Deriving a moral philosophy from Jesus.

[steve_bank]

I agree that based on the gospels and what we know of the times Jesus was inescapably domed from the start. He messed with the religious wealthy power elite of the day. The temple was a big corporation of the day, with collusion and skimming of profits with Romans undoubtedly occurring.

A to the Jesus sound bites, that is what Christians quote to make moral points. That and selected quotes from the OT form the morality. That morality is obviously situational. One day it might be turn the other cheek over something, the next day it might be an eye for an eye. It also varies with the individual.

 

[Treedbear]

...
A to the Jesus sound bites, that is what Christians quote to make moral points. That and selected quotes from the OT form the morality. That morality is obviously situational. One day it might be turn the other cheek over something, the next day it might be an eye for an eye. It also varies with the individual.

I misunderstood the point of the thread. I thought you were exploring the potential for Jesus teachings as the basis for a moral philosophy. You cited the Sermon on the Mount so it seemed you were suggesting it held some premises for that, and I was interested in specifically where. Anyone?

 

[Politesse]

Steve never meant to actually learn anything, I suspect. He wanted Christians to post so he could disagree with us about stuff.

 

[Treedbear]

Steve never meant to actually learn anything, I suspect. He wanted Christians to post so he could disagree with us about stuff.

He does seem to have an exceptionally strong interest in religions lately. That's all good.

 

[rousseau]

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

That's a hell of a line.

I recall Leonard Cohen talking about Jesus at some point - can't remember where, maybe a youtube interview - but he spoke about him with quite a bit of respect. Take away the dogma and boundaries of identity and Christianity has served up some good ideas.

 

[Treedbear]

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

That's a hell of a line.

I recall Leonard Cohen talking about Jesus at some point - can't remember where, maybe a youtube interview - but he spoke about him with quite a bit of respect. Take away the dogma and boundaries of identity and Christianity has served up some good ideas.

I recognize the quote but I don't understand how to apply it. It seems not literally about stoning a person to death but about judging others. But since everyone has been or done wrong at some time does it mean never to judge what other's do? That's never going to work as a moral or judicial principle. Sounds like strict moral relativism.

 

[rousseau]

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

That's a hell of a line.

I recall Leonard Cohen talking about Jesus at some point - can't remember where, maybe a youtube interview - but he spoke about him with quite a bit of respect. Take away the dogma and boundaries of identity and Christianity has served up some good ideas.

I recognize the quote but I don't understand how to apply it. It seems not literally about stoning a person to death but about judging others. But since everyone has been or done wrong at some time does it mean never to judge what other's do? That's never going to work as a moral or judicial principle. Sounds like strict moral relativism.

I think the idea is that we're often quick to condemn others without looking at ourselves first - morally a principle could look like 'if we seek retribution for wrongs done, we should look at the deeper underlying causes of those wrongs, and seek out some kind of understanding, rather than automatically condemning others because of authoritarian principles'

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What's the Harm?

I recognize the quote but I don't understand how to apply it. It seems not literally about stoning a person to death but about judging others. But since everyone has been or done wrong at some time does it mean never to judge what other's do? That's never going to work as a moral or judicial principle. Sounds like strict moral relativism.

I think the idea is that we're often quick to condemn others without looking at ourselves first - morally a principle could look like 'if we seek retribution for wrongs done, we should look at the deeper underlying causes of those wrongs, and seek out some kind of understanding, rather than automatically condemning others because of authoritarian principles'

It is moral relativism but how strict to apply the principle is ultimately a personal decision. There are degrees of harm in all our actions, no behavior is harmless. We've all been in a situation where someone says, "What's the harm?" That is a good, short, meaningful, thoughtful question to keep around to guide our actions. It covers a lot of ground.

 

[Treedbear]

I recognize the quote but I don't understand how to apply it. It seems not literally about stoning a person to death but about judging others. But since everyone has been or done wrong at some time does it mean never to judge what other's do? That's never going to work as a moral or judicial principle. Sounds like strict moral relativism.

I think the idea is that we're often quick to condemn others without looking at ourselves first - morally a principle could look like 'if we seek retribution for wrongs done, we should look at the deeper underlying causes of those wrongs, and seek out some kind of understanding, rather than automatically condemning others because of authoritarian principles'

You might hope that this is what it means but all Jesus says is don't judge others if one has moral failings. Not only that but if you happen to not have any then it's fine to judge others early and often.

 

[rousseau]

I recognize the quote but I don't understand how to apply it. It seems not literally about stoning a person to death but about judging others. But since everyone has been or done wrong at some time does it mean never to judge what other's do? That's never going to work as a moral or judicial principle. Sounds like strict moral relativism.

I think the idea is that we're often quick to condemn others without looking at ourselves first - morally a principle could look like 'if we seek retribution for wrongs done, we should look at the deeper underlying causes of those wrongs, and seek out some kind of understanding, rather than automatically condemning others because of authoritarian principles'

It is moral relativism but how strict to apply the principle is ultimately a personal decision. There are degrees of harm in all our actions, no behavior is harmless. We've all been in a situation where someone says, "What's the harm?" That is a good, short, meaningful, thoughtful question to keep around to guide our actions. It covers a lot of ground.

Well if it's moral relativism, maybe we should accept that strict, objective morals do us more harm than good. We should prioritize critical thought and analysis of specific situations over delegating to authority and custom. It's quite easy to think of many examples where this style of thinking would be helpful.

The problem is that people largely don't like each other and wish to see those who inflict pain get it back in kind. Which leads us back to Jesus' comment.

 

[rousseau]

I recognize the quote but I don't understand how to apply it. It seems not literally about stoning a person to death but about judging others. But since everyone has been or done wrong at some time does it mean never to judge what other's do? That's never going to work as a moral or judicial principle. Sounds like strict moral relativism.

I think the idea is that we're often quick to condemn others without looking at ourselves first - morally a principle could look like 'if we seek retribution for wrongs done, we should look at the deeper underlying causes of those wrongs, and seek out some kind of understanding, rather than automatically condemning others because of authoritarian principles'

You might hope that this is what it means but all Jesus says is don't judge others if one has moral failings. Not only that but if you happen to not have any then it's fine to judge others early and often.

I don't hope that's what it means, but I don't think Jesus is an authority figure which we need to blindly adhere to, we can take his words and add to them - deriving a moral philosophy from Jesus.

This is the whole problem with our conception of justice - we think that principles laid out thousands of years ago should be universal, rather than a work in progress.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is the whole problem with our conception of justice - we think that principles laid out thousands of years ago should be universal, rather than a work in progress.

That would be the fear talking. When someone of insufficient means questions the groupthink it can be dangerous. It doesn't need to be, unless the other group engages in equal or greater amounts of groupthink, in which case survival is at stake. This is how we evolved.

Most people who talk about the U.S. Constitution think of a specific document written a couple centuries ago when in fact that's only when the group started writing it. It continues to be written, a fact lost on quite a few people.

People prefer an authority, which is okay, so long as it is a reasoned, legitimate authority. For some people, a Jesus is an ultimate authority, it's something that never changes or needs updated, you don't "amend" their bible.

 

[Treedbear]

You might hope that this is what it means but all Jesus says is don't judge others if one has moral failings. Not only that but if you happen to not have any then it's fine to judge others early and often.

I don't hope that's what it means, but I don't think Jesus is an authority figure which we need to blindly adhere to, we can take his words and add to them - deriving a moral philosophy from Jesus.

This is the whole problem with our conception of justice - we think that principles laid out thousands of years ago should be universal, rather than a work in progress.

I know moral relativism is often seen as moral heresy, but frankly moral principles are always and ever going to be relative to one's situation and we must strive to better understand what good motives people do have under those conditions. I'm for a liberal interpretion, for better or for worse. But trying to apply that to this particular quote is like making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. When I said strict moral relativism I meant that Jesus' statement implied (at least to me) that there is no room for further interpretation. (I mean he is supposed to be speaking for God.) No one's judgement can ever be considered to be fair. Well yeah. But morality has a purpose and moral codes change to serve that purpose. So when the Nazi's start invading Europe we should probably understand that it's because they feel cheated by WWI reparations. But we still need to stop them from trashing the place. There still needs to be consequences. We must be free to make judgements, and free as well to admit when we were wrong. So I believe we can agree on the principles involved, but I think it's being very generous to think that this is what Jesus meant.

 

[abaddon]

I recognize the quote but I don't understand how to apply it. It seems not literally about stoning a person to death but about judging others. But since everyone has been or done wrong at some time does it mean never to judge what other's do? That's never going to work as a moral or judicial principle. Sounds like strict moral relativism.

I think the idea is that we're often quick to condemn others without looking at ourselves first - morally a principle could look like 'if we seek retribution for wrongs done, we should look at the deeper underlying causes of those wrongs, and seek out some kind of understanding, rather than automatically condemning others because of authoritarian principles'

You might hope that this is what it means but all Jesus says is don't judge others if one has moral failings. Not only that but if you happen to not have any then it's fine to judge others early and often.

Did Jesus believe there are people who don't have moral failings? Who is it that "happens to not have any" in the worldview jesus portrays? All my life I thought the verse in question implied "none of you are without sin" and that that implication is supported by the gospels generally, but maybe I was wrong.

If I'm right though, then "He that is without sin among you" is an invitation to introspection. "Look at yourself first and then look at the other and judge in the light of how you too are a flawed person".

I don't see how it's saying to never judge, or go right ahead if you're pure. The implication seems to be to judge with yourself in mind as a fellow resident in a fallen world where no one's pure. Angry pointing fingers is clearly a problem with humans that needs fixing.

What to do if Nazis try to take over? Probably something else than point angry fingers about how naughty they are. But when looking for practical applications, keep in mind that these ancient moralizers weren't only giving practical tips on personal success in everyday life. They (from Lao Tzu to Buddha to Jesus) were trying to revolutionize the world by saying how everyone can change their sense of self-identity - identify with something greater than yourself (whatever that is in the various worldviews) and actively dis-identify from your ordinary everyday little "me", and both self and the world will be transfigured.

 

[Treedbear]

...
You might hope that this is what it means but all Jesus says is don't judge others if one has moral failings. Not only that but if you happen to not have any then it's fine to judge others early and often.

Did Jesus believe there are people who don't have moral failings? Who is it that "happens to not have any" in the worldview jesus portrays? All my life I thought the verse in question implied "none of you are without sin" and that that implication is supported by the gospels generally, but maybe I was wrong.

It can safely be assumed that Jesus was making that exact point. But in doing so he makes the hypothetical case that the absense of sin is the only qualification lacking.

If I'm right though, then "He that is without sin among you" is an invitation to introspection. "Look at yourself first and then look at the other and judge in the light of how you too are a flawed person".

But he clearly said to not judge others if you've sinned.

I don't see how it's saying to never judge, or go right ahead if you're pure. The implication seems to be to judge with yourself in mind as a fellow resident in a fallen world where no one's pure. Angry pointing fingers is clearly a problem with humans that needs fixing.

Don't judge without first examining your own conscience when someone is clearly guilty of committing a crime? Let known murderers, rapist and child pornographers go free because I myself have feelings of guilt? That's not a way to fix the problem.

What to do if Nazis try to take over? Probably something else than point angry fingers about how naughty they are. But when looking for practical applications, keep in mind that these ancient moralizers weren't only giving practical tips on personal success in everyday life. They (from Lao Tzu to Buddha to Jesus) were trying to revolutionize the world by saying how everyone can change their sense of self-identity - identify with something greater than yourself (whatever that is in the various worldviews) and actively dis-identify from your ordinary everyday little "me", and both self and the world will be transfigured.

I don't see that the teachings of Jesus fit the mold of moral philosopher the way that Lao Tzu and the Buddha do. They offered rational arguments. You might say he was talking to the ages, but the purported fact is that he was specifically addressing actual people who lived in a time and place that was very different from our own. So we can easily hear what we want to hear.

 

[steve_bank]

Steve never meant to actually learn anything, I suspect. He wanted Christians to post so he could disagree with us about stuff.

Something I realized way back when I started posting on religion in the earlier version of the form. Atheist are far more knowledgeable on religion and Christianity than the typical Christian.

The Christian arguments all boil down to a half dozen or so forms. Christianity is fairly simple compared to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Judaism. Jews have a long history of side teachings.

I understand the Christian experience, it is no different than any other religiois pr philosophical experience.

As you will not post what you believe it ids not possible to discuss with you.

Go ahead, educate me.

 

[steve_bank]

Science and philosophy are dead right now. There is nothing to add on politics. That leaves religion. Religion remises an issue for us atheists as we see it play out in politics. God does not want this therefore ban it by law. What the founderswere thinking of with the two religious prohibitions in COTUS.

The prices of freedom is vigilance.

The Catholic mythos I knew says Jesus is the one and only person to have lived a sinless blameless life. Jesus was perfect and we all fall short. Nice work around to justify how often we screw up.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Science and philosophy are dead right now. There is nothing to add on politics. That leaves religion. Religion remises an issue for us atheists as we see it play out in politics. God does not want this therefore ban it by law. What the founderswere thinking of with the two religious prohibitions in COTUS.

The prices of freedom is vigilance.

The Catholic mythos I knew says Jesus is the one and only person to have lived a sinless blameless life. Jesus was perfect and we all fall short. Nice work around to justify how often we screw up.

The Virgin Mary was bodily assumed into heaven according to Catholic teaching because she was deemed sinless. So that makes two persons. Catholics celebrate the feast of The Assumption.

I think that's what you might call..."Two, two, two myths in one."

 

[Politesse]

Steve never meant to actually learn anything, I suspect. He wanted Christians to post so he could disagree with us about stuff.

Something I realized way back when I started posting on religion in the earlier version of the form. Atheist are far more knowledgeable on religion and Christianity than the typical Christian.

The Christian arguments all boil down to a half dozen or so forms. Christianity is fairly simple compared to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Judaism. Jews have a long history of side teachings.

I understand the Christian experience, it is no different than any other religiois pr philosophical experience.

As you will not post what you believe it ids not possible to discuss with you.

Go ahead, educate me.

I certainly know plenty of atheists who are knowledgeable on religious matters, especially those who converted as adults. But then, I know a lot of knowledgeable religious people as well. I tend to think that being knowledgeable on any subject is a reflection of how much time a person has spent seriously studying it, rather than an inherent property of some faith label.

Christianity has well more than twelve forms! There have been hundreds if not thousands of major variants on Christian thought over the centuries. And this is no secret.

I don't think there is a singular "Christian experience" to understand, for much the same reason. Nor is religious understanding something easily reached. If you believe that percieving what enlightenment is truly like is something easily accomplished by reading a few books and forming an opinion based on some stuff you heard, you don't in fact understand religion, and are likely confused when people describe themselves as devoting their life to religious contemplation. Why would someone devote their entire lives to something that Wikipedia describes in three paragraphs?

Like many amateur scholars in any field of inquiry, you imagine that you find the subject simple because it is simple, rather than because (as is almost always the truth of the matter) you are thinking about it simply.

I do agree that other religious traditions are just as worth critically but enthusiastically exploring, and indeed educate people on the religious traditions of the world (the whole world) for a living.

As to the last comment, no one can educate you against your will. But I am baffled by your claim that I "don't post what I believe, as I am a fairly frequent contributor to this forum. I don't always post about my personal beliefs, if I do not think they are relevant to a topic, but I'm hardly secretive in character.

 

[DBT]

What is the mental process by which someone becomes convinced in the existence of a God and all that this entails?

You could say that believers are knowledgeable about the teachings of their faith, but what is known about the truth of the theology or the process by which they were convinced that it is true?