The idea of thoughtcrime is very much an advance in morality. It means that believers can’t simply be immoral but god-fearing, they must become actually good.
I put it to you that becoming a good person requires a departure from rationality, and that the teachings of Jesus have been an effective means to this end for many people.
You are confusing the means and the end. The means is the belief that God cares what kind of person you are, so that, say, a lustful person is just as repugnant to God as an adulterer. People who believe this will work to become better people. They will not simply follow the letter of the law, they will try to follow its spirit. So what we end up with is good people.
A lot of the parables are along these lines. So the plucking out of eyes and cutting off of hands business is about removing aspects of yourself that are immoral. And the business with cannibalism is about becoming possessed by a more moral impulse. It’s all about internal change and improvement.
I think this is all terribly clever in its own ass-backwards way, and represents a massive advance in technique for achieving morality. If you have some other way of making people good, I would like to hear it.
@Paul Harrison – I don’t disagree that a sound mind is an important part of a person’s overall moral worth. I simply disagree that thinking X should be equally as punishable as actually doing X. If this is not what is implied, then we basically agree.
Although I do take some issue with the suggestion that internal change and improvement was something new with Jesus. It most certainly is not, as you will find that this is at least present in many pre-Christian Eastern traditions (like Daoism).
This is one of the more poorly written websites I have been too. Thanks StumbleUpon.
An intelligent atheist should not dismiss the moral teachings of the Bible, or any other religious text, because a vast majority of them work in a secular context. I can understand why one would disagree with the existence of God, ect. but why waste your breath trying to pick apart things like this? If Jesus was so unoriginal does that mean that every other similar moral thinker (such as Socrates, the founder of Western philosophy) also lack merit?
Please spend some time practicing forming legitimate arguments.
@lauren – I’m not arguing that any specific moral is wrong just because it is found in a religious text.
The main idea of the essay was to argue that Jesus was not an original moral thinker.
That might not seem like an amazing conclusion to try to argue for, but I’ve found very few Christians that are actually comfortable saying, “Sure, God incarnate came down from heaven, and had nothing new to teach us.” Also, atheists, all the time say rather silly things like, “well Jesus was a great moral teacher… but…” and giving undue deference to a mediocre thinker.
And, of course, if I get a Christian to agree to that… and to an argument that in every possible observable piece of knowledge, the Bible has been surpassed… then what is left of their faith?
well to start with,let me just say,that i'm not highly educated,so excuse my non-intellectual,but even i without a high school ed,know that something fishy is cooking when it comes to god,religion,etc,do i have proof no, who does?it's virtually
impossible for most folks to even ? god,cause "bad"things will happen if u contest it.hell is hot !spooky language
i think it is all being taken out of context ,the bible and all
Cut off your arms, limbs. NOt literally. GEt rid of the source of sin. Every scripture meant be fair to everyone and do not take justice matters into your own hands.
Also, forgiving people shows morality. If you dont forgive people and take revenge, you most likely have anger or hate in you.
PS. True down-christians do not sin. Free of clubbing, vulgar language, murder, stealing, drinking, smoking, racism, etc.
Sin causes discomfort. FULL life in Christ is everlasting and feels greater than all fame, fortune,and pain is non existent or almost non existent if there is any. Anyone suffering is most likely committing or around someone who sins or a place that is sinful.
Cut off your arms, limbs. NOt literally. GEt rid of the source of sin. Every scripture meant be fair to everyone and do not take justice matters into your own hands.
Also, turn the other cheek meant go on without striking back. NO VENGEANCE!!!! But, you must ask for help if someone is threatening your life.
Actually, the context of the "turn to him your other cheek also" has a very different meaning when regarded in the context of the time in which it was said. The commandment is very specific: "If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him your left also". As I am sure you are aware, the left hand was considered unclean, so any striking would be done with the right hand. In order to strike someone's right cheek with your right hand, it has to be delivered as a backhanded strike – a gesture of disrespect, and of assuming a superior status to the person whom one is striking – it is the way that a servant is dismissed. A forehand slap, however, is the mark of an equal. So what Jesus is saying is actually, "If someone treats you as his subordinate, demand that if he wishes to continue punishing you, he must recognise you as his equal."
Similarly, "If someone makes you go with him 1 mile, go with him 2" makes more sense when you realise that roman soldiers were empowered by Roman law to have residents of occupied territories carry their baggage for them for a maximum of one mile – if you chose to carry on carrying his baggage for him, then in fact it was he who was breaking the law!
Similarly, the laws on what one could legally take as recompense for unpaid debts were very clear, so "give to him your shirt also" was about forcing a persecutor to be in the wrong and liable to be punished because of his persecution of you.
Christ Jesus was, in fact, offering examples of non-violent direct action as resistance against injustice, but doing so in a way that was completely non-threatening to the very powerful figures who would have clamped down instantly on any violent uprising.
Incidentally, claiming that the Golden Rules (Love God and Love your Neighbour) are not original thinking of Jesus – well, DUH! The context is that Jesus is asked "Which is the greatest commandment?" and he replies – he is explicitly acknowledged in the Bible itself to be simply quoting already-written OT law.
Rabbi Hillel's remark is actually NOT equivalent to Jesus' teaching, and this is shown specifically by the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). Jesus uses this parable to show that it is not sufficient simply to keep from doing "What is hateful to you" to your neighbour, but that one should actively seek to lift your neighbour out of poverty, that is why Jesus' teaching is framed in a positive sense ("do unto others…") as opposed to a negative sense ("do not do to your neighbour…"). NB the parable is also used to show that doing good should not be based on a proof of God's will (and the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats implies that actually, if an atheist lives by the law of agape, then he or she can be welcomed by God, too).
This moral obligation to seek actively to promote other's well-being, rather than simply to avoid causing their harm, is not completely original (the books of the Prophets, especially Amos, also talk a lot about social responsibility), but the emphasis that Jesus places on it is definitely original.
This is an interesting argument. Here's another way to look at it: obviously Jesus had much to say about morals, but suggesting that the lack of his existence would have prevented those morals from emerging as aspects of modern culture is ridiculous. If the Bible did not tell us not to kill, would murder be legal? No.
First, Jesus does follow His own teachings: everything you say that is considered blasphemous and you're still here! Second, everyone chooses where to go. Jesus says: Do you want to be with me or do you want to be with the devil? You choose.
Example: Your mother says we only have ham and bologna, you absolutely hate ham, but you say "ham"? Is it you mothers fault you got a ham sandwich? No.
Second, Jesus said He came to fulfil the law and the prophets, so is it any suprise that He did, that He actually taught scripture?
Third, Maybe you don't think what jesus was teaching was new but the experts on Jewish law did, i.e. the attempted stonings and demand for crucificion.
Fourth, you don't need anyone to tell you what Jesus taught that was new, you covered some of it, you just don't like it, so you in effect destroyed your own argument. Another scripture fulfilled: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:37
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
The idea of thoughtcrime is very much an advance in morality. It means that believers can’t simply be immoral but god-fearing, they must become actually good.
I put it to you that becoming a good person requires a departure from rationality, and that the teachings of Jesus have been an effective means to this end for many people.
@Paul Harrison – You seem to miss the point where Jesus puts a thoughtcrime on the same level as an actual crime.
You are confusing the means and the end. The means is the belief that God cares what kind of person you are, so that, say, a lustful person is just as repugnant to God as an adulterer. People who believe this will work to become better people. They will not simply follow the letter of the law, they will try to follow its spirit. So what we end up with is good people.
A lot of the parables are along these lines. So the plucking out of eyes and cutting off of hands business is about removing aspects of yourself that are immoral. And the business with cannibalism is about becoming possessed by a more moral impulse. It’s all about internal change and improvement.
I think this is all terribly clever in its own ass-backwards way, and represents a massive advance in technique for achieving morality. If you have some other way of making people good, I would like to hear it.
@Paul Harrison – I don’t disagree that a sound mind is an important part of a person’s overall moral worth. I simply disagree that thinking X should be equally as punishable as actually doing X. If this is not what is implied, then we basically agree.
Although I do take some issue with the suggestion that internal change and improvement was something new with Jesus. It most certainly is not, as you will find that this is at least present in many pre-Christian Eastern traditions (like Daoism).
So you’re reading the Bible and interpreting it literally?
Sounds like another group of people I know….gosh….what are they called again….
Oh yeah! Fundamentalists! =D
This is one of the more poorly written websites I have been too. Thanks StumbleUpon.
An intelligent atheist should not dismiss the moral teachings of the Bible, or any other religious text, because a vast majority of them work in a secular context. I can understand why one would disagree with the existence of God, ect. but why waste your breath trying to pick apart things like this? If Jesus was so unoriginal does that mean that every other similar moral thinker (such as Socrates, the founder of Western philosophy) also lack merit?
Please spend some time practicing forming legitimate arguments.
@lauren – I’m not arguing that any specific moral is wrong just because it is found in a religious text.
The main idea of the essay was to argue that Jesus was not an original moral thinker.
That might not seem like an amazing conclusion to try to argue for, but I’ve found very few Christians that are actually comfortable saying, “Sure, God incarnate came down from heaven, and had nothing new to teach us.” Also, atheists, all the time say rather silly things like, “well Jesus was a great moral teacher… but…” and giving undue deference to a mediocre thinker.
And, of course, if I get a Christian to agree to that… and to an argument that in every possible observable piece of knowledge, the Bible has been surpassed… then what is left of their faith?
@ Conversational Atheist
Thanks for these insights! To see Jesus as a great moral teacher is indeed very common, and I a appreciate the “new” facts.
well to start with,let me just say,that i'm not highly educated,so excuse my non-intellectual,but even i without a high school ed,know that something fishy is cooking when it comes to god,religion,etc,do i have proof no, who does?it's virtually
impossible for most folks to even ? god,cause "bad"things will happen if u contest it.hell is hot !spooky language
i think it is all being taken out of context ,the bible and all
Cut off your arms, limbs. NOt literally. GEt rid of the source of sin. Every scripture meant be fair to everyone and do not take justice matters into your own hands.
Also, forgiving people shows morality. If you dont forgive people and take revenge, you most likely have anger or hate in you.
PS. True down-christians do not sin. Free of clubbing, vulgar language, murder, stealing, drinking, smoking, racism, etc.
Sin causes discomfort. FULL life in Christ is everlasting and feels greater than all fame, fortune,and pain is non existent or almost non existent if there is any. Anyone suffering is most likely committing or around someone who sins or a place that is sinful.
*Look at it in another perspective.
Cut off your arms, limbs. NOt literally. GEt rid of the source of sin. Every scripture meant be fair to everyone and do not take justice matters into your own hands.
Also, turn the other cheek meant go on without striking back. NO VENGEANCE!!!! But, you must ask for help if someone is threatening your life.
Actually, the context of the "turn to him your other cheek also" has a very different meaning when regarded in the context of the time in which it was said. The commandment is very specific: "If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him your left also". As I am sure you are aware, the left hand was considered unclean, so any striking would be done with the right hand. In order to strike someone's right cheek with your right hand, it has to be delivered as a backhanded strike – a gesture of disrespect, and of assuming a superior status to the person whom one is striking – it is the way that a servant is dismissed. A forehand slap, however, is the mark of an equal. So what Jesus is saying is actually, "If someone treats you as his subordinate, demand that if he wishes to continue punishing you, he must recognise you as his equal."
Similarly, "If someone makes you go with him 1 mile, go with him 2" makes more sense when you realise that roman soldiers were empowered by Roman law to have residents of occupied territories carry their baggage for them for a maximum of one mile – if you chose to carry on carrying his baggage for him, then in fact it was he who was breaking the law!
Similarly, the laws on what one could legally take as recompense for unpaid debts were very clear, so "give to him your shirt also" was about forcing a persecutor to be in the wrong and liable to be punished because of his persecution of you.
Christ Jesus was, in fact, offering examples of non-violent direct action as resistance against injustice, but doing so in a way that was completely non-threatening to the very powerful figures who would have clamped down instantly on any violent uprising.
Incidentally, claiming that the Golden Rules (Love God and Love your Neighbour) are not original thinking of Jesus – well, DUH! The context is that Jesus is asked "Which is the greatest commandment?" and he replies – he is explicitly acknowledged in the Bible itself to be simply quoting already-written OT law.
Rabbi Hillel's remark is actually NOT equivalent to Jesus' teaching, and this is shown specifically by the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). Jesus uses this parable to show that it is not sufficient simply to keep from doing "What is hateful to you" to your neighbour, but that one should actively seek to lift your neighbour out of poverty, that is why Jesus' teaching is framed in a positive sense ("do unto others…") as opposed to a negative sense ("do not do to your neighbour…"). NB the parable is also used to show that doing good should not be based on a proof of God's will (and the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats implies that actually, if an atheist lives by the law of agape, then he or she can be welcomed by God, too).
This moral obligation to seek actively to promote other's well-being, rather than simply to avoid causing their harm, is not completely original (the books of the Prophets, especially Amos, also talk a lot about social responsibility), but the emphasis that Jesus places on it is definitely original.
This is an interesting argument. Here's another way to look at it: obviously Jesus had much to say about morals, but suggesting that the lack of his existence would have prevented those morals from emerging as aspects of modern culture is ridiculous. If the Bible did not tell us not to kill, would murder be legal? No.
There's an interesting essay on The Ethical Teachings of Jesus and how unoriginal they were at http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/ethics.htm…
First, Jesus does follow His own teachings: everything you say that is considered blasphemous and you're still here! Second, everyone chooses where to go. Jesus says: Do you want to be with me or do you want to be with the devil? You choose.
Example: Your mother says we only have ham and bologna, you absolutely hate ham, but you say "ham"? Is it you mothers fault you got a ham sandwich? No.
Second, Jesus said He came to fulfil the law and the prophets, so is it any suprise that He did, that He actually taught scripture?
Third, Maybe you don't think what jesus was teaching was new but the experts on Jewish law did, i.e. the attempted stonings and demand for crucificion.
Fourth, you don't need anyone to tell you what Jesus taught that was new, you covered some of it, you just don't like it, so you in effect destroyed your own argument. Another scripture fulfilled: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:37
{ 1 trackback }