[mav88]

> why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant Him a very high degree of moral goodness.

No Bertie. He did not leave that option open to us and never meant to. To call him a great moral teacher is to entirely miss the point. He was either insane or lying or telling the truth.

[CapitalistCartr]

We don't know any of that. He didn't write anything down, nor did anyone else at the time. The Gospels were written decades later.

[mav88]

This is an entirely separate argument. My problem with Russell is that he reads the gospels and concludes that Jesus was a great moral teacher which is not one of the conclusions you can draw, no matter what you think of the reliability of the text or the events it describes.

[aidenn0]

Russel does not conclude that Jesus was a great moral teacher; he rather concludes that some (3 specifically called out here) of his teachings had good moral value while disagreeing with most of the rest.

[jhbadger]

We don't even really have good evidence that such a person as Jesus even existed. There are literally no mentions of him in documents of the time. People say "what about Tacitus? Or Joseph Flavius?" but like the Gospels, these people weren't writing at the time but decades later.

[throw0101b]

> We don't even really have good evidence that such a person as Jesus even existed.

Current consensus is that such an individual did exist:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

The belief that Jesus was a myth is the fringe theory. Tim O'Neill has a series posts breaking down how most of the points that 'Mythicists' are wrong:

* https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/

(Tim O'Neill is himself an atheist.)

> People say "what about Tacitus? Or Joseph Flavius?" but like the Gospels, these people weren't writing at the time but decades later.

So argument from silence:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

O'Neill goes over this:

> What is essential to all historiographical formulations of an argument from silence, however, is that it is not the silence that is key, it is the argument that there should not be silence. The strength of this kind of argument lies in showing that there is silence in the sources where silence should not exist. Any attempted argument that does not do this or does not do it competently will immediately fail. And here is where the naïve Mythicist argument always collapses.

[…]

> Another illustrative example can be found in our earliest references to the Carthaginian general Hannibal. As one of the greatest military commanders in the ancient world and the general who came close to defeating the Roman Republic in the Second Punic War, Hannibal (247- c. 182 BC) was justly famous in his own time and has remained so ever since. His career was also fairly long, beginning at around the age of 18 in 229 BC and spanning about 40 years until at least 190 BC. Yet, despite all this, we have precisely zero references to him in any literary source dating to his lifetime.

* https://historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-...

[jmprspret]

I don't think that's correct. I have no sources on me. But I think historians generally agree - son of god or not - he did exist.

[throw0101b]

> I don't think that's correct. I have no sources on me. But I think historians generally agree - son of god or not - he did exist.

PSA:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

With regards to the idea of "no contemporary sources":

* https://historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

It should be noted that while Jesus was still alive he was a nobody: just another itinerant teacher in some backwater Roman province. It was only after he was executed (and supposedly resurrected) that that he perhaps became more noteworthy. And the 'cult' around that grew only later was when people started to notice.

We only care about [Hh]im now because of what that 'personality cult' became, but then (between 1AD and 32AD) why would anyone care to write things down about him?

[pstuart]

The closest agreement you're likely to get is that a person existed who was a model for the accounts that follow.

His divinity is a matter of opinion and nothing more.

[jhbadger]

I realize that, but I object to the idea that the historical Jesus had to exist and that there is "no debate" to it when there don't seem to be any documents mentioning him from when he was supposed to have lived. I realize there could be reasons for this -- the Romans and/or Jewish authorities could have found and destroyed all such documents, but the fact is without the existence of such documents even the historical Jesus is dubious.

[jhbadger]

Please give a citation of a source mentioning Jesus that can be dated during his supposed lifetime. I'd be glad to know of such a case, but seriously the earliest documents commonly known are Tacitus' Annals book 15, chapter 44 (AD 116), and Joseph Flavius' The Jewish War (AD 75). Both are long after Jesus was said to have lived (dying sometime in the AD 30's).

[throw0101b]

> Please give a citation of a source mentioning Jesus that can be dated during his supposed lifetime.

Why would such a citation even exist? While Jesus was still alive he was a nobody: just another itinerant teacher in some backwater Roman province. It was only after he was executed (and supposedly resurrected) that that he perhaps became more noteworthy. And the 'cult' around him that grew only later was when people started to notice.

We only care about [Hh]im now because of what that 'personality cult' became, but then (between 1AD and 32AD) why would anyone care to write things down about him?

You are arguing there is silence when there should not be. Can you explain why you expect there to be citations?

[jhbadger]

Well, he was said to have followers (unless you say having disciples isn't part of the "historical" Jesus), and they seemed to think he was pretty great. Wouldn't they write something about him and try to spread it? (And no, the Gospels aren't that even if they are named after some of the people who were said to have been disciples as they were written much later).

[pard68]

Eh, this is only up for question in non-academic debate. Virtually all academics regardless of their position have moved beyond this, sounds like you're working with 80s and 90s talking points still. We have Roman, Jewish, and other contemporaries who have written either directly of Jesus or have spoken of the events that occurred in such a way that it's really no point arguing against the existence of the person named Jesus.

[jltsiren]

I think the consensus is that there is no particular reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus. He was a minor troublemaker in a distant province 2000 years ago, and his legacy only became important long after his death. Given the circumstances, the existence of Jesus is documented as well as one could reasonably expect. When a simple explanation suffices, there is no need for more complicated theories.

[thejohnconway]

I recognise the source of this sentiment, but it‘s absolutely a false trilema.

[twodave]

- Lewis, paraphrased (some 20-30 years later I believe).

[troupe]

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. 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. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” ~C.S. Lewis

[jhbadger]

Can't a lunatic be a great moral teacher? Goodness and understanding of reality seem to be orthogonal (or even opposed as many people who are, or at least think they are, realists, are quite cynical).

[troupe]

For statements like, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," sure. Lewis' point is that he made all kinds of other claims that are either true or false. And if they are false, they are false in a way that led to lots of people dying for no reason. So Jesus was either saying those things that led to all his followers being killed either because he was crazy and believed what he said, because he was a liar and evil, or because he was telling the truth and good.

[I_Am_Nous]

By what would the lunatic ground their thinking? From one angle, I can respect your argument as in a case where someone opines "Wow, look at Crazy Pete. He sure is crazy but he's nice to animals. Maybe I should be nice to animals too, like he is!"

In the case of Jesus, he told his followers to eat him (John 6). Potentially normal lunatic stuff...when they were like "whoa wtf bro" he doubled down and kept using a word which describes teeth tearing and chewing. I don't find cannibalism to be highly moral (since it usually involves murder) so shouldn't that disqualify Jesus from being a lunatic but also a good moral teacher?

[nicoburns]

You seem to assuming that all of ones teachings must be moral in order for one to be able to be a good moral teacher. But if people are able to pick and choose teachings then this may not be required. As an example, many people would consider the bible to be a good source of moral teaching, but most would admit that it contains some teachings which are outright reprehensible.

If someone needed to be entirely good to be a good moral teacher then almost nobody (if anybody) would qualify.

[I_Am_Nous]

In Matthew 5:48, Jesus tells us to "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect". I'm just holding him to his own moral standard :)

Moral authority is only as powerful as the believers not finding out you don't ACTUALLY believe what you are telling them to. People easily write off the Catholic Church because of the disgusting abuses Catholic authority figures have perpetrated throughout the ages. Pick and choose works with bare philosophies but Jesus isn't asking us to believe right, he's asking us to live right. You can't pick and choose living right, either you are or you aren't. If you only sometimes rob the bus station you aren't living right.

[throw0101b]

> Can't a lunatic be a great moral teacher?

To follow this lunatic you have to eat his flesh. From John 6:

> 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

> 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

> 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206&versio...

Similarly at the Last Supper, where he also instructs his followers to drink his blood:

> 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026&ve...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper#Institution_of_the...

Some folks (even Christians, like some Protestant denominations) believe it is meant to be symbolic, but the earliest Christians did not take it symbolically:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the...

[nicoburns]

You don't have to do everything someone says in order for them to teach you something.

[throw0101b]

So what is Jesus teaching when he says that you must love [Hh]im above all, and that [Hh]e is the truth itself?

> 37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010&ve...

> 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014&versi...

[majormajor]

If only this quote also convinced the Church to never do the opposite - accepting Jesus as God but ignoring his moral teachings in favor of more vindictive, spiteful ones from the OT or Paul or whoever else.

[nicoburns]

One of the things I find strangest about religion is the acceptance of God not only as the creator of the world, but as a moral authority. I can somewhat understand people wanting to reach for a supernatural explanation for the creation of the world: I don't personally find "God" a satisfactory explanation, but I also don't really have a better one. But I really struggle to understand why they would then defer to that creator's (supposed) moral teachings. It's really a completely separate belief to the belief of god as a creator, but the two are often combined into one question of whether one "believes in god".

[throw0101b]

> One of the things I find strangest about religion is the acceptance of God not only as the creator of the world, but as a moral authority.

Aquinas gave a summary in the 1200s: Article 1. Whether God is good?; Article 2. Whether God is the supreme good?; Article 3. Whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone?

* https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm

The late Michael F. Flynn wrote a decent summary of the argument in his five-part series laying out Aristotle's first way argument about the Unmoved Mover:

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/first-way-some-backgrou...

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.h...

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/09/first-way-part-ii-two-l...

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-way-part-iii-big-...

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-casca...

The Creator also being All-good is in Part IV (Theorem 9).

[I_Am_Nous]

In Christianity, this is theologically explained as "God is good and the source of all good, his will is good and to go against his will is therefore bad". Catholics throughout history have written about it in depth (sometimes like REALLY in depth).

It also follows that if God made the universe, and the universe has goodness in it, then God either created goodness too or he IS goodness. Darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God. Therefore, God is good.

Too bad we believers have done such a terrible and easy to criticize job of being Christlike. I can't blame anyone for saying Christianity has too much baggage for them to even want to believe.

[nicoburns]

> It also follows that if God made the universe, and the universe has goodness in it, then God either created goodness too or he IS goodness

Doesn't that argument apply equally to "badness" (I guess "evil" might be the more idiomatic term): if God made the universe, and the universe has badness in it, then God either created badness too or he IS badness. Therefore, God is bad.

> In Christianity, this is theologically explained as "God is good and the source of all good, his will is good and to go against his will is therefore bad"

Of course the question is why we ought to believe this as opposed to following our own moral convictions. And from my perhaps cynical perspective, this seems to be what Christians do anyway (moral views vary dramatically within Christianity): they just ascribe their own moral views to God.

[pstuart]

I've long had a notion that Christianity should be refactored to be spiritual rather than authoritarian.

It's clear that people are wired for worship (for those of no faith, we have celebrities). I liken it to atomic power, potentially beneficial when properly harnessed, or horribly destructive when weaponized.

[troupe]

Perhaps the reason the two things are conflated is because there is an assumption that if you knew God exists, your choice wouldn't be to choose to reject doing what he commands. But as you point out that, that is an assumption that isn't necessarily true.

[gary_0]

Especially once you throw the Problem of Evil in there ("Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?")

But monotheistic religion is so bothered with God being an ultimate moral authority (beyond just being omnipotent) that it must perform some scary mental gymnastics to reconcile this, which usually goes thusly: evil and suffering are part of God's Plan. Evil serves some purpose that will be revealed in heaven or whatever, so its existence can be tolerated (when it would be inconvenient not to).

That's a dangerous place to be. Children slowly dying of cancer, or being murdered in war, for example, can't matter on some ultimate moral level because God allowed it to happen, and anyways they're all happy in heaven now. Any horrifying thing can be handwaved away by religion as not mattering, because otherwise that would mean God messed up.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on this kind of thinking, either. Political ideology or secular morality can also condone unspeakable things "for the greater good" or because "that's just the way it is". I really think it shouldn't be some bizarre stance that all uncommon suffering is unequivocally bad, but here we are.

[kej]

Lewis probably stated it better than anyone else, but the argument predates him (and Russell, for that matter): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

[analog31]

Lewis also believed that people were inherently immoral, to the point of deserving eternal punishment without the intercession of a savior. So his concept of a "moral teacher" might have been a bit suspect.

[twodave]

That’s a general tenet of all religions rooted in Judaism. OT—-“No one is righteous, no, not one.”—and later in NT Romans—-“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

The inadequacy and even brokenness of man is what necessitates a Messiah in the first place.

[meepmorp]

> He was either insane or lying or telling the truth.

Or wrong. People can say untrue things without being insane or lying. Sometimes, we're just mistaken.

[throw0101b]

>> He was either insane or lying or telling the truth.

> Or wrong.

Buddy was literally crucified for claiming to be God:

> 61 Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

> 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

> 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014&versi...

> 6 But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”

> 7 The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019&versi...

* https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61174/why-w...

Heck of "LOL! Just kidding guys! It was just a prank!" :)

[meepmorp]

Maybe you could expand a bit on how this relates to the parent comment, because it's not obvious to me.

[robertlagrant]

I don't think that counts when you're claiming to be God.

[majormajor]

Did he request anyone kill anyone else on behalf of his claimed godliness? Donate their fortunes to him? Sleep with him? Even that lunacy seems to have avoided compromising the moral lessons, even assuming we take the written accounts literally.

[robertlagrant]

Teaching people it's okay to claim you're a god sounds like a mad or bad idea if you're not one.

[tasty_freeze]

Sure it does. There are many people who have claimed to be God. In nearly every case they are deemed as crazy. There was even the famous case where three different men, each sincerely believing they were the return of Christ, were put together by a psychologist who had a hunch that it might snap them out of their delusions. It didn't.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/11/15/three-christs/

[robertlagrant]

That appears to be as part of Lewis' trilemma, though.

[bryanrasmussen]

or metaphorical.

[majormajor]

It's often useful to be able to view people as more complex, across more dimensions, than you do here.