Sermon On The Mount

[Guest Davka]

Ok, so there's a movement within Christianity of people calling themselves "red-letter Christians." By this they mean that they only follow the words of Jesus, and consider the rest of the Bible to be allegorical at best. Which would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that we know at least some of the "words of Jesus" were actually added later in order to support pet doctrines.

 

So I don't really trust that Jesus said all the stuff attributed to him in the Bible. He might not have said any of it, for that matter. But there's still some really cool stuff in there, especially the part about the lilies of the field and not sweating the small stuff (and it's all small stuff) and being as a child. I like that, it seems to line up with Taoism to some degree.

 

So the question is this: is it reasonable to create a life philosophy which incorporates some of the teachings of Jesus, but is not overtly Christian? Because to be honest, a whole lot of the stuff Jesus said still makes sense to me. The whole hellfire and salvation bit is crap, but the tips on how to live as a more human being still resonate.

[Overcame Faith]

I do think it is possible to take some of words and sayings attributed to Jesus in the bible and apply them to one's life without being a Christian, and I don't think doing that makes one a Christian necessarily. The difference with a Christian applying those words and a non-Christian applying those words to one's life is the authority one gives the words. To a Christian, they are the words of the Son of God and, therefore, not debatable (other than their interpretation). To the non-Christian, they are fully debatable as to whether they are wise, useful, and should or should not be followed in the same way that any other person's words are.

[Guest Davka]

I've got this book on my Amazon wish list:

 

Jesus and Lao Tzu: The Parallel Sayings, by Martin Aronson

 

Well, ouch! My pocketbook felt the cash lifting out the moment I saw the link. I might have to break my general rule and actually buy that book (mostly because I can't find it at the library).

 

Thanks for the tip.

[BlueGiant]

There are a lot of people out there whose religion/spirituality/philosophy waits for unsuspecting religions in dark alleys, clubs them, and then rifles through their pockets for spare ideas.

 

In other words, yes, it is entirely possible to swipe ideas from any religion and use them. And it is (despite what some think) entirely reasonable to do so. A good idea is a good idea regardless of source (even a blind squirrel can find an acorn now and then).

[PaulQ]

You might find what you're looking for in Buddhism. It's almost as though a Buddhist monk wrote all the good stuff about Jesus after the fact. To me, Buddhism is all the good stuff that Christians attribute to Jesus, without the belief in a god, sacrifice, or original sin (and all the other junk).

[Thurisaz]

So the question is this: is it reasonable to create a life philosophy which incorporates some of the teachings of Jesus, but is not overtly Christian? Because to be honest, a whole lot of the stuff Jesus said still makes sense to me. The whole hellfire and salvation bit is crap, but the tips on how to live as a more human being still resonate.

 

What you describe is how I always saw christianity when I still was a christian. And yes, that point of view can be very reasonable and decent.

 

Whether you can call it "christian" is a matter of perspective but I'd say that can be very okay.

[Ozymandias]

I say that wisdom is being able to take the good out of all situations we find, while not adopting every opinion hook, line, and sinker. The Sermon on the Mount seems like a pretty good place to pillage.

[florduh]

Philosophies that promote peace and harmony exist in a lot of places.

 

Words that some attribute to the Jesus character are often seen as tainted by the religion of Christianity. Those same words can be found in less negatively charged contexts. I think that's why Eastern philosophy has become such a fad in America. Common sense ideas that work in the real world have been espoused from the sages of the East for thousands of years, and the authors of the Bible have paraphrased some of that wisdom.

 

I don't think it takes a so-called spiritual master to realize what works. Anyone who can contemplate his actions, their consequences, and how to deal with and accept inevitable disappointments in life will come to the same conclusions on his own.

[Kurari]

I agree, there is some good wisdom in the Bible, and the story of Jesus is a rather interesting one.

 

But there really isn't anything good in the Bible that I haven't read elsewhere in the Torah, the Dhamapada, the Bagavahd Gita, the Koran, and many, many other texts written by the greatest sages and wisefolk all over the world for eons.

 

So I don't have a lot of quarrel with Jesus, but I don't see him as very special if I've found the exact same wisdom from people who have never met or heard of him, or lived hundreds of years before he did. I think that's what really breaks Christianity for me. It's not special.

[Vigile]

I honestly don't get what it is Jesus said that was so profound. Tell me one "wise" thing he said that an average person couldn't arrive at via common sense.

 

I honestly can't think of one instance where the bible gave me an "a ha!" moment. I'd argue you can find more profound in one Emerson essay than you can the entire bible.

 

Overrated is an understatement.

[Ozymandias]

I honestly don't get what it is Jesus said that was so profound. Tell me one "wise" thing he said that an average person couldn't arrive at via common sense.

 

I've been having a lot of those moments lately. The majority of his teachings were either common sense (Golden Rule, for instance) or promises that justice exists on the eternal scale. I admit that I like some of his parable choices, but again... he doesn't have a corner on the wisdom market, by any means.

 

But different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Guest Davka]

I honestly don't get what it is Jesus said that was so profound. Tell me one "wise" thing he said that an average person couldn't arrive at via common sense.

 

I honestly can't think of one instance where the bible gave me an "a ha!" moment. I'd argue you can find more profound in one Emerson essay than you can the entire bible.

 

Overrated is an understatement.

 

It's not so much what Jesus said as the context in which he said it. It is almost as radical as a Yanomamo tribesman in the Amazon saying "hey, you know how we kill our female babies so we will have more male warriors, because we need lots of warriors to raid the neighboring village and carry off their women, since we never seem to have enough women of our own? What if we just let the female babies grow up to be women, you think that might solve the problem?"

 

Before Jesus came along, good and bad behavior were determined by lists of rules. Taboos might be a better word. In Judaism, "sin" meant the transgressing of any of the 613 Laws in the "books of Moses," as well as transgressing any of the literally thousands of sub-laws created by the religious elite, the so-called "fence around the law." If you accidentally broke any of these taboos, you had to bring an offering to the Temple. If you were forced by circumstance into breaking any of these laws, you had to bring an offering to the Temple. If you broke a law on purpose, you were either expelled from the community or stoned to death.

 

Jesus, in the Sermon on the mount, said "laws don't mean squat. Good and bad are all about how you treat people, and how you feel about people. Hate is bad, love is good. Nobody has ever kept all those laws anyways, so give it up. Love each other. Love the people who hate you. Bless the ones who curse you. Quit acting like such a self-righteous prig and be human already." He also talked about worry, and judging people, and a lot of other things that seem like common sense to us today.

 

But NONE of this was "common sense" in Jesus' day. Sure, he was far from the only person to come up with these ideas, but the others are pretty well-respected too: Aristotle, Socrates, Lao Tsu, Gautama Buddha . . . along with Jesus, these folks deserve to be recognized as "the fathers of common sense."

 

Why is Islam so fucked up? Because they haven't had a well-accepted Jesus or Lao Tsu yet. There have been a few groups, like the sufis and baha'is, but they've been marginalized. Why is Christianity so fucked up? Because people refuse to do what Jesus taught on the Mount, and prefer to dissect his other teachings and look for ways to hate their enemies, spit on those who curse them, and condemn those who refuse to assimilate.

[Vigile]

I see what you are saying Davka, and it's an interesting point. The Greeks were saying much more profound things earlier. Going with analogies, perhaps it's like the Greeks were living in NY and the Jews were living in Alabama. What was profound for the Jews at that stage may not have been so much for what was profound for the Greeks.

 

Running with this idea: Perhaps it was profound to the Jews in the ME 2000 years ago, but I have a really hard time understanding why people settle for it today when there are so many other sources of much more inspiring material out there in the marketplace of ideas.

[Ozymandias]

Why is Islam so fucked up? Because they haven't had a well-accepted Jesus or Lao Tsu yet. There have been a few groups, like the sufis and baha'is, but they've been marginalized. Why is Christianity so fucked up? Because people refuse to do what Jesus taught on the Mount, and prefer to dissect his other teachings and look for ways to hate their enemies, spit on those who curse them, and condemn those who refuse to assimilate.

 

Well, Davka, I think that you also have to understand Islam within its own origins. For Muhammad to preach what he did flew in the face of daily Arabian life. Which is why he was eventually forced out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (now Medina), since the powers-that-be (the Quraysh clan) was not thrilled with his teachings.

 

For instance:

 

1. The idea of the community of belivers (ummah) directly contradicted the fierce tribalism of pre-Islamic Arabian life. To speak of a spiritual equality in a land with very strong familial ties (which led to honor killings, ect.) was not a popular effort.

 

2. Girls were always looked down upon in pre-Islamic Arabia, and often newborn girls were often buried alive in an effort to not tax the family. The Qur'an specifically denounced this common practice as the atrocity it is.

 

3. Widows and orphans were also neglected in Meccan society, and Muhammad (himself an orphan) strongly supported the idea of public charity. Hence on of the 5 Pillars of Islam is zakat, the tithing of 2.5% of one's wealth (taken from the original practice of giving 1 in 40 sheep) to the poor in the community.

 

Now, much of modern Islam has some serious issues to work out. But as an Islamic Studies grad student, I thought I should put a word or two in to the revolutinary nature of Islam in its own historical context.

[Guest Davka]

Running with this idea: Perhaps it was profound to the Jews in the ME 2000 years ago, but I have a really hard time understanding why people settle for it today when there are so many other sources of much more inspiring material out there in the marketplace of ideas.

Agreed. But I also see Jesus' teachings on love as a valuable addition to the wider canon of spiritual teachings. Specifically, I think the ideas about loving enemies and people who screw you over - loving in the sense of treating them decently, not in the sense of having electro-chemical reactions in your brain - should be held onto.

 

Now, settling for Jesus alone is just stupid. Harvey Jackins, for example, had some really good ideas bout human behavior. And Maslow's Hierarchy is a classic. So, yeah, there are a lot of valuable teachers out there. All I'm really advocating is that we refrain from throwing out Jesus' teachings on ethical behavior just because his followers are such jackasses.

[Guest Davka]

Well, Davka, I think that you also have to understand Islam within its own origins. For Muhammad to preach what he did flew in the face of daily Arabian life. Which is why he was eventually forced out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (now Medina), since the powers-that-be (the Quraysh clan) was not thrilled with his teachings.

 

Point taken. But Mohammad never had the whole "love your enemies, do good to those who curse you" epiphany. Yes, he was a radical teacher in his social context. However, I would argue that that context was far more brutal and primitive than 1st-century CE Palestine. You could be a radical reformer and still be an incredible jerk.

 

Mohammad succeeded in uniting a feuding tribal people into a cohesive society. Asking him to change them into an ethically enlightened people at the same time is probably a bit much. Too bad they weren't able to keep the Ottoman Empire together - they had "Christian" Europe beat all to hell in the middle ages.

[Ozymandias]

 

Point taken. But Mohammad never had the whole "love your enemies, do good to those who curse you" epiphany. Yes, he was a radical teacher in his social context. However, I would argue that that context was far more brutal and primitive than 1st-century CE Palestine. You could be a radical reformer and still be an incredible jerk.

 

True. Muhammad put forward a vision of God and religion that was more in line with what we see in the OT. 7th C. Arabia was pretty cutthroat, and the social evils he was opposing--burying children alive, honor systems so strict they lead to the murder of one's own family--were much more pronounced than the seemingly-overzealous Pharisees of Jesus' time.

 

Who I think were perfectly normal blokes who became demonized in the NT.

 

Mohammad succeeded in uniting a feuding tribal people into a cohesive society. Asking him to change them into an ethically enlightened people at the same time is probably a bit much. Too bad they weren't able to keep the Ottoman Empire together - they had "Christian" Europe beat all to hell in the middle ages.

 

No kidding... it once stood as the center of cultural and scientific achievement. Colonialism, some bad civic choices, and other circumstances ruined that status.

 

By the way: you may be interested in reading (or may already know) about Tariq Ramadan (the Wikipedia page is here, as his homepage is in French), a Muslim scholar who has created some controversy in recent years. Some hail him as a sort of Muslim Martin Luther, who is advocating the moral changes you might see lacking in much of radical Islam. Others aren't quite so sure. You can decide on that yourself.

[Guest Davka]

True. Muhammad put forward a vision of God and religion that was more in line with what we see in the OT. 7th C. Arabia was pretty cutthroat, and the social evils he was opposing--burying children alive, honor systems so strict they lead to the murder of one's own family--were much more pronounced than the seemingly-overzealous Pharisees of Jesus' time.

 

Who I think were perfectly normal blokes who became demonized in the NT.

 

Actually, I suspect they were the Fundys of their day.

 

 

 

By the way: you may be interested in reading (or may already know) about Tariq Ramadan (the Wikipedia page is here, as his homepage is in French), a Muslim scholar who has created some controversy in recent years. Some hail him as a sort of Muslim Martin Luther, who is advocating the moral changes you might see lacking in much of radical Islam. Others aren't quite so sure. You can decide on that yourself.

 

Interesting guy. I hadn't heard of him until now - I'd like to believe that he's a reformer in the tradition of Luther, but only time will tell. It's such a careful dance that any Muslim reformer has to do, I think it makes it impossible to figure motives or goals from the outside. He could be for real, or he could be merely playing the West.

 

Islam sure could use a Luther figure. Preferably one with a lot of clout.

[Antlerman]

I see what you are saying Davka, and it's an interesting point. The Greeks were saying much more profound things earlier. Going with analogies, perhaps it's like the Greeks were living in NY and the Jews were living in Alabama. What was profound for the Jews at that stage may not have been so much for what was profound for the Greeks.

 

Running with this idea: Perhaps it was profound to the Jews in the ME 2000 years ago, but I have a really hard time understanding why people settle for it today when there are so many other sources of much more inspiring material out there in the marketplace of ideas.

It's interesting when you look into why it was appealing in its context 2000 years ago. You're right it was drawing off the Greek philosophers. But what made it appealing is that it took these cynic-like philosophies and the followers of Jesus (not the Gospel-myth Jesus) turned it into a sub-culture movement which grew, and spread, and adapted itself to the areas it found a home in. The appeal of it was that it sought to find righteousness, identity, significance, and meaning for people dislocated from their cultural moorings. In your analogy, it was like taking the teachings of the intellectuals and popularizing it, making it work for the common man.

 

I look at it like evolution. If it didn't have the "right stuff" to work in that environment, it wouldn't have survived. It clearly had appeal. I see that was the idea of the Kingdom of God. It was a Greek idea in its original form - that of the righteous king being the individual in his personal integrity in contrast to the despots and corrupt kings who were pawns of the Romans, that was tailored to become a social thing. People found significance in being part of this "kingdom" that was not of this world (where it would stand no chance of surviving as an actual political kingdom).

 

The religious aspects of it was more later layers, allowing a bridging of the gap between the Greeks and the popular religion of the Jews, creating an easier 'justification' for them to be part of this tradition of Israel themselves without have to abandon their own cultural traditions and fully live as a Jew under strict Mosaic observance. It was this infiltration of these Jesus movements from within the Jewish communities of the Diaspora that Paul originally fought against, but had a change of heart at the realization of how it actually did more for increasing the Jewish religion than harm it. And so he now served his god by promoting it instead.

 

So all that to say that what was profound about it was that it had the right recipe to work in that culture. It was ready for what it had to offer. Does it make it more profound than any other movement that swept the larger culture? No, but it doesn't actually matter. It's a matter of being the right fit. In no way was this the product of one individual, but a culture. Jesus is mythical figure that is a collection of many thoughts spawned out of that culture. He represents those societies and the individuals who were part of them, making their worlds in the context of the political and social pressures of their day.

 

What makes the "Jesus" figure a potent symbol to the West is that he represents the West in many fundamental ways. The values of that emerging culture came out of those who embraced their created myth to promote and embody their vision of society. That became our inherited culture, and therefore the myths of it are entwined throughout the culture in ways that are many times undetectable. It has appeal to the society, because it's their inherited language of myth to talk about their basic ethos.

 

Other religious figures, symbols, and myths certainly have appeal and had significant impacts on their societies as well, but they can be less accessible to those who are less 'cosmopolitan' in this culture. It's not a native language. "Jesus" speak to them, so to speak. In other words, the sayings, myths, and language of that religion 'sounds right' to them. Even though other languages say the same words, have the same meanings, same significance, it's less accessible because it doesn't have the familiar flow to them. As I said about the myths being undetectable, that's what I mean. It just seems "natural" to them. It defined the horizons of their reality. And that's significant.

 

The problem we're faced with is that of a battle over symbolic meaning in the language of myth. Jesus can be a real tightwad, condemning ultra-conservative, or a voice of peace and hope, depending on the social group that is trying to further their vision of the world through Jesus as a symbol for them. Again, Jesus is not some teacher whose words we actually have. They are the words of the communities who shaped their societies using Jesus for themselves creating an image of themselves in the myths about their founding figure. If there actually was a true red-letter edition, showing the actual words of the original Jesus, it would probably consist of about 20 - 30 words. The rest are attributions in his name through early students, then complete mythologies heaped on by later communities.

 

I don't believe humans ever will or can rid themselves of myth. It really doesn't matter how much scientific understanding we gain about the world. We will take ideas about whatever vision of ourselves we have in the light of the world we are confront by, and what is emerging from inside us in response, and symbolize it with myth. It's what we do. The truth of myth is the truth of ourselves. We create it for reasons far beyond just 'trying to explain what we don't understand'. We create it to create ourselves.

[FiddlingAround]

 

Running with this idea: Perhaps it was profound to the Jews in the ME 2000 years ago, but I have a really hard time understanding why people settle for it today when there are so many other sources of much more inspiring material out there in the marketplace of ideas.

 

It's like an episode of South Park I saw recently, where the boys end up concluding that religion is good because it gives people a bunch of stories to help them understand the world and their role in it. I briefly considered whether I could accept religion under those terms. Then I gave myself a mental shake. "Silly! You already have other, better stories to help you understand the world!"

 

I'll take fiction, especially good scifi/fantasy, over the bible any day.

[oddbird1963]

I'm constantly looking for books, stories or essays from any age to inspire, inform and challenge me. Even though it is possible to find such works from hundreds or even thousands of years ago, to expect any one collection of books from 2000 years ago to inspire people and cause them to identity with a set of values is expecting a lot.

 

If christians didn't have a host of PR agents (preachers, evangelists and christian writers) constantly telling them how inspirational and applicable their bible is, I wonder how many would get so misty eyed of Psalm 23 or John 3:16 or even 1 Cor. 13?

[Deva]

If christians didn't have a host of PR agents (preachers, evangelists and christian writers) constantly telling them how inspirational and applicable their bible is, I wonder how many would get so misty eyed of Psalm 23 or John 3:16 or even 1 Cor. 13?

 

That's a good point. I had often wondered while growing up why the church emphasized Bible memorization and Bible reading all the time. Its kind of like making a groove in your consciousness and just replaying this same material over and over. Then its interpreted in a specific way by the preacher. Isn't that necessary to constantly reinforce it or people just wouldn't care?

[Franko47]

Someone once said (and I think that it was the historian Robert Graves) that the Greek myths are easier to understand if you treat them in a similar way to "political cartoons".

 

I wonder sometimes if in fact, the whole Jesus story is like that. One long political cartoon, complete with miracles, emancipation, and sacrifice, that form a mighty symbolic allegory reflecting the struggles of those times.

[nightflight]

wrong thread

[Antlerman]

Someone once said (and I think that it was the historian Robert Graves) that the Greek myths are easier to understand if you treat them in a similar way to "political cartoons".

 

I wonder sometimes if in fact, the whole Jesus story is like that. One long political cartoon, complete with miracles, emancipation, and sacrifice, that form a mighty symbolic allegory reflecting the struggles of those times.

The story is really lots of smaller myths rolled into one, each layer its own symbolic story told through the figure of Jesus; Jesus as teacher; Jesus as prophet; Jesus as messiah; Jesus as Cosmic Lord; etc. It's not a single story of some historical reality, but a quilt work of many historical realities for the peoples of the myths. It all is 'history' in the sense of the people behind the stories, at their times early and later. The story is what is expressed behind the stories, the people in social, political, and historical contexts.