Deriving a moral philosophy from Jesus.

[steve_bank]

It is the Chinese menu approach to both theism and philosophy here.

Pick one from column A and one from column B. Today's special is stone homosexuals.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well the main thing is that at least we now know that god was not held by the writers of the NT to be the source of suffering as a result of the judgement that never happened. So I guess the thread hasn’t been a complete waste of time.

 

[Treedbear]

Well the main thing is that at least we now know that god was not held by the writers of the NT to be the source of suffering as a result of the judgement that never happened. So I guess the thread hasn’t been a complete waste of time.

How do you mean? "The wages of sin is [still] death." Those who lack faith in Jesus will still experience suffering. You have to believe and you need to "want to do it".

 

[ronburgundy]

In my opinion, if one is looking for sources for stuff from which to construct a personal moral philosophy, Jesus, or words attributed to him, is/are one good source. Obviously, it isn't necessary to take the whole job lot, but that's probably true of any source.

Something similar could be said about taking stuff from the bible in general.

But if your cherry picking, then you aren't actually taking anything from it at all. You have to already have a moral philosophy to determine what parts you're going to cherry pick. So, then Jesus and the NT aren't actually a "source" but merely serving as something to dishonestly quote that agrees with what you already think anyways.

I say "dishonestly quote", b/c honest quoting requires acknowledging any other Biblical quotes that are relevant to that issue, and almost everything Jesus said is contradicted by something else he said. That is especially true since Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"

IOW, Jesus said that everything that in Hebrew law and the OT that was said before him is the law and still applies. So, all the ugliest genocidal intolerance of the OT are included in the "moral philosophy" of Jesus.

 

[steve_bank]

I think we all cherry pick in some ways.

As to wages of sin, it makes sense if you are talking about the human spirit. In a secular sense sin is what corrupts your spirit. Alcohol and drug addiction. Excessive sex to the point it drives your life. Being driven by acquisition of goods.

Trump a prime example. I doubt he has ever had a moment of peace or joy in his life. Despite wealth and fame an unhappy person angry at others all the time, not jus as president.

Giving love is the opposite of anger, Christian wise. If only they actually practiced it.

 

[Politesse]

In my opinion, if one is looking for sources for stuff from which to construct a personal moral philosophy, Jesus, or words attributed to him, is/are one good source. Obviously, it isn't necessary to take the whole job lot, but that's probably true of any source.

Something similar could be said about taking stuff from the bible in general.

But if your cherry picking, then you aren't actually taking anything from it at all. You have to already have a moral philosophy to determine what parts you're going to cherry pick. So, then Jesus and the NT aren't actually a "source" but merely serving as something to dishonestly quote that agrees with what you already think anyways.

I say "dishonestly quote", b/c honest quoting requires acknowledging any other Biblical quotes that are relevant to that issue, and almost everything Jesus said is contradicted by something else he said. That is especially true since Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"

IOW, Jesus said that everything that in Hebrew law and the OT that was said before him is the law and still applies. So, all the ugliest genocidal intolerance of the OT are included in the "moral philosophy" of Jesus.

Then there is no such thing as a moral philosophy. I've never met someone who derives their moral perspective entirely and only from a single source, within which they preference no particular element. There are no Christians, certainly, but also no utilitarians, no deontologists, no virtue ethicists, nor any other defined moral perspective. Anyone who quotes Mills is a liar, because they don't believe everything Mills did. Virtue ethicists are hypocrites who accept Aristotles' moral philosophy when it suits them but heinously reject geocentrism, which is also contained in his work.

Your black and white definition of what constitutes cherry picking may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't describe the real world very well, a world in which people are always negotiating a complex array of cultural and intellectual influences. Even if they come to prefer one school over another, that will never be absolute or all-encompassing, nor should we expect it to be. People are thinking organisms, not automatons. I note that your approach would lead to getting extremely sick if you actually picking cherries, and per your instructions insisting on eating exclusively cherries and every cherry, regardless of its degree of ripeness, health, moldiness, etc.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well the main thing is that at least we now know that god was not held by the writers of the NT to be the source of suffering as a result of the judgement that never happened. So I guess the thread hasn’t been a complete waste of time.

How do you mean? "The wages of sin is [still] death." Those who lack faith in Jesus will still experience suffering. You have to believe and you need to "want to do it".

I was being completely ironic.

 

[ruby sparks]

whoops

 

[ruby sparks]

In my opinion, if one is looking for sources for stuff from which to construct a personal moral philosophy, Jesus, or words attributed to him, is/are one good source. Obviously, it isn't necessary to take the whole job lot, but that's probably true of any source.

Something similar could be said about taking stuff from the bible in general.

But if your cherry picking, then you aren't actually taking anything from it at all. You have to already have a moral philosophy to determine what parts you're going to cherry pick. So, then Jesus and the NT aren't actually a "source" but merely serving as something to dishonestly quote that agrees with what you already think anyways.

I agree with you generally, of course. My only caveat might be a bit pedantic, that I'm not sure, regarding the first bit of what you said in the above quote, that you do already have to have a moral philosophy ready, as it were, for what someone says (or bits of what someone says in the case of cherry-picking) to slot into that.

In other words, while it might be true to say that you tend to take the bits that fit with what you already think (which is the other way you put it at the end of the above quote) there might be new bits which might expand, and even perhaps modify, what you already think.

I think I'm still ok with what I said, because what I said and what you said do not contradict each other, even if you are right. Which I think you broadly are, with the above pedantic caveat.

What I mean is, even if you were, in the extreme case, deliberately looking only for stuff that fits with what you already think, you might still need outside sources for that. Fresh meat, as it were, or at least a few new recipes.

 

[steve_bank]

Well the main thing is that at least we now know that god was not held by the writers of the NT to be the source of suffering as a result of the judgement that never happened. So I guess the thread hasn’t been a complete waste of time.

How do you mean? "The wages of sin is [still] death." Those who lack faith in Jesus will still experience suffering. You have to believe and you need to "want to do it".

I was being completely ironic.

Ironic is good.

 

[DBT]

The bible as a selected collection of works represents a world view and a moral philosophy. It's unfortunate that it tends to be contradictory on both counts.

 

[ruby sparks]

The bible as a selected collection of works represents a world view and a moral philosophy. It's unfortunate that it tends to be contradictory on both counts.

I agree. It seems exceptionally contradictory.

Which makes me want to ask, is that true, or as true, of other religions?

Islam I’m guessing yes.

Judaism also yes, even if not so much (the two extremes don’t seem so far apart).

Buddhism? Hinduism? Taoism? Etc.

I don’t know any of them well enough, but my uninformed guess would be....not as contradictory?

Again we might have to say ‘seems contradictory to us’. The bible content may not have seemed contradictory at all to the audience at the time of writing. Love and punishment may have been seen as a natural combination.

Though even as I write that I’m thinking....forgiveness; they knew about and valued that.

So maybe I should not cut them so much slack.

 

[DBT]

Also a matter of how the ancients viewed others, self and other, where the law of god/the prophets applied to Hebrews but not to other tribes, so it was not moral to enslave or kill a fellow Hebrew but perfectly fine with ammalekites or those who are 'others.'

 

[ruby sparks]

Also a matter of how the ancients viewed others, self and other, where the law of god/the prophets applied to Hebrews but not to other tribes, so it was not moral to enslave or kill a fellow Hebrew but perfectly fine with ammalekites or those who are 'others.'

Indeed. 'Thou shall not kill' really only seems to have meant 'thou shall not kill members of thine own ingroup, but thou can kill outgroup members'.

I do hate to invoke Godwin's Law....and I know it's not the equivalent, but...is it really so different from the Nazi approach to Jews?



Any minute now, an apologist may be in to tell us we've got it all wrong. Possibly even that god was never seen as condoning killing anyone, that it was all just very weird use of allegory, that was really about ..........something other than killing.

I'm not talking about Lion IRC. I think he runs with all the killing shit and punishment stuff in the texts, vis-a-vis it meaning what it says on the tin. The criterion seems to be whether it's in there, or not. If it's in there, he runs with it. I think we can at least admire the clarity and simplicity of that approach.

 

[DBT]

It's all about Love, I tell ya. The God of Love and Tender Mercy.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes.
That's His offer. That's what He would prefer.
But if you think that means...
a parent who lets their child do whatever they want, a police officer who looks the other way
when a bank is getting robbed, and a judge who never finds anyone guilty
...then you're creating an imaginary god to your own liking.

 

[steve_bank]

The OP is about deriving a working philosophy from the gispel sound bites of Jesus.

I have met very few Christians who actually practice a universal morality, outside their own circle.

If ou are Christian how do you lve yur life in accordance with the sayings? Beyona simplistic god is love.

How does the sayings guide your speech thought, and actions. Specifics.

 

[DBT]

Yes.
That's His offer. That's what He would prefer.
But if you think that means...
a parent who lets their child do whatever they want, a police officer who looks the other way
when a bank is getting robbed, and a judge who never finds anyone guilty
...then you're creating an imaginary god to your own liking.

Well, that wasn't quite what I was thinking. What you say here ignores bible verses that paint a different picture of God.

 

[Politesse]

Yes.
That's His offer. That's what He would prefer.
But if you think that means...
a parent who lets their child do whatever they want, a police officer who looks the other way
when a bank is getting robbed, and a judge who never finds anyone guilty
...then you're creating an imaginary god to your own liking.

I don't believe in parents who do whatever they want. I do believe in parents who use other means than torture to influence their childrens' behsvior though.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes.
That's His offer. That's what He would prefer.
But if you think that means...
a parent who lets their child do whatever they want, a police officer who looks the other way
when a bank is getting robbed, and a judge who never finds anyone guilty
...then you're creating an imaginary god to your own liking.

No one is saying there should be no consequences for wrong behaviour.

But if a parent punished a child for not loving or worshipping the parent, that could be considered abuse.

And if the punishment involved eternal suffering, without the possibility of remission after the punishment is handed out, that would be out of proportion and would therefore be unnecessary, cruel and excessive.

Lion, I know you’re a good person, so why do you accept such things? The morality of the bible is clearly that of the writers, that is why it includes other stuff you presumably would not endorse, such as slavery, running swords through the bellies of pregnant women, or even just considering homosexuality a hateful abomination. You don’t believe those are ok just because they’re in the bible, do you? I hope not.