The beauty of the Jesus Narrative

[therealUT]

Hegel referred to the Gospel stories as the 'absolute negation of the absolute'. Of all the religious myths I have read, the Gospels are the only one in which there is one absolute God and that God kills himself: God is dead.

That God is dead for three days and the world does not end; God returns, there is much rejoicing. Forty days later, God leaves earth, to return again only at the end of time...and, the world will continue to go on.

The heart of Jesus's message is to focus on the relation between persons; not to focus on the relation between a person and a God. Jesus criticizes religious ritual, worship, etc and says that what is most important is to treat others as you would like to be treated and to treat others as if God were in them.

If anything, the Gospel Jesus is areligious: he fits the protocol of a secular humanist to a T. He admonishes his followers to spread his word; his word, again, is to treat persons as persons, equals, Selves. His word was not that individuals should bow down before Him and pay him homage through ritual, tradition, and empty worship.

The story of Jesus is a beautiful story; it is magical, mystical, and real in a sense that it is universal and inclusive. Everyone possesses the capability to treat others as ends and not means. Everyone possesses the capability to put others above them. Everyone possesses the capability to sit with, dine, enjoy others regardless of said persons religious affiliation, past sins, current occupation, nationality, etc.

Jesus did these things. He was friends with tax collectors and prostitutes. He, unlike the Jews at the time, did not treat race or ethnicity as a factor in salvation. For Jesus, there were no 'chosen people'. Jesus even kept those around him who he knew would not repay his kindness and would do him harm. Peter denied him when Jesus was most in need; Judas turned him over to the authorities resulting in Jesus's death.

These are the things that are powerful in the Christ myth. These are the things that we, as persons, can do. It matters not whether Jesus was historical; it matters little whether or not Jesus was divine. Kant claims Jesus was neither historical nor divine; yet, the story of Jesus shows us the archetype for what we should strive to be like as persons.

We should be able to be friends with those who we disagree with; we should make the effort even if it means it might cost us our lives. We should neither prosecute nor persecute individuals that have harmed us nor whom we think might harm us. We should forgive and give them a second chance, again, even at the risk of our own security and safety.

Unfortunately, this part of the story is not the part of the story that the Ecclesiastical Faiths have clung to. In many cases, they have done just the opposite. They set Jesus apart as an icon, an idol, and figure that all they have to do is praise him and praise his mercy (while not showing the same mercy to their fellow man, the universal man) and they will attain salvation. Many, over the course of history, have huddled in exclusive communities and have killed persons and peoples who do not worship Jesus as God.

This is the history of Christianity; this is the perversion of Jesus's message. It is the clinging to Christ as a real, historical figure and taking offense at those who do not see Him the same way; yet, would Jesus have taken such offense?

Jesus states both that He can be denied and the person who denies Him will still be forgiven and that those who are not against Him are with Him. I take that to be those who are not against His message, which, again, I will state is the message of the secular humanists more so than the Christians of today.

 

[OJ]

Satan has sifted you with lie after lie. I pray that you give your heart to Christ and glory in his forgiveness and mercy. If not I fear that your screams in torment may be some of the loudest. What if your wrong about Christ? Is it worth it?

 

[Lexvol]

I was on staff at a Presbyterian church (much more liberal theologically than both my training and some of my own interpretations). More than a few of my more conservative friends and relatives often wondered aloud how I could tolerate the theology. My reply then and now was this: "Church is about the person/people sitting next to you in the pews."

Anywhere there is money there is a bastardization of truth.

Now, in regards to the comparisons to the Jesus narrative and secular humanism....I won't expound, rather I will summarize. If people lived by the example set fourth by Jesus (I do not exclude myself from this either) the world would be a much better place. In regards to anthropology and sociology the Jesus narrative makes perfect sense to me.

I do not believe (as you seem to lean toward) that the church's dogma is the reason that humanity has yet to perfect itself in the ways that humanists espouse. I think that we are born selfish. It is as basic as our biological instinct of fight or flight. The Jesus narrative is the absolute antithesis of that. And yes, it is the absolute antithesis of what a majority of evangelical churches proclaim as well.

If the secular humanist are right, shouldn't we much more evolved by now? I'm convinced that with or without religion there will always be someone on earth that covets enough to take what they want by force...or any other means. I do not see that evolving out of the human condition.

 

[therealUT]

Satan has sifted you with lie after lie. I pray that you give your heart to Christ and glory in his forgiveness and mercy. If not I fear that your screams in torment may be some of the loudest. What if your wrong about Christ? Is it worth it?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[n_huffhines]

Hegel referred to the Gospel stories as the 'absolute negation of the absolute'. Of all the religious myths I have read, the Gospels are the only one in which there is one absolute God and that God kills himself: God is dead.

That God is dead for three days and the world does not end; God returns, there is much rejoicing. Forty days later, God leaves earth, to return again only at the end of time...and, the world will continue to go on.

The heart of Jesus's message is to focus on the relation between persons; not to focus on the relation between a person and a God. Jesus criticizes religious ritual, worship, etc and says that what is most important is to treat others as you would like to be treated and to treat others as if God were in them. If anything, the Gospel Jesus is areligious: he fits the protocol of a secular humanist to a T. He admonishes his followers to spread his word; his word, again, is to treat persons as persons, equals, Selves. His word was not that individuals should bow down before Him and pay him homage through ritual, tradition, and empty worship.

The story of Jesus is a beautiful story; it is magical, mystical, and real in a sense that it is universal and inclusive. Everyone possesses the capability to treat others as ends and not means. Everyone possesses the capability to put others above them. Everyone possesses the capability to sit with, dine, enjoy others regardless of said persons religious affiliation, past sins, current occupation, nationality, etc.

Jesus did these things. He was friends with tax collectors and prostitutes. He, unlike the Jews at the time, did not treat race or ethnicity as a factor in salvation. For Jesus, there were no 'chosen people'. Jesus even kept those around him who he knew would not repay his kindness and would do him harm. Peter denied him when Jesus was most in need; Judas turned him over to the authorities resulting in Jesus's death.

These are the things that are powerful in the Christ myth. These are the things that we, as persons, can do. It matters not whether Jesus was historical; it matters little whether or not Jesus was divine. Kant claims Jesus was neither historical nor divine; yet, the story of Jesus shows us the archetype for what we should strive to be like as persons.

We should be able to be friends with those who we disagree with; we should make the effort even if it means it might cost us our lives. We should neither prosecute nor persecute individuals that have harmed us nor whom we think might harm us. We should forgive and give them a second chance, again, even at the risk of our own security and safety.

Unfortunately, this part of the story is not the part of the story that the Ecclesiastical Faiths have clung to. In many cases, they have done just the opposite. They set Jesus apart as an icon, an idol, and figure that all they have to do is praise him and praise his mercy (while not showing the same mercy to their fellow man, the universal man) and they will attain salvation. Many, over the course of history, have huddled in exclusive communities and have killed persons and peoples who do not worship Jesus as God.

This is the history of Christianity; this is the perversion of Jesus's message. It is the clinging to Christ as a real, historical figure and taking offense at those who do not see Him the same way; yet, would Jesus have taken such offense?

Jesus states both that He can be denied and the person who denies Him will still be forgiven and that those who are not against Him are with Him. I take that to be those who are not against His message, which, again, I will state is the message of the secular humanists more so than the Christians of today.

Good post. Just would like to point out this scritpure that I recall:

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Matt 22

 

[therealUT]

Now, in regards to the comparisons to the Jesus narrative and secular humanism....I won't expound, rather I will summarize. If people lived by the example set fourth by Jesus (I do not exclude myself from this either) the world would be a much better place. In regards to anthropology and sociology the Jesus narrative makes perfect sense to me.

I do not believe (as you seem to lean toward) that the church's dogma is the reason that humanity has yet to perfect itself in the ways that humanists espouse. I think that we are born selfish. It is as basic as our biological instinct of fight or flight. The Jesus narrative is the absolute antithesis of that. And yes, it is the absolute antithesis of what a majority of evangelical churches proclaim as well.

If the secular humanist are right, shouldn't we much more evolved by now? I'm convinced that with or without religion there will always be someone on earth that covets enough to take what they want by force...or any other means. I do not see that evolving out of the human condition.

I do not think that humans evolve morally; very few of the original secular humanists did either (Hume; Kant). The thing is, I do not think they cared whether or not humans do or do not evolve morally. They understand that it is tough to live a selfless life according to a rigorous moral code and that many are selfish and, in being so, will make life even that much tougher for those trying to live by a moral code (Kant says that the adoption of the imperatives leads to a life of torment and sacrifice).

Of course, this is the same thing that happens in the Jesus narrative. He lives by a higher moral code and, in doing so, is eventually scourged and crucified for being a rebel, blasphemer, heretic, atheist, Satanist, etc.

The personal adoption of the higher moral code is absolutely a deontological adoption and is not, in any way, utilitarian; however, the universal adoption of the higher moral code would be utilitarian, and the world would be a better place.

 

[therealUT]

Good post. Just would like to point out this scritpure that I recall:

Jesus also asserts that individuals would not be forgiven for denying God. I take this as an admonition to understand that there is a higher being and that I am not It (basically, an admonish against Solipsism). I do not take it to be commanding individuals to pay ritual worship to said God.

In fact, the way to get to said God is through Jesus, through Jesus's message: treat others as ends, not means; put yourself in harm's way in order to accommodate the needs and personhood of others; etc. I do not take this as a 'you must worship me, Jesus, as an idol, a God, etc. to receive salvation'.

 

[OJ]

Thanks for proving my point.

You didn't answer any of my questions. What would it take for you to believe in Jesus?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Thanks for proving my point.

I fail to see how he proved your point at all. He has not attacked or harmed you, but rather has offered a prayer on your behalf.

What I do see, however, is another troll attempt on your part to yet bring more attention to yourself while trying to anger those who choose to believe in something you do not.

In the best Chandler Bing voice... "Could you BE anymore narcissistic?"

 

[therealUT]

You didn't answer any of my questions. What would it take for you to believe in Jesus?

A supersensible, personal revelation from Jesus.

What if I am wrong about Jesus's divinity and I simply attempt to live according to the categorical imperatives?

I am fine with that and it is worth it.

 

[therealUT]

I fail to see how he proved your point at all. He has not attacked or harmed you, but rather has offered a prayer on your behalf.

What I do see, however, is another troll attempt on your part to yet bring more attention to yourself while trying to anger those who choose to believe in something you do not.

In the best Chandler Bing voice... "Could you BE anymore narcissistic?"

Why are you angry?

I clearly stated that I think that the Gospel story, as a story, is beautiful and morally powerful. Your anger, as OJ's demonstrated anger above, actually goes against Jesus's message.

 

[Lexvol]

I do not think that humans evolve morally; very few of the original secular humanists did either (Hume; Kant). The thing is, I do not think they cared whether or not humans do or do not evolve morally. They understand that it is tough to live a selfless life according to a rigorous moral code and that many are selfish and, in being so, will make life even that much tougher for those trying to live by a moral code (Kant says that the adoption of the imperatives leads to a life of torment and sacrifice).

Of course, this is the same thing that happens in the Jesus narrative. He lives by a higher moral code and, in doing so, is eventually scourged and crucified for being a rebel, blasphemer, heretic, atheist, Satanist, etc.

The personal adoption of the higher moral code is absolutely a deontological adoption and is not, in any way, utilitarian; however, the universal adoption of the higher moral code would be utilitarian, and the world would be a better place.

Thus the paradox. The universal adoption of the higher moral code is just as unlikely as the universal adoption of one set of theological beliefs. There is no difference in the sacrifice required for its' adoption (on a personal level). Furthermore, to this point, the only way that govts have found to implement this "universal code" is by force.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Why are you angry?

I clearly stated that I think that the Gospel story, as as story, is beautiful and morally powerful. Your anger, as OJ's demonstrated anger above, actually goes against Jesus's message.

I am not angry at all, and fail to see anything from my post that would lead you to believe that I am angry. Rather, I am of wonderful spirit today and most days.

Of course, if the reaction you were hoping to achieve was anger then I can understand that it might lead you to assume such. People tend to observe those things they are most looking for. Thank you for proving my point. :hi:

 

[therealUT]

Thus the paradox. The universal adoption of the higher moral code is just as unlikely as the universal adoption of one set of theological beliefs. There is no difference in the sacrifice required for its' adoption (on a personal level). Furthermore, to this point, the only way that govts have found to implement this "universal code" is by force.

I have never stated that a government should try to implement a moral code (neither did Hume or Kant, in fact they warned against it). It takes personal adoption. That is it.

Of course, the prescribed way to get their, is through reason. Reason must be held paramount and not trumped by any notion of secondhand revelation; reason then must be used to control the volition.

 

[therealUT]

I am not angry at all, and fail to see anything from my post that would lead you to believe that I am angry. Rather, I am of wonderful spirit today and most days.

Of course, if the reaction you were hoping to achieve was anger then I can understand that it might lead you to assume such. People tend to observe those things they are most looking for. Thank you for proving my point. :hi:

So, your statement that 'I am trying to anger' persons is just an empty statement, since you were not angered? Or, are you the voice of the imaginary angry persons?

I was not hoping to achieve anger; I was hoping that many would read that and realize that is the central theme of the Jesus narrative and that is the theme that is central. Of course, I understand that most will not realize that, but, one can hope.

 

[OJ]

A supersensible, personal revelation from Jesus.

What if I am wrong about Jesus's divinity and I simply attempt to live according to the categorical imperatives?

I am fine with that and it is worth it.

This is good as I believe all believers have had a super sensible personal revelation. I can pray on this line of thought. You will have victory in him.

 

[Lexvol]

I have never stated that a government should try to implement a moral code (neither did Hume or Kant, in fact they warned against it). It takes personal adoption. That is it.

Of course, the prescribed way to get their, is through reason. Reason must be held paramount and not trumped by any notion of secondhand revelation; reason then must be used to control the volition.

We both agree that Jesus was reasonable.

I didn't mean to imply that you would try to implement a moral code. You have to admit that seems to be the ultimate goal for the secular humanist movement these days.

I understand your context for reason, but the problem becomes "individual reason" vs "collective reason". People have different empirical experiences that lead them to different conclusions. Thus leading to the empiricism vs rationality debate.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

So, your statement that 'I am trying to anger' persons is just an empty statement, since you were not angered? Or, are you the voice of the imaginary angry persons?

I was not hoping to achieve anger; I was hoping that many would read that and realize that is the central theme of the Jesus narrative and that is the theme that is central. Of course, I understand that most will not realize that, but, one can hope.

So is it your belief that one, other than yourself of course, is incapable of expressing a differing opinion without also expressing anger? That would seem to be somewhat narcissistic, so again... thank you for proving my point.

My statement, which you have referred to, was an opinion... nothing more and nothing less. And as I mentioned previously, I fail to see any words I have used that might express "anger" in that opinion. But again, that appears to be what you are looking for which supports my previous assumption. I'm sorry if I have disappointed you.

 

[therealUT]

So is it your belief that one, other than yourself of course, is incapable of expressing a differing opinion without also expressing anger? That would seem to be somewhat narcissistic, so again... thank you for proving my point.

I think persons can easily express differing opinions without expressing anger; however, you brought up the notion of anger. Apparently, you pulled this out of thin air.

My statement, which you have referred to, was an opinion... nothing more and nothing less. And as I mentioned previously, I fail to see any words I have used that might express "anger" in that opinion. But again, that appears to be what you are looking for which supports my previous assumption. I'm sorry if I have disappointed you.

Aside from your statement, "to bring more attention to yourself while trying to anger those...", you are quite right. Of course, I was not trying to anger anyone. I was provoking thought and the difference of opinion.

Anyway, for me, the story of Jesus is a myth and a fable with a good moral theme. That moral theme is the beauty of the narrative.

 

[therealUT]

We both agree that Jesus was reasonable.

I didn't mean to imply that you would try to implement a moral code. You have to admit that seems to be the ultimate goal for the secular humanist movement these days.

I understand your context for reason, but the problem becomes "individual reason" vs "collective reason". People have different empirical experiences that lead them to different conclusions. Thus leading to the empiricism vs rationality debate.

The secular humanist movement, as a movement, is anything but secular humanist; it is simply another coercive morality push.

Just as Ecclesiastical Faiths have, in my opinion, missed the central theme of Jesus's message so have the modern secular humanist movements missed the central themes from Kant and Hume. Some groups even hail Hume and Kant as atheists, which is absolutely not what Hume and Kant ever expressed. Both these secular humanists expressed great awe and reverence for a higher moral being, yet acknowledged that such a being does not need to be worshiped and that we should focus on our human relations.

Collective reasoning and empiricism are not my cups of tea, so to speak. I do my best to stick to individual reasoning.

 

[OJ]

Why are you angry?

I clearly stated that I think that the Gospel story, as a story, is beautiful and morally powerful. Your anger, as OJ's demonstrated anger above, actually goes against Jesus's message.

If you have perceived that I am angry at you then I have failed. I don't even know you but I know what you are. You are a beloved creation of God and he loves you just as much as his own son Jesus by evidence that He died for you personally. When I say your screams would be some of the loudest it was meant that when you realise that all your rationalization that Jesus isn't real and you understand that Satan has deceived you that there will surly be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Your in a fight for your life weather you realize it or not. I am your friend in Christ.

 

[KiffinKiller]

I'll believe in it when it's something I need to believe in - much like the rest of humanity.

 

[OJ]

I'll believe in it when it's something I need to believe in - much like the rest of humanity.

wrong kind of " believe in" much like the rest of humanity.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Hegel referred to the Gospel stories as the 'absolute negation of the absolute'. Of all the religious myths I have read, the Gospels are the only one in which there is one absolute God and that God kills himself: God is dead.

That God is dead for three days and the world does not end; God returns, there is much rejoicing. Forty days later, God leaves earth, to return again only at the end of time...and, the world will continue to go on.

The heart of Jesus's message is to focus on the relation between persons; not to focus on the relation between a person and a God. Jesus criticizes religious ritual, worship, etc and says that what is most important is to treat others as you would like to be treated and to treat others as if God were in them.

If anything, the Gospel Jesus is areligious: he fits the protocol of a secular humanist to a T. He admonishes his followers to spread his word; his word, again, is to treat persons as persons, equals, Selves. His word was not that individuals should bow down before Him and pay him homage through ritual, tradition, and empty worship.

The story of Jesus is a beautiful story; it is magical, mystical, and real in a sense that it is universal and inclusive. Everyone possesses the capability to treat others as ends and not means. Everyone possesses the capability to put others above them. Everyone possesses the capability to sit with, dine, enjoy others regardless of said persons religious affiliation, past sins, current occupation, nationality, etc.

Jesus did these things. He was friends with tax collectors and prostitutes. He, unlike the Jews at the time, did not treat race or ethnicity as a factor in salvation. For Jesus, there were no 'chosen people'. Jesus even kept those around him who he knew would not repay his kindness and would do him harm. Peter denied him when Jesus was most in need; Judas turned him over to the authorities resulting in Jesus's death.

These are the things that are powerful in the Christ myth. These are the things that we, as persons, can do. It matters not whether Jesus was historical; it matters little whether or not Jesus was divine. Kant claims Jesus was neither historical nor divine; yet, the story of Jesus shows us the archetype for what we should strive to be like as persons.

We should be able to be friends with those who we disagree with; we should make the effort even if it means it might cost us our lives. We should neither prosecute nor persecute individuals that have harmed us nor whom we think might harm us. We should forgive and give them a second chance, again, even at the risk of our own security and safety.

Unfortunately, this part of the story is not the part of the story that the Ecclesiastical Faiths have clung to. In many cases, they have done just the opposite. They set Jesus apart as an icon, an idol, and figure that all they have to do is praise him and praise his mercy (while not showing the same mercy to their fellow man, the universal man) and they will attain salvation. Many, over the course of history, have huddled in exclusive communities and have killed persons and peoples who do not worship Jesus as God.

This is the history of Christianity; this is the perversion of Jesus's message. It is the clinging to Christ as a real, historical figure and taking offense at those who do not see Him the same way; yet, would Jesus have taken such offense?

Jesus states both that He can be denied and the person who denies Him will still be forgiven and that those who are not against Him are with Him. I take that to be those who are not against His message, which, again, I will state is the message of the secular humanists more so than the Christians of today.

Good post. I like the Kant reference. I think you should have mentioned Nietzsche as well. Your post reminded me of one of my favorite quotes:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" ~ Mohandas Gandhi

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I think persons can easily express differing opinions without expressing anger; however, you brought up the notion of anger. Apparently, you pulled this out of thin air.



Aside from your statement, "to bring more attention to yourself while trying to anger those...", you are quite right. Of course, I was not trying to anger anyone. I was provoking thought and the difference of opinion.

Anyway, for me, the story of Jesus is a myth and a fable with a good moral theme. That moral theme is the beauty of the narrative.

Please allow me to explain the difference since it appears you either don't see it, or are just choosing to ignore it.

Yes... I brought up "anger" as an opinion. It was a word I used among many others in a response to your post.

You brought up "anger" as an assumption of how I must be feeling (almost LG' esque).

Can we agree that opinions and assumptions are not the same thing? Again... allow me to help with the distinct difference. The first is a belief reflecting what the person expressing it thinks, and the second (in reference to your assumption) is a reflection by you of what someone else must be thinking or feeling (more closely related to arrogance).