NationStates Jolt Archive

This can be considered the unauthorized sequel to the thread that asks whether or not Jesus actually existed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783).
For the sake of this thread, assume he did, or at least, there was a preacher going around Galilee in the earlier 1st century who said what the Bible records Jesus as saying. Now that we've covered our bases, does anyone actually disagree with the moral teachings of Jesus/pseudo-Jesus/collection of random Jews whose words got recorded as being from one person? Assume Jesus was literal about everything he said, except when it is obviously an analogy (such as all of the parables) or a figure of speech (such as the camel going through the eye of a needle). I ask because, while plenty of people have a beef with Christianity, I've never really seen anyone attack Jesus (except of course for the people who crucified him).

i can't remember all his babblings. i'm sure i disagree with many though.

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

ridiculous

ridiculous

Yeah, but Jesus didn't say that see, people only put that in later when they revised his sayings to fit their cultural agenda.

I only believe he said what I believe he said, it's called faith or discernment or whatever.

This game's too easy - I'm just pissed we're still talking about it 2, 000 years later

This can be considered the unauthorized sequel to the thread that asks whether or not Jesus actually existed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783).
For the sake of this thread, assume he did, or at least, there was a preacher going around Galilee in the earlier 1st century who said what the Bible records Jesus as saying. Now that we've covered our bases, does anyone actually disagree with the moral teachings of Jesus/pseudo-Jesus/collection of random Jews whose words got recorded as being from one person? Assume Jesus was literal about everything he said, except when it is obviously an analogy (such as all of the parables) or a figure of speech (such as the camel going through the eye of a needle). I ask because, while plenty of people have a beef with Christianity, I've never really seen anyone attack Jesus (except of course for the people who crucified him).
There's good and there's bad. Perhaps just a few contradictions.
My beef is the whole "cursing the fig tree" bullshit.

If it contradicts what is being pushed forward, it gets ignored. If not, it gets trumpeted, praised, and reinterpreted to make it look even better.

... So, pretty much the same thing that's been going on for as long as humans have been quoting other humans.

As for what was actually said or not said, apathy is my only recourse. The very fact that Jesus' existence is in question makes what he said irrelevant until it was actually proven he existed, if at all. Otherwise, the quotations are worthless. Because of this, I can't summon up the energy to care about what specifically was said until it can be confirmed he actually did exist.

I can't summon up the energy to care about what specifically was said until it can be confirmed he actually did exist.
...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock... ... .. . :(

...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock... ... .. . :(

I know. You can cry on my shoulder if it'll help.

The very fact that Jesus' existence is in question makes what he said irrelevant until it was actually proven he existed, if at all. Otherwise, the quotations are worthless.

only if ethics requires divine command. otherwise, the words rise or fall all on their own, regardless of origin.

I know. You can cry on my shoulder if it'll help.

*snort*
Wahhhhhhhh!
*blows nose accidentally*
...sorry...

only if ethics requires divine command. otherwise, the words rise or fall all on their own, regardless of origin.

I find the opposite true. Ethics requires you lack divine command or belief, most of the time. It always seems like it's those who do believe that want people smitten or struck down, in my experience. Oh well.

*snort*
Wahhhhhhhh!
*blows nose accidentally*
...sorry...

That's why I have detachable shoulder pads that go over my shoulders, for just such an occasion. Makes them very comfy, too. :p

*replaces* No hard feelings.

ridiculous

One could argue that, at the time, divorce was only to the advantage of the man, and left the woman without hope in the world. So a call to remain married was to protect women from exploitation by unscrupulous husbands.

I'm pretty sure he also said that insulting someone was hell-worthy. Or something. In the Beatitudes where he's talking about plucking out eyes and such. anyway, I don't think there are any cultural circumstances that would justify such an assertion.

Assume Jesus was literal about everything he said, except when it is obviously an analogy (such as all of the parables) or a figure of speech (such as the camel going through the eye of a needle).

The camel wasn't a camel. Lectione difficiliore, a "kamelos" is a thick rope used to tether ships (see any good dictionary of ancient greek)... this way it makes more sense, doesn't it?

I ask because, while plenty of people have a beef with Christianity, I've never really seen anyone attack Jesus (except of course for the people who crucified him).

That's because:
1)what Jesus said is (mostly, at least in the most important parts of it) ok and basically good.
2)after 1700 years of christian-based culture, it's difficult for any westerner to go against the sayings of Jesus (or of the Jesii, q.v on Uncyclopedia, ehe!), they're part of the foundations of our culture, together with Roman law and Greek philosophy.

I find the opposite true. Ethics requires you lack divine command or belief, most of the time. It always seems like it's those who do believe that want people smitten or struck down, in my experience. Oh well.

QFT.

Now that we've covered our bases, does anyone actually disagree with the moral teachings of Jesus/pseudo-Jesus/collection of random Jews whose words got recorded as being from one person?

I do not know. Just like his supposed daddy Jesus somewhat failed to supply consistent underlying reasoning for his words and preferred examples and general statements with some exceptions specifically mentioned.

That is also one of the reasons opinions on what he actually meant vary so wildly. As such I can not judge if his statements in total are good, somewhat flawed or bad. That I do not see consistency does not mean it is not there, but that of course in practice makes little difference.
His moral guide is however definitely incomplete.

I don't know what Jesus said literally, but I disagree with much of christian morality, although I assume most of it isn't based on what jesus supposedly said.

One could argue that, at the time, divorce was only to the advantage of the man, and left the woman without hope in the world. So a call to remain married was to protect women from exploitation by unscrupulous husbands.

even with that being the case, wouldn't the right thing to say be "fuck the patriarchy", rather than "you must remain married forever"?

I find the opposite true. Ethics requires you lack divine command or belief, most of the time.

well then, why are the quotes 'worthless'?

The camel wasn't a camel. Lectione difficiliore, a "kamelos" is a thick rope used to tether ships (see any good dictionary of ancient greek)... this way it makes more sense, doesn't it?

except that the talmud makes use of the same saying, only changes the camel for an elephant. its just a bit of hyperbolic ridiculousness.

except that the talmud makes use of the same saying, only changes the camel for an elephant. its just a bit of hyperbolic ridiculousness.

could you point me to the source?

Anyway, iirc the bit about the kamelos is John, and the original is in greek. The classical ancient greek-italian dictionary (Rocci) reports "kamelos" as "thick rope (etc)" also in other (and older) texts, so maybe Jesus, or John, saw the idiocy of such hyperbole and changed that to something with a bit more sense. (why the hell should a blood camel try to pass through a needle?)

OK, I'll accept the premise as is. Clearly somebody was preaching the words of Jesus, anyway, even if their name(s) may not have been Jesus and they, perhaps, never met Pilate.

What you find over the whole corpus of the gospels is a mishmash. Jesus is absolutely anti-authoritarian towards the Pharisees. He denounces organized religion and prayer in public. He supports taxation by the occupying romans. He says that the "Kingdom of God" is at hand, which sounds pretty radical. He calls for devoted service to others, sell all you have and give to the poor. He calls for compliance to the simpler moral callings, golden rule, good samaritan, love god and love your neighbor as yourself. He calls for his disciple to follow him, which can be interpretted many ways. Most of this is good, some is unattainable, some is utopian, some is revolutionary. Its hard to be too critical, since there is a lack of a succinct message.

What one doesn't find is Jesus calling people to form politicized beauracracies to generate revenue by running a club where people can dress up, attend services, listen to a sermon, pay an offering, and go home in the name of worshipping him. Thus, albeit I don't take issue with Jesus' teachings, I would be interested in hearing if anyone is actually trying to put his program into practice as described in the gospels. I suppose these would be the near-homeless hero types like Spiderman, that are all too uncommon. But, as much as western thought is derived from "Christianity" and America is a "Christian Nation", our society doesn't seem to be implementing the program of Jesus of Nazareth.

could you point me to the source?

Anyway, iirc the bit about the kamelos is John, and the original is in greek. The classical ancient greek-italian dictionary (Rocci) reports "kamelos" as "thick rope (etc)" also in other (and older) texts, so maybe Jesus, or John, saw the idiocy of such hyperbole and changed that to something with a bit more sense. (why the hell should a blood camel try to pass through a needle?)

I think the exact object that is trying to pass through the needle is besides the point, so long as the object is unlikely to pass easily through said eye of the needle.

However, the message is also widely misunderstood anyway - Jesus is not implying that you can't go to heaven if you are rich.

could you point me to the source?

http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_55.html#PARTb
bottom of the text

(why the hell should a blood camel try to pass through a needle?)Gotta be a sex thing.
Gotta.

even with that being the case, wouldn't the right thing to say be "fuck the patriarchy", rather than "you must remain married forever"?

This is the guy who thought he was the prince of all creation. He was an essential part of the patriarchy, at least in his mind.

In a more serious response, I have to say that losing patriarchy in bronze-age Israel was probably completely inconceivable, even to someone as interested as breaking the rules as Jesus.

I respect the majority of Christ's teachings immensely...which is why I am not a christian.

I belive that some things were said literally, and others, figurativly. You have to know the difference!

You have to know the difference!
And that takes experience.
So, any takers for OT incidences, willing to find out what's figurative and what's literal?
http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0515/4490722_200X150.jpg