Should we know about Jesus?

Tim Robbins

Hello there,
I am atheist / agnostic depending on your definition of those words.
However, I have a view Jesus definetely existed and was a pretty good bloke.
I just don't think that means he was connected to a master creator or that a master creator exists. I definetly don't think if a master creator does exist, he cares about all of us and has a plan worked out for everybody.

However, I still think Jesus is a pretty interesting philosopher, especially from a ethics viewpoint. And just because he could have been wrong about being the son of god, or about the concept of a god, doesn't mean we disregard his other ideas.

I like to ask fellow atheists / agnostics
1. What are the views on Jesus the person? Do you agree he existed.
2. Is it still worth eduacating peope on this person Jesus, some of his ideas like: 'treat people the way you would like to be treated', or should Jesus be completely forgotten about.

Thank you.

Gordon

I think that there is a great deal of proof out there that Jesus existed. Whether or not he did the miracles that have been stated of him is another matter. To me it's a case of Chinese Whispers.

However, I think he existed and must have been a dead on bloke to have such writings written about him. Of course he shouldn't just be forgotten.

Sapien

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hello there,
I am atheist / agnostic depending on your definition of those words.
However, I have a view Jesus definetely existed and was a pretty good bloke.
I just don't think that means he was connected to a master creator or that a master creator exists. I definetly don't think if a master creator does exist, he cares about all of us and has a plan worked out for everybody.

However, I still think Jesus is a pretty interesting philosopher, especially from a ethics viewpoint. And just because he could have been wrong about being the son of god, or about the concept of a god, doesn't mean we disregard his other ideas.

I like to ask fellow atheists / agnostics
1. What are the views on Jesus the person? Do you agree he existed.
2. Is it still worth eduacating peope on this person Jesus, some of his ideas like: 'treat people the way you would like to be treated', or should Jesus be completely forgotten about.

Thank you.

What are Jesus' contributions to moral philosophy?

robindch

> What are Jesus' contributions to moral philosophy?

The 'Sermon on the Mount' is the longest section of Jesus' moralizing in the NT. Try Matthew 5-7:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205-7;&version=49;

...of which much is blandly metaphoprical, grandly impenetrable or plainly wrong. A few sentences are worth bearing in mind, though none of these are enormously deep, or difficult to work out on one's own. Some mild effort and a stout red pen will wring the wisdom from the winbaggery. The best that one can honestly say is that some of the things he's quoted as saying are worth listening to, while far more is not.

Tim, if you're after interesting ancient philosophers, try Socrates instead. His life, as reported by Plato, records him as a hundred times the man that Jesus comes down to us as. And he's got a sense of humor too, while his death-scene is far more delicate and moving than the stilted accounts of Jesus' death.

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

What are Jesus' contributions to moral philosophy?

I'm not sure that's really fair. A schoolteacher can teach morality, and does good by doing so - and so could an actor. Neither would make any useful contribution to moral philosophy, or indeed do anything new, but their example, and their teaching, is still good.

The story of Christ is known to a lot of people, and contains some good things - striking images and pithy statements of principle. Probably best served as interpreted in books for children, though.

Having said that, I don't think Christ existed, in the form portrayed by the Bible. I suspect the NT was assembled out of stories from several "teachers" and revolutionaries knocking around at the time - an incident from the life of X, a bit of speech from the life of Y.

Surely it's not really an issue that there are better moral teachers, either? Does one have to ignore Jesus to read Socrates, or Marcus Aurelius?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not sure that's really fair. A schoolteacher can teach morality, and does good by doing so - and so could an actor. Neither would make any useful contribution to moral philosophy, or indeed do anything new, but their example, and their teaching, is still good.

The best question I could take from the OP was whether or not familiarity with the epiphragms of Jesus of Nazareth would be a worthwhile part of an education in moral philosophy. I think most secular people would agree that he is attributed with having said nothing that wasn't said earlier and better.

Oddly, one of the few people who might convince me otherwise is Oscar Wilde. De Profundis dwells at length on the teachings of Christ in the Gospels and the didacticism of the narratives. Certainly the story - the fable - is of greater spiritual substance than anything Christ is supposed to have said.

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

The best question I could take from the OP was whether or not familiarity with the epiphragms of Jesus of Nazareth would be a worthwhile part of an education in moral philosophy. I think most secular people would agree that he is attributed with having said nothing that wasn't said earlier and better.

Oddly, one of the few people who might convince me otherwise is Oscar Wilde. De Profundis dwells at length on the teachings of Christ in the Gospels and the didacticism of the narratives. Certainly the story - the fable - is of greater spiritual substance than anything Christ is supposed to have said.

Hmm. Actually, I think I could expand my earlier remark about interpretation - I don't think the Bible is a good study work for anyone seeking to improve their education in moral philosophy, or indeed their understanding of morality.

On the other hand, works of thought based on it, or inspired by it, have been influential, and some very good thinkers have started from their understanding of Jesus.

In short, there is value in the story of Jesus, but that value is largely in the interpretations that is has inspired in better minds.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Funsterdelux

I'm am the second coming, of Jesus, B-Jeebus

Black Swan

Tim Robbins wrote:

I like to ask fellow atheists / agnostics

To qualify myself, and therefore my opinion, I am not an atheist, was raised a Catholic, but have leanings toward agnosticism (free thinker who is not into organised religion).

1. What are the views on Jesus the person? Do you agree he existed.

Yes, I believe that he existed. The ethics that he preached have merit in terms of things we should consider for civilised behaviour. Of course, we need be aware that others codified his preachings, which have been translated and revised over centuries, but these still have value today.

2. Is it still worth eduacating peope on this person Jesus, some of his ideas like: 'treat people the way you would like to be treated', or should Jesus be completely forgotten about.

You refer to what has been called "The Golden Rule?" Not sure that is exclusive to Jesus, but in any case merits consideration today. Yes, it would be valuable for us to learn of his teachings, as well as those of other theologians (and philosophers, be they theists, atheists, or agnostics).

I like what John Newman had to say about exposing us to many forms of thought in his "idea of a university.":cool:

Dades

FWIW I'm pretty confident he existed, and about as confident he wasn't wasn't God.

But of course we should know about one of the most (continually) influential men in history. Any education about him just needs to be objective.

The truth is his grip on people is stronger as a God than as a philosopher. People don't turn to Socrates when the rent is due.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

But of course we should know about one of the most (continually) influential men in history. Any education about him just needs to be objective.

The truth is his grip on people is stronger as a God than as a philosopher. People don't turn to Socrates when the rent is due.

Good points, The Atheist. I have two questions for you.
Q.1.
As part of objective education, would you agree that you should try to hear the best arguements from all sides. This would involve going to a church or talking to a priest, not all time just until you heard their reasons, as well as of course reading athesit / agnostics ideas. Or do you think an objective background is avoiding the bible, because it is biased?

Q.2.
Why is Jesus the most popular moral philsopher? Why do think Christians (not me btw) turn to Jesus when they need to pay their rent?
Is it because his style caught more attention, or do you think it is because people that need or want to turn to a moral philosopher for example again, Christians just don't know any better?

Myksyk

robindch wrote:

The 'Sermon on the Mount' is the longest section of Jesus' moralizing in the NT... A few sentences are worth bearing in mind, though none of these are enormously deep, or difficult to work out on one's own.

Ah yes .... "Blessed are the Cheesemakers" sticks out for me ...

Wibbs

Tim Robbins wrote:

1. What are the views on Jesus the person? Do you agree he existed.

In as much as we can be sure on preent knowledge, he most likely existed. There are (2 IIRC) non christian accounts of him, vague though they are.

Did he say what he's purported to have said? For me I would have more faith in word of mouth transmission than some, so added to the relatively early writings on him, chances are good some of what he spoke made it down to us today. The percentage will always be highly debatable however, unless we discover dead sea scroll type artifacts from his actual time.

This would go for all religions, their founders and their texts. Many of these are considered by many to be historical to a lesser or greater extent. Can we be sure Buddha existed? Not as clear, though the tradition is rich in some detail the passage of time makes this even more difficult. The strength of someone's message that we read as the Buddha was strong enough to be transmitted intially anyway. Mohammed, who seems to be considered even more historical than the rest has no non Muslim accounts of his life(muslim accounts are written down even later than the christian ones) and Mecca, supposedly a large trading center and a cornerstone of the stories is conspicuous by it's absence on trading maps and literature of the time. No record of the wars he fought exist from outside sources. Did he exist? Probably. As like the others the memory of the man(and maybe his teachings) was strong enough to survive, however altered and agrandised by the later faithful into the heroic stories that were later codified.

2. Is it still worth eduacating peope on this person Jesus, some of his ideas like: 'treat people the way you would like to be treated', or should Jesus be completely forgotten about.

Nobody with an impact on world history like the aforementioned should be forgotten, even as a salutary lesson. In any case the religious will likely not give up anytime soon. Don't see why they should TBH. Whatever floats your boat and all that.

Arguably some of the teachings are valuable from the moral standpoint, some are not. Most theists would do well to adhere to the former rather than the latter. As the Atheist pointed out "The truth is his grip on people is stronger as a God than as a philosopher". Some Christians would be better off listening to the philosopher than to the god. It's the latter that tends to cause the problems.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

Q.1.
As part of objective education, would you agree that you should try to hear the best arguements from all sides. This would involve going to a church or talking to a priest, not all time just until you heard their reasons, as well as of course reading athesit / agnostics ideas. Or do you think an objective background is avoiding the bible, because it is biased?

I guess there will always be bias, as whoever is doing the educating will have their mind made up one way or another. I can't see a priest being genuinely objective, in the same was I'd probably fail on that account too. Any "syllabus" would have to be a group effort.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Q.2.
Why is Jesus the most popular moral philsopher? Why do think Christians (not me btw) turn to Jesus when they need to pay their rent?
Is it because his style caught more attention, or do you think it is because people that need or want to turn to a moral philosopher for example again, Christians just don't know any better?

Jesus is popular because his morals, for the most part, hit the right notes. Of course the notion of "loving your neighbour" existed long before he did - but he's the one most people will accredit it to.

More importantly he is portrayed as your best friend, your salvation, someone who hears you when the world shuts you out, and the grantor of eternal life. Given the inherant need of so many people for such a figure - that's pretty tough act to follow for any mere philosopher.

As Wibbs says, whatever floats your boat...

Zillah

Jesus definately existed...there were in fact several people called Jesus around at the time. It could have been any one of them.

CiDeRmAn

One should I guess try to strip away the mystical nonsense and see the teacher who probably existed, as a teacher and teller of fables he is one of many, from Aesop to Bros. Grimm. Using the world around us to serve up a moral way of life, a system to operate sucessfully in a group, as did Moses, Mohammed etc.
Nothing wrong with that, only those that seeked to enwrap these teachings in the trappings of dogmatic faith, mindless devotion and the creation of a power structure centred on a religious controlling class.
I always liked the bit where he turned over the money lenders tables in the temple, sweet!

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

or should Jesus be completely forgotten about.

While I don't think Jesus said (or was report to say) anything particularly spectacular or that wasn't said better somewhere else, it would be rather silly to forget about him. Like it or not Christianity has been a major movement in the development of humanity in the last 2000 years.

To an atheists Jesus should be viewed in a historical and possibly philosophical light. Forgetting about him is not the opposite to believing in him.

Tim Robbins

CiDeRmAn wrote:

I always liked the bit where he turned over the money lenders tables in the temple, sweet!

Yeah I thought that was class, I'd like to think if he was around today, he'd do the same with all the dodgy planning decision making the rich richer and messing up the place for the rest of us.
I like the one, when they are about to throw stones at a women for either being unfaithful or being a prostitute, and then he steps in and says:
'Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone!'

Tar.Aldarion

He probably existed all right, seems like a very good bloke. If you had the power, influence etc over people that he did, would you have set out the moral guidelines that you think are right?

I wonder did Jesus actually think he was not the son of God, was just extremely intelligent and followed a very good plan he set for himself, culminating with him being a martyr for morals he believed in.
If that were true, I would bow before him.
On the other hand, he may have been a bit touched.(:

lostexpectation

a man and and myth, one of many.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Good points, The Atheist. I have two questions for you.
Q.1.
As part of objective education, would you agree that you should try to hear the best arguements from all sides. This would involve going to a church or talking to a priest, not all time just until you heard their reasons, as well as of course reading athesit / agnostics ideas.

Not really no, only if you did the same with all other faiths.

Q.2.
Why is Jesus the most popular moral philsopher? Why do think Christians (not me btw) turn to Jesus when they need to pay their rent?
Is it because his style caught more attention, or do you think it is because people that need or want to turn to a moral philosopher for example again, Christians just don't know any better?

He is only the most popular round our parts, and infact is not seen as philosopher really, which I guess is a shame, and your last question, yes definitly.

ScumLord

Rte/C4 and the BBC did a few documentrys around easter they had Jesus down as the driving force behind a revolution in thinking giving the average joe soap direct access to God instead of going through priests. He became the champion of the underdog. I think in his time he probably would have been very redical to those people in that area.

Unfortunitly everyone involved in telling he's storey has corupted the truth to keep power for themselfs. Those same documentrys said that Jesus probably had a large family including brothers and sisters but the early church excluded them to make him seem more divine, lots of little things like that just make it hard to know whats true.

Asiaprod

ScumLord wrote:

Unfortunitly everyone involved in telling he's storey has corupted the truth to keep power for themselfs. Those same documentrys said that Jesus probably had a large family including brothers and sisters but the early church excluded them to make him seem more divine, lots of little things like that just make it hard to know whats true.

Now that I can believe, but not little things, big things.

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't think the Bible is a good study work for anyone seeking to improve their education in moral philosophy, or indeed their understanding of morality

The understatement of the century Scofflaw!

As for this Jesus character, it's unfortunate that we'll never know for sure what actually happened at that time, or whether he really existed at all as he's portrayed in the bible. But there is still some merit in the teachings and moral philosophising that is attributed to him. However, there is nothing in his teachings that appears very radical or revolutionary. Some of it may have been useful within the context of educating and informing a relatively primitive people, and for that his (alleged) life may certainly have had some value. But as for how he became elevated to his current status sure beats me.
There is so much disagreement about who he was, what he was, and whether he even was at all, that we will never know for sure. For me, assuming he existed, he deserves his place in the history books alongside others who have had a significant impact. But that's all.

5uspect

It doesn't really matter to me if he was real or not, but i suspect that there's some truth in it. The teachings about treating everyone the same and not judging others are to be commended but i think this has little to do with his popularity today. Most people look to Jesus in times of need purely as a deity. This is because they have had the idea of Jesus as God planted in their heads since they learned to speak. Very few people actually change from their ancestoral religion and the case of Jesus he is not generally seen as a philosopher because his message is seen as a higher truth.

So from my athiest standpoint I think Jesus or whatever is behind the story of Jesus is interesting but what is more interesting is how these ideas have been used and abused since.

condra

Wait a sec.

Didnt Jesus say lots of sh1t about invading and enslaving neighbouring countries? Or was that just The Bible?

Something about coming as a sword and dividing families?

Surely Jesus is on record saying some really nasty crap?

Zillah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword