06.30
In Mere Christianity, Christian thinker C.S. Lewis argued that you cannot regard Jesus as a moral teacher if you deny his divinity.
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. [Emphasis added]
Informed by Lewis’ so-called “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord” trilemma, atheist filmmaker Peter Breinholt produced a short documentary “Madman or Something Worse.” Breinholt contends that most of Jesus’ moral contributions were not original, and that most of his original contributions were not moral.
Here is part 1 of the film:
Like many amateur documentarians, Breinholt committed a cardinal sin in this film: inserting himself in it. I mean, the guy has the charisma of a cardboard box. And it’s hard for Breinholt to establish credibility given his youth (though the British accent helps a little). But the film nevertheless raises some interesting and compelling points. I at least agree that the ethics of pacifism (“turn the other cheek”) and reciprocity (“The Golden Rule”) can lead to moral absurdities when applied to the extreme.
Breinholt is not the first atheist to take this tack. Philosopher Bertrand Russell likewise dismissed Jesus as a moral teacher in his essay “Why I Am Not a Christian.” Today, Christopher Hitchens is probably the most notable critic of Jesus’ teachings.
Not until gentle Jesus, meek and mild are you told if you don’t make the right propitiations you can depart into everlasting fire. One of the most wicked ideas ever preached and one that has ruined the lives and peace of mind of many, many children…
There is definitely something to be said for Lewis’ trilemma, but there is a fourth option that Lewis omits. Jesus may have been a lunatic, liar, Lord, or legend. New Testament scholars Bart Ehrman and N.T. Wright point out that the trilemma rests upon the Gospels’ depiction of Jesus, which isn’t reliable. Whether Jesus ever even made claims to divinity is a much-debated subject among scholars.
Putting aside the question of divinity, though, was Jesus an exemplary moral teacher? I’d appreciate your feedback.
I thought the clip was mediocre, too much emotionally charged language, arguments were poorly founded, or failed to supply full context.
First, I don’t think the claim “Jesus is a moral teacher” means that he had to be the first to invent his ethical code. A vast majority of teachers in any other context simply restate, or pass on previous knowledge. From a theological perspective, God’s law predates Jesus’ teachings, and generally the fundamental’s remained the same, still required to follow the commandments, while Jesus provided some insight into specifics.
The rest of his claims are that the teaching that Jesus put into a new context, such as the golden rule and pacifism were immoral. There are problems with every moral framework I can think of when viewed in light of certain extreme. This is one reason I find ethics so compelling, there is not yet one single argument that hands down wins rationally. So this argument is not unique to Jesus’ teachings, but applies universally to all frameworks.
I don’t agree with his interpretation of pacifism = don’t resist evil nor his limited characterization of repentance, there are moral justifications for pacifism in a secular humanist context. An LDS perspective of repentance includes restoration, recompense, and internal change to be a better person. Not just saying I’m sorry. Forgiveness offered the raped girl is also taken into account by the process and eventually is the goal, but I don’t think anyone expects that this should be instantaneous, or outside of her own personal will.
“I don’t agree with his interpretation of pacifism = don’t resist evil”
This, though, defnitely seemed to be Paul’s interpretation when he counseled Christians to submit to their slave masters and tyrannical governments. I could be wrong, but I never got the impression that Jesus was a pragmatic pacifist. His admonition against violence seemed radical and categorical, such that even resisting the Nazis would’ve been immoral. If there is anything to suggest otherwise in the New Testament, let me know.
I think the distinction is that physical “evil” like physical abuse etc. is something that they could endure, and would be punished justly, either in this life or after. But we are required to actively resist evil internally, and in a spiritual sense. I am not speaking for Jesus here, but I think this is a clear stoic argument. That there are external forces you can’t control, but we can resist doing evil ourselves, and accept when evil is done to us without it harming us. There are very few places where it mentions Jesus taking non-pacifist action, one was the cleansing of the temple, and the other that comes to mind is smiting the fig tree. So I don’t think absolute pacifism is necessary according to Jesus but the general message is quite clear.
This might be me trying to find wiggle room, but it seems that the teachings of Jesus were very limited to a non-political sphere. He made this distinction with ceszar and taxes, as well as dispelling the notion that his mission was one of spiritual salvation, not political salvation from Roman control. I am not sure what he would say about things like the holocaust. It is clear genocide is wrong, and Paul seems more direct about political submission.
I buy your distinction between physical and spiritual evil, for the most part. But it remains the case (from what I remember of my reading of the NT) that Jesus encouraged pacifism in the face of violence and war, and (at least tacitly) acquiescence to other evils like slavery and tyranny.
But, if what you object to is what Paul said how do you blame Jesus?
Jesus spoke directly in the four Gospels, not in any of he later epistles. Of course there is Revelation but lets not get into hat as it has no direct moral teaching in it.
I find any criticism of Jesus’ moral teachings to be themselves pedantic. I’m sorry but, no short sentence on morality will encapsulate all possible situations you are in so if Jesus used generalised language to teach a moral lesson I don’t see how that would be wrong.
I also don’t see how Jesus was a pacifist. He ordered his followers to buy swords for self defence in Luke 22.
Turning the other cheek is actually a good moral lesson. Sure, if a guy shot you in the arm its not a good idea to turn the other one, but I always took this as a personal dispute, in a culture when slapping was seen as a direct insult or challenge to a bigger fight. All Jesus was saying then is that you don’t have to accept that challenge to prove your a man and all. You can walk away from a fight. He’s not saying that if someone is coming at you with a dagger and wants to kill you you should stand there and let it happen.
I also think people like Hitchens and Russell need o be taken with a rather large grain of salt. I know a lot of people think that if someone is an Atheist this means they have no biases and see situations clearly, and is even been argued these days, but lets be realistic, both Hitchens and Russell have clear agendas in their writings. Do you honestly think they don’t have agendas to push?
As to Lewis, he also had an agenda, and I reject his Trilema. I mean, I don’t find the Gospels to be as unreliable as many others. While I do think they have been dressed up with exaggeration and interpretation after the fact, I accept that he moral teachings of Jesus are pretty well there. I think most of what the gospels say he said he really said.
Even if I didn’t, lets face it, the whole Gospel is taken as 100% reliable by Lewis. For that matter people like Hitchens and Russell took it 100% literally true to who Jesus was to make heir own arguments, so discussing Ehrman or other Bible scholars seems moot to the interpretation they give his words.
Still, I don’t think we have only three options of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. What if Jesus was simply a run of the mill Religious itinerate prophet that existed commonly in the time? He could have thought he was messiah and preached that. Even if he never did think he was messiah, though, I still don’t find anything in his morality that’s overly bad.
I do know that Dan Barker and other Atheists like to quote Mathew 10:35 a lot, “I come not to bring peace but a sword”, and say Jesus was immoral, but its obvious he’s being metaphorical about how some will choose him and others won’t and there will be controversy. Another Immoral teaching that’s too often used is when Jesus told a parable and ended it with a ruler saying “Bring my enemies before me and kill them” or something to that effect. But whenever I see it quoted its out of context and hey just say “Jesus said this” s if that’s enough.
Obviously parables shouldn’t be taken literally.
We also have to be realistic and see Jesus as a product of his time. The way the ruler acts in the parable is how rulers acted in that time, and Jesus was making an illustration based on common experience.
I just think most of the complaints about his morals are like this.
I also think that an irrational and disproportionate hated of Christianity rests at the heart of this. A lot of the current Atheist movements core philosophies are borrowed from he older Freethought movement which got its start from the older Enlightenment arguments. The attacks on Christianity were central to that. Its really just passed along to modern people in the same way religious stories are, and they define their Atheism by attacking Christianity.
I think that the attacks on Jesus’ Moral stature just fall into that category, of trying to undermine Christianity. Its basically the same as the Jesus Myth theory, only more credible.
I just think people are trying to find fault and twisting what he said ( or what’s written he said) to suit their own agendas.
I’ll respond in full a bit later (I’m at work), but I did want to quickly touch on the swords verse in Luke 22. By one popular interpretration, Jesus’ asking his disciples to buy swords was not about self defense. It was instead a parable. The reason being: When the disciples showed him two swords, he told them that was enough. But, first, it wouldn’t have been enough to combat Roman soldiers and the like. And, second, he advised his disciples not to fight in self defense when he was ultimately detained. Christian tradition has it that all of the apostles were martyred and did not resist their deaths. As such, there are exegeses of Luke 22 that interpret it as a parable to teach nonviolence. Here’s one such exegisis: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/luke_22_36.htm
Quick note on pacifism in the Christian tradition:
Augustine wrestled with this and his way of working it out was very influential. Following a more straightforward reading (like Jon’s) he thinks that one should not resist evil and so he rejects self-defense. (Aside: not all Christian theologians followed him on this, notably Aquinas did not categorically reject self-defense). But Augustine thought that charity (love) must motivate all of our actions and so in some cases Christian charity would obligate you to defend and protect an innocent third party.
This account makes sense of what Jon wants to make sense of (martyrs not resisting their deaths) but also accommodates the intuition that it was morally just to intervene against the Nazi holocaust.
Thank you, Kleiner. I could subscribe to Augustine’s reading; seems sensible.
[...] included the Word of Wisdom, critical thinking for kids, Joseph Smith: prophet or con artist (like somebody else), and the mysterious magic of Mormonism (Oh, and continuing last week’s discussion, it turns [...]