the_cave

Well, I'll disagree, anyway. I don't dispute that there are elements (even many?) of the Gospel message that are not unique to the followers of Jesus. So what? What's wrong with teaching something that's right? I'm completely baffled by this attitude...are you saying you disrespect the teachings of the Gospel because they're unoriginal?

As for the "difficult" sayings, there's been a lot of work done by exegetes and scholars to demonstrate that these were "hyperbolic" sayings...meant to startle the listener, challenge them by suggesting something that seems on the face of it ridiculous, in order to uncover a radical critique of the mores of the day, or of individual behavior. If they seem shocking, that's because they're supposed to be shocking. You're supposed to start thinking twice about things upon hearing them (just like atheists want us to...)

There's also a great deal of controversy, if you're not aware, about what sayings are in fact genuine. However, I suspect that most of you are in fact aware of this. Aren't you?

Finally, I'd like to stand up for what I think is the real message of the Gospel. The real message is radical love--love for one's enemies, love for even the most reprehensible people imaginable. It could be unique to the Gospel, or not--the point is, the Gospel argues it most acutely, at least in the West (again, I have to ask: why is originality such a big deal to you guys?) But moreover, the gospel has a method for achieving this radical love; first, personal repentance--i.e. a recognition of one's own state of moral failure, and resolve to do better/learn more, and then--this is the clincher--forgiveness of everyone for absolutely every wrong they've ever committed. That's the unique take-home message, to my lights. Everything else is details.

Ensign Steve

Nobody is disrespecting those teachings of the bible. We just aren't giving Jesus the credit for coming up with them himself, because he didn't. Just because we don't follow Jesus doesn't mean we can't still be nice to each other and love each other and treat each other the way we'd like to be treated. We aren't going to start being jerks just to be contrary to the bible. The entire point is that the bible is meaningless to atheists who are trying to live the best life that they can. If it is good, we'll do it. It doesn't matter who said it. If it's bad, we'll try not to. Things can be good and bad independently of whether they are in the bible.

Jen

christ-on-a-stick

Kewl, we'll add ya to the list of the thousands of other True Christians (TM) who have unique insight into the real message of the Gospel.
No, I know that at least what *I* mean by it is that being unoriginal, by definition they're not Jesus' teachings, so they don't really reflect much on him and what he had to offer in the way of philosophy.

philechat

The reason atheists called Jesus' teachings unoriginal is to point out that his teachings are NOT unique among the other moral philosophers in his time. Therefore, there is no reason we should admire his philosophy to be above all other philosophies.

I, for example, found a great number of Christian teachings very repugnant. Its dichotomy of "saved" and "damned", its focus on the negative aspects of our natures ("sins"), and its lack of respect about worldly accomplishments and activities all left a bad taste in my mouth.

the_cave

(GROAN) I'm going to assume that your smiley implies that you are making a playful, joking statement...in which case I chuckle alongside you. However, just to make things clear, let me rephrase what I said...I am NOT claiming that I have just revealed a unique insight into the Gospel. When I said "I think", I did not mean just myself. I mean that I agree, have been taught, find confirmed, understand, deduce upon the scholarship of others, say alongside many other believers, and so on and so forth, that the Gospel teaches what I said it did. This is NOT an original insight. It is a restatement of what many, many others have said.

In fact, I'll take the time now to proclaim that I have never said, nor will I ever say, that I am a somehow a God-blessed "True Christian", to the detriment of others...I'm a Christian, in the same way you're an atheist, and in the same way we are all fallible human beings, each and every one of us making errors of all sorts, moral, epistemological, hermeneutic, logical, linguistic, etc., all the blessed time. And by saying that, I am not saying that I am morally superior to, or intellectually different from, those who do (supposedly) claim they are such Christians. Have I made myself clear? I hope so. Let us proceed.

? Should I assume that the things that you say that are not original don't reflect much on you?

But I'd say that radical love, and his path towards it, was indeed unique, especially coming from his particular social and cultural millieu (<--note: fancy word). Besides, that wasn't the original question--it didn't say anything about admiring the Gospel to be above all other philosophies. It was just a simple question of admiration.

Hey, I find modern secular morals repugnant, too--the way it divides humanity into "good" people and "bad" people, those who "deserve to be punished" and those who don't, it's focus on things like criminal behavior and sexual misbehavior, and the pervasive schadenfreude it hands out to others. And Christianity is certainly not the first philosophy to cast some doubt on the meaningfulness of worldly activities!

Ensign Steve

Should anybody be impressed? You have a decent vocabulary, and you can even spell! Hooray.

philechat

Hehe. What is good for me might not be good for you. Could some morality to be but a question of taste ?

Nope, they are not what I believe in. Try something else.

Yes, some forms of Buddhism are equally world-denying. But Christianity's rather negative outlook on worldly activities stems mostly from its belief in some "heavenly" afterlife, the belief that this life is merely a preparation for the (much better) afterlife in some indefinite future time. In my humble opinion this kind of afterlife beliefs are more damaging to our outlook of life than a merely aesthetic distaste found in some philosophical circles.

christ-on-a-stick

Hi cave...person

Yes, I was being entirely facetious with my first comment... no offense intended. Well, the things I say that are not original may reflect on what I find appealing about others' philosophies, but they certainly DON'T reflect *much* on what I have to offer.

After all, anyone can memorize/recite/pontificate on other people's theories and teachings 'til the cows come home, but at the end of the day it may mean nothing more than they are good at memorizing/reciting/pontificating. Hardly the criteria I would have in mind for someone to be considered a "great teacher" in the sense that most speak of Jesus as being "a great teacher".

(P.S., I don't think that words like "millieu" are going to get you any extra-word-score points in these forums - most of us are up to speed. But it's a good word.

Ensign Steve

I couldn't agree more. The idea of an afterlife devalues the life we have now, and that can lead to terrible consequences like murder and suicide. I mean the idea of an afterlife is necessary to get people to do crazy shit like suicide bombings.

Psycho Economist

the_cave, the point of this thread is what we like about Jesus's philosophies. To the extent he was influenced by others, he's not stupid, but they're not his philosophy either. Newton's motto goes "If I have seen farther than other men, it's only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Your contribution is what you've seen beyond what the giants can.

What did Jesus see for himself, having taken in the philosophical panorama of Roman Judea? Dismember yourself to keep from sinning. Is that really admirable? Is that really still a part of modern Christianity? How many limbs have you cut off? Did you do it the old-fashioned way, or did you pansy out and use modern surgical methods and anisthetics?

Remember, only a small fraction of what Jesus preached was what you call "radical love". He also said he'd lead the Jews in a conquest of the Romans, castigated the Jewish establishment for not killing enough commandment breakers and indicted families as ungodly, demanding cult-communism.

Your indictment of "secular morality" also doesn't hold. All morality, secular and sacred has some component of judgement. Even Jesus divided the world into "good" and "bad" who would be rewarded or boiled alive in lava for the rest of eternity, and not even on the basis of their behavior, but their religious beliefs at time of death. Talk about schadenfraude, early christian philosphers believed hell would be visible from heaven so the saved could gawk at the plight of the damned. Heck, secular meta-ethics like relativism and subjectivism even concede that good and bad aren't really measured up against some gold standard of truth that transcends our "pitiful human comprehension".