It occurs to me that extraneous is more than I intended. I’ll grant it may serve as well for the purpose as any other. I would amend the part you quoted to say no particular subject of study and reflection is indispensable.
Thanks for your thoughts, SF…“Appalling” — well, maybe. But “forgiveness” is not raised as a possibility in order to “avoid being tortured by a powerful master.” It is raised as a practice because no one is perfect. Complicated subject. But ultimately “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” I suppose I see the admonition to forgive as “hard” but not “appalling.” And forgiveness does not mean accepting abuse. Some situations are just better to get away from. The complexity of it all is what makes the saying of Jesus sometimes “hard.” People have been spilling over them for centuries. The parable of the mina (in Luke) and the “ungrateful servant” (Matthew 18??) — well, the initial question for this thread was what atheists find objectionable about Jesus. So you said what you said, and good enough.
But parables were always told to illustrate some larger point, not just as stories. And they need to be evaluated within the context of first-century culture and the mindset of Jesus’ hearers, as well as their conformity to teachings and concepts that already existed in Scripture The ultimate message is that Jesus (“the king” or the master in these stories) will be coming back some day. There is going to be a judgment. That, in and of itself, is not a “fun” thought. The details of it, in a parable, can be debated — that is, how did the king/master’s servants conduct themselves in the meantime, etc. But judgment— coming from the Creator of the Universe — is likely to be a tough moment in the history of the world…
So OK, it is “appalling.” But judgment is something we all want to happen when we see injustice (think of everything you have seen that you think “there oughta be a law” or “that is not right” etc …it just may be that judgment also apply to us as well …So thanks for your thoughts. I do appreciate having heard them, at least.
2 Likes
As Sodom and Gomorrah and Tyre and Sidon actually get a more bearable judgement than Bethsaida and Chorazin and Capernaum, who obviously still get a bearable one, what’s so bad about judgement?
Really? You are asking me? If judgment was “not so bad” or bearable, then Jesus would not have needed to come and pay the price for our sins. Don’t count on it being “what’s so bad” in any case. That is what we try to tell police officers who stop us for speeding.
Just as a generation of ancient Israel was held responsible for their behavior during the Exodus — remember? the food wasn’t good enough and they wanted a God they could see??? — so these other people-groups or cities are noted as having been held to account for their actions (or inactions) toward God in their day.
You may be reading a bit too much into the comparison though. The statement made by Jesus may be more a statement of responsibility than a “philosophical discussion of the level or type of judgment.”
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah did not have the Creator of the Universe walking in their midst, preaching and teaching and performing miracles (etc). Sodom and Gomorrah had human preachers (or at least one), and evidently they knew “enough” to have been candidates for such a massive destruction as described… “Bearable” may be hardly the word to describe the nature of it since it seems to have been violent and they all ended up dead.
But the people of Jesus’ time were in the presence of the Creator of the Universe — and still not believing. Evidently it sometimes is not a matter of lack of evidence…
You and I know even more than the folks in Tyre and Sidon. So maybe "the folks in Bethsaida and Chorazin and Capernaum and Sodom and Gomorrah get a more bearable judgment than the folks in …Seattle? Amsterdam? I would not count on any of it being “fun,” Klax. Just my feeling.
Jesus wasn’t talking about a past judgement. And I knew there’d be a yeah but. What is the price of our sins by the way?
Amsterdam is a fabulous city. But it needs nuking because it has a red light district and a regulated sex industry? Crimes against God that necessitated human sacrifice?
Hello again, Klax, and good questions.
No, I know that Jesus was not talking about a past judgement. When I said “If judgment was ‘not so bad’ or bearable, then Jesus would not have needed to come and pay the price for our sins.” That was something of a second conditional statement — i.e., past simple (verb), present conditional — or close to it. I was commenting on your apparent belief that judgment might not be so bad — maybe kind of like your parents sending you to “time out” when you were a kid. I was referring to that. I was not thinking that judgment is a past-tense event…although it will be rather “tense” in another sense.
Inasmuch as the question initially seemed to be a desire on someone’s part to find out what atheists find objectionable about Jesus Christ, I presume — just from what I am reading? — that some, or most, of the objections raised by various individuals here have to do with a stated or implied judgment event in some of Jesus’ words? a judgment which some or many will not fare well at?
This is my general impression — e.g., someone finding the parable of the ten minas “appalling,” and the like.
Glad to hear you like Amsterdam and I hope to go there some day. (Post corona). But my reference was to the level of knowledge we have today, as opposed to those living in other times. Jesus had made a similar comparison of the heightened culpability of some prominent towns in Galilee — the heightened culpability due to their having been the recipient of multiple miracles, seen and heard the teachings of Jesus – but still refusing to believe. This level of culpability was compared by Jesus to the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah who had definite morality issues and were long ago subjected to judgment.
As for “the price of our sins, by the way?” and “crimes against God that necessitated human sacrifice?”… As I said previously, we all have a sense of right and wrong. We see wrong or evil being done, and we want that situation (whether sex trafficking, tax evasion, the Holocaust, gossiping, auto theft —fill in the blank) changed or rectified. I am sure that you are on board with things like that. The problem, of course, is that we all are the problem. Even if you are not guilty of the list I gave (really? never gossiped?!), you have transgressed somewhere. “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. …If we claim we have not sinned we make him [i.e., God] out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives” (1 John 1:8,10)
And the price tag: — “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). BTW, death means eternal separation from God – i.e., hell…weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, where their worm …etc. That place.
As for “Crimes against God that necessitated human sacrifice?”…well, that is the problem. Only a sinless being could take the penalty for our sin. If you look out your window and think you see a sinless human walking around, lucky you — but no!! you do not know that person all that well, in that case. Jesus was not just a “human sacrifice.” He was sinless and lived the life you and I should be living, but are not. He was God Manifest or God-made-man. He said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Things like that…not something a human could say. And later in the Bible Jesus says things like “I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One. I was dead and behold I am alive forever and ever. And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” (Revelation 1:17) There is more, of course. But enough for now.
Hope that I answered your questions. And I hope you will think seriously about all this. You most likely have time for it — that is, if you are sheltering in place somewhere …
1 Like
Pier Paolo Pasolini, an atheist Marxist who was expelled from the Italian Communist Party for homosexuality, seemed to admire Jesus’s teachings. He made the film The Gospel According to St. Matthew in 1964 (the actor of Jesus also happened to be an agnostic Marxist-Stalinist), and it was well received by conservative Catholics.
Despite the Marxist-Leninist atheism promoted by communist parties and their own antipathy to clericalism in Catholic countries, many ideologically heterodox left-wing atheists still remained fascinated by Jesus.
2 Likes
That is quite a background for Pier Passolini! And quite a complex mix of ideologies.
Pasolini dedicated his gospel film to Pope John XXIII, but the Spanish actor of Jesus, Enrique Irazoqui, became upset at this, presumably due to his anti-clericalism.
Even though the Vatican apparently liked the film, Irazoqui got punished (I am not sure how) for participating in a “communist propaganda film” when he went back to Spain during Francisco Franco’s dictatorship. Of course, anyone would be hard-pressed to find any Marxist material in a film that closely follows the book of Matthew, though some people see the depiction of Jesus as kind of a “firebrand,” a “revolutionary,” or an “upstart.”
1 Like
Thank you Robin and well said. I guess that I was hoping for a more deep insight into the teachings of Jesus from an atheist point of view than the more superficial analysis of a view of damnation that relies on reverting to some preconceived concepts that do not address the fundamental meaning of the teachings. Describing these teachings as simple or cruel and describing Jesus as a confused monster, really? Jesus came to save humanity by showing us all the way in Him, not to condemn us to destruction.
I learned some things too, Scott----“learningU”. I suppose that–in general-- if you do not “believe” the pronouncements of a particular religious figure (or historical non-religious figure or modern-day politician or philosopher), then that is as far as it goes. Jesus did, in some of His pronouncements, say His words would be offensive to many. I suppose that that turns out to be true. (He did end up being crucified after all.) Great idea though for a post!!
Nice distraction bluebird1, it’s when you said,
“The people of Sodom and Gomorrah did not have the Creator of the Universe walking in their midst, preaching and teaching and performing miracles (etc). Sodom and Gomorrah had human preachers (or at least one), and evidently they knew “enough” to have been candidates for such a massive destruction as described… “Bearable” may be hardly the word to describe the nature of it since it seems to have been violent and they all ended up dead.”
Yeah, these atheists eh? I mean who else would take these ancient motivational metaphors, which can have nothing to do with the actual afterlife, and be so woodenly literal about them?
Blame for what? And the consequences for them are? So the mythical nuking was S&G’s bearable judgement? In the future past pluperfect conditional aorist?
And? What has that got to do with atonement? With PSA?
Jesus had to submit to be murdered for my gossip?
Aye, I know the rhetoric as well as you for as long I’m sure. How do you interpret it? And you know BTW how? What is your epistemology?
I know the more. I know it all, like everyone here who can read and has for decades. I also used your here a little, there a little approach with the proof texts for many of them. But my epistemology has been changed.
You’ve answered them according to epistemology. What makes you think I never have thought seriously about all this for 50 years and more? What yet do I have to think about it? What do you? Beyond your current epistemology?
Thank you Robin. Yes, it is good to try to better understand the teachings of Jesus. I think that there may be a much more fundamental understanding His teachings that comes from a scientific point of view. I believe that His teachings transcend to a higher understanding of life and death in our world.
Everything that lives dies in this world.
This seems obvious, but why is that?
What scientific law (s) require this?
Why did the ancient people all around the planet believe in sacrifice?
What can we learn from when Jesus speaks much about giving and rewards of that giving related to the bearing of the spiritual fruits?
Matthew 5 : 44. Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in Heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and send rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not the tax collectors doing that? And you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.
I think some of Jesus’ teachings are very bad. For example, the teaching to not resist an evildoer, a teaching that forbids divorce for reasons other than adultery (which enables spousal abuse), a teaching that a person must give up all their possessions (Luke 12:33, Luke 14:33) to become a disciple.
I’d say there is more bad than good. Luckily for many Christians, they don’t take Jesus’ teachings (those that I mentioned) seriously.
Well, Jesus brought the doctrine of eternal punishment, and made a claim that majority of people will end up in Hell. (Narrow is the way that leads to life and few find it). In the Old Testament, God regretted global flood. But Jesus had no regret about the eternal hell, as far as we know.
Hi again, Scott. I think understanding the teachings of Jesus comes best from understanding the culture and the thinking and expectations of those to whom He spoke. It is the same as is done with any historical piece of work and/or literature — which is as the gospels and the biblical text (in general) claim to be. That is, the gospels claim to be describing someone who really lived and who really was the sort of Messianic God-made-man individual that the people of that region sought. This, of course, takes some search of background, culture, ways of thinking, etc.
I am not leaving “science” out, especially since an organization like Biologos is focused on integrating modern scientific beliefs with some areas of theology. But science does have limitations. It does not necessarily help do exegesis on religious texts — or on every page of them.
So the teachings of Jesus seem to be largely an elaboration upon (or clarification of?) thoughts and ideas that existed in ancient Judean and Galilean society and/or came from the Scriptures — that is, what we might call the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament. Thus we learn what He meant or did better if we understand the culture, the religious text, the (sometimes even) writings of people and groups extant in the Judea of His era).
And yes, the comments in Matthew 5:44 about loving others as God loves them — these are (and were at the time) challenging. They do have to be taken in the context of how Jesus did actually speak to people at times — telling some that they only were interested in Him because He gave them bread and/or did miracles…calling others “whitewashed sepulchres,” etc. He was crucified, after all. And the reasons for that had as much to do with His claiming to be God Incarnate as with — quite likely – His challenge to the religiosity of some practitioners.
You and I only understand what a “whitewashed sepulchre” would have implied to Jesus’ hearers when we learn about the culture and life and thinking of His day and the world of Judea and Galilee. Science, in this case, does not help.
As for why “Everything that lives dies in this world” — the “scientific law” that requires that seems to relate to the rebellion of humanity. I know this is somewhat controversial, given the prevalence of death and that (it seems) it preceded the first humans. But “for as by a man came death, by a man has also come the resurrection of the dead…” ( 1 Corinthians 15: 21 etc)… That is a whole other conversation. But death in general seems to have been a consequence of human rebellion. Long discussion, no time for it now.
As for why sacrifice seems to be a part of the practices of “the ancient people all around the planet”… Good question. I would suspect that this might be considered part of that category of general revelation. Lots of things could be tossed into this bucket!! In other words, all people recognize that we are apart from some Higher Creator (however defined) and that this situation is not right (the biblical teaching being that we were created for friendship with Him but have become estranged by our own actions), and that God (however defined) needs to be “appeased.” The Judeo-Christian terminology would not be “appeased” but that a sacrifice and/or offering is (has been) needed to cover (atone for) our sins. Only by this can we have a
renewed relationship with Him.
The Christian version is based upon the expectations that developed in ancient Israel (before it was called Judaism). All of this is a loooooong and separate story. But the reason all people have engaged in some form of sacrifice is a desire to appease (or in some cases, obligate) the gods–thus gaining access that we instinctively feel or know has been lost.
OK…nuff said.
Have a great day.
That’s a lot of “stuff,” Klax!!!
I know the original idea was for this blog to ponder what “disputes” atheists actually have about the teachings of Jesus Christ. But it does seem that “dislike of His teachings regarding judgment” is a strong candidate for the Top Honor here…
That somewhat helps in understanding why atheists feel the way they feel. Best I can say on that.
As for the rest — I was not trying to “distract” in the one example. I do not think we need to go much more into that. We are responsible for the light we have been given. And we have, in every generation, been given plenty of light…our era even more than in Jesus’ time.
As for the whole matter of “the mythical nuking” of Sodom and Gomorrah…well, no telling how nuclear the event was that led to their demise. There is evidence that the two ancient communities on the southern region of the Dead Sea met some violent end – whether by volcano or comet or “give me your next theory,” the evidence has been there for quite a long time. The destruction of those two long-ago locales has long been used as a warning in both Old and New Testaments.
1 Like
Klax to bluebird1, most shrewd, well played. There was no significant vulcanism in that end of the Rift Valley. No Tunguska event. It’s a myth. Exploited in pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment, moral motivation that doesn’t, can’t work from the Renaissance humanist world onwards. If not a thousand years and more earlier. In Christian Europe.
OK Klax…evidence does exist …exact cause could have been meteoric airburst or?? But we digress!! The topic was about atheism and Jesus Christ – not the existence of extremely ancient sites in the desert. But OK…have a good one!!
Yeah. We got sidetracked. But not really. There’s always only ever one thing going on. If you start with evidence you won’t end up with myth. Heading in both directions. Start with incarnate God in His culture and you won’t end up with actual immortal maggots feasting off eternally roasting human meat.