Comments on: Jesus DoubleThink?

By: Neece

Neece — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:03 +0000

I agree with Jim. Although I don't really find it sad.
It seems the more I read the bible the more I realize Jesus really wasn't a very nice, loving dude. IF he ever existed anyway. He was just as angry as his dad.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:03 +0000

Well, I didn't mean sad as in "unhappy." I mean sad as in "deplorable" or "unfortunate."

By: Julius

Julius — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:03 +0000

There's no paradox. The teaching states that if you do not seek rewards in *this* life, you will be rewarded in the *afterlife*. It is analogous to saving some money now (and refraining from spending it) so it will grow by compound interest and become available as more money later. This is an investment strategy, as opposed to a teaching of selflessness. However, this is probably the only workable way to get most people to act decently — by appealing to their sense of greed, as opposed to their sense of altruism.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:03 +0000

@Jim – That's obvious. Not what I meant at all … why is it "kinda deplorable or unfortunate" that humans are imperfect? I guess I can sort of see the "unfortunate" part (not very realistic so expect perfection, but anyway …). But I don't know how the value judgment of "deplorable" gets stuck to human imperfection. Enlighten me? Please? Thanks!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:03 +0000

I think there's a difference between material rewards and spiritual rewards that is being glossed over here. Also, Jesus himself didn't write any part of the bible, and if he were here today, he would not consider himself a "Christian" as we know it. I think support for the idea of Jesus as a moral teacher can be found by examining the rational bases of moral behavior, and recognizing that a lot of what you come up with can be found in his teachings (if you can ever tease them from the mistranslations, fabrications, etc).

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:03 +0000

I wasn't so much saying that Jesus' teaching (or at the very least the teaching ascribed to Jesus) is paradoxical, only that it is morally inconsistent. On the one hand, Jesus teaches that one should act selflessly without expecting a reward. But then in the very next sentence Jesus gives people a selfish motivation for acting selflessly!

Regardless of what you may think about human nature, the point here is that this is no good as a true moral principle. At least not from a 'great' moral teacher.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:03 +0000

Even the parts of the bible that, as an atheist, I still kind of respected, from a philosophical standpoint, have their problems. That's kinda sad.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:03 +0000

@Jim – Why sad? Don't most products of human intellect have "problems" of one sort or another?

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:03 +0000

@James Tracy – "… the point here is that **this** is no good as a true moral principle. At least not from a ‘great’ moral teacher."

What is the "this" (**) that you refer to here? For example, what about "The Golden Rule"? No good? What about some of the writings found in the Gnostic gospels, which are also purportedly the words of Jesus? No good?

How are the "teachings" of Jesus any different from the "teachings" of Buddha, etc? Are those also no good? Obviously the bible is a flawed document, insofar as it contains inconsistencies (it should be classified as literature, IMO, rather than unerring holy writ) and destructive beliefs, instructions, principles, etc; but, how useful, accurate, or instructive is it to equate "the bible" with "the teachings of a man named Jesus"? I know this is what religious folks want to do, and they're fools for doing so, but the question still stands …

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:03 +0000

@Julius – "… this is probably the only workable way to get most people to act decently — by appealing to their sense of greed, as opposed to their sense of altruism."

Now THAT is sad … especially if true. But, like most sweeping generalizations, I sincerely doubt it is (at least, I doubt it on odd-numbered days! It's so hard not to be a misanthrope sometimes).