Deriving a moral philosophy from Jesus.

[Lion IRC]

You left out the bit where Jesus also scolded them for not understanding the law.

John 5:45 "Your accuser is Moses..."
Matthew 22:29 "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God..."
Luke 16:31 "...if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"
John 3:10 "You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and you do not understand these things?…"
John 9:28 "And they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses."

The laws of the prophets are there for anyone to see and read. We can read what the laws say.

Are you saying that the laws as they are written and expressed are somehow so esoteric that it takes a special kind of mind to perceive their meaning?

You say that like a person whose never seen lawyers arguing over what the Constitution (the law) says.

Does it take a special kind of mind to perceive the meaning of the word marriage?

As president, Bill Clinton, signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law. Later, he got woke and admitted/claimed that he didn't really think DOMA was constitutional. But there's nothing esoteric about the Presidential oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

 

[steve_bank]

The key word is interpretation. Vert few qutes are attributed to Gesus. Post Reformation nay one could read and interpet the bible for themselves. One did not need a pope or preist as intermediaries betyween you and god.

Result, a vast array of varying interpretations. It does not take a special mind to interpret scripture. Everyday Christians have been doing it for centuries. One hers god speaking in various forms. I know a woman in my building who constantly heras gad in her head. Heard on a Christian radio show recently. Hearing a voice but no audio. Common for Christians.

The gospels provide no clear structured set of practices and beliefs, contrasted to say Buddhism which Buddha left with a clear set of principles and practices. Asa result Christians shoehorn every issue into a biblical interpretation. If you are a Catholic the pope and Vatican tells you what god wants.

With protestant Christians every church and minister can have their own interpretation. I grew up Catholic not knowing much about Christianity in general. In the 80s a Baptist from a small independent church told me that his church wqs looking for a new minister. I was surprised that they published want ads with qualification lokking for somebody with a particular view and interpretation.

As past Catholic that surprised me, the RCC says where people go.

And as I like to repeat, according to the gospels Jesus was a recognized rabbi speaking in temples. He was Jewish and was not creating a new theology. It was Paul's interpterion, who never knew Jesus, that became modern Christianity. He got rid of dietary requirements and circumcision as a requirement.

The only consistent theme from the gospels is the Sermon On The Mount.

 

[steve_bank]

Its invention to you because you do not agree with the theology or rather the theists interpretation, when you have your own. Both worth discussing or debating anyway (which we sort of are).

Why has no meaning unless you live by the sayings of Jesus.

Saying you are imperfect is an old excuse.

Top sentence I would agree here, in context to luke warm.

And the old "excuse" IS a biblical saying, i.e. no-one is perfect.

It is invention because it is not explicate in the gospels. It is you speaking, or god speaking through you. That sums up Christianity post Reformation.

 

[Treedbear]

...
The only consistent theme from the gospels is the Sermon On The Mount.

And are moral teachings are found in the Sermon on the Mount?

 

[steve_bank]

...
The only consistent theme from the gospels is the Sermon On The Mount.

And are moral teachings are found in the Sermon on the Mount?

See the post on sayings of Jesus.

 

[DBT]

You left out the bit where Jesus also scolded them for not understanding the law.

John 5:45 "Your accuser is Moses..."
Matthew 22:29 "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God..."
Luke 16:31 "...if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"
John 3:10 "You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and you do not understand these things?…"
John 9:28 "And they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses."

The laws of the prophets are there for anyone to see and read. We can read what the laws say.

Are you saying that the laws as they are written and expressed are somehow so esoteric that it takes a special kind of mind to perceive their meaning?

No, it means that they govern reality, which is complicated, and Jesus disdained those who sought easy answers through legalism and hypocritical judgement of the faults of others. It doesn't take a special mind but it does take mindfulness.

It's not that complicated. We know about about the letter and spirit of the law, but that doesn't alter the essential nature mosaic law or that the words attributed to Jesus have him say that he has not come to abolish the law.

Which was the point regardless of what the letter or spirit of the law happens to be. The letter and spirit of the law is a different issue.

Nor, for that matter, does the letter and spirit of the law principle transform a harsh and unjust law into something opposite.

 

[DBT]

You left out the bit where Jesus also scolded them for not understanding the law.

John 5:45 "Your accuser is Moses..."
Matthew 22:29 "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God..."
Luke 16:31 "...if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"
John 3:10 "You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and you do not understand these things?…"
John 9:28 "And they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses."

The laws of the prophets are there for anyone to see and read. We can read what the laws say.

Are you saying that the laws as they are written and expressed are somehow so esoteric that it takes a special kind of mind to perceive their meaning?

You say that like a person whose never seen lawyers arguing over what the Constitution (the law) says.

Does it take a special kind of mind to perceive the meaning of the word marriage?

As president, Bill Clinton, signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law. Later, he got woke and admitted/claimed that he didn't really think DOMA was constitutional. But there's nothing esoteric about the Presidential oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

I was aking you what you meant by understanding of the law and how that relates to the law as it is written, and more to the point, how it relates to the words attributed to Jesus that have him say that he came to uphold the law of the prophets.

 

[Politesse]

No, it means that they govern reality, which is complicated, and Jesus disdained those who sought easy answers through legalism and hypocritical judgement of the faults of others. It doesn't take a special mind but it does take mindfulness.

It's not that complicated. We know about about the letter and spirit of the law, but that doesn't alter the essential nature mosaic law or that the words attributed to Jesus have him say that he has not come to abolish the law.

Which was the point regardless of what the letter or spirit of the law happens to be. The letter and spirit of the law is a different issue.

Nor, for that matter, does the letter and spirit of the law principle transform a harsh and unjust law into something opposite.

Okay pastor.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

My issue is your indication that you can cherry pick what parts of the Bible or Jesus's words you "take", and those words then are "the source" you used to "construct" your morality. Your morality is what guides the selection process to begin with. It doesn't mean you have already consciously thought of that exact wording or scenario. It means those words appeal to your pre-existing preferences and preferences are the foundation of all morality. What you are selecting is basically ways to express the moral preferences you had. If you select a slightly under-ripe cherry because you prefer tart over highly sweet, then the cherry you know have is not a source but a byproduct and example of your preferences.

If I accept the Bible as a whole and commit myself to accepting it's ethical contents no matter how much I like what a particular part of it says, then am I actually allowing the Bible and Jesus' words in it to be the "source" of my morals. The only way to use only some parts of the Bible as the "source" of one's preferences is to select parts complete at random without any pre-existing internal criteria or emotions coming into play (which no one does).

Note that this is particular to using parts of a text as a the source of morals and other evaluative preferences, and doesn't apply to sources of information and knowledge. That b/c morals are themselves subjective preference for one idea over another. Thus, the preference-based selection of moral ideas from the texts means the text was not the source of the moral preferences. However, preferences and knowledge are different things. One can use one's preferences to select types of information from a source and that information or knowledge is gained from that source. For example, I can read the Bible and gain knowledge about the story of Lot, and thus the book was the source of my acquired awareness of that story. But if I choose to selectively accept that story and not others as a moral lesson, then the book wasn't the source of my moral preferences, just a source of knowledge of a story that I use to exemplify my morals.

Maybe.

I think you might be assuming a condition I am going to call 'prior, fully-formed morality', and I'm not sure anyone has this. I'm not even sure anyone has 'prior, fully-formed moral preferences' (which would I think be a lower bar). I would doubt, for example, that a child reading the bible had either of those (you might disagree regarding moral preferences) and I am equally not sure that there is a point at which anyone reaches 'fully-formed' (morality, or even just moral preferences) at any age, not least because preferences themselves may change over time and are not set in concrete.

But, in any case, I would say again, and to continue with the building construction metaphor, even if you are merely pouring the concrete of Jesus' words (as reported) into an already-made mould, using a sieve that only allows 'words that will suit the mould' to pass through it, then you are, I think, still using some of Jesus' words (as reported) to construct your morality.

I may be being pedantic, because I do see your point. But I don't think I'm being too pedantic.

 

[DBT]

No, it means that they govern reality, which is complicated, and Jesus disdained those who sought easy answers through legalism and hypocritical judgement of the faults of others. It doesn't take a special mind but it does take mindfulness.

It's not that complicated. We know about about the letter and spirit of the law, but that doesn't alter the essential nature mosaic law or that the words attributed to Jesus have him say that he has not come to abolish the law.

Which was the point regardless of what the letter or spirit of the law happens to be. The letter and spirit of the law is a different issue.

Nor, for that matter, does the letter and spirit of the law principle transform a harsh and unjust law into something opposite.

Okay pastor.

Are you suggesting that the spirit of the law can radically transform the letter of the law? I am asking in order to understand what you are getting at.

 

[steve_bank]

Stoning to death for adultery or homosexuality, the lteer or te sprit prevails for the ancient Hebrews? Christians freely interpret meaning and application as they choose.

Someone posted a while back that after the fall of Isela to Rome at some point the diaspora Jews eliminated the harsh punishments. There are u8ltra orthodox Jews in NYC and modern Israel act in someways like the conservative Muslims. Segregation of men and women socially. Prescribed clothes for women.

The ol;d Christian response is that Jews missed the boat by rejecting Jesus. Over the past few decades there has been some reproachment, but mostly relating to modern Christian prophesy. Something about the temple being rebuilt and restoration of sacrifice.

 

[ruby sparks]

On the BBC News last night there was an item about a court case in England involving the parents of a young man who drank too much and also generally wouldn't do what they told him, to so they took him to their church elders and the elders stoned him to death. Luckily for them, the judge was a Christian, so everyone involved got off on the basis that they were only obeying god's law as set out in the Book of Deuteronomy.

 

[DBT]

Apparenty it is the spirit of the law that counts....

 

[ruby sparks]

Apparenty it is the spirit of the law that counts....

I think the son had also said the word Jehovah, and also he had collected firewood on the sabbath, so he was just making it worse for himself.

 

[DBT]

As good as signed his own death warrant, no doubt.

 

[ruby sparks]

And of his own free will too.

 

[ruby sparks]

Next up, apparently, is a case involving dashing little children to pieces and ripping open the bellies of pregnant women. I read that prosecutors at the International Court of Justice are not confident of being able to secure a conviction in light of some recent decisions by Christian judges and juries.

 

[DBT]

I'm sure that the spirit of the law will prevail and justice will be done. How, with the laws of God, could it be otherwise ....

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm sure that the spirit of the law will prevail and justice will be done. How, with the laws of God, could it be otherwise ....

Some of the rules only applied to believers at that time, and others still apply today.

The full process of discerning which are which is set out in a detailed sequence here:

Show

Leave out the ones you don't like.

 

[Treedbear]

...
The only consistent theme from the gospels is the Sermon On The Mount.

And are moral teachings are found in the Sermon on the Mount?

See the post on sayings of Jesus.

OK. Post #29:

The Beatitudes
...
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

These are simply platitudes, not a code for how to live a good life. Or else promises of a reward in the life-hereafter. But that's another argument entirely.

A platitude is a trite, meaningless, or prosaic statement, often used as a thought-terminating cliché, aimed at quelling social, emotional, or cognitive unease.

Platitudes have been criticized as giving a false impression of wisdom, making it easy to accept falsehoods:

A platitude is even worse than a cliché. It’s a sanctimonious cliché, a statement that is not only old and overused but often moralistic and imperious. ... [P]latitudes have an aphoristic quality, they seem like timeless moral lessons. They therefore shape our view of the world, and can lull us into accepting things that are actually false and foolish.

Platitudes often take the form of tautologies, e.g., "it is what it is", making them appear vacuously true. But the phrase is used to mean "there is no way of changing it", which is no longer a tautology: "Structuring the sentiment as a tautology allows it to appear inescapable."

Perhaps the advice to act mercifully as the default position is worthwhile in most day-to-day situations. But it still needs to be justified by some other moral principles.

Salt and Light
13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.
14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

This seems to have different interpretations, but my take is that Jesus is specifically addressing the Jews of Israel as the chosen people and making the case that as such they should express pride in themselves and their works. No universal moral codes here.

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
...

More promises of rewards in heaven.

Anger
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

Good advice: Don't be angry with someone else when you are the one who deserves the blame. Why? Because dickheads get their pants sued off and burn in hell! Questionable advice: Never get angry with someone or call them a fool no matter how foolish they are.

Lust
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Words to live by when confined to a cave on a mountain in Tibet. For the rest of us it means a life of self-flagellation and guilt.

Divorce
31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The worst a woman can possibly be is an adulterer. Men apparently get a pass.

The rest of the verses have minimal moral advice, otherwise very limited as to when and where it might find application, except as a way of appearing humble in the eyes of a secretive God as the one and only purpose. So I still don't see any of it as contributing to a moral philosophy.