I have, once again, reverted to Deism/agnosticism after recognizing that a lot of the things he preached were in contradiction with Jewish ideas, especially in regard to "salvation" (a nonexistent term in Judaism) and the fact that there is aboslutely no proof of his miracles.

Anyone who'd go through all that pain and torture to atone for peoples' sins is pretty cool in my book.

I'm an atheist but I have a lot of respect for a lot of his views, maybe everyone should turn the other cheek more.

This isn't meant as a flamebait topic. I just really want to know what Jesus did that makes him such a great man.

Some of his ideas are just unworkable, like giving without counting the cost and not expecting anything in return. Also what's the deal with turning the other cheek? Does he really expect people not to defend themselves?

What did he really do anyway? It seems he merely wandered around and preached. He didn't rescue people from poverty, he didn't find cures for illnesses, he didn't bring peace to nations at war, he only preached. Lots of people preach. Why aren't they as highly regarded?

I realize that some people think he's the son of god and god made human. I'm not addressing that. I'm just asking what makes him a great man.
He was a fairly decent guy that was widely publicized he is a good example as a man generally and had the timing and the following to make that good man notorious

So I guess it is a combination of a good guy that managed to secure fame as being a good guy

It's because when he preached, people listened. And his students all went around and preached his message, and people listened to them too. There are now 2 billion people following his teachings today, or 33% of the world's population (how closely is debatable, however). Not bad for a poor guy who lived 2000 years ago and died when he was 33.

I'm an atheist but I have a lot of respect for a lot of his views, maybe everyone should turn the other cheek more.
As depub will state this is one of the most misused statements in history
To understand the context you have to understand that hitting in roman society with the left hand was “sinking” to their level … not only dishonoring you but letting them hit back

So turning the other cheek makes them hit you with their left hand rather then right … thus dishonoring them

It is NOT an endorsement to passive resistance

Some of his ideas are just unworkable, like giving without counting the cost and not expecting anything in return.

This is unworkable because of selfishness and greed - things that most people see as bad things (unless they are the ones being selfish or greedy).

Also what's the deal with turning the other cheek? Does he really expect people not to defend themselves?

No. But in Christ's time, turning the other cheek would have been a way of defending yourself (ie. making it so that the other person could not hit you) without getting violent yourself (and probably ending up getting executed).

In Christ's time and society, one could not - under any circumstances - touch another with one's left hand. (This is true in some Arabic and Muslim communities even today). The left hand was the bathroom hand and touching another or gesturing with it was strictly forbidden.

Then we also consider the fact that Christ most often talked to the already downtrodden. One who was a lower class, a slave, or a woman could not hit someone above their station - to do so was most likely a death sentence. However, one of higher station could only hit someone below them by backhanding them. A straight slap or a punch was an admission that the other person was on equal standing - and could then fight back without fear of reprisal. Thus, if one can only backhand you with one hand, and you turn the other cheek - you have made it essentially impossible for them to hit you, but without doing anything to get yourself killed.

What did he really do anyway? It seems he merely wandered around and preached.

And preached ideas that were pretty new to that area. Tolerance, selflessness, empathy for others, passive resistance, etc.

He didn't rescue people from poverty, he didn't find cures for illnesses, he didn't bring peace to nations at war, he only preached. Lots of people preach. Why aren't they as highly regarded?

Many of them are. Let's look at modern day preachers who preached essentially the same message. The first that comes to mind is MLK Jr. Is he not highly regarded?

As depub will state this is one of the most misused statements in history

Hehe. Am I really that predictable?

To understand the context you have to understand that hitting in roman society with the left hand was “sinking” to their level … not only dishonoring you but letting them hit back

So turning the other cheek makes them hit you with their left hand rather then right … thus dishonoring them

Close, although hitting at all with the left hands was more than a dishonor - it was a punishable offense. It was hitting with a punch or slap (with the right hand) that would allow the other to hit back.

It is NOT an endorsement to passive resistance

Well, it is - but in a way that still causes you no harm. It is akin to a sit-in rather than blowing up a building that won't let you in.

As depub will state this is one of the most misused statements in history
To understand the context you have to understand that hitting in roman society with the left hand was “sinking” to their level … not only dishonoring you but letting them hit back

That is correct. I have a feeling it's the same idea with the "give to Caesar" verse, that it's also widely misused.

Wow, I never knew that. Thanks guys. :)

Hehe. Am I really that predictable?



Close, although hitting at all with the left hands was more than a dishonor - it was a punishable offense. It was hitting with a punch or slap (with the right hand) that would allow the other to hit back.



Well, it is - but in a way that still causes you no harm. It is akin to a sit-in rather than blowing up a building that won't let you in.
Ok fair enough :)

Though more like chaining yourself to a tree then a sit in

It would require the other to possibly commit a crime (harming you) with removal

Some of his ideas are just unworkable, like giving without counting the cost and not expecting anything in return. Also what's the deal with turning the other cheek? Does he really expect people not to defend themselves?
I know I do, so I consider that to be one of his brighter ideas. Negative emotions and violence only lead to more negative emotion and violence. What's the point in vengence, except a moment of gratification? It's not like it's justice.

When dealing with other humans, we can never know the consequences our actions will have on the future, and we will never get anything in return that matches our expectations, so why bother counting costs?

As depub will state this is one of the most misused statements in history
To understand the context you have to understand that hitting in roman society with the left hand was “sinking” to their level … not only dishonoring you but letting them hit back

So turning the other cheek makes them hit you with their left hand rather then right … thus dishonoring them

It is NOT an endorsement to passive resistance
Okay, but regardless of its origins or the validity of its source, it has become that. That is what it means today. Saying that the source of the trope is misunderstood does not invalidate the usefulness of the trope today.

I'm in the "not sure he even existed" camp. Well, not sure he existed as a single man, at least; he's probably an amalgam of several real and mythical figures who lived (or were believed by some to have lived, in the case of the mythical dudes :) ) at around the same time, give or take a few hundred years.

Seriously, I know this is controversial to some degree (and heresy to some!), but... the Bible ain't history (well, it figures prominently in history, but mostly the history AFTER it was written/edited/put through the ancient equivalent of a food shredder). And this holds even more for the first few chapters of the New Testament than for the Old.

Okay, but regardless of its origins or the validity of its source, it has become that. That is what it means today. Saying that the source of the trope is misunderstood does not invalidate the usefulness of the trope today.
No it does not invalidate it but when you are using a source that was supposedly designed correct in its original context … changing things means you no longer are following the will of the deity that originally inspired it

No it does not invalidate it but when you are using a source that was supposedly designed correct in its original context … changing things means you no longer are following the will of the deity that originally inspired it
...unless the change in meaning is also divinely inspired.

*not Christian or even religious*

Jesus was awesome. Even if no healing or miracles were performed, his messages were very advanced for his time and he spent his life trying to help people be happier.

Why do people dig Jesus, aside from their religion? The same reason people dig M.L.K., Jr: he got killed for what he said.

If you want to go down in history, say something remotely profound, then get executed.

...unless the change in meaning is also divinely inspired.

Yes, because using something that was meant to be a nonviolent form of resistance to send battered women home to get killed is inspired by any God I would follow.

Priests and preachers have been misusing that phrase for generations to send battered women home to get beaten and often killed.

The original use of the phrase should be enough for a pacifist. It essentially says "Find a way out of abuse that doesn't involve you getting violent."

Anyone who'd go through all that pain and torture to atone for peoples' sins is pretty cool in my book.

Indeed, though I don't really believe in the Bible, he does strike me as quite admirable in that sense, certainly a better rôle-model than many people alive today, certainly more so than the celebrities who wallow in obscene wealth while contributing nothing truly necessary to society, yet everyone loves, anyway.

I hate all forms of religion on principle, but if jesus was anything like people say, then he must have been a really nice guy.

And he died horribly. Leading me to believe that maybe being nice isn't such a great idea.

Indeed, though I don't really believe in the Bible, he does strike me as quite admirable in that sense, certainly a better rôle-model than many people alive today, certainly more so than the celebrities who wallow in obscene wealth while contributing nothing truly necessary to society, yet everyone loves, anyway.

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

John 15:13

...unless the change in meaning is also divinely inspired.
But like the new testament that would imply that the truth was not revealed in the original or god changed his or her mind
With an all knowing all powerful god he or she should have known the right path and not required a change

Otherwise the first was a fabrication to make it easier for us and now only moving towards the truth of the real intent … in that case god is guilty of trying to mislead his flock or not give the right direction to them to start with

In my case , despite being of agnostic belief, I do admire Jesus the man. If only because he stuck to what he said and did not waver, at least we are lead to thought. But it is on this type of notion that I also come to admire people such as Teddy Roosevelt or Alexander the Great, all people who were genuine in what they believed and followed through on what they said.

The original use of the phrase should be enough for a pacifist. It essentially says "Find a way out of abuse that doesn't involve you getting violent."
Hey, that is the meaning I was referring to. So it's meaning has not changed, after all.

Good to know.

In my case , despite being of agnostic belief, I do admire Jesus the man. If only because he stuck to what he said and did not waver, at least we are lead to thought. But it is on this type of notion that I also come to admire people such as Teddy Roosevelt or Alexander the Great, all people who were genuine in what they believed and followed through on what they said.

Argh. This annoys me. Someone evil who's killing thousands of people, do you admire them if they truly believe they are doing good and stick by their beliefs? The Ku Klux Klan; do you admire them for sticking by their beliefs? Serial murderers; do you admire them for continuing with their actions and not wavering? Someone who threatens to blow up a public shopping centre and carries it out; do you admire them for following through?

Simply believing in something, sticking to it and following it through is in no way enough to earn my respect or admiration. It has to be something worthwhile in the first place.

(This rant isn't really aimed at any individual, just the view in general)

Hey, that is the meaning I was referring to. So it's meaning has not changed, after all.

Good to know.

Ok then. But that doesn't equate to "don't defend yourself" which is what you replied to earlier. Getting out of an abusive situation - or preventing the abuse from happening is not the same as "not defending yourself", which would mean standing there and taking it (what most people think "turn the other cheek" means).

Jesus is good because Jesus Built My Hot Rod.

That is correct. I have a feeling it's the same idea with the "give to Caesar" verse, that it's also widely misused.
So perhaps it means something other than respect temporal authority? It seems to go along with what Jesus says to Pilate... can't remember the exact words and, upon further examination, it appears that I don't own a bible, but the gist of it is that he acknowledges Pilate's authority because he wouldn't have it if it was not granted to him from above.

This isn't meant as a flamebait topic. I just really want to know what Jesus did that makes him such a great man.

Some of his ideas are just unworkable, like giving without counting the cost and not expecting anything in return. Also what's the deal with turning the other cheek? Does he really expect people not to defend themselves?

What did he really do anyway? It seems he merely wandered around and preached. He didn't rescue people from poverty, he didn't find cures for illnesses, he didn't bring peace to nations at war, he only preached. Lots of people preach. Why aren't they as highly regarded?

I realize that some people think he's the son of god and god made human. I'm not addressing that. I'm just asking what makes him a great man.

If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you. Read the book and decide for yourself.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]<snip> I just really want to know what Jesus did that makes him such a great man. <snip>

he is one of three people that died and lived to tell about it.:D

As depub will state this is one of the most misused statements in history
To understand the context you have to understand that hitting in roman society with the left hand was “sinking” to their level … not only dishonoring you but letting them hit back

So turning the other cheek makes them hit you with their left hand rather then right … thus dishonoring them

It is NOT an endorsement to passive resistance

That is very interesting. I never heard that before. Thanks.

That is very interesting. I never heard that before. Thanks.

The other accompanying passages are the same. When Christ says to give your inner garment as well as your outer if sued for your outer garment - that does not shame the person who gets naked. Nudity in that culture was a shame to those who saw it, not the person who was nude. Thus, if you are sued for your outer garment (because you cannot pay a debt), and give your inner as well, you are shaming the person who sued you, the court, and everyone else present.

When Christ said to carry a soldier's backpack for 2 miles instead of 1, he was giving people a way to stop soldiers from asking for that damn quick. A Roman soldier was allowed to tell a common man to carry his pack for one and only one mile. Having them carry it any longer would put the soldier at an extreme risk of punishment. If people just started doing it, chances are that soldier would be scared enough not to force anyone else to carry his pack.

The one about walking two miles instead of one is like that, too.

A soldier in the Roman army had the right to tell any citizen of Rome (or territories/protectorates thereof) to carry his burden for one mile. If they made that person carry the load for any longer, they were in violation of Roman law and punishable.

Hence, if you get forced into the act of carrying the other man's burden, carry it too far and get him flogged by his Centurian.

EDIT: Grumble grumble, you beat me to it. :mad:

The other accompanying passages are the same. When Christ says to give your inner garment as well as your outer if sued for your outer garment - that does not shame the person who gets naked. Nudity in that culture was a shame to those who saw it, not the person who was nude. Thus, if you are sued for your outer garment (because you cannot pay a debt), and give your inner as well, you are shaming the person who sued you, the court, and everyone else present.

When Christ said to carry a soldier's backpack for 2 miles instead of 1, he was giving people a way to stop soldiers from asking for that damn quick. A Roman soldier was allowed to tell a common man to carry his pack for one and only one mile. Having them carry it any longer would put the soldier at an extreme risk of punishment. If people just started doing it, chances are that soldier would be scared enough not to force anyone else to carry his pack.

What the hell are you talking about?

What the hell are you talking about?
They are refuting a claim that scripture tells christians to be doormats

What the hell are you talking about?

I am talking about the "turn the other cheek" passage, and the rest of the passage (which most people forget).

Christ instructed someone who was hit on their right cheek to turn the left instead, someone who was sued for their outer garment to give their inner as well, and someone who was told by a Roman soldier to carry his pack for one mile to carry it for two.

What people today often don't realize, because the society is so different, is that all of these were calls to passive resistance - not to give in or allow yourself to be abused. They were simply ways to stop abuse, without personally getting violent or breaking the law.

Somewhere along the line it seems, some people made a leap from worshipping God to worshipping Jesus as a God. Why'd that happen?

Beats the hell outta me, though I suspect it's partly due to there being ample depictions of Christ, while there are no depictions of the Christian God.

People love their Idols. And some things just don't change.

This isn't meant as a flamebait topic. I just really want to know what Jesus did that makes him such a great man.

Some of his ideas are just unworkable, like giving without counting the cost and not expecting anything in return. Also what's the deal with turning the other cheek? Does he really expect people not to defend themselves?

What did he really do anyway? It seems he merely wandered around and preached. He didn't rescue people from poverty, he didn't find cures for illnesses, he didn't bring peace to nations at war, he only preached. Lots of people preach. Why aren't they as highly regarded?

I realize that some people think he's the son of god and god made human. I'm not addressing that. I'm just asking what makes him a great man.

I see no reason why being giving to a high degree is "unworkable." It is a pillar of goodness, and one of the foundations of a moral life in almost all philosophies and all religons. Perhaps in todays society where even people's lives have a monetary value attached, one might see it as "unworkable." But I contest that if everyone followed the example of the moral greats - Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, and others - and gave freely to freinds, family and the needy without tabulating the cost of everything and demanding recompense, the world would be a much kinder place, with less suffering, less theft and less hostility overall.

And yes, Jesus, along with Buddha, Gandhi and countless other philosophers and religious, moral men, did expect one not to defend oneself. The call was to be peaceful, even in the face of agression, to not do evil, even when faced with evil. To be willing to value other's lives as highly as your own, and therefore not strike back when struck. A call that is contrary to humanity's vindictive and violent nature, but once again, a philosophy that if adopted by all would take us ten steps towards utopia, by ending all violence and war.

As to why he is seen as a good man, mostly it has to do with his claim to be the Son of God, and his promise to save humanity, which Chirstians believe he carried through on by being Cruxified. Also, his philosophy for life is seen as the right path by many, and even respected by non-Christians. As to him just wandering around and preaching, well sometimes mankind needs teachers to show new philosophies and ways of life. Not everyone's calling is to cure a disease or end a war, some are called to teach a new way of life, to spread a new idea. One is reminded of not only the moral philosophers, but those we value so highy that we base our societies on - the political philosophers, Locke, Franklin, Adams, Rousseau, Marx, Jefferson, Hamilton, Smith, etc. They may not have ended a war, or directly fought poverty, but they all had profound and usually positive effects on the world, and should not be discounted because all they did was preach something new. I would be proud of myself if I was able to preach and spread a profound new idea.

Hope that helps a little.

Maybe going a bit off topic but a cool (at least i think so) point of interest is that Christianity is the only religion where a person can be saved without haveing to do anything themselves, all the other religions,buddism,muslim,judism, have a person becoming saved by what they do. Whereas Christianity has a person being saved by faith alone.

Maybe going a bit off topic but a cool (at least i think so) point of interest is that Christianity is the only religion where a person can be saved without haveing to do anything themselves, all the other religions,buddism,muslim,judism, have a person becoming saved by what they do. Whereas Christianity has a person being saved by faith alone.
So essentially making it so that they don’t have to work and be a good person as long as they are truly sorry for what they did before they die and accept god

Bah seems like a way to shirk responsibility for themselves

This isn't meant as a flamebait topic. I just really want to know what Jesus did that makes him such a great man.

Some of his ideas are just unworkable, like giving without counting the cost and not expecting anything in return. Also what's the deal with turning the other cheek? Does he really expect people not to defend themselves?

What did he really do anyway? It seems he merely wandered around and preached. He didn't rescue people from poverty, he didn't find cures for illnesses, he didn't bring peace to nations at war, he only preached. Lots of people preach. Why aren't they as highly regarded?

I realize that some people think he's the son of god and god made human. I'm not addressing that. I'm just asking what makes him a great man.

1) His sycophants said he did some good stuff.

2) Since his ONLY reporters were his mates, none of his bad stuff got recorded.

3) He's dead now... it's easier to be regarded as 'good' when you aren't open to scrutiny.

And yes, Jesus, along with Buddha, Gandhi and countless other philosophers and religious, moral men, did expect one not to defend oneself. The call was to be peaceful, even in the face of agression, to not do evil, even when faced with evil. To be willing to value other's lives as highly as your own, and therefore not strike back when struck. A call that is contrary to humanity's vindictive and violent nature, but once again, a philosophy that if adopted by all would take us ten steps towards utopia, by ending all violence and war.

Actually, none of these teachers said that you should not defend yourself. They said that you should be nonviolent.

There is a difference.

Maybe going a bit off topic but a cool (at least i think so) point of interest is that Christianity is the only religion where a person can be saved without haveing to do anything themselves, all the other religions,buddism,muslim,judism, have a person becoming saved by what they do. Whereas Christianity has a person being saved by faith alone.

Actually, that's not entirely true, especially not within Catholicism. (One of the original differences between the Catholic and Protestant faiths was their disagreement on the relative importance of faith and works.) See, for example, James 2:24 ("A man is justified by works and not by faith only.") and 2:26. ("For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.")

Now, back to the original topic - I'm not Christian myself, but I respect Jesus as a moral philosopher and a basically good guy, which by all accounts he was. There's an awful lot of good stuff in his teachings that's still extremely applicable today. Unfortunately, a great deal of it is misinterpreted, as others have pointed out, but there's still a fair amount of useful teaching to be extracted from the New Testament, even for us non-believers.