If Christ was in fact God, he knew the persecutions that would be carried on in his name; he knew the millions that would suffer death through torture; and yet he died without saying one word to prevent what he must have known, if he were God, would happen.
--Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll
Continuing on in my series concerning the truth and validity of Christianity I want to examine the character of Jesus of Nazareth. Please feel free to go back and read my previous entry in the series, covering biblical literacy. Disregarding the issue of whether or not this character was a real person or religious myth, I want to examine the orthodox Christian view of Jesus as presented in the accepted protestant canon. There is always the concern that the authors and controversial editors of these gospels have altered the original text and meaning. However, American Christians do not take the issue of scholarship literally and abandon any search into translation accuracy or historicity in favor of divine inspiration. So we will examine the character of Jesus via the words of the orthodox gospels.
So let’s look at how Jesus is presented to the English speaking world. My goal here is to examine the words and actions of Christ and demonstrate that Jesus is not, or should not be considered, a moral leader. Being Christ-like is a common call in American Protestantism, the famous WWJD bracelets once flooded the American pop culture mindscape, and Jesus is indeed held to be the son of god, or god himself incarnate. So we would hope that Jesus stands the test as a fine upstanding moral leader. The head of everyman and the church is Christ, according to the apostles, so god would want to present us with an impeccable moral standard by which to measure our lives. More importantly we would expect to see the moral lessons of Christ to be timeless. Jesus should be a moral leader, and some of his teachings are regarded as instructive even by those without faith, yet if we examine the bible we find that Christ is far from the moral leader he is taken on faith to be.
In recent days my position of making moral judgments about god has been attacked by theists. I am told that without god there is no objective morality and thus you cannot make moral judgments. That is, of course absurd. Even if a person does not subscribe to the idea of moral absolutes, they remain able to make a moral judgment. All moral agents possess a standard by which to make moral judgments and can not only use this to judge actions, but to judge the morality of others. My purpose here is to present the actions and moral examples of Christ from the gospel account, and allowing it to be contrasted with modern Christian and American ethics. Most importantly, if god is the source of objective morality we can see the character of Jesus acting in opposition with our modern moral values and those of presented in the “Old Testament”.
Contents:
X. Infidel
Jesus is held up by traditional Christianity as the messiah of Jewish myth and the very incarnation of the Jewish god. However, if we examine the New Testament we find that Jesus is in fact a heretic. God sat down moral laws that were designed to be eternal (Exodus 12:24, Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15). Even Jesus says that the laws will last until the end of times (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17). When asked, Jesus tells his followers to keep the commandments (only five or six though), in fact he mentions specifically honor they father and mother (Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20). He even makes it clear that he didn’t come to destroy the law (Matthew 5:17). Yet he repeatedly breaks the laws of god. In Matthew 12:2 and Luke 6:1 Jesus and his disciples are wandering through a man’s corn field on the Sabbath and become hungry, so they decide to pick the corn. Now, even picking up sticks on the Sabbath is worthy of being stoned to death (Numbers 15:35), not to mention the fact that their stealing a man’s crop which is also a crime in the eyes of the Jewish god (Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:11, Deuteronomy 5:19).
In Mark 3:31 and Luke 8:20 Jesus disowns his family, thus dishonoring his father and mother. In Mark 19:29 and Matthew 10:21 Jesus tells his followers to forsake their fathers and mothers. In the Sermon on the Mount (or the plain, Luke 6:17) Jesus tells his followers that he shall not divorce his wife for any reason save for adultery, thus changing the law (Deuteronomy 24:1). How can we trust god, or Jesus, to be a moral leader if he overturns his laws on a whim? I leave this particular entry as number 10 because this is the weakest argument since all Christians will immediately tell me that Jesus is god, so he can change the laws as he pleases. This should lead us to wonder why something was moral one day and then immoral the next? Of course many forget about Malachi chapter 3, verse 6.
IX. Duplicitous
Truth is a difficult word to use in a conversation about religion, so let me instead say that Jesus seemed to have lacked integrity. In Matthew 5:6 and 5:15 Jesus extols his apostles to let their light shine and make a joyful noise in worship of god. Yet in Matthew 6:1 and 23:3 he instructs them to do their praying in a closet and their alms in secret. Christians are told to preach the gospel to the world (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15), but Jesus also tells his followers to stay away from gentiles and Samaritans (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24). Christ says that he has come to bring peace to the world in one breath (Luke 2:14, John 14:27, John 16:33) and in the next breath he says that he did not come to bring peace but to cause strife and division (Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51, Luke 22:36). In Matthew 6:7 he tells his listeners not to pray in repetitions as the heathens do, then gives his followers the Lord ’s Prayer so that they may repeat it.
Jesus warns his disciples that if they call a man a fool they will be in danger of hell-fire. Yet shortly thereafter he calls his opponents fools (Matthew 23:17, Luke 11:40)! A very fundamental befuddlement of Christ’s sayings is regarding the operation of salvation. Is salvation by faith alone (Mark 16:16, John 2:18) or through works (Matthew 16:27, Luke 10:26-28, John 5:29)? Yet what is the worst duplicity of Jesus’ teachings are regarding the jewish law. Matthew chapter 5, verse 17, says clearly that Christ did not come to destroy the law. In fact he refers to the fact that the laws are eternal twice (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17). Yet Jesus goes on to dismantle and contradict the law several times (Matthew 12:2, John 5:16, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:38). The contradictions of the gospel account represent either a severely flawed transcription of actual events, a fictional tale from multiple authors, or one duplicitous individual properly reported.
VIII. Incredulity
Throughout the gospel account Christ often use examples and phrases that border on the absurd. While this is not a direct condemnation on the moral authority of Jesus, we would expect an ethical instructor (much less god incarnate) to at least present his ideas in a coherent form. Matthew 6:25 shows Jesus telling his followers that the birds of the air do not sow, or reap, or gather and are fed by god. In Matthew 13:32 Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed and if you plant it, it will become a tree, and birds will lodge in the branches. However mustard seeds are not the smallest seed and they don’t grow into trees. Christ teaches that faith in god will heal you of your illness, Matthew 9:22. After he drives out demons from a man and into a horde of pigs, which causes the swine to fling themselves off a cliff, the townspeople come to Jesus and demand that he leave; after all he just destroyed one or more men’s source of income (Matthew 8:34).
One of the most infamous episodes for Christ was when he came upon a fig tree while figs were out of season. Being angered that figs weren’t growing then, out of season, he curses the fig tree so it will never bear fruit again (Matthew 21:19, Mark 11:14). A lot of Christians don’t believe this story is true, but just ask GodHatesFigs.com. On top of these almost comical statements we can see certain disturbing trends and ideas. If a man keeps my teachings he shall never die, Matthew 8:51. There are some standing here which shall not taste death till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom, Matthew 16:28. Seek and ye shall find, Matthew 7:7. Go and steal a horse, and if anyone objects tell them it is for god, Luke 19:30. These and the violent and radical statements expounded upon later reminds some observers of a cult leader. Followers are praised for being discriminated against, told to abandon their families, and exposed to a constant barrage of apocalyptic rhetoric. We can look back at famed cults and see very similar themes, but of course some argue that it is only a matter numbers between cult and legitimate religion.
VII. The Radical
Jesus is sometimes rightly attributed with certain radical social ideas. One that is often overlooked or outright ignored is Christ’s support for strict asceticism, or salvation through a form of self denial or monasticism. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5 and 6) Jesus preaches to his followers not accumulate treasures than can be stolen, but to focus on spiritual treasures. On the surface this might appear to be a simple admonishment against greed. This is in fact part of a larger speech that extols the followers of Christ to take no thought for tomorrow, or for your clothes, or for your meals. If we look at the previous passage literally, it is a strict message of asceticism. The idea of a literal interpretation of this passage can be backed up by looking at the overall view of Jesus concerning material wealth.
Through the gospel account Jesus makes repeated references to the nobility of poverty. In the beatitudes he says blessed are the poor and blessed are the hungry. Yet in Luke chapter 6, verse 24, he does not simply praise poverty but instead attacks the wealthy by saying, “But woe unto you that are rich! For ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! For ye shall hunger”. As if the above passage was not clear enough we have the parable of the rich man. In this parable (Luke Chapter 16) we are told there was a rich man clothed in excellence and well fed and a beggar covered in sores and emaciated both die. The beggar is taken into the bosom of Abraham and the rich man is left to burn forever in hell. Jesus says through the character of Abraham: “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented”. Here again we see his disdain for the rich. Instead of attacking poverty and trying to organize the people in order to lift them up he instead attacks the rich and elevates poverty to a spiritual ideal. It seems as if these accounts are overwhelmingly in favor of an ascetic path to salvation similar to Buddhism.
These teachings worried many of those around the early Christian community and there is even a passage in the synoptic gospel that asks the question directly, how do you enter heaven? In one of the most controversial pieces of new testament scripture a rich man asks what he must do to receive eternal life and in Luke chapter 18 Jesus replies: “sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”.
In later epistles the disciples of Christ share equally in their goods (Acts 4:32, Acts 4:35), and even admonish those that dare keep private property for themselves (Acts 5:3). Jesus makes it abundantly clear that having money is a sin worthy of eternal hell fire and only in poverty and suffering can we reach him. Would a benevolent god have allowed and even sanctioned physical suffering as a path to eternal reward? Would such a god be just? If Jesus was simply a moral teacher, why would he eschew all physical concerns for a life of pure spiritual asceticism? Would it not be wiser to try and organize societies so that they might improve conditions on earth? Would it not be better advice to tell the poor to strive for economic comfort? Why does Christ declare that poverty is preferable and give no commands to improve the lives of the poor? More importantly, if Jesus is the moral exemplar for Christians then why is there no church following these edicts save for fringe sects like the Amish and Mennonites?
VI. Racism
In the ancient world racism was common, a simple truth that each tribe and culture felt they were the ones favored by the gods. It is certainly true of the early Hebrews when they made laws and wars against those of foreign tribes. And surely we can see a supremacist attitude in the workings of the Roman Empire. During the time of Christ the Romans were in control of Judea, and the tension between the Jewish populace and the gentile oppressors was palatable.
Let’s look at Jesus’ words and actions in the New Testament. Mark chapter 15 verse 22 sets the scene of a Canaanite (in some translations it is Greek or Samaritan) woman seeking Jesus so that he can cast out a demon from her daughter. Jesus says that it is unseemly to cast bread from the master’s table to the dogs. This is not a parable; this is presented as an actual conversation where Jesus is referring to this minority woman as a dog, and by inference calling her race dogs. It is only after begging and referring to herself as a dog begging at the masters table (in this case she is referring to the Jews and /or Romans, not god as the master), that she receives help from Jesus. In several other places throughout the gospels and Pauline epistles (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:22, and Acts 16:6) where Jesus or the holy spirit instructs the disciples not to preach the gospel, or even go to the lands of, the Samaritans and the Gentiles. Jesus even says: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” Matthew chapter 15, verse 24.
But this alone cannot be considered enough to condemn him. It is clear that the message above is a racist one, however racism was common place at the time. Egalitarianism across the races was the standard of morality throughout the ancient world. Indeed it remained so until modern times. Even out founding fathers held racist attitudes. Racism itself is not enough to condemn a man as immoral. However we would certainly expect a living god to be aware of the problems of racism and hatred, yet there is no specific sermon nor verse dedicated to race. We can though see that Paul and his followers did take it upon themselves to bridge the gap between jew and gentile and bring their message all the way to rome. In the early days of Christianity we can see an egalitarian spirit growing amongst its followers. Perhaps it’s a matter of do as I say and not as I do, or perhaps we can forgive Jesus the man for being a biased person in a culture where bias was the norm.
V. Jesus Condones Slavery
Slavery is not only condoned but expounded upon throughout the Old Testament. The god of the Jews clearly commands the Israelites to invade and enslave rival tribes. Here, though, we are talking about the words and actions of the biblical Jesus. In Matthew 8:5 Jesus is called upon to heal the servant of a roman soldier, and instead of rebuking servitude he hails the solider for his faith. Jesus uses the parable of a master and servants in Luke chapter 12. In Luke chapter 17 he speaks concerning how slaves are not thanked for doing their duties as a metaphor for servitude of god. The epistles, the supposed words of Christ’s disciples, make repeated appeals to servants to obey their masters (1 Corinthians 7:21, Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9,& 1 Peter 2:18).
Worse yet, Jesus never makes one appeal to his followers to end slavery. Some would argue that the use of the word translated today as slave and servant simply meant a hired hand or maid. However this was an unknown concept at the time. Most slaves owned by the Jews were those imprisoned in order to pay off a debt, or indentured servants. Yet the Romans were well known for their system of enslaving an entire populace for life. In the central areas of Rome the slave populace was massive, and they brought these slaves to every region they conquered. So a historical Jesus would have born witness to the worst injustices of slavery. Today slavery is something that all civilized societies have done away with and recognize as immoral. How can god-incarnate, the ultimate moral exemplar, not rail against and attack slavery?
IV. Violence
Some might wonder about what I will discuss here. Christ is most known for the infamous quote “turn the other cheek”. He is held up as a pacifist and peace maker, but sadly the bible does not hold up to this image. Jesus frequently takes pleasure in discussing the torment and torture of those who disagree with him (Matthew 18:24, Matthew 10:33, Luke 3:9, John 3:36). Christ tells his disciples that cities which do not receive them will be struck down with a fiercer judgment than Sodom & Gomorrah (Matthew 10:14). Matthew chapter 15, verse 4, presents the Pharisee as attacking Jesus for not washing his hands. In response, Jesus says they are breaking god’s commands by not stoning unruly children to death. I wonder why Baptists don’t kill their children? Jesus specifically tells his disciples that he did not come to bring peace to the world, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). He implores his followers to sell their belongings and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). He even tells Pilate that if he were ruling the earth his followers would have fought to free him (John 18:36). In the parable of the talents he compares god’s kingdom to a master that executes those that oppose him.
Of course we have to examine the most infamous example of Christ’s violence. In the Gospel of John chapter 2, verse 14, Jesus comes to the temple and sees men selling ox and doves for sacrifice and offering money changing for travelers. Angered to the point of insanity, Jesus leaves the temple and hand makes his own scourge. Let’s look at what a scourge is. A scourge is a whip or lash, especially a multi-thong type with hard material affixed to its multiple thongs to give it a flesh-tearing 'bite’; used to inflict severe corporal punishment or self-mortification on the back [1]. That’s right, the son of god went and hand made a severe torture device to attack the money changers with. It is worth noting that Christ himself was later scourged to within an inch of his life by the roman soldiers. Maybe if you observe this clip from "The Passion of the Christ" you can get a feel for what Jesus did to innocent men. How can Jesus be a moral leader if he not only advocates wanton violence, but carries it out himself in such a brutal manner?
III. Bad Advice
Christians and non-Christians alike often refer to Jesus as a wise teacher, a man who had good maxims, much akin to Confucius or Buddha. However, there is very little directly good advice in the bible. If we look at the words and works of Jesus, we see that the majority of the gospel account is concerning miracles and actions. Only a small segment of these accounts contain direct advice. Even including the parables we have only a handful of teachings. Yet Jesus is full of bad advice. Instead of being a good moral teacher or secular wise man, he has many of the advice you would expect of a leader with an over inflated sense of spirituality and delusions of godhood.
Within Matthew Chapter 6, starting at verse 26, Jesus tells his disciples that the birds of the air and the flowers of the field don’t farm or spin; it is god that provides for them. This is of course absolutely absurd, even for minds of the time. Yet he is trying to make a point, he tells us that we should give no thought for tomorrow and let god provide for us. If Christians actually accept Jesus as a moral example we would see none of them in the workplace. Thought crimes are often decried in the western world, but are specifically endorsed by Christ. Matthew 5:21 tells us that if we are angry with our brother then we are in danger of divine judgment. Later in Matthew 5:27 we are told that if we look with desire toward a woman we are in danger of judgment. Our thoughts may inform our actions, but simply entertaining the thought should not be considered worthy of punishment. Our thoughts do not automatically cause our actions; instead we discuss and weigh the ideas in our head before we act. It is our actions that must be judged, not simply the thoughts that enter into our mind.
Despite his violent acts and calls for divine retribution, Jesus advises his followers to follow an extreme form of non-violence that borders on being totally non-confrontational. We are told in Matthew 5:38 that if a man strikes you on your left cheek, then you should turn you right cheek to him so he can strike that one too. This is absurd; even if we look at the most well respected non-violence advocates we rarely see this level of self abuse and intentional martyrdom. Jesus calls for Christians to completely avoid self-defence. Beyond simple violence Christ tells the listeners of his sermon on the mount that if anyone sues you and takes your coats in the settlement, then give him your cloak too. And if a stranger compels you to walk with them a mile, go three. We are told to love our enemies and bless those that curse us. Teachings like this show an extreme form of altruism which tells us not only to be non-confrontational, but reward your attacker or litigant for their assault. We can see in the practical world that if a man is victimized gives in wholly and fully, he is likely to be victimized again. By doing this Jesus is instructing his listeners to make themselves as defenseless victims.
Gospel accounts (Matthew 5:29) tell us of the supposedly metaphorical teaching that if your eye offend thee, then pluck it out. Most Christians accept this as a parable or metaphor, but if we examine the text there is the possibility that he is speaking literally. In the particular passage Jesus says that it is better to have one of your members pass away then your whole body cast into “hell”. However, hell here is a mistranslation of the word Gehenna. Gehenna was an actual physical locale where the bodies of the disgraced and sinful were burned and ritually purified and not a metaphysical place of punishment. So it is not too far removed to say that he is recommending that people mutilate themselves to avoid dishonor in death. We can see this literal thinking again in Matthew 19:12 where Christ informs his disciples that if they have the willpower, they should castrate themselves in the name of divine purity.
We would at the least expect our moral leaders to have powerful and informed maxims for how to live our lives and improve the world. Yet we find a great deal of talk about the afterlife, even to the exclusion of secular and physical concerns. Can we accept Jesus as a moral example even despite all these incorrect maxims? Only if we ourselves are concentrated on the spiritual above the temporal, as only then do his edicts carry any weight. Duplicity, harmful advice, and violent imagery call into question whether or not any such figure would be heeded today. Outside of the religious context and compared to other moral philosophers we find Jesus deficient even safely nested in the time and culture during which he taught. So where are American Protestants getting their morals?
II. What he didn’t say...
No discussion of the moral character of Jesus Christ is complete without looking at what he didn’t say. For the vast majority of Christians the gospel accounts present the literal word of god which is a manual for how to live. Were the gospel Jesus actually an all mighty god we would hope to see talk of the future, a preparation for advancements in morality, and sound timeless wisdom. Of course, we do not. This ties into with the idea of prophecy in the bible. An omniscient being could have easily included a description of men walking on the moon or described revolutionary scientific ideas. Instead the moral lessons and scientific ideas expressed by the gospel Christ are no different than the views of the average west-asian Iron Age man.
So what should have Jesus said if he were the physical manifestation of god? Well we would expected him to speak out against anti-semitism. Surely he would know that almost all medieval and renaissance Christians would blame the Jews for their role in the passion play. If he was aware of all the repercussions of his words he could have spoken out against religious intolerance and if he were divine he could have seen and countered the eventual inquisition. A benevolent moral divinity should have addressed violence against woman and their equal rights. A divine moral teacher would, or should, have addressed the future issues of government. The idea of democracy was relatively rare during the times of the New Testament canon and surely a divine author of morality would address democracy. Democracy now, after all, is the predominate form of government in the industrialized west. Yet early Christians, and even later Protestants, have upheld monarchies and theocracies.
What should have Jesus said if he was not omniscient. If the gospel Christ was simply a human moral teacher, what should he have addressed if his message were timeless and important to us today? During the supposed time of Jesus slavery was heatedly debated issue. Yet Christ never once condemns slavery. There is, to my knowledge, not a single Christian today that would condone slavery of his fellow human being. At the time the entire Levant was under the restrictive control of the Romans. Yet Jesus does not speak out against the roman occupation. Nor does Christ ever address wars of genocide or extermination. He doesn’t even speak out against cases of genocide and mass murder in jewish lore. Racism is never condemned. Capital punishment is never addressed. Injustice and rape in the jewish law is never addressed. Sexism is never addressed. So if Jesus was a moral leader he neglected to take on any real issues of the day, much less address the issues relevant to the modern west. In fact the majority of Christ’s teachings deal with spiritual matters and metaphysical ideals instead of moral questions. Why doesn’t Jesus address real moral issues? More importantly, why are his mystical rantings taken as moral lessons today?
I. Infinite Punishment for Finite Crimes
Worst among all the ideas put forth by the biblical Jesus is the metaphysical concept of hell. Even this idea is controversial within the Christian canon, hell is most often the English transliteration of the words gehenna and hades. Hades is similar to sheol in the Jewish mythology, a place where all the dead go without punishment or retribution. Gehenna on the other hand is a place where the bodies of the dishonored dead were burned to ritually purify them. Yet there are many instances where the afterlife is described, though not named, as a place where the dead are burned and tormented. Is hell moral?
Let’s look first at the concept of hell as a moral control. Some, even the gospel accounts themselves, say that it is the threat of hell that keeps a man moral. How would we feel if a parent turned to his child and said, “Do your homework or I’ll lock you in the basement and torture you”. How can any man actually be considered moral if he only follows ethical guidelines because of threat of torture? Would we not expect him to try his best to cheat the rules, and do only the minimum required of him? Such a man wouldn’t understand why something is immoral, just be driven by fear and not respect of his fellow man.
Hell though presents the ultimate immorality. How can a benevolent god punish a person for an infinite amount of time for simple crimes, such as apostasy or thought crimes? Suppose that man commits the sin of theft and steals a can of soda. His crime took a few seconds and robbed a store owner, distributor, and corporation of a few cents. For that finite small crime he will be tortured for eternity. Is that just? Is that moral? Suppose that Hitler is in hell, even he would, in time, have paid his debt to society and the world. It may be hundreds or thousands of years, but is it ever just to punish someone eternally for a non-infinite crime? Worse yet are sermons, epistles, and passages that say the saved will look down from heaven and take pleasure in watching the sinners being tortured.
How can we accept god as loving when he tells all those who refuse to accept an irrational claim are worthy of infinite torture. How can anyone claim god is the source of morals when he sends all those who even disagree with him into a fiery torment? Beyond that, how can Jesus advocate the torture of these relatively innocent people when he discusses specifically in Matthew chapter 5 that we should resist not evil and love those that hate us. How can we accept Jesus as a moral leader if he tells us to love our enemies, and then says that those who do not follow him will burn forever?
What he got right...
Sadly there is little that Jesus says that is applicable to secular morals or society. Turn the other cheek is tempered by righteous fury, care for the poor is countered by ascetic glorification of poverty, sermons on justice shrivel under the shadow of hell’s great injustice. Is there anything which Jesus said that would be applicable to this day? Through his contradictory statements Jesus tried to create a sense of brotherhood amongst first century Jews, a sense of brotherhood in an age when roman influence split the culture into collaborators and victims. If we look back at the word of Christ as reported in the synoptic gospels we see that he never makes claims to godhood, but instead tries to encourage his listeners to reach a higher moral standard. While the messages of reaching for a higher morality and universal brotherhood may be tempered by the culture of the times, they remain powerful messages that were expanded on by the early church.
The one thing that we can say in favor of Jesus character is that he tried to bring respect into his works. Despite condemnations we see that he tries to inject the basic idea of the social contract, do unto others. An idea as old as human society itself, a moral worthy of teaching. And we cannot forget that when Christ is asked about the commandments he lists only six, the six secular values that are universal to human culture which stand even today as sound basic civil principals to live by. Further down in the same sermon he tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves. While there is room for argument about the merits of pure altruism, this idea of loving our neighbor is at the heart of peace movements and even civil rights movements today. If men and women of the Christian faith are called upon to be Christ like then I hope they will look to the highest message, the message of love and justice, and hold that up as their standard.
My mission here is not to paint Jesus as an evil figure deserving of scorn, but provide the moral attitudes and lessons really taught in the gospels divorced from miracle tales and spirituality. This is the philosophy of Jesus as presented to us by orthodox canon and must be addressed by any opponent or proponent of Christianity. My mission here has been to examine the moral lessons and character of Jesus compared with modern Christians and Christianity. There are pieces of good advice and welcoming ideas, but we must be ready and willing to disregard the bad advice. If we view Jesus as simply a human moral teacher he is mediocre even for his time and place, and we can find greater moral lessons in other teachers. Yet if we look at Jesus as an infallible divine moral authority then we must doubt the logical validity or character of such a god. If the god of the pulpit is not the god of the bible, then how can Christians claim to be followers of Jesus? If our moral compass deems Christ to be immoral, or even a faulty moral teacher, can we accept him as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god that the rest of the bible portrays him as? If you were to present these precepts and sayings to a Christian without identifying the source, how would they react? More importantly, are the teachings of Jesus really worthy of worship?
