Thomas Jefferson's Jesus has always interested me:
Basically, the sermon on the mount is all you need. The rest is beautiful metaphor and mythology. The "god or madman" argument from the likes of C.S. Lewis is not important, given how we can see that the same exact "divine" story of Jesus can be attributed to dozens of people from the time of Jesus and before. What I am saying is that the moral philosophy of the sermon on the mount is the only part of the story with any true meaning that is not deceptive.
You can see that in places like Scandinavian countries that are homogenous and without much extraneous cultural influence how powerful it can be. They are an "atheist" people, but what it means to be "Danish" or "Norweigan" has its origins in the moral philosophy of Jesus. Happy, caring, neighborly folk are born of christian culture, even when faith in god is lost.
In countries like the USA, things are very different than Scandinavia. We must fight to preserve in the face of extreme foreign influence. Exactly HOW is the question I face: the Catholic Church is corrupt and entirely disgusting in their lifestyle. They cover themselves in riches and call themselves "ascetics". But there must be an organization.
Consider if Jesus was not deified and he had instead opened schools of thought like greek philosophers. It would not have been nearly as effective in civilizing the world.
I think people should study ancient history and culture along with the bible to truly understand it. Know about Apollonius of Tyana, Pythagoras, Zoroaster and Mani. We as a civilization simply cannot help but give our great teachers divine characteristics. it is the way things are, and the best way to spread a moral philosophy. The same cannot be said about the far east, where Confucius was not deified.
Does anybody else follow this line of thought? Share your thoughts on the modern state of moral philosophy.
If anyone is interested in or has knowledge of the moral philosophers of the modern era, I would like to learn about it. Was there any 'groundbreaking' work done in the last 500 years or has it all been basically reactionary?
I am not a Christian or even a """"Christian"""", but I am a huge fan of Christian morality. Take just one tiny piece of the sermon on the mount. Jesus tells the people to "pray in the closet" instead of loudly on the street. there not need be a divine provenance attached to make this a valuable lesson for society. your relationship with the "good" and "holy" are real, and inside you.
I fear that nobody understands the real message of Jesus. If you had to sum it up, what would it be? Do not give me John 3:16, which is basically a blurb about the bible that contains nothing of value to society. I believe Jesus truly had a noble and earthly message.
And if you believe that I must become a deist to believe in "good" and "holy", consider this (pasted from wiki): In Western civilisation, the basic meanings of kαkός and ἀγαθός are "bad, cowardly" and "good, brave, capable", and their absolute sense emerges only around 400 BC, with Pre-Socratic philosophy, in particular Democritus.[9] Morality in this absolute sense solidifies in the dialogues of Plato, together with the emergence of monotheistic thought (notably in Euthyphro, which ponders the concept of piety (τὸ ὅσιον) as a moral absolute). The idea is further developed in Late Antiquity by Neoplatonists, Gnostics, and Church Fathers.
Good can be understood without a religious framework.
Ian Jones
Jefferson Bible is a sanitized, secularized religious truth compiled by a man who was made squeamish by anything with that suggested a spiritual dimension
Secular ethics must be grounded in some ontological if not metaphysical framework to be valid, otherwise it's a philosophical formalisation of polite society
William Thomas
>philosophical formalisation of polite society PRECISELY WHAT I WANT. I am not interested currently in the question of death and creation.
Justin Flores
A true ethics always is, you're trying to put blinders on, any ethics that isn't based in an understanding of the ultimate nature of reality is just a pseudo-ethics of how to live in the bubble of prosperity and comfort before it pops
Which is fine, you're honest about what you want, but any ethics followed long enough will force you to confront these questions
Oliver Bell
>you're trying to put blinders on, any ethics that isn't based in an understanding of the ultimate nature of reality is just a pseudo-ethics of how to live in the bubble of prosperity and comfort before it pops except that the moral philosophy of jesus has provided a way forward in the hardest of times. are you implying that it is not based in an understanding of the ultimate nature of reality? which to humans, for most intents and purposes, is simply human nature.
Carter Phillips
Of course it is, but that is the dimension that is disavowed when we call him merely a "moral teacher"
Thomas Ortiz
How? I don't see it at all.
Angel Flores
You are correct that the divine (which I think you see as central to the ultimate nature of reality) is and has been crucial in the proliferation of Jesus's message.
Brayden Robinson
Christ teaches morality as an expectation of the Holy Spirit, moral action and the Holy Spirit are co-essential with each other, to call him a moral teacher is to deprive him of this foundation and reduce him to another preacher on the pulpit, which completely misses the point about why Christ as an event was so radical in the first place
Secular ethics can take you far, Christ is interested in taking you all the way
No, the foundation is the experience of being abandoned by God in a moment of radical suffering ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"). Christ's ethics are an ethics of the void: in God's silence can the only true ethics be born, and the Resurrection is equivalent to the realization that only at the extreme of despair can true faith be possible. There is nothing of this, of the extremes of being, of the confrontation with suffering, death, finitude, in secular ethics, which is why it remains secular, it's for people who are comfortable and secure who feel they need something to live by.
Christian Watson
Are you implying that what you just posted is CRUCIAL in the understanding of why it is wrong to pray loudly in the streets, or good to give to the poor, good to love your neighbor as you love yourself?
Ryan Fisher
that is the crux of the mythological arc of his story, but not the reason he has been such a beneficial teacher for our civilization
Jacob Ramirez
I'm saying it's crucial for those things to continue to be performed when the going gets (really, really) tough.
They are one and the same, the miracle of the Resurrection is the reason why people listened, not because what he was preaching wasn't that impressive, but because the sanctity of love people have always felt was something true was finally endorsed by the divine
Carson Ross
>it's crucial for those things to continue to be performed when the going gets (really, really) tough. absolutely. i said as much in the first few posts about how important it was that jesus go through a mythological cycle for his philosophy to really take hold. >the sanctity of love people have always felt was something true was finally endorsed by the divine as long as this is not taken literally (for the sake of an argument not relying on divine provenance), i agree. jesus was the first crack in the extreme tribalism of the past. he offered each person a direct relationship with god, not having to go through kings and high priests and kosher sacrifices. he gave them a "divine" reason to spread "love and good" to the four corners of the earth.
Ryder Carter
i keep saying "provenance" but i mean providence, obviously.
Jacob Evans
No, what I'm saying is only suffering, the cross, can truly authenticate the Good. Even if someone whose just naturally a decent person will still come out the other end of suffering with a sense of good that has been deepened
As for your second point, it's precisely to read the radicalism of Christ as a merely sociological/philosophical upheaval in how humans understood themselves in the world is deprive Christ of his full significance as a being that represents man's infinite capacity for love subjected to the worst horrors of his finitude
Aaron Garcia
Sure. The japanese call it Kintsukoroi. pic related. There is nothing divine about it, it is a philosophically beautiful statement that acts as a powerful metaphor to the building of the self. People are smart and come up with this stuff all the time.
That second part is a bit ooey-gooey for my taste. >man's infinite capacity for love subjected to the worst horrors of his finitude but yep, one of the reasons he is such a good moral teacher and the biography was such a hit.
Zachary Johnson
oops. pic here.
Owen Murphy
just because you'll hear "you're more perfect for your imperfections" or w/e in like a romcom doesn't mean we can't "divinize" it
my whole point is secularizing Christ's ethics is just taking him halfway
Gavin Mitchell
I don't think he claimed to be Christ. I think that it was not in his character to say it and if he did, it would be in every gospel. I do not see the significance in believing my sins have been washed away. They are part of who I am, and part of life experience. Obviously this is not a popular view and like I said earlier the afterlife and creation are not important parts of what I think is the most valuable moral philosophy. THAT is what changed the world.
Jonathan Gray
test
Anthony Morales
Which philosopher/philosophy gets it most right?
Justin Myers
>work done in the last 500 years or has it all been basically reactionary?
Alasdair MacIntyre and Elizabeth Anscombe are the best. But they are reactionary...
