The philosopher king

[GodSchism]

Jesus says, whoever wants to be first in the kingdom of heaven will be least of all and servant to all. This is what makes a good philosopher king, as in Plato’s Republic, the whole purpose of his rule is to not utter commands and give laws from a throne; but for that man to confront his subjects and teach with stones of parable, in order to convey moral philosophy. Not to say that here is the kingdom of heaven or there is the kingdom of heaven; but to merely convey truth through moral reasoning in order to develop and able others to fulfill their dreams and aspirations.
Jesus shows this clearly when he says, Do not do the things you hate for all things are made manifest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever know the all, but does not know themselves is utterly lacking. In doing the things we hate, we lie to ourselves and to others. Through moral principle, has sin been placed upon the table in order for one to reflect upon not what is good for the individual; as the individual would find pleasure most plausible; but what is good for the whole group.
In sin, we are indulgent, neglecting the needs and desires of the least of the group; while indulging in what is good for the individual. This is a necessity to a philosopher king, that he teaches morality by calling out the sin of every individual, not by condemning that individual but by teaching that individual that indulgence of sin means despair for others. Forgiveness of sins is necessary as a philosopher king does not want to condemn a soul but liberate that soul into a higher pattern of thought through moral teaching.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Jesus says, whoever wants to be first in the kingdom of heaven will be least of all and servant to all. This is what makes a good philosopher king, as in Plato’s Republic, the whole purpose of his rule is to not utter commands and give laws from a throne; but for that man to confront his subjects and teach with stones of parable, in order to convey moral philosophy.

No, what makes a good philosopher king is that he doesn't attempt to gain converts by threatening people wíth punishment and declaring that he is infallibly wise and claiming no one else is capable of fully understanding truth but him, but rather he defends his views logically, by explaining how it is that he has arrived at his conclusions. Jesus doesn't do this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GodSchism]

No, what makes a good philosopher king is that he doesn't attempt to gain converts by threatening people wíth punishment and declaring that he is infallibly wise and claiming no one else is capable of fully understanding truth but him, but rather he defends his views logically, by explaining how it is that he has arrived at his conclusions. Jesus doesn't do this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Through fear we gain understanding. We fear death and therefore we spend our lives trying to overcome death through knowledge. Fear draws men away from sin. Without it men would continue in their sins.

 

[The Nihilist]

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Through fear we gain understanding. We fear death and therefore we spend our lives trying to overcome death through knowledge. Fear draws men away from sin. Without it men would continue in their sins.

This is trash.

 

[GodSchism]

This is trash.

What do you know about constructive criticism.
Nothing I can prove it.
you are trash.

 

[Niels]

No, what makes a good philosopher king is that he doesn't attempt to gain converts by threatening people wíth punishment and declaring that he is infallibly wise and claiming no one else is capable of fully understanding truth but him, but rather he defends his views logically, by explaining how it is that he has arrived at his conclusions. Jesus doesn't do this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I've never heard of that Jesus, Eudaimonist. Where did he come from?

Jesus of Nazareth gained converts by giving them hope, by giving them reason to not despair. He did not "attempt to gain converts by threatening people".

In sin, we are indulgent, neglecting the needs and desires of the least of the group; while indulging in what is good for the individual. This is a necessity to a philosopher king, that he teaches morality by calling out the sin of every individual, not by condemning that individual but by teaching that individual that indulgence of sin means despair for others. Forgiveness of sins is necessary as a philosopher king does not want to condemn a soul but liberate that soul into a higher pattern of thought through moral teaching.

Though I do not regard Jesus as a philosopher king, GodSchism makes an excellent point about Christ's message... things like murder, drunken orgies, utter selfishness etc. result in the suffering of others. That "higher pattern of thought" he moves us toward is kindness and respect for others.

If kindness and respect for others are concepts that threaten somebody, then I would have to say that they aren't being very Christ-like.

 

[us38]

Jesus of Nazareth gained converts by giving them hope, by giving them reason to not despair. He did not "attempt to gain converts by threatening people".

Someone hasn't read Revelations.

 

[Niels]

Someone hasn't read Revelations.

In case you are that someone, thanks for sharing . Revelations is very open to interpretation. Besides, Jesus never tried convert people by citing Revelations. That book wasn't written until much later.

If you want to know what Jesus of Nazareth did, then read the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) instead.

 

[variant]

I've never heard of that Jesus, Eudaimonist. Where did he come from?

Jesus of Nazareth gained converts by giving them hope, by giving them reason to not despair. He did not "attempt to gain converts by threatening people".

Jesus/Paul are the pillars of today’s hell doctrine.

So yes, yes he did.

14
9 The Pharisees, who loved money, 10 heard all these things and sneered at him.
15
And he said to them, "You justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts; for what is of human esteem is an abomination in the sight of God.
16
"The law and the prophets lasted until John; 11 but from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone who enters does so with violence.
17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of a letter of the law to become invalid.
18
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
19
12 "There was a rich man 13 who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day.
20
And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores,
21
who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores.
22
When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried,
23
and from the netherworld, 14 where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
24
And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.'
25
Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.
26
Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.'
27
He said, 'Then I beg you, father, send him to my father's house,
28
for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.'
29
But Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.'
30
15 He said, 'Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31
Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Though I do not regard Jesus as a philosopher king, GodSchism makes an excellent point about Christ's message... things like murder, drunken orgies, utter selfishness etc. result in the suffering of others. That "higher pattern of thought" he moves us toward is kindness and respect for others.

If kindness and respect for others are concepts that threaten somebody, then I would have to say that they aren't being very Christ-like.

There is a difference between telling someone why they should care for the suffering of others, and threatening them with hell you see.

Jesus was a theologian, using the concept of God's wrath rather than reason to get his point across.

In case you are that someone, thanks for sharing . Revelations is very open to interpretation. Besides, Jesus never tried convert people by citing Revelations. That book wasn't written until much later.

If you want to know what Jesus of Nazareth did, then read the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) instead.

Revelations is based upon what Jesus of Nazareth did and didn't do.

It ties up the entire Old Testament, by stating that Jesus is going to come back and not only fulfill the rest of the prophecies about the messiah, but also right the wrongs of the beginning of the OT.

If Jesus never threatened anyone to get his point across the entirety of Christianity today is quite off base in their interpretations, and the documents that survive to our day are quite wrong about him.

 

[GodSchism]

I've never heard of that Jesus, Eudaimonist. Where did he come from?

Jesus of Nazareth gained converts by giving them hope, by giving them reason to not despair. He did not "attempt to gain converts by threatening people".

Though I do not regard Jesus as a philosopher king, GodSchism makes an excellent point about Christ's message... things like murder, drunken orgies, utter selfishness etc. result in the suffering of others. That "higher pattern of thought" he moves us toward is kindness and respect for others.

If kindness and respect for others are concepts that threaten somebody, then I would have to say that they aren't being very Christ-like.

beautiful. well put.

 

[GodSchism]

Jesus/Paul are the pillars of today’s hell doctrine.

So yes, yes he did.





There is a difference between telling someone why they should care for the suffering of others, and threatening them with hell you see.

Jesus was a theologian, using the concept of God's wrath rather than reason to get his point across.



Revelations is based upon what Jesus of Nazareth did and didn't do.

It ties up the entire Old Testament, by stating that Jesus is going to come back and not only fulfill the rest of the prophecies about the messiah, but also right the wrongs of the beginning of the OT.

If Jesus never threatened anyone to get his point across the entirety of Christianity today is quite off base in their interpretations, and the documents that survive to our day are quite wrong about him.

And I will put to you that the doctrine of hell is the fear of the lord; for the fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge. If there was nothing to fear then people would fall away to their own selfishness and sin. Through a thought-provoking god, is fear placed in the human heart, in order that one may put down earthly pleasures and seek the divine. Love is divine. The fear of the lord is necessary because those who see that the lord is something to be feared, turn their hearts to him, in order that they may come to know love instead of hate.
Jesus says, if a man have even an ounce of mercy in his heart then Jesus shall have mercy on that man. But if mercy does not exist within a soul then why should Jesus have mercy on that unmerciful man? This is also church doctrine.
Without the threat of death or the wrath of god, man would just continue in his stupidity.

 

[variant]

And I will put to you that the doctrine of hell is the fear of the lord; for the fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge. If there was nothing to fear then people would fall away to their own selfishness and sin. Through a thought-provoking god, is fear placed in the human heart, in order that one may put down earthly pleasures and seek the divine. Love is divine. The fear of the lord is necessary because those who see that the lord is something to be feared, turn their hearts to him, in order that they may come to know love instead of hate.

Jesus says, if a man have even an ounce of mercy in his heart then Jesus shall have mercy on that man. But if mercy does not exist within a soul then why should Jesus have mercy on that unmerciful man? This is also church doctrine.

Without the threat of death or the wrath of god, man would just continue in his stupidity.

Threatening people with divine retribution in order to get them to do good is still threatening people. It amounts to “you better believe in what I say or else”. People should want to do good because it is good for not only them but for everyone. It takes little effort to construct reasonable arguments for why people should want to go along with something, and if not, it is not something they should go along with.

I don't fear your God because I don't believe it exists as you say. I don't consider that a sin, I don't know if Jesus would have, but I don't see a way around that.

Not something you can flick on and off like a light switch.

I try to do my best in life because I don't think there is anything to be gained by messing things up or working against the society I live in.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I've never heard of that Jesus, Eudaimonist. Where did he come from?

I didn't believe that Jesus existed... until I sat down and read the Gospels. I saw him there. I was quite shocked; it wasn't what I expected at all.

Yes, the Jesus of the Gospels did try to give hope by giving people reasons not to despair. However, he never provided justifications for those "reasons" -- he merely insisted that God believed as he did -- and this is why he fails to be a philosopher. I will agree that he was a moral teacher.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

Perhaps it is the beginning of some knowledge, but this is not philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GodSchism]

Threatening people with divine retribution in order to get them to do good is still threatening people. It amounts to “you better believe in what I say or else”. People should want to do good because it is good for not only them but for everyone. It takes little effort to construct reasonable arguments for why people should want to go along with something, and if not, it is not something they should go along with.

I don't fear your God because I don't believe it exists as you say. I don't consider that a sin, I don't know if Jesus would have, but I don't see a way around that.

Not something you can flick on and off like a light switch.

I try to do my best in life because I don't think there is anything to be gained by messing things up or working against the society I live in.

How can you feel threatened if you are a good person?

 

[GodSchism]

Perhaps it is the beginning of some knowledge, but this is not philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If you find no philosophical value in the bible then you are blind.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you find no philosophical value in the bible then you are blind.

I said that Jesus does not engage in philosophy, not that there is nothing of value to philosophers in the Bible. Those are two different claims.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[variant]

How can you feel threatened if you are a good person?

I don't feel threatened.

 

[The Nihilist]

I do not think that serious, intellectually honest discussion is really his thing, guys.

 

[Niels]

Jesus/Paul are the pillars of today’s hell doctrine.

So yes, yes he did.





There is a difference between telling someone why they should care for the suffering of others, and threatening them with hell you see.

Jesus was a theologian, using the concept of God's wrath rather than reason to get his point across.



Revelations is based upon what Jesus of Nazareth did and didn't do.

It ties up the entire Old Testament, by stating that Jesus is going to come back and not only fulfill the rest of the prophecies about the messiah, but also right the wrongs of the beginning of the OT.

If Jesus never threatened anyone to get his point across the entirety of Christianity today is quite off base in their interpretations, and the documents that survive to our day are quite wrong about him.

Variant, I would argue that such suffering and torment were experienced long before Jesus of Nazareth was born. It is a stretch to think that he brought us the threat of suffering, because the kind of suffering he mentions already existed in one form or another. Instead, he proposes ways to avoid such suffering... in the form of moral teaching for this life, and his ultimate sacrifice in our place for the next. From my perspective, I do not see Jesus using threats to win people over. Rather, he provides an alternative to the suffering that already surrounded the people.

That said, I can understand how one would feel threatened by a "hell and damnation" style of preaching. That kind of practice bothers me too, because I think it misses the point about what Jesus of Nazareth is all about.

I agree with Eudaimonist that Jesus is not a philosopher in the traditional sense (for all I know, he may have loved knowledge, but I doubt his target audience would have been receptive to classical philosophical discourse)... let alone one of Plato's philosopher kings, but I still think there is much to be said for the OP.

My apologies for the tangent. Carry on!