Who Was Jesus?

[SolitaryWalker]

Kant would say that in terms of teleological morality, we have faith (which he classifies as an attitude of the mind) and we can believe in a Higher being for which we have not or can not find any empirical proof in the sensorial sphere, in the teleological in nature.".

This higher realm ought to be interpreted as the noumenal world, which by its nature is indescribable. You cant stuff a religious message into that one. You certainly can argue that the noumenal world is God, which is a claim that Kant would grant, but this does not have anything to do with Jesus being the Messiah.

What matters for each person is whether they can accept Jesus' message, and that is "denial of the self and to follow him". But one thing that people are afraid of the most is to lose the self, something that each will lose either way in the long run (temporal), and not only to lose it but to entrust it into someone else's hands-Jesus'. For some this may be a big challenge, for me it is simple "He is my Lord and Savior".

Denial of the self is impossible because of psychological egoism. We want to 'deny the self' so we can later be redeemed.

As Jesus once said, whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. No, Nietzsche responds 1800 years later--whoever humbles himself wants to be exalted.

Moreover, Nietzsche was also right to claim that the more we practice the Christian monkish virtues the more dishonest we become. We befool ourselves into thinking that we are altruistic because we do good for others and not for ourselves, thinking we've given our 'self' up. But we really did not--we are still subtly insisting on others repaying us for our 'generous deeds'. Thus, the more of our 'self' we renounce, the more we will insist on the world taking care of us. And the more we will think we are entitled to. Jesus's prescriptions, without a doubt would have been disastrous. Evil stems from a lack of inner comfort, yet the further we carry through with our self-abnegation mantra, the less comfortable we become and the more evil we get. Scarily enough, contemporaneously, the better we get at presenting ourselves as congenial. As our society tends to mistake altruism for virtue, whilst notoriously failing to acknowledge the impossibility of such an ethical component.

Unless you can refute psychological egoism, 'giving up the self for Jesus' can be no more than a travesty.

 

[LIND]

Originally posted by BLUEWING:
This higher realm ought to be interpreted as the noumenal world, which by its nature is indescribable. You cant stuff a religious message into that one. You certainly can argue that the noumenal world is God, which is a claim that Kant would grant, but this does not have anything to do with Jesus being the Messiah.

I wasn't referring to Kant's conception of Noumenal or Phenomenal-I was distinguishing between Moral Teleology and Physical Teleology. Kant asserts that we can't have any proof for the existence of God in the Physical teleology, but given that we are more than just matter, there is an attitude of the mind called moral Teleology which supports our conviction aroused by our natural need for an Original, Higher Being. Now, the challenge that Jesus posits, is whether we can accept that He is that evidence in terms of Physical teleology; I am not the one "stuffing" religious message into that, but instead Jesus is the one that says that.

Posted by BLUEWING:
Denial of the self is impossible because of psychological egoism. We want to 'deny the self' so we can later be redeemed.

As Jesus once said, whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. No, Nietzsche responds 1800 years later--whoever humbles himself wants to be exalted.

Moreover, Nietzsche was also right to claim that the more we practice the Christian monkish virtues the more dishonest we become. We befool ourselves into thinking that we are altruistic because we do good for others and not for ourselves, thinking we've given our 'self' up. But we really did not--we are still

You bring Nietzsche to combat, and to counterattack what Jesus demanded! Yet Nietzsche's argument in terms of "psychological egoism" is tantamount as me saying that Christ was right when he says "Denial of the self"! WhY should I be convinced that Nietzsche is right? But supposing that he is, well then Jesus had already discovered this psychological egoism as a trait found inside the human nature, and that is why He demanded us giving ourselves to HIm! It is not something that we were originally intending to do with the "self", but since Jesus offered to take upon Himself our sins we are no longer playing according to our psychological egoism which is utterly mad because we do not satisfy everything that it desires, but instead we give up on all the cravings of the self and accepting Jesus as our Saviour. If Jesus claims that he prepared a heaven, and you consider that to be "psychological egoism" because we desire to be rewarded, well that is fine. Judaism had a pessimistic view about the after life, until Jesus came along and claimed that there is such a thing as after life, and He encouraged us to accept this gift (freely). Some may try to make a mathematical algorithm out of the whole assertion, but really He says "it is that simple"; due to its simplicity some may not be able to accept it...

 

[SolitaryWalker]

..

I wasn't referring to Kant's conception of Noumenal or Phenomenal-I was distinguishing between Moral Teleology and Physical Teleology. Kant asserts that we can't have any proof for the existence of God in the Physical teleology, but given that we are more than just matter, there is an attitude of the mind called moral Teleology which supports our conviction aroused by our natural need for an Original, Higher Being. Now, the challenge that Jesus posits, is whether we can accept that He is that evidence in terms of Physical teleology; I am not the one "stuffing" religious message into that, but instead Jesus is the one that says that. ...

There is a higher essence, claiming there is a higher being is an anthropomorphic error on Kant's part. Not sure if even this is the way that Kant meant to use the word 'being'. His argument does not merit the existence of a personal God. In other words, we know that there is an infinite realm, but there is no reason to call it God of Jesus. We have a natural need to acknowledge the infinite realm, but there is nothing natural about calling it God.

..
You bring Nietzsche to combat, and to counterattack what Jesus demanded! Yet Nietzsche's argument in terms of "psychological egoism" is tantamount as me saying that Christ was right when he says "Denial of the self"! WhY should I be convinced that Nietzsche is right? But supposing that he is, well then Jesus had already discovered this psychological egoism as a trait found inside the human nature, and that is why He demanded us giving ourselves to HIm! It is not something that we were originally intending to do with the "self", but since Jesus offered to take upon Himself our sins we are no longer playing according to our psychological egoism which is utterly mad because we do not satisfy everything that it desires, but instead we give up on all the cravings of the self and accepting Jesus as our Saviour. If Jesus claims that he prepared a heaven, and you consider that to be "psychological egoism" because we desire to be rewarded, well that is fine. Judaism had a pessimistic view about the after life, until Jesus came along and claimed that there is such a thing as after life, and He encouraged us to accept this gift (freely). Some may try to make a mathematical algorithm out of the whole assertion, but really He says "it is that simple"; due to its simplicity some may not be able to accept it...

Nevermind psychological egoism, just believe in Jesus, it will all be fine if you do--it really is that simple.

 

[substitute]

I believe Jesus was just one of many instances of God walking among us to show us what it's all about. He happens to be the most famous of these occurences because that particular presentation spawned something that became a major shaping force in the society and culture which raised me and which in turn had a huge influence on the world in general, but I don't by any means think that he was the only example of God doing this, though yes, perhaps I do believe that he was the only example (that I know of) of him doing it in such a dramatic way.

The word 'avatar' in the Hindu sense seems to me to describe more accurately what I feel about Jesus than traditional Christian terminologies involving sons and fathers etc.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I believe Jesus was just one of many instances of God walking among us to show us what it's all about. He happens to be the most famous of these occurences because that particular presentation spawned something that became a major shaping force in the society and culture which raised me and which in turn had a huge influence on the world in general, but I don't by any means think that he was the only example of God doing this, though yes, perhaps I do believe that he was the only example (that I know of) of him doing it in such a dramatic way.

The word 'avatar' in the Hindu sense seems to me to describe more accurately what I feel about Jesus than traditional Christian terminologies involving sons and fathers etc.

Most esteemed Sir,

Could you explain to me what God is? And how Jesus could be an instance of this 'God' walking among us?

 

[substitute]

Most esteemed Sir,

Could you explain to me what God is? And how Jesus could be an instance of this 'God' walking among us?

Already did

 

[LIND]

Originally posted by BLUEWING:
There is a higher essence, claiming there is a higher being is an anthropomorphic error on Kant's part. Not sure if even this is the way that Kant meant to use the word 'being'. His argument does not merit the existence of a personal God. In other words, we know that there is an infinite realm, but there is no reason to call it God of Jesus. We have a natural need to acknowledge the infinite realm, but there is nothing natural about calling it God.

OK- Let me give you Kant's version in a nutshell. Kant asserts that in the Natural Physical Teleology, though we may seek to show that based on the things that we see in Nature (e.g. animals drinking from the river, humans eating animals, etc. the cycle of life) we may be fooled into thinking that God exists because everything in nature, as we make sense of it has a purpose. The lion eats the zebra, the lion dies, the ground gets the minerals..etc. Kant says that we are deceived by this, because if you really think about it, how can one explain the fact that there are earthquakes for ex. which are not useful to us but on the contrary harmful! Where is the purpose in that? As a result, we can not prove that God exists based on empirical grounds (so he is not falling into the error of anthropomor.) but due to the fact that there is another need inside of us, the Moral teleology we can assume that there is a God who ultimately is the originator of everything. Kant here distuinguishes between Reason (based on which we can't prove the existence of God) and faith (based on which we can assume).

Originally posted by Bluewing:
Nevermind psychological egoism, just believe in Jesus, it will all be fine if you do--it really is that simple

You sound very dismissive of the simplicity idea, if I'm not mistaken, but don't be alarmed; the idea is that Christ offered-one has the choice whether he should accept. If the agent accepts he might stand accused of psychological egoism, but at least this is the best antidote to psychological egoism to a certain extent that I can see, unlike the non-existent antidote that you've offered me so far.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

OK- Let me give you Kant's version in a nutshell. Kant asserts that in the Natural Physical Teleology, though we may seek to show that based on the things that we see in Nature (e.g. animals drinking from the river, humans eating animals, etc. the cycle of life) we may be fooled into thinking that God exists because everything in nature



as we make sense of it has a purpose. The lion eats the zebra, the lion dies, the ground gets the minerals..etc. Kant says that we are deceived by this, because if you really think about it, how can one explain the fact that there are earthquakes for ex.. which are not useful to us but on the contrary harmful!

So Kant does avoid the anthropomorphic illusion here. He isnt saying that the grand creator had us in mind when he made the proccess of nature where lion eats the zebra.

we can assume that there is a God!

You're confusing 'God' with the infinite essence that dwells within us. Kant proved the existence of the latter. To say that there is a 'God' in a way that you're thinking means to commit the anthropomorphic error. God either exists as a person or he does not exist at all. I prefer to use the word god as an allegory for the greatest possible principle. (That is why i write the word in small-case)

who ultimately is the originator of everything.!

I don't know where in Kant you get the 'originator' from..I certainly don't recall this, he'd be disgusted at being painted as a creationist of a sort. This notion of 'origination had been thoroughly destroyed by his idea of the noumenal world, which echoes Spinoza's idea of the infinite substance.

You sound very dismissive of the simplicity idea, if I'm not mistaken, but don't be alarmed; the idea is that Christ offered-one has the choice whether he should accept..!

Yes, it happened just because he said it. There does not need to be any reason for what he said to be true. He just has to say it! Who knows about all the things that Mohammed, Buddha, Socrates..Confucius..and so on said that werent delivered to us by word of mouth..Why arent we losing sleep over what they may have said?

If the agent accepts he might stand accused of psychological egoism, but at least this is the best antidote to psychological egoism to a certain extent that I can .

[/U]

How is this an antidote to psychological egoism, as it only makes the doctrine seem more convincing? The more you want to be saved the harder you will try to debase yourself on Earth. Its all to the end of yourself being exalted and no more. 'Loving Jesus' is just a stratagem. As we see to what great lengths people go to debauch their lives for the mere thought of being saved. So in short how hard you try to be 'selfless' is in direct proportion with how selfish you truly are.

 

[LIND]

Originally psoted by BLUEWING:
You're confusing 'God' with the infinite essence that dwells within us. Kant proved the existence of the latter. To say that there is a 'God' in a way that you're thinking means to commit the anthropomorphic error. God either exists as a person or he does not exist at all. I prefer to use the word god as an allegory for the greatest possible principle. (That is why i write the word in small-case)

I said that Kant asserts that due to our Moral teleology, which desires an ultimate purpose for our being, we can assume that there is a Higher Being/God. Kant himself does not believe in God or a god for that matter, but he says that through imagination & understanding+faith we can fulfill this need, for the existence of an Omnipotent Being.

Originally posted by BLUEWING:
How is this an antidote to psychological egoism, as it only makes the doctrine seem more convincing? The more you want to be saved the harder you will try to debase yourself on Earth. Its all to the end of yourself being exalted and no more. 'Loving Jesus' is just a stratagem

Let's play a little game; imagine that Jesus lied, and we supposedly bought into that lie, namely that if we put a stop to all the manifestations, desires of our psychological nature, we will be rewarded (which again like you said psycho.egoism at a higher level) in the next world. Now imagine that due to the fact that we have been deceived ( that really there isn't going to be a next world) we actually obstructed the "baleful psychological egoist " inside of us from satisfying its cravings. Wouldn't we have then obtained victory against psychological egoism and thus came up with an antidote to psycho egoism?

 

[miss fortune]

I never beleived in Santa, the easter bunny or really Jesus. Maybe he was just some guy who was nice and tried to convince other people to be nice and people made a big deal about him- who knows? I have enough trouble beleiving that if there is a god it cares about us. All I know is that way too many people die arguing about things like this!

 

[NocturnalSun]

Meh.

I never beleived in Santa, the easter bunny or really Jesus.

Define believing. Since you put Jesus on the same level of the easter bunny and santa, it seems as though you imply that you never believed that Jesus existed or at least never existed as documented.

Maybe he was just some guy who was nice and tried to convince other people to be nice and people made a big deal about him- who knows?

Kinda like Newton was just some guy who was good at math, and Kant at philosophy, and Darwin at speciation? What about Socrates or Plato? Why don't people who glorified these people elevate them to the status of God, if Jesus was a man like these? (I have given examples of people who were before Christ, so no one can say that "well, back then people were stupid and delusional, that's why")

I have enough trouble beleiving that if there is a god it cares about us. All I know is that way too many people die arguing about things like this!

"If God cares about us, that implies that Jesus was not merely a man. Which makes it hard to believe that Jesus was just a good guy." Is this what you meant?

 

[miss fortune]

I'm an agnostic who beleives that if there really is a god it hates us anyways and wouldn't be interested in procreating with a human to produce some sort of Superniceman or anything. I grew up going to church and sunday school and bible school but I can never remember at any time thinking that anything in the Bible was true. Sorry, but religion never made much sense to me- I'm glad for the people who are religious because that gives them some form of comfort and I don't try to change their minds, but I still haven't encountered a religion that makes sense to me.
I'm sorry if my views offended you in any way.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm an agnostic who beleives that if there really is a god it hates us anyways ...

I have always wondered how powerless god must be if he actually does hate us... because honestly, while my life is not perfect, well, it could be a LOT worse.

(Re: "I Have No Mouth & I Must Scream")

 

[Varelse]

I have always wondered how powerless god must be if he actually does hate us... because honestly, while my life is not perfect, well, it could be a LOT worse.

(Re: "I Have No Mouth & I Must Scream")

Precisely.

That story is why I don't fear death nearly as much as immortality...what a pissed-off god could do...ugh.

 

[Valiant]

I AM JESUS, for Gods' sake.

 

[alicia91]

It was hard for me to vote on this one. But I chose the last option.

I consider myself a Christian, which in my mind and my church's mind means "follower of Christ." Yes, I believe in his words and wisdom while the exact nature of his being is a mystery to me. I grew up as a Christmas and Easter Lutheran but I think my mom just took us to church then because of the nice decorations for those holidays and perhaps the tradition. Other than that there was no talk of religion in our home. We had religion once a week at school even though it was public school. I became facinated by the historical Jesus and studied on my own. When I met my husband who wasn't particularly religious either for some strange reason after going to churches with friends we decided to start going.

To make a long story shorter, I think that there is a God, Jesus was a real person with a purpose. Was he God himself and therefore one aspect of the Trinity? I have no clue, and I've decided that it doesn't matter. Why do I go to church? Because of the way it makes me feel. Everytime I go, I feel somehow 'fed' and even if almost everything that they preach is pure speculation, it doesn't matter. I don't feel I'm wasting my time. Strangely enough, my ENTJ husband accepts more of the traditional philosophy than I do, because he says 'if you have to suspend all logic, you may as well go all the way.'

So back to the original question - I'll call him the Son of God, his purpose was to spread the Word, but I doubt he WAS God, or related in any sort of way.

 

[Hexis]

The following is meant be humerous nothing more, nothing less dont overeact. And if you are offended by it please counsel your own for maybe its not as strong as you thought. Enjoy...

 

[LaFeeVerte]

Sorry, but religion never made much sense to me-

Im glad that it doesnt! God isnt about religion. Religion is man made. God is all about relationship.

 

[Owl]

Im glad that it doesnt! God isnt about religion. Religion is man made. God is all about relationship.

What kind of relationship?

 

[sassafrassquatch]

Im glad that it doesnt! God isnt about religion. Religion is man made. God is all about relationship.

Not that canard. Protestant Christianity might not be ceremonial or ritualistic but it is most definitely a religion.