 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Church, not Christ, is the "Great Moral Teacher"
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
A popular theme these days is to say that one does not believe in Christ as such (i.e., in Him being the Son of God and all that jazz), but that one appreciates Him as a Great Moral Teacher. Some even claim that they are Christians by virtue of considering Christ to be the Greatest Moral Teacher That Has Ever Lived.
I think this is rather mistaken, based simply on the evidence we have about that Jesus Christ. If we actual read the New Testament assuming that Christ is not the Son of God, then we basically encounter a madman and a wave of craziness among his closest followers (though one might wish to argue that among the disciples Christ's lunacy already was a bit damped). Hardly anything Jesus ever says is readily acceptable. Yes, we may find the occasional bit of sanity, like a version of the Golden Rule. But then he will preach something like the Sermon of the Mount, and who can take that far out stuff as some kind of literal instruction?
Well, total nutjobs like St Francis of Assisi perhaps can... Most of us will need some "interpretation" to make this teaching "accessible" for our "normal" lives. And the same thing happens over and over again. Who actually lets the dead bury their dead and runs after Christ? Even that most popular saying of Jesus, "love your neighbour as yourself" is actually beyond us, taken literally. Perhaps you manage to love your spouse as yourself, perhaps. Your neighbour? He can be rather pleased if you are nice to him, really. And yes, immediately you will come up with some remembered spin that does seem to make sense of this strange commandment. You will have some reasonable perspective or the other to take on this. That's my point.
So we all read the NT with massive filter banks in place, which makes the whole exercise generally palatable. Yet where do these filters come from? From the Church, of course. The very job of the Church has been to interpret Christ's teaching to us in such a manner that the average middle class family can somehow manage to think of itself as "Christian". The main job of preachers is to make the glass dark enough so that we do not see too much of God just now. The Christian message has to be made human, liveable. And it's not Christ doing that - we are talking about a guy there who decided that it would be a good idea to get Himself crucified. It is the Church (hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit...).
The "pearl of great price" is in fact a very good analogy for what is happening. The oyster is the Church, and Jesus is the irritant. It is the oyster that puts layer upon shiny layer around the irritant, to contain the irritant. And in the end we have a beautiful pearl. Now, the world desires this pearl, it likes the shine. It does not actually desire the irritant as such. So really, the "Great Moral Teacher" that many people are happy enough to accept is not really Christ. It is the Church, the ongoing and often enough strained effort of countless humans to render Divinity - or insanity - more human. That is what people are actually appreciating there.
The only way one can appreciate Jesus Christ Himself is as the Son of God. Only if He was truly Divine, then His words and actions may be something other than viciously crazy. But the Great Moral Teacher that people like to follow is not Him. It is the Church, the reverse Babel, the attempt to build a tower down from the suffocating heights of heaven to the earth that we live on. People who associate themselves with that effort hence should call themselves Churchians, not Christians. Even if they never go to Church...
WWJD? Something that you cannot or will not do. What can you do instead? Ask the Church.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary Marriott
Apprentice
# 16938
|
Posted
'Ask the Church.'
It is good to be able to have a meeting for clearness as and when.
--------------------
'We have to be ready to move forward' she said. 'Maybe this is not how we are meant to be for ever.' (Mina in Skellig)
Posts: 32 | From: the half way house | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the "Great Moral Teacher" that many people are happy enough to accept is not really Christ. It is the Church
Except that these days most people don't accept that. And in many cases for good reason. Most churches' "moral teaching" is fairly transparently self-serving and often at odds with the morality that individuals, communities and society are working out for themselves.
In historical terms I imagine a case can made for Christian tradition to have hosted what we consider positive moral developments. But for practical political purposes, Church voices in ethical debates are generally undermined by precisely their claims to Divine authority. Theology that is unable to credibly distinguish between myth and historical fact makes Christian institutions appear as much total nutjobs as St Francis but without his positive PR.
Which is very sad, considering the commitment to good at the individual level within most Christian traditions.
[ 12. April 2012, 11:28: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I basically agree with your general principle here, Ingo, though no doubt we have disagreements about the mechanics of interpreting the Bible in the community of the Church. The question I have is how to defend this theology when the Church has shown itself, again and again, to be not very good at knowing or teaching sound morality.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
I'm a bit confused IngoB - are you saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing? And are you saying that it is an unavoidable state of affairs or that things might be (ought to be?) different?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But then he will preach something like the Sermon of the Mount, and who can take that far out stuff as some kind of literal instruction?...Even that most popular saying of Jesus, "love your neighbour as yourself" is actually beyond us, taken literally.
Are you familiar with Dallas Willard's take on Jesus' apparently unrealistic instructions in the Sermon on the Mount? Willard's view is that Jesus was describing what our lives will increasingly be like as we more closely follow Jesus and submit our whole being to His rulership. I've found it tremendously helpful as a way of resolving the gulf between my present condition and Jesus' words when taken as literal instruction.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So we all read the NT with massive filter banks in place, which makes the whole exercise generally palatable. Yet where do these filters come from? From the Church, of course. The very job of the Church has been to interpret Christ's teaching to us in such a manner that the average middle class family can somehow manage to think of itself as "Christian".
I'm hesitant to ask this, but is the paragraph above serious or are you having a clever dig at how the Church has consistently diluted Christ's message? I'm really not sure the New Testament is meant to be palatable...
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
WWJD? Something that you cannot or will not do. What can you do instead? Ask the Church.
You are having a dig, aren't you? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If so, I think you're spot on. If not, I'm really really sorry for thinking you are. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
I agree with the bit about Jesus not being a great moral teacher. Outside the context of divine grace, many of Jesus's teachings would offend a basic sense of justice. I'm not sure what I think about the second part of the argument.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Is he supposed to be a great teacher in terms of pedagogical style or in terms of the principles he espouses?
ETA: In other words, is this a great teacher or a great set of morals?
[ 12. April 2012, 12:33: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I made the same point as the OP in my Easter sermon. Obviously, I agree. People who believe Jesus is a great ethical teacher haven't really thought the teachings of Jesus all the way through.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
People who believe Jesus is a great ethical teacher haven't really thought the teachings of Jesus all the way through.
Yes, whenever someone says, "I live by the Sermon on the Mount", I check them out for plucked-out eyes and lopped-off hands. If the person is intact, I start to get sceptical.
Some of Jesus's moral teachings are abhorrent and horrific. And, as IngoB and others have said, insane. Only the context of his preaching of the kingdom, and of our life within the Christian community, can allow us to start to get a handle on them.
The question for me is, how is the Church to do it? It could do it magisterially, with threats of excommunication and hellfire. It could do it nurturingly, without seeking to blame, punish or exclude. It could do it, I dare say, all sorts of ways.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The question for me is, how is the Church to do it? It could do it magisterially, with threats of excommunication and hellfire. It could do it nurturingly, without seeking to blame, punish or exclude.
And which of these does Jesus seem to employ, and how?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Taking the gospels as a whole. Jesus did both.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the "Great Moral Teacher" that many people are happy enough to accept is not really Christ. It is the Church
Except that these days most people don't accept that. And in many cases for good reason. Most churches' "moral teaching" is fairly transparently self-serving and often at odds with the morality that individuals, communities and society are working out for themselves.
Of course, the morality of individuals, communities and society is never transparently self-serving.
I would also point out that the question of whether a great number of people accept something is a different question from whether that something is true.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the "Great Moral Teacher" that many people are happy enough to accept is not really Christ. It is the Church
Except that these days most people don't accept that. And in many cases for good reason. Most churches' "moral teaching" is fairly transparently self-serving and often at odds with the morality that individuals, communities and society are working out for themselves.
Of course, the morality of individuals, communities and society is never transparently self-serving.
I would also point out that the question of whether a great number of people accept something is a different question from whether that something is true.
Yes, but the massive failures of the Church in even the most basic of moral realms simply leaves it with absolutely no moral authority for anyone other than IngoB's proverbial raving lunatic.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosina
Shipmate
# 15589
|
Posted
your title: The Church, not Christ, is the "Great Moral Teacher"
Surely Jesus taught his disciples to "come out from among them" - Jesus always directed the disciples to "seek and find" God - not "seek and find the church"
I believe God is in the business of Fathering His Son in 'whosoever' - Jesus taught - pray (ask) "our Father" not 'pray (ask) the church'
I don't think Jesus tried to be a "Moral teacher" I think He lived a life in obediance to all He was taught by God, He recieved from God the promise of God - SPIRITUAL LIFE and tried to share this "life in abundance" with others to show what a transformed life - at one with God - meant - isn't this life far more than being moral?
Also I think there are lots of metaphors in scripture, so for example" plucked-out eyes" and "lopped-off hands" could mean look and see something in a different way and as soon as you do something offensive (against the way of Christ) you lose the life God gives.
--------------------
"Imagine." If you can imagine, you can dream, and if you can dream, you can hope and if you have hope, you may seek and if you seek; you will find.
Posts: 75 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The question I have is how to defend this theology when the Church has shown itself, again and again, to be not very good at knowing or teaching sound morality.
This would said by those who insist on looking at holes rather than donuts. Or to change the metaphor, I suspect that those eager to hang the church must use rope that the church has given them.
I think that this O.P. of Ingo's is especially brilliant even for him.
It's always surprised me how few potshots Jesus Himself usually receives from atheists. They might furiously deny Him any metaphysical stature, and some deny His existence altogether, but they tend to give His ideas a wide berth, when, if taken literally, some of them would be as easy as anything else to ridicule. To find them grappled with, you have to go to church long enough to note how often preachers must begin a sermon on the Holy Gospel by practically wiping sweat from their brows, and musing what a difficult saying it is their duty to discuss this week.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Hmmm. If the Church is being guided by the Holy Spirit, then the teaching is that of Christ.
If the Church is the body of Christ, ie the people who share in the love of Christ, they will surely listen to the Head.
Teaching and preaching is surely to help illuminate, to share the light of Christ, not to keep others in the darkness.
There is no greater moral teaching than to love God with everything we've got, and to love others as ourselves imv. It's not easy, but it is possible with God's help.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mary Marriott:
This is not great moral teaching.
Church failures are not new - holy spirit or not.Surely we need humbly to factor our human failures as church in to all these discussions.
But "the Church" as an institution doesn't commit sin. Individual Christians do. Therefore, although I agree that an individual Christian's moral witness may be impaired by his shortcomings, I'm unclear as to how this takes away from the excellence of the Church's moral teaching. In fact, to think so seems to me like imputing guilt by association.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Of course, the morality of individuals, communities and society is never transparently self-serving.
To some degree, no. That's what makes it moral. The problem is the Church claims its teaching is not self-serving - "it's in your best interest because God says so".
quote:
I would also point out that the question of whether a great number of people accept something is a different question from whether that something is true.
Morality has little to do with what is true. It's about agreement and choice.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But "the Church" as an institution doesn't commit sin. Individual Christians do. Therefore, although I agree that an individual Christian's moral witness may be impaired by his shortcomings, I'm unclear as to how this takes away from the excellence of the Church's moral teaching.
Probably the greatest moral precept with respect to institutions is, "A fish rots from the head." Perhaps meditating upon that will provide you the clarity you seek.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But "the Church" as an institution doesn't commit sin. Individual Christians do. Therefore, although I agree that an individual Christian's moral witness may be impaired by his shortcomings, I'm unclear as to how this takes away from the excellence of the Church's moral teaching. In fact, to think so seems to me like imputing guilt by association.
Of course, with all issues like this, there's probably considerable breadth in what we all mean by 'C/church'. Do we mean an institution like the worldwide Anglican Communion, an institution like Nottingham Vineyard Church, the world-wide body of Christians, everyone actively involved in a church...?
And is it just me who gets a bit irked by use of the capital C in this kind of context? To me, it implies that the writer is referring to their own institution (e.g. the Catholic Church, but it could be any denomination) while downplaying the contribution or relevance of other Christian streams. Or do people often use 'Church' to mean 'worldwide body of Christians'?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Probably the greatest moral precept with respect to institutions is, "A fish rots from the head." Perhaps meditating upon that will provide you the clarity you seek.
--Tom Clune
I am meditating..... hey, is the head a what or a who?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I am meditating..... hey, is the head a what or a who?
Depends on the fish.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
That's far from obvious from a sample of the the commentaries on the net. The head is a who.
So in this case, the head would be the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or most aptly Jesus Christ Himself. And we are to meditate on the corporate influence of their personal corruption? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
That's far from obvious from a sample of the the commentaries on the net. The head is a who.
So in this case, the head would be the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or most aptly Jesus Christ Himself. And we are to meditate on the corporate influence of their personal corruption?
Apparently, the exercise has not proven fruitful for you. Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I can grasp that you probably want us to meditate upon the head as a what, i.e. the church, and the fish as society at large. But is that the original, literal meaning of the precept, or are you insisting upon a particular interpretation like a one-man church?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I can grasp that you probably want us to meditate upon the head as a what, i.e. the church, and the fish as society at large. But is that the original, literal meaning of the precept, or are you insisting upon a particular interpretation like a one-man church?
I have no idea what you are asking.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
The issue is whether it is legitimate to acknowledge moral precepts from a given source as interpreted by some other authority.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The issue is whether it is legitimate to acknowledge moral precepts from a given source as interpreted by some other authority.
I'm sure that is clear to you, but I still don't get your point. What does this have to do with the original post of mine to which you responded? Or have you moved on from that?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The issue is whether it is legitimate to acknowledge moral precepts from a given source as interpreted by some other authority.
I'm sure that is clear to you, but I still don't get your point. What does this have to do with the original post of mine to which you responded? Or have you moved on from that?
--Tom Clune
The answer depends on what your original post might have to do with Ingo's original post. He was celebrating the church's role in our being able to find the teachings of Jesus edifying rather than ridiculous. Now I'm asking, do you want us to meditate on the apparently direct meaning of the parable of the head and the fish, or on an interpretation proposed and mediated by yourself? Your answer might have some bearing on the larger issue.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
This is not really addressing the OP directly. But I can't help wondering if there might not be better reasons for wanting to learn more about Jesus than for his moral teaching. Karen Armstrong and her ilk don't preach his divinity, but neither do they thinks he's mad. That ridiculous dichotomy has been dead in the water for years, surely? Oh shit, I always mix my metaphors when I get annoyed. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 12. April 2012, 20:12: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The answer depends on what your original post might have to do with Ingo's original post.
Ah! I wasn't responding to IngoB at all. I was responding to the post that I quoted, which was from Fr Weber.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
P.S. - and this does address the OP. There seems to be basic misunderstanding about how we understand anything about Jesus in the first place. Everything we think we know about him is in the bible, already filtered, altered, improved, misunderstood, and distorted by the church. The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Ok, but I still wonder, because I believe (agreeing with you to some extent?) that in a sense, institutions can sin. This mystery has been a theme of several theologians, e.g. Reinhold Niehbuhr in Moral man and immoral society. As an institution, we shouldn't expect the church to be an exception, and alas it isn't. But that realization doesn't give us a practical way to get along without institutions. The world seems to be stuck with them.
Sometimes we can attribute the corruption of the church to the pope, e.g. the 15th-16th-century Medici popes who provoked Luther's understandable protests. Medieval Panorama by G.G. Coulton goes into great detail as to dishearteningly stubborn moral shortcomings prevalent in England, although he even-handedly acknowledges that the church was a force for good even then.
We can find ethical or moral problems, real or imagined, in the church today as well. But I'd be somewhat at a loss to attribute them to rotten heads. It seems to me that the personal character of popes (and of archbishops of Canterbury, for that matter) over the past two centuries has been almost irreproachable, far higher than we could expect from other large, powerful institutions. To the extent that the church is corrupt, it is difficult to see the adage of fish heads at play.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
based simply on the evidence we have about that Jesus Christ.
"based simply on the written accounts we have about that Jesus Christ" - fixed it for you.
Not wishing to curtail the flow of erudition - but perhaps I ought to point out that, whether right or wrong, faith does not count as evidence.
quote:
Ask the church
- OK for an opinion - but is it really any more authoratative than asking an astrologer to explain how the movements of the planets dictate our lives or a homeopath to explain the curative powers of water which has been shaken thirty times to create a molecular memory?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.
If I wanted to produce a hoax made up from scratch, why would I begin by setting an "earlier account" in stone that contained such extreme advice, the toning down of which must raise skeptical eyebrows? Every Madison Avenue adman seems to appreciate that this is not the most effective strategy of persuasion.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.
If I wanted to produce a hoax made up from scratch, why would I begin by setting an "earlier account" in stone that contained such extreme advice, the toning down of which must raise skeptical eyebrows? Every Madison Avenue adman seems to appreciate that this is not the most effective strategy of persuasion.
1. People in antiquity were dumb, and we are smart.
2. Jesus never existed anyway.
3. The absence of positive material proof for something is the same thing as positive proof of its nonexistence.
4. You believe in an invisible sky daddy, haw haw haw.
...etc.
4.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.
If I wanted to produce a hoax made up from scratch, why would I begin by setting an "earlier account" in stone that contained such extreme advice, the toning down of which must raise skeptical eyebrows? Every Madison Avenue adman seems to appreciate that this is not the most effective strategy of persuasion.
If you want to know about effective strategies of persuasion....My, generally very succesful, fourteen-year sales experience with a major multi-national proved that one of the most effective ways of getting people to buy your product is to create belief in a previously unconsidered and potentially disasterous occurence from which only the product offered can protect the purchaser.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.
If I wanted to produce a hoax made up from scratch, why would I begin by setting an "earlier account" in stone that contained such extreme advice, the toning down of which must raise skeptical eyebrows? Every Madison Avenue adman seems to appreciate that this is not the most effective strategy of persuasion.
If you want to know about effective strategies of persuasion....My, generally very succesful, fourteen-year sales experience with a major multi-national proved that one of the most effective ways of getting people to buy your product is to create belief in a previously unconsidered and potentially disasterous occurence from which only the product offered can protect the purchaser.
....and where did you get that idea from.....?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
1. People in antiquity were dumb, and we are smart.
The evidence suggests that they were as clever as we but it is only possible to "stand upon the shoulders of giants" after the giants have performed.
quote:
2. Jesus never existed anyway.
Would it make any difference to the practice(s) of christianity? quote:
3. The absence of positive material proof for something is the same thing as positive proof of its nonexistence.
Usually quoted as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But, when the evidence is absent and there are alternatives which are more likely, going for the long shot is an irrational choice quote:
4. You believe in an invisible sky daddy, haw haw haw.
I agree - it's not funny.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
....and where did you get that idea from.....?
Outed? - Damn+Blast
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
I can understand that some of Jesus' teachings can look a bit strange to the average reader today. The average reader today doesn't understand the situation in which Jesus was giving the teachings, nor the culture in which he was giving them.
Fortunately lots of scholars have done research to help us understand these things and to shed light on how Jesus' original hearers would have understood his words (this is called "socio-historical context"). Anyone can read their writings in order to help get a better understanding of the world in which Jesus lived. Alternatively a good commentary that pays plenty of attention to socio-historical context will serve the purpose too.
Given a more informed reading of Jesus' words, I don't think he comes across as "a madman" at all. I don't agree that we need "the Church" to interpret the words of Jesus to us and hand the truth down from on high to us mere mortals. But we do need a carefully-studied and informed reading of his words in the context in which they were spoken. We can either do that research ourselves, or read the works of others who have done that research.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary Marriott
Apprentice
# 16938
|
Posted
ah the creative powers of fiction
and poem
[ 12. April 2012, 23:07: Message edited by: Mary Marriott ]
--------------------
'We have to be ready to move forward' she said. 'Maybe this is not how we are meant to be for ever.' (Mina in Skellig)
Posts: 32 | From: the half way house | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I can understand that some of Jesus' teachings can look a bit strange to the average reader today. The average reader today doesn't understand the situation in which Jesus was giving the teachings, nor the culture in which he was giving them.
Fortunately lots of scholars have done research to help us understand these things and to shed light on how Jesus' original hearers would have understood his words (this is called "socio-historical context"). Anyone can read their writings in order to help get a better understanding of the world in which Jesus lived. Alternatively a good commentary that pays plenty of attention to socio-historical context will serve the purpose too.
Given a more informed reading of Jesus' words, I don't think he comes across as "a madman" at all. I don't agree that we need "the Church" to interpret the words of Jesus to us and hand the truth down from on high to us mere mortals. But we do need a carefully-studied and informed reading of his words in the context in which they were spoken. We can either do that research ourselves, or read the works of others who have done that research.
The context in which they were spoken, absolutely. But the history of their reception by the Church is also important, and to me it seems problematic to assert that we can know better what Jesus meant by something than (say) the Apostolic Fathers did. How can we be sure we're not just imposing our own preferences on the text? For me at least, finding a hermeneutic through-line is one corrective to this tendency.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary Marriott
Apprentice
# 16938
|
Posted
What Starlight said.
Glad to see Jesus up-graded.
--------------------
'We have to be ready to move forward' she said. 'Maybe this is not how we are meant to be for ever.' (Mina in Skellig)
Posts: 32 | From: the half way house | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
to me it seems problematic to assert that we can know better what Jesus meant by something than (say) the Apostolic Fathers did.
I agree with paying a lot of attention to the early Church's theology and think that if we stray significantly from it, then we are likely misinterpreting the Bible.
However, unfortunately the apostolic fathers didn't write an 1000-page commentary on the gospels for us. If they had, I would definitely want to read it carefully.
[ 12. April 2012, 23:13: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I understand the premise about Jesus. (CS Lewis said much the same.)
Viewing Jesus as simply a Teacher or teacher doesn't really work for me. There've been lots of them. I know that many people say, "if Jesus, then maybe God". I'm just the reverse. For me, God (if She exists, is good, and all that) is a loving Creator. And if She is, then maybe She became incarnate as Jesus.
But taking the Church (and, since Ingo's writing, I presume it's the RCC) as THE moral authority in the world? No, thanks. Fallible institution run by fallible people--protecting the institution and themselves.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
WWJD? Something that you cannot or will not do. What can you do instead? Ask the Church.
This is somewhat orthogonal to the thrust of the opening post, but I've always thought the question What Would Jesus Do? to be about the dumbest thing on offer from earnest Christians, from the cute little bracelets to the t-shirts.
The only on-point question, ever, is, What am I going to do?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
savedbyhim01
Apprentice
# 17035
|
Posted
C.S. Lewis made a logical argument that Christ absolutely cannot be accepted as a good man or a good teacher. Why?
Jesus Himself claimed to be the Son of God, to be eternally existent, and to even be one with God. Knowing that Jesus made these claims about Himself, we are left with three choices.
Jesus was a lunatic - That is, Jesus did indeed believe He was the Son of God, but He is not. That would be like me going around acting like a monkey and telling everybody I am a monkey and believing it. People would say I am crazy and rightly so. Was Jesus a lunatic? Could a lunatic accomplish the things that He did? Few sane people would come to this conclusion.
Jesus was a liar - Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. If He was not and knew He was not, then He was deliberately lying. Through deceit He tricked millions of people into following Him. What kind of person would do this? Not a good person. A cheat, an evil person (or Satan) might do this, but not a good man or a good teacher.
Jesus is the Lord - This is the third and only logical choice remaining for who Jesus is. He is the Son of God and was speaking the truth when He said He is the Son of God. This is what I believe.
So do you believe that Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or is the Lord? These are the only choices Jesus left us.
--------------------
Matthew 28:18-20
My Inductive Bible Study Notes
Posts: 31 | From: China | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
