Originally posted by CalJust
....and the "outsider" Samaritan would have been a muslim or a Buddhist.

Or atheist, or member of a different denomination, or a member of a different culture/race etc

Originally posted by CalJust
Here is a man who was (knowingly or unknowingly) carrying out Jesus' principles.

Or put another way, here is the type of man that Jesus, knowingly or unknowingly taught that you should emulate.
My point being that Jesus was far from unique in having morality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or atheist, or member of a different denomination, or a member of a different culture/race etc

Absolutely

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or put another way, here is the type of man that Jesus, knowingly or unknowingly taught that you should emulate.
My point being that Jesus was far from unique in having morality.

The first part I agree with.
The second part cannot be deduced from anything in this thread so far. It may be, or it may not be as you say.

Btw, what difference would it make?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My point being that Jesus was far from unique in having morality.

...and there are a lot of people believing in the divinity of Jesus who completely lack moral.

Originally posted by CalJust
The second part cannot be deduced from anything in this thread so far.

Of course it can. The OP gives such an example.

It may be, or it may not be as you say.
Of course it is as I say. Do you dispute that there are moral people out there other than Jesus? Or did you interpret my post differently from what I thought I was saying?

Btw, what difference would it make?
Jesus simply doesn't deserve a whole lot of credit for his teachings on morality. He was far from unique, and in fact, far from being the best. He shied away from most major moral questions - possibly because not doing so would have got him killed - but that doesn't change the fact that he did.
If Jesus is to be given credit, or to be emulated or followed, it is because you believe he was the Son of God, not because of how good his moral teachings were.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
What's Crossfit? 😕

Self-described? As opposed to.....

http://www.crossfit.com/

It's the narcissistic equivalent to the Navy Seals; a training program designed for little more than permitting the participant an exaggerated sense of fitness with the side effect of insufferable evangelism.
If you haven't heard of it, it's because no one you know is into it: if they were, you would've heard it by now.

"Self-described" meaning, those who feel it necessary to let others know of their affiliations, when it comes to God.
It's kinda like a person's sexual identity, in that because it's soooo important to them, they reason that every one else must be equally concerned about the topic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course it can. The OP gives such an example.

[b]It may be, or it may not be as you say.
Of course it is as I say. Do you dispute that there are moral people out there other than Jesus? Or did you interpret my post differently from what I thought I was saying?

Btw, what difference would it make?
Jesus simply doesn't deserve a whole lo ...[text shortened]... is because you believe he was the Son of God, not because of how good his moral teachings were.[/b]

Good post, great points.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Originally posted by CalJust
The second part cannot be deduced from anything in this thread so far.Of course it can. The OP gives such an example.

I have reread your post again, (far from unique in having morality) and I misunderstood it the first time. Clearly, Jesus was not the only person on earth who exhibited a high degree of morality. Such a claim would be ridiculous, since there are obviously many people who care for each other in a selfless way. Jesus basically encouraged that kind of behaviour, which may have been rare, but certainly not foreign, or novel, to his listeners.

Jesus simply doesn't deserve a whole lot of credit for his teachings on morality. He was far from unique, and in fact, far from being the best.

Let's look at this a minute. Of course, people compare Jesus' teaching with many other spiritual teachers, the main ones perhaps being the Buddha, Rumi, and others. Your personal view of who was the best, or most profound, or most effective is, of course just that, a personal opinion. And you are totally entitled to it!

He shied away from most major moral questions - possibly because not doing so would have got him killed - but that doesn't change the fact that he did.

Well, he DID get himself killed in the end, didn't he? And all indications are that he could have prevented, or at least avoided it, if he wanted to (E.g. his disciples told him: DON'T go to Jerusalem! Don't you realise that they are out to kill you?) So I cannot see how fear would have prevented his outspokenness. The fact that he "avoided" certain moral issues (I assume you refer here to slavery, for example) can mostly IMHO be seen in a cultural context. I mean, it has taken mankind almost two millennia to conclude that slavery is wrong! If you were born in that time, I doubt very much whether you would have even considered that there might be something wrong with it.

If Jesus is to be given credit, or to be emulated or followed, it is because you believe he was the Son of God, not because of how good his moral teachings were.

Well, that is exactly the point I am trying to correct. If somebody (like some on RHP) wants to force down your throat: You HAVE to believe that Jesus is God! - of course you would be resistant to that! The common ( and very reasonable) response would be: says who?

Jesus, when he was on earth, was judged on his own merits, by his actions and behaviour. The conclusion by some, on observing the evidence, was "surely this was the Son of God!" and "never man spake like this man".

Of course, NOT everybody came to that conclusion. However, everybody has to make up his or her own mind as to how to categorise this person. Somebody merely DEMANDING that you believe in a certain way is not only foolish, but counter-productive.

So you, too, are invited to evaluate the evidence that you have, and if you decide and conclude in a certain way, I give you the full right to that opinion (he says magnanimously).

On an aside, we have had the worst wet weather in Pretoria in 14 years - non-stop rain for two weeks. Typical Cape Town winter weather. Signs of Climate Change!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"Self-described" meaning, those who feel it necessary to let others know of their affiliations, when it comes to God.
It's kinda like a person's sexual identity, in that because it's soooo important to them, they reason that every one else must be equally concerned about the topic.

That would be ALL of us, practically. The theists are no more shy about trumpeting their belief than the atheists are their skepticism.

People are utter hypocrites when it comes to sexual identity. Straight people brag about their sexuality all the time. Yet, homosexuals cannot win with them. If they exhibit it, they're flaunting it. If they hide it, they're 'closeted' and secretive. It would be no more important to them than heterosexuality to a straight person if the straight people could just get past their prejudices.

Originally posted by CalJust
I have reread your post again, (far from unique in having morality) and I misunderstood it the first time.

I thought that might be the case.

Your personal view of who was the best, or most profound, or most effective is, of course just that, a personal opinion.
Maybe so, but it probably would be possible to do some sort of quantitative analysis. For example we could look at various writers opinions on various major moral questions and see where each of them stood.

Well, he DID get himself killed in the end, didn't he?
Yes, but not for his teachings on morality.

The fact that he "avoided" certain moral issues (I assume you refer here to slavery, for example)
I was actually thinking of the woman being stoned for adultery. He never actually said 'it is wrong to stone a woman for adultery', nor am I aware of him even commenting on the possible guilt of whomever she had adultery with. He was careful never to openly state that the Old Testament laws were immoral - instead he tried to work around them.
And yes, he didn't speak up about slavery or a number of other issues.

I mean, it has taken mankind almost two millennia to conclude that slavery is wrong!
Who is this 'mankind'? Are you sure there were no moral thinkers at that time or before who recognized that slavery was wrong? How did slavery get recognised as wrong in the first place? Don't you think the abolitionists deserve greater praise than Jesus, since they lived in a time of slavery yet spoke out against it, and Jesus did not?

If you were born in that time, I doubt very much whether you would have even considered that there might be something wrong with it.
I disagree. I think I recognise the immorality of many actions that are generally considered acceptable today, if slavery was common place today, I do not think I would consider it morally acceptable.

Jesus, when he was on earth, was judged on his own merits, by his actions and behaviour. The conclusion by some, on observing the evidence, was "surely this was the Son of God!" and "never man spake like this man".
Except all such people actually thought he was the Son of God prior to making that conclusion.

On an aside, we have had the worst wet weather in Pretoria in 14 years - non-stop rain for two weeks. Typical Cape Town winter weather. Signs of Climate Change!
A one in 14 years weather pattern is not enough to blame it on climate change. Besides, rain in the central parts of Africa is a good thing not a bad thing. I sure hope climate change brings more rain - and more consistent rain, for Livingstone.
I do believe the earth is warming, but I also think we should never be too hasty to blame climate change for everything. For example, too many people blame floods and droughts on climate change when the reality is that they can be caused by poor land management.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"Self-described" meaning, those who feel it necessary to let others know of their affiliations, when it comes to God.

Well on this forum its kind of important. But over in science or debates, it hardly comes up, and in my private life, its practically irrelevant most of the time - unless someone else brings it up.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Your personal view of who was the best, or most profound, or most effective is, of course just that, a personal opinion.
Maybe so, but it probably would be possible to do some sort of quantitative analysis. For example we could look at various writers opinions on various major moral questions and see where each of them


If you were born in ...[text shortened]... today, if slavery was common place today, I do not think I would consider it morally acceptable.

Hi twitehead,

Probably too many issues here to deal with exhaustively, so I'll have to pick one or two. Also, I alternate between my laptop and (like now) on my iPad, which is far less functional with copying and pasting, etc.

On the issue of morality and who had the best ideas, a quantitative analysis would seem to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, since it would inevitably depend on the analisers own subjective position.

How you or I would react under different circumstances and different times (e.g. The slavery issue) I can only say that nobody can say that. Given different background conditions, upbringing, society, etc, it would be pure speculation to think how we would react, given our current make-up.

Written in haste - will look at it again tomorrow. But many of these issues are really not life-and-death matters.

On the climate change issue, I had tongue firmly in cheek. I totally agree that many knee-jerk diagnoses are totally wrong.

Originally posted by CalJust
On the issue of morality and who had the best ideas, a quantitative analysis would seem to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, since it would inevitably depend on the analisers own subjective position.

That is only true if you claim that Jesus, and other speakers positions on various topics cannot actually be known as any interpretation of their words is colored by the listener beyond recognition.
For example, either we can find out Jesus' position on slavery, or adultery, or the death penalty, etc, or we cannot. If we cannot, then there is simply no point discussing him, and any claim that he gave moral teachings are nothing but subjective musings. If we can, or at a minimum state that he gave no specific position on given topics - whereas we can positively say that other speakers did have a position, then I think we could do a comparison.
Obviously it wouldn't be easy to give scores to each specific issue, so giving some sort of total score might be subjective.
But I see nothing wrong with simply stating that speaker X was against capital punishment, whereas Jesus never spoke out directly against it, and giving a list for various major moral questions.

How you or I would react under different circumstances and different times (e.g. The slavery issue) I can only say that nobody can say that. Given different background conditions, upbringing, society, etc, it would be pure speculation to think how we would react, given our current make-up.
Well obviously who I am, is a product of my upbringing, so it is almost incoherent to talk of myself with a different upbringing. But if I did not object to slavery if I had been brought up in those times, then I would be less moral than I am now. In other words, if my morality had been tainted by my upbringing, then I simply cannot say 'I am moral, its just my upbringings fault'.
If we find out that a child molester was abused as a child, then it helps explains his actions, but it doesn't make him a more moral person than a child molester who was not abused as a child. Both are equally immoral in their actions.

But many of these issues are really not life-and-death matters.
Most morality issues are not life and death maters. I am not sure why that would affect the discussion.

On the climate change issue, I had tongue firmly in cheek. I totally agree that many knee-jerk diagnoses are totally wrong.
Well then we are in agreement. But your attitude towards rain tells us something about where you grew up. I grew up in Livingstone where rain is a precious commodity and rain is always a good thing.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I believe Christians today have the same sense of commitment today as
did those of the early church; however, it isn't news worthy to see the
work for the homeless or many of the other things done for others. So all
many get to see are the hateful things done. Sadly this is more than likely
true of not just Christians but everyone else as well. I bet if is far easier to
recall all of the hateful things said here instead of the good ones.
Kelly