The philosopher king

[variant]

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.

I agree that Jesus sometimes makes his arguments so people can avoid suffering, and if that is all he did I would commend him.

The writings attributed to Jesus's teachings also outline hell doctrine pretty clearly in my opinion, which I liken to threatening 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.

As I said previously the Jesus/Paul portions of the Bible are strong firmaments of this theology, whether it be right or wrong.

It might not be what he was all about, but it was definitely a staple in the thinking going on.

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!

Even if we grant the Bible to be completely true, Jesus was not philosophizing (questioning the truth of existence with logic and reason) he was preaching/explaining the truth of existence (as he should have known it).

If we say it is false then he was still preaching as if he knew the ultimate truth, and did not really support his reasoning in a philosophical sense (usually).

 

[Niels]

I agree that Jesus sometimes makes his arguments so people can avoid suffering, and if that is all he did I would commend him.

The writings attributed to Jesus's teachings also outline hell doctrine pretty clearly in my opinion, which I liken to threatening people.

He did that to help people avoid suffering. If you were about to walk through a patch of poison ivy, would I be threatening you if I mentioned where the harmful plants are? No? Then at what degree of severity does something like that become a threat? It's not as though Jesus converted people by the sword.

 

[GodSchism]

I agree that Jesus sometimes makes his arguments so people can avoid suffering, and if that is all he did I would commend him.

The writings attributed to Jesus's teachings also outline hell doctrine pretty clearly in my opinion, which I liken to threatening people.



As I said previously the Jesus/Paul portions of the Bible are strong firmaments of this theology, whether it be right or wrong.

It might not be what he was all about, but it was definitely a staple in the thinking going on.



Even if we grant the Bible to be completely true, Jesus was not philosophizing (questioning the truth of existence with logic and reason) he was preaching/explaining the truth of existence (as he should have known it).

If we say it is false then he was still preaching as if he knew the ultimate truth, and did not really support his reasoning in a philosophical sense (usually).

A philosopher king must speak with authority. He cannot say I think this is the truth because A, B, and C. No. A true philosopher king speaks with authority, saying, I am the Truth.

 

[GodSchism]

He did that to help people avoid suffering. If you were about to walk through a patch of poison ivy, would I be threatening you if I mentioned where the harmful plants are? No? Then at what degree of severity does something like that become a threat? It's not as though Jesus converted people by the sword.

Beautiful analogy. But he did say I did not come to cast peace but a sword. Because he knew very well that minds would mistake the truth and emphasize some things while inhibiting others.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A philosopher king must speak with authority. He cannot say I think this is the truth because A, B, and C. No. A true philosopher king speaks with authority, saying, I am the Truth.

No, that is what is known today as a "guru", or a "mystic", or a "cult leader", who is someone who claims knowledge based on mystical revelation, not philosophical reasoning.

A philosopher king is not a mystic. He doesn't find truths by contemplating his navel. The philosopher king's authority comes from his superior ability to justify his claims with logic and evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[variant]

He did that to help people avoid suffering. If you were about to walk through a patch of poison ivy, would I be threatening you if I mentioned where the harmful plants are? No? Then at what degree of severity does something like that become a threat? It's not as though Jesus converted people by the sword.

As in the passage I quoted, it was not that sort of lesson. The rich man gets all his consequences in hell, and the passage amounts to a threat of other worldly retribution. We would have to assume this is TRUE for his argument to simply be a warning.

Now consider that Jesus IS God and he whole heartedly approves of this sort of other worldly retribution, so he is PERSONALLY threatening the rich man.

None of this would amount to a simple warning.

 

[us38]

A philosopher king must speak with authority. He cannot say I think this is the truth because A, B, and C. No. A true philosopher king speaks with authority, saying, I am the Truth.

Not only is someone who does that not a philosopher king, they're not even a philosopher.

 

[Opethian]

A philosopher king must speak with authority. He cannot say I think this is the truth because A, B, and C. No. A true philosopher king speaks with authority, saying, I am the Truth.

And this comes from someone who insulted atheists for being stupid and knowing nothing of philosophy?
You don't even know the basic difference between archè and logos. Authority has no place in philosophy, that is one of the most basic premises.