Hmm why didn't Jesus invent stuff

Akrasia wrote: »

What is the point of god sending a divine prophet if he can't come up with anything that ordinary humans hadn't already thought of independently before

Because His primary purpose in coming was to die on the Cross and provide salvation from our sins, not just to give us nice advice about how to live.

Excelsior wrote: »

So forgive me for being a student of this whole Jesus deal but don't most people consider the Sermon on the Mount to be like the manifesto for the Jesus movement (whoever he was and whatever that was)?

If that is the case, who did he plagiarise that from? Who said, "Blessed are the spiritually bankrupt, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?

Whether you believe in Jesus' as Messiah or not, it seems to me that Matthew 5:3 is a much better summation of his message than you have offered in your fairly risky "Christianity brings nothing new to the table" argument. But on the internet, I hear you can pull off all kinds of crazy positions...

Well in fairness, there are few ethical concepts in the Sermon on the Mount, or Jesus' teachings in general, that had not been around for hundreds of before Jesus and expressed in clearer better thought out fashion.

That doesn't mean to imply plagiarism, simply that all these concepts existed already. There is a some what romantic myth that Jesus appeared in a barbaric and war like time in human development, and taught this revolutionary idea of love and peace and forgiveness. In reality ethics along these lines had been being developed for hundreds of years. Jesus' teachings only look revolutionary when compared to the war and violence of the Old Testament, but then that isn't saying much.

Another problem is that unlike some of the Greek or Chinese philosophers before Jesus who considered in detail a lot of these issues, a lot of Jesus' teachings relate simply to sound bites given to crowds. This counters the idea that any of this was particularly revolutionary or alien, the use of sound bites implies and understand that humans already get these concepts, Jesus was simply reminding us in a way we already understand, prodding us in the right direction. Jesus didn't go into detail about his ethical teachings, and most were expressed in forms of parables.

Unfortunately this style also leads to a great deal of problems with how people interpret these teachings. The sound-bite/parable style works better in face to face conversations (which in fairness was what Jesus was holding), but works less well when used in non-face to face forms of communication.

People have written books on subjects that Jesus mentions in a few lines. While I'm sure Christians believe these few lines are perfect and sum up the moral in a clear fashion, unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. It is a requirement that people bring a more detail in implementation when interpreting these stories, and often these details differ greatly.

The weird occurrence of such unclear messages coupled with the religious belief that they should (coming from God) be perfectly clear, has unfortunately lead to conflict of interpretation, both physically and theologically, down throughout the ages, with both sides believing not only in the correct interpretation, but failing to recongise that other interpretations may have arisen in a perfectly normal fashion (rather than due to a flaw in the people interpreting).

So I personally wouldn't hold an of the teachings in the New Testament as particularly profound, or even particularly well thought out or described, and I would go so far as to say they are a particular irresponsible way to communicate these ideas that people take so seriously.

Not really following that explanation PDN

Are you saying that the humanist (atheist?) speaker is the opposite of spiritual bankrupt?

In the parable the person who comes out worse is the religious follower overly confident of their own salvation who praises God for not letting him be like the others (reminds me of a few on this forum who go on and on about being saved after being touched by the spirit of God :pac:). One imagines the message of the parable is that Christians, even the most devout and faithful, should not get too cocky about their salvation, and that they should humble themselves before God and confess their sins, sins that all humans have to confess even the most faithful.

I'm not following how you are relating that to someone who isn't a believer, or "spiritual bankrupt" (or what that actually means)

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really following that explanation PDN

Are you saying that the humanist (atheist?) speaker is the opposite of spiritual bankrupt?

In the parable the person who comes out worse is the religious follower overly confident of their own salvation who praises God for not letting him be like the others (reminds me of a few on this forum who go on and on about being saved after being touched by the spirit of God :pac:). One imagines the message of the parable is that Christians, even the most devout and faithful, should not get too cocky about their salvation, and that they should humble themselves before God and confess their sins, sins that all humans have to confess even the most faithful.

I'm not following how you are relating that to someone who isn't a believer, or "spiritual bankrupt" (or what that actually means)

No, the religious follower in the parable is not cocky because of his salvation. In the parable he doesn't even mention his salvation. He is cocky about his righteous behaviour.

Those who are confident of their salvation because they have been touched by the Spirit of God usually admit that they are among 'the chief of sinners' and are saved by an undeserved act of God's grace. Their confidence is based on trust in God's word, not in any moral attainments.

As for the cocky humanist who looks down their nose at theists as cripples who need a crutch - in their own estimation they are not spiritually poor at all. If they were aware of any spiritual poverty then they would not be so patronising towards others. Of course the reality is different from their own estimation. This is a powerful biblical motif - the proud person (believer or unbeliever) whose arrogance blinds them to their own spiritual poverty:

Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18)

These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! (2 Corinthians 10:11-12)

You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. (Revelation 3:17-19)

All of us are spiritually bankrupt, of course, but the promised blessing is for those who are aware of their spiritual poverty. This is one of the reasons why Christianity is so attractive to those who are in trouble - particularly self-inflicted trouble. This helps explain why those in prison embrace Christianity so readily - which gives atheists a fine opportunity to crow about their moral superiority. ("Research shows that a small proportion of prisoners are atheists etc")

PDN wrote: »

No, the religious follower in the parable is not cocky because of his salvation. In the parable he doesn't even mention his salvation. He is cocky about his righteous behaviour.

Those who are confident of their salvation because they have been touched by the Spirit of God usually admit that they are among 'the chief of sinners' and are saved by an undeserved act of God's grace. Their confidence is based on trust in God's word, not in any moral attainments.

I agree with most of that, but you are being slightly pedantic about the salvation bit.

The tax collector says "Lord have mercy on me". The difference between the Pharisee who believes himself righteous and the tax collector is the tax collect recognizes his sin and asks God for mercy, the implication being that the other man believes he will get it because he does what he is told.

To me the point of that is that salvation is not guaranteed to anyone on their own actions, no one deserves salvation, it is ultimately up to God to decide to have mercy on someone or not.

PDN wrote: »

As for the cocky humanist who looks down their nose at theists as cripples who need a crutch - in their own estimation they are not spiritually poor at all. If they were aware of any spiritual poverty then they would not be so patronising towards others. Of course the reality is different from their own estimation.

Ok ... this is all a bit of an exercise in generalization to relate this to the humanist speaker you mentioned.

It seems to be a teaching about and for believers. How do you conclude that the humanist is spiritual bankrupt beyond simply the conclusion that everyone is spiritual bankrupt?

And in that context what does spiritual bankrupt (poor in spirit) even mean?

Are you poor in spirit, and if so in what way are you and the humanist similar?

PDN wrote: »

This is one of the reasons why Christianity is so attractive to those who are in trouble - particularly self-inflicted trouble. This helps explain why those in prison embrace Christianity so readily - which gives atheists a fine opportunity to crow about their moral superiority. ("Research shows that a small proportion of prisoners are atheists etc")

Well in fairness that statistics is normally only brought out when the assertion that Christianity spreads morality and atheism spreads materialistic selfishness is brought out.

It is used to counter Christian assumption of moral superiority. I don't think anyone, either way, thinks that atheism alone some how makes someone more moral, though many Christian posters seem to think that being a Christian makes a person more moral.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Yet try and find a national army without Chaplains, these are Christians who happily preach to a group of men whose very occupation is to kill.

The armies of China and North Korea spring to mind.

But are you proposing that Christians should only preach to people who are already living righteously? I have preached to all kinds of people, including murderers and rapists, but that did not mean I approved of their actions.

Wicknight wrote: »

To me the point of that is that salvation is not guaranteed to anyone on their own actions, no one deserves salvation, it is ultimately up to God to decide to have mercy on someone or not.

Yippee! At last Wicknight and I agree about something. However, I would add that as rational free moral agents we have the choice whether to accept this undeserved mercy or not.

It seems to be a teaching about and for believers. How do you conclude that the humanist is spiritual bankrupt beyond simply the conclusion that everyone is spiritual bankrupt?

There is no conclusion beyond the universality of spiritual bankruptcy. the Christian teaching is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Are you poor in spirit, and if so in what way are you and the humanist similar?

In the universal sense I am a sinner like anyone else.

In the self-awareness sense, when I am walking close to God then I am poor in spirit and grateful for His incredible grace. When I start comparing myself favourably to others then I believe I am like the aforementioned humanist, only worse because I am doing so despite my knowledge of the truth.

It is used to counter Christian assumption of moral superiority. I don't think anyone, either way, thinks that atheism alone some how makes someone more moral, though many Christian posters seem to think that being a Christian makes a person more moral.

I think you're confusing two distinct ideas here.

I don't believe Christians are necessarily morally superior to non-Christians - particularly since many of us started from such a low baseline. What I do believe is that my Christianity should and does make me moral than I used to be.