My Criticisms of The Morality of Jesus: Who Can spot MMM?

My first general criticism of the morality of Jesus is, that it lacks universality. It is not meant for all peoples and all times. It is rather the morality of a sect, or a secret society, whose ideas did not breach the small period of time in which they lived. I object to the provincialism of Jesus. Jesus was not a cosmopolite. He was a Hebrew before he was a man. If we find Jerusalem on the map of the world and draw a circle around it, covering the rest of the map with our hands, we will then have before us all the world that Jesus knew anything about, or cared for. Little did he think of the rest of the world. The continents of Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and the, as yet, undiscovered America, had no place whatever either in his thought or affection. The millions of China and Japan, the millions of India, the millions of Africans, do not seem to have deserved even a passing notice from Jesus. It is quite evident that such a country as America, for instance, with its millions of people of all races and religions, dwelling under the same flag, and governing themselves without a King or a Caesar, never crossed the orbit even of his imagination. Is it reasonable to go to a provincial of this description for universal ideals?

What Jesus has in mind is not humanity, but a particular race. Israel is the nation that monopolizes his attention, and even in that nation his interest is limited to those that believe in him as the Messiah. The idea of a world-salvation was utterly foreign to his sympathies. His disciples were all of one race, and he emphatically warned them against going into the cities of the Gentiles to preach the gospel. He tells them that he was sent expressly and exclusively for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Of course, we are familiar with the "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," but Jesus is supposed to have given that commandment after his death. In his life time, he said, "Go not into the cities and towns of the Gentiles." If he said, "Go not, to the Gentiles!" when he was living, the "Go to the Gentiles," after his death, has all the ear-marks of an interpolation. The two statements squarely contradict each other. Granting that Jesus knew what he was talking about, he could not have given both commandments. Moreover, from the conduct of the apostles who refused to go to the Gentiles until Paul came about, who had never seen or heard Jesus, it may be concluded that Jesus did not change his mind to the very last on the matter of his being sent "only for the lost children of the House of Israel."

Any thoughts?

Don’t you agree that the 10 commandments seem like sound advice?

reply to post by michaelsherlock


Jesus was part of a prophetic tradition. He was not sent to start a whole new religon, but rather to revive and restore the Abrahamic monotheism among the Israelites.

Yes, he was sent mainly to the Israelites, but the submission to God alone that he preached was a message that the whole world can relate to.

Originally posted by mandroids
Don’t you agree that the 10 commandments seem like sound advice?

I think for the most part they do, but they are the laws of Moses, not Jesus. Among those "10" commandments is the comandment "Honor you Mother and Father" in contradiction Jesus taught;

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26.

There are other contradictions as well, like obeying the Sabbath etc. Furthermore the 10 commandments pale in comparison to the more ancient Code of Hammurabi, or the Egyptian Negative Confessions, both of which put morality and Justice, before exclusive worship of a tribal deity, unlike the Hebrew 10 Commandments which begins by wasting the first two, in exhorting; thou shall have no other gods before me (because I get jealous easily!) and make no images of anything on earth or in heaven (there goes art!!). the Egyptian Negative Confessions which date thousands of years prior to the ten comm and form the basis of the later Hebrew ones, which were copied from the Egyptians in all likelyhood reads:


(1) “…I have not done iniquity."

(2) "… I have not robbed with violence."

(3) "… I have not stolen."

(4) "… I have done no murder; I have done no harm."

(5) "…I have not defrauded offerings."

(6) "…I have not minished oblations."

(7) "…I have not plundered the god."

(8) "….I have spoken no lies."

(9) "…I have not snatched away food."

(10) "…I have not caused pain."

(11) "…I have not committed fornication."

(12) "…I have not caused shedding of tears."

(13) "…I have not dealt deceitfully."

(14) "…have not transgressed."

(15) "…I have not acted guilefully."

(16) "…I have not laid waste the ploughed land."

(17) "…I have not been an eavesdropper."

(18) "…I have not set my lips in motion [against any man]."

(19) "…I have not been angry and wrathful except for a just cause."

(20) "…I have not defiled the wife of any man."

(21) "…I have not polluted myself."

(22) "…I have not caused terror."

(23) "…I have not transgressed."

(24) "…I have not burned with rage."

(25) "…I have not stopped my ears against the words of Right and Truth."

(26) "…I have not worked grief"

(27) "…I have not acted with insolence."

(28) "…I have not stirred up strife."

(29) "…I have not judged hastily."

(30) "…I have not been an eavesdropper."

(31) "…I have not multiplied words exceedingly."

(32) "…I have done neither harm nor ill.

Well, you get the idea!

but all of this aside the morality of Jesus, is not universal, it is by and for Israel, it promotes a heaven ruled by Israel, 12 thrones ruled by 12 Jews (nothing against Jewish People disclaimer), a Jewish God, A Jewish Son of God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the God of Socrates, Confusius, and Ghandi.

Lack of universality is only the first criticism of many to come!

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by michaelsherlock

 

Jesus was part of a prophetic tradition. He was not sent to start a whole new religon, but rather to revive and restore the Abrahamic monotheism among the Israelites.

Yes, he was sent mainly to the Israelites, but the submission to God alone that he preached was a message that the whole world can relate to.

You seem pretty certain that Jesus existed, I wonder where you get your proof from? Not a dig, an honest question.

reply to post by michaelsherlock

You seem pretty certain that Jesus existed, I wonder where you get your proof from? Not a dig, an honest question.

Well, considered how you started a thread criticising the "morality of Jesus" and quoted the bible to frame your points, you seemed pretty certain that he existed.

Or was I supposed to have first proved that Jesus existed before typing in my thoughts on this matter, like you asked.

reply to post by michaelsherlock


Jesus has been more well- documented and written about than anyone else. Even more than Abe Lincoln and Washington. Do you believe they existed?
You can start with the New Testament Gospels from the disciples to start.
Here is a link of just a few more sources from the Romans.Link

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

The fact remains, the existence of Jesus is documented but it can be interpreted differently by people and eye witness accounts.Take JFK, his death is very well- documented and the shooting on video but his death has been argued from then on as to how many shooters. Look at the threads here alone on about 9/11.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by michaelsherlock

 

Jesus was part of a prophetic tradition. He was not sent to start a whole new religon, but rather to revive and restore the Abrahamic monotheism among the Israelites.

Yes, he was sent mainly to the Israelites, but the submission to God alone that he preached was a message that the whole world can relate to.

Thats just silly. You have no idea what the New Testament teaches

reply to post by michaelsherlock


Bertrand Russel once did a great speech on why he was not a Christian in which he talks about Jesus and how Jesus most certainly was not the greatest moral philosopher. Sure Jesus has his moments of brilliance but it's clear that his teachings have serious downsides as well. For instance there's a verse in Matthew where Jesus tells his followers that anyone who loves their family MORE than they love him is not worthy of him - OUCH.

Also Jesus' cursing of the fig tree, where he gets angry that a fig tree hasn't born any fruit even though it's not the season for figs. It's kinda like what a child would do if they had magical powers, go around cursing things just for not bowing to their will to begin with.


reply to post by mandroids


Not directed at me but I'll take a crack at it.

Are the 10 Commandments sound advice, the answer is NO. I object to most of them, here's why:

1. No other Gods before me (Yahweh) - This commandment is in direct contradiction to Freedom of religion, one of the most basic freedoms imaginable.

2. No graven images - this is a ridiculous commandment, the language is extraordinarily vague leading to many variations in interpretation. Some sects believe that all forms of art are banned by this commandment. Also the verses that make up this commandment include the statement that God will visit the sins of the Father onto the sons. Apparently God doesn't understand the idea of basic fairness and thinks it's fine to punish people for someone else's sins.

3. Name in Vain - God is just babbling on about his jealousy. This is another one with vague language, some think that just exclaiming "OH MY GOD" is taking God's name in vain, others claim the commandment is only for OATHS.

4. The Sabbath - Christians generally ignore this commandment, even though under old testament law the penalty to breaking the Sabbath was DEATH. Obviously someone should not be killed for working on a Saturday. What a waste of a Commandment.

5. Honor Father and Mother - Not all parents deserve to be honored, namely abusive parents, but given that the Bible encourages parents to be abusive I can see how this made it onto the 10 commandments.

6, 7, 8, 9 - Kill, Steal, Adultery, false witness - All of these I have very little argument with, but they're pretty basic ideas, the sort that most societies come up with to begin with.

10. Coveting - A very stupid commandment, creates the possibility for THOUGHT CRIME. Apparently desiring what your neighbor has is wrong. Also the Bible mentions coveting your neighbors servant, alluding to the fact that the Bible openly condones slavery.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by michaelsherlock

 

You seem pretty certain that Jesus existed, I wonder where you get your proof from? Not a dig, an honest question.

Well, considered how you started a thread criticising the "morality of Jesus" and quoted the bible to frame your points, you seemed pretty certain that he existed.

Or was I supposed to have first proved that Jesus existed before typing in my thoughts on this matter, like you asked.

edit on 1-2-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

The morality of "Jesus" was meant to be facitious! Sorry for not making it clear!

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by michaelsherlock

 

Bertrand Russel once did a great speech on why he was not a Christian in which he talks about Jesus and how Jesus most certainly was not the greatest moral philosopher. Sure Jesus has his moments of brilliance but it's clear that his teachings have serious downsides as well. For instance there's a verse in Matthew where Jesus tells his followers that anyone who loves their family MORE than they love him is not worthy of him - OUCH.

Also Jesus' cursing of the fig tree, where he gets angry that a fig tree hasn't born any fruit even though it's not the season for figs. It's kinda like what a child would do if they had magical powers, go around cursing things just for not bowing to their will to begin with.


reply to post by mandroids

 

Not directed at me but I'll take a crack at it.

Are the 10 Commandments sound advice, the answer is NO. I object to most of them, here's why:

1. No other Gods before me (Yahweh) - This commandment is in direct contradiction to Freedom of religion, one of the most basic freedoms imaginable.

2. No graven images - this is a ridiculous commandment, the language is extraordinarily vague leading to many variations in interpretation. Some sects believe that all forms of art are banned by this commandment. Also the verses that make up this commandment include the statement that God will visit the sins of the Father onto the sons. Apparently God doesn't understand the idea of basic fairness and thinks it's fine to punish people for someone else's sins.

3. Name in Vain - God is just babbling on about his jealousy. This is another one with vague language, some think that just exclaiming "OH MY GOD" is taking God's name in vain, others claim the commandment is only for OATHS.

4. The Sabbath - Christians generally ignore this commandment, even though under old testament law the penalty to breaking the Sabbath was DEATH. Obviously someone should not be killed for working on a Saturday. What a waste of a Commandment.

5. Honor Father and Mother - Not all parents deserve to be honored, namely abusive parents, but given that the Bible encourages parents to be abusive I can see how this made it onto the 10 commandments.

6, 7, 8, 9 - Kill, Steal, Adultery, false witness - All of these I have very little argument with, but they're pretty basic ideas, the sort that most societies come up with to begin with.

10. Coveting - A very stupid commandment, creates the possibility for THOUGHT CRIME. Apparently desiring what your neighbor has is wrong. Also the Bible mentions coveting your neighbors servant, alluding to the fact that the Bible openly condones slavery.

Nice!

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by michaelsherlock

 

Jesus has been more well- documented and written about than anyone else. Even more than Abe Lincoln and Washington. Do you believe they existed?
You can start with the New Testament Gospels from the disciples to start.
Here is a link of just a few more sources from the Romans.Link

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

The fact remains, the existence of Jesus is documented but it can be interpreted differently by people and eye witness accounts.Take JFK, his death is very well- documented and the shooting on video but his death has been argued from then on as to how many shooters. Look at the threads here alone on about 9/11.

edit on 2/1/2012 by mugger because: add

It is funny you compare Abe Lincoln and Christ, the ex-theologian turned freethinker Mangasarian did the same, here is a small sample of what he said:

Let us suppose that a student living in the year 3000 desired to make sure that such a man as Abraham Lincoln really lived and did the things attributed to him. How would he go about it? A man must have a birthplace and a birthday. All the records agree as to where and when Lincoln was born. This is not enough to prove his historicity, but it is an important link in the chain. Neither the place nor the time of Jesus' birth is known. There has never been any unanimity about this matter. There has been considerable confusion and contradiction about it. It cannot be proved that the twenty-fifth of December is his birthday. A number of other dates were observed by the Christian church at various times as the birthday of Jesus. The Gospels give no date, and appear to be quite uncertain really ignorant about it. When it is remembered that the Gospels purport to have been written by Jesus' intimate companions, and during the lifetime of his brothers and mother, their silence on this matter becomes significant.

Mangasarian continues his comparative analysis as follows:

Abraham Lincoln's associates and contemporaries are all known to history. The immediate companions of Jesus appear to be, on the other hand, as mythical as he is himself. Who was Matthew? Who was Mark? Who were John, Peter, Judas, and Mary? There is absolutely no evidence that they ever existed. They are not mentioned except in the New Testament books, which, as we shall see, are "supposed" copies of "supposed" originals. If Peter ever went to Rome with a new doctrine, how is it that no historian has taken note of him? If Paul visited Athens and preached from Mars Hill, how is it that there is no mention of him or of his strange Gospel in the Athenian chronicles? For all we know, both Peter and Paul may have really existed, but it is only a guess, as we have no means of ascertaining. The uncertainty about the apostles of Jesus is quite in keeping with the uncertainty about Jesus himself…. Again, many of the contemporaries of Lincoln bear written witness to his existence. The historians of the time, the statesmen, the publicists, the chroniclers—all seem to be acquainted with him, or to have heard of him. It is impossible to explain why the contemporaries of Jesus, the authors and historians of his time, do not take notice of him. If Abraham Lincoln was important enough to have attracted the attention of his contemporaries, how much more Jesus. Is it reasonable to suppose that these Pagan and Jewish writers knew of Jesus,—had heard of his incomparably great works and sayings,—but omitted to give him a page or a line ? Could they have been in a conspiracy against him? How else is this unanimous silence to be accounted for? Is it not more likely that the wonderworking Jesus was unknown to them? And he was unknown to them because no such Jesus existed in their day….. But let us continue. The reports current about a man like Lincoln are verifiable, while many of those about Jesus are of a nature that no amount of evidence can confirm. That Lincoln was President of these United States, that he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and that he was assassinated, can be readily authenticated….A human Jesus may or may not have existed, but we are as sure as we can be of anything, that a virgin-born God, named Jesus...

reply to post by mugger

Thanks for the link very interesting.

To the OP i have been a skeptic most of my life but the point you make does not hold water... The word of Jesus is spread over all of the world in every nook and cranny... You might think there was a divine reason why the Israel area was chosen. If he had gone somewhere else maybe the free will of an Emperor would have had a different outcome.

reply to post by michaelsherlock


Continued from previous post......

such as we must believe in or be eternally lost, is an impossibility, except to credulity. But credulity is no evidence at all, even when it is dignified by the name of faith

reply to post by michaelsherlock

Bare with me here for a minute...
I live in Oklahoma where in 1921 in Tulsa, America's worst race riots were taking place. I grew up 90 miles from where this took place. I was in public school from 76' to 91' that makes me 38 now. Why is it that I never heard of these riots until I went to college... Historians are notorious for leaving things out that might make those they work for look bad. We studied out of an Oklahoma history book written in Oklahoma so it was conveniently left out until recently, now that 90 years have passed.

If someone was to write things that their emperor or king wasn't "selling the people", they probably would have been killed.

I not saying this happened but it is as logical to think, for the times, as it was never written at all.

reply to post by borntowatch

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by michaelsherlock

 

Jesus was part of a prophetic tradition. He was not sent to start a whole new religon, but rather to revive and restore the Abrahamic monotheism among the Israelites.

Yes, he was sent mainly to the Israelites, but the submission to God alone that he preached was a message that the whole world can relate to.

Thats just silly. You have no idea what the New Testament teaches

If you feel what I said is silly, it would be nice if you could elaborate a little instead of typing one liners like "you have no idea" and such.

But Moses was given the commandments from God and Jesus is the son of God. Its all connected.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by michaelsherlock

 

Jesus was part of a prophetic tradition. He was not sent to start a whole new religon, but rather to revive and restore the Abrahamic monotheism among the Israelites.

Yes, he was sent mainly to the Israelites, but the submission to God alone that he preached was a message that the whole world can relate to.

Thats just silly. You have no idea what the New Testament teaches

If you feel what I said is silly, it would be nice if you could elaborate a little instead of typing one liners like "you have no idea" and such.

you made the silly statement, how about you justify it
the new testament makes your whole statement look like a child of ignorance

A fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to his soul.

Proverbs 18:7

I'm finding it hard to even respond when you think that the 12 tribes were Jewish... If you believe THAT, how on Earth can most of the rest be followed?

Yes, you are right. Jesus came for the sheep given to Him by His Father - the lost (dispersed) sheep of the House of Israel. I'm of the opinion that Paul's "Gentiles" were the tribes as well. Gentiles means nations/group.

Maybe you'll make the connection that their descendants number as the sand of the sea, that they believe in Jesus Christ , and that the Middle east country of "Israel" is Jewish.

Maybe you'll make the connection that when the enemies come against "Israel" you'll know that we, as western Christ professing nations, are in for judgement. God judges His own house first, so hope that you aren't busy watching porn, having an affair, blaspheming the God of your grandparents, and all around sinning.....Repent for the Kingdom of God is near has been the gospel message for 2000 years, the Age to raise children for the Kingdom and glory of God.

Do you feel exclusive and special now knowing where Israel is concentrated? Why do you think God has to instruct His sheep to work out their salvation with FEAR AND TREMBLING ?? Why do you think our nations now swim in sin? I pray for this generation for they know not what is coming.