the genius of Christ

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

If you look at Christ as a philosopher and not the Son of God, I have to say he was a genius. I’m sure the title of “philosopher” would have suited him quite well–in the grecoroman empire of his time, philosophy was still a respectable profession, and taking up the gauntlet of “philosopher” was probably quite an opportunity if one, like Christ, was a thinker and a revolutionary if only because he would have been the first Hebrew philosopher (or one of the rare ones) to be recognized in the history books.

This is part of his genius, I think, but there are many ways in which he was a genius. The one in particular I would like to discuss is the move he made in shifting the way man saw his relation to God. Before Christ, the way the majority of the world saw man’s relation to God was one of an authority over a subject, perhaps even a slave, and it would have been best modeled after a citizen’s relation to a leader.

But Christ put an interesting twist on this view, I’m inclined to say a revolutionary one, and that was to switch from the lead/citizen view of man’s relation to God to a father/son relation. The switch can be made because it doesn’t put into question God’s authority–a father is just as much an authority over his son as a leader is over his subjects–and this is important because I don’t think anyone around Christ’s time would have even thought of denying that–but the idea that one could look upon God as one’s own father would put a very interesting twist on how one saw his/her relation to God. One does not obey God for the same reasons that a subject obeys a leader–namely, to avoid the reprocutions of disobedience, but for the reasons one obeys one’s father–namely, because father knows best and father loves his children and wouldn’t want anything terrible happening to them. One obeys God because God is really looking out for one. True, this still means that God can be violent and harsh, and it can be difficult to understand why God would be that way, but so too with a father when punishing his children for misbehavior. So, yes, there are still reprocutions to avoid, and this can still function as a motivator, but one at least understands the greater purpose behind the issuing of these preoccupations and it is not the same as the purpose with which a leader exacts harsh discipline upon his subjects, but is the same as the purpose a father has for raising his children as he does–he loves his children, and wants what’s best for them, and though this sometimes entails having to dish out punishment, it is with the intent of guiding his children onto the path of love and well-being.

This must have been a profound and revolutionary way of conceptualizing man’s relation to God, and it must have been an entirely new idea. One can imagine the equally profound and revolutionary effects this must have had on those who adopted the idea, how it made them behave and conduct their dealings with God in a whole new way.

I dunno. I just find that interesting.

2

Wow, I see this topic sparked a major discussion! :laughing:

Anyway, I was thinking maybe I could make this another one of my “repository” threads, much like my Feminism and Sexism thread, or my Fellow Americans, I ask you this… thread, or my India thread (which died btw, but can be revived whenever I want). I mean, I have a lot of thoughts about Christ which I can post here–but please keep in mind, readers, that within the context of this thread, I mean to discuss Christ as a philosopher, not as the supernatural, otherworldly Son of God.

Anyway, I was saying that Christ, as a philosopher, was quite a genius. I mean, once you look at his teachings in comparison to some of his contemporaries (i.e. Aristotle, Plato, etc. ← although these guys came a few centuries before him, but nonetheless were of relatively the same philosophical caliber as Christ, especially considering 300 years isn’t that much time for philosophy to make leaps and bounds), Christ didn’t do too bad.

Here’s another one of his insights I find impressive (for the time): the Parable of the Two Debtors. I forget the details, but it essentially runs like this: two debtors owed so-and-so some money. One owed 50 bucks, the other owed 500 bucks. The debtee forgave both debts. But who would be the more grateful? The one who owed 50 bucks, or the one who owed 500? The greater the debt forgiven, the more strongly fortified the new alliance.

Now I find this to be quite an ingenious shift in the way the culture at the time thought of debts and the way to go about settling them, and not just because it was such a revolutionary idea in contrast to the eye-for-an-eye approach, but because of how plausible Christ made it sound. I have seen only two philosophers that had a knack for this sort of thing (there may be others, but I’m not that learned in all philosophers), a knack for twisting around what at first seems so common sense and turning into something which would be entirely counterintuitive if it weren’t for the genius of the philosopher and his arguments for it. These philosophers are Neitzsche and Deleuze.

Deleuze I had a thread on somewhat recently (here) in which I explain his “law skeptic” view (i.e. that there are no such things as the laws of nature–a counterintuitive proposition if ever there was one), and Neitzsche… well, just read a small sample of his various works to find numerous examples of how he takes common sense ideas and turns them on their head (just one, for example, is how Christianity, which seems at first to be a religion of superior morality and how to make better mankind, turns out to be the most decadent and destructive force that ever befell man, and which is really a tool for those in power to exact great evils on unsuspecting men). The key point is that when these two philosophers present their positions, one is at first struck by the jarring impression that he (the philosopher) can’t be serious, that his claims can’t be true, but then upon given him a chance and reading through his arguments, one comes out thinking “you know, that’s actually quite plausible”.

It does required a bit of genius to pull something like this off–to transform the counterintuitive into plausibility–and Christ had it too. To offer up a parable, which worked in his time as an argument for a philosophy, that made plausible the supposition that to do the opposite of taking an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, was the more effective strategy for gaining allies, would not have been an easy task in his time. But it took off, it gained momentum (to the point where it became the dominant religion of an entire continent for over 2000 years), and so it seems clear to me that Christ, through a special talent for telling parables, and thus giving us a philosophy, was somewhat of a genius.

3

Gib, I do not think the parable of debtors indicated that the greater alliance would be between who owed the highest debt. The parable is suggesting that the greatest alliance (love) is formed by who is forgiven the most. The debt itself is an unrelated phenomena and can be removed from the equation. It is suggesting that forgiveness is the cause of love rather than love the cause of forgiveness. This was not counterintuitive at the time as this was understood very well (and the correct response was given when asked). What was going on here was that Christ was met by a female sinner (possibly a prostitute) and his reply was an attack on cultural protocols through the use of the intuitive. So in this case, the cultural protocol of shunning sinners and making them outcasts was being criticized.

It is no different to our times today, many of the problems in our world today occur when our lives (i.e. behaviours) go in the opposite direction to our values. The role of the psychotherapy in such a case would be to realign behaviours and values so that there is no inconsistency. So in this sense, I would not say that Christ was a philosopher but I would tend to think that he was an existential-psychotherapist (creating existential dilemmas rather than one of going down the counterintuitive path).

— But this is just a personal view and not based on fact.

4

Gib: Jesus teachings did not differentiate into philosophy from religion to produce what has become known as religious philosophy, so it’s difficult to characterize his teachings.

I think His beneficence comes through , as you say, in disconnecting Himself from God, as Son. The Father cannot be reached except from the Father is an exemplary act of taking the ontological heat of understanding God. The Fire of God would burn anyone except this chosen, as did Moses managed with the burning bush. Christ as the Son of God, and of Man , was able to transcend this differentiation.

We ordinary men can too, but most would burn with loss of mind putatively judged as was Christ, by modern psychology.

Reminds me of a film I saw a while ago , “the gods must he mad”

5

Yes, that’s just a different way of saying the same thing, isn’t it?

That’s an interesting twist that I did not get out of the parable.

Are you sure?

When we talk about the “intuitive” are we talking about what seems to a culture as “common sense”? Are you saying that at the time it was common sense that one shouldn’t shun sinners but that because it was protocol to do so, people just did it anyway?

I don’t think you can cleanly separate philosophy and existential-psychotherapy (if I understand that term correctly). I’ve found, on these boards, that much of the philosophy I get into with others also works as a kind of therapy–both for myself and others whom I engage with. Christ taught lessons, preached morality, explained the metaphysics and cosmology of the universe–of course he engaged in philosophy–but maybe you mean to say it was a means to an end rather than an end in itself (that end being your existential-psychotherapy).

I know, obe, but it’s not a matter of differentiating; it’s a matter of what visors to look at Christ through–one could look at him as a spiritual authority or one could look at him as a philosopher. What I’m trying to get at in this thread is that when one looks at Christ as a philosopher, which one rarely does I find, you do get a novel look at the things he taught and how that impacted the world.

6

From the parable: "Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”
Which indicates that love is the result of forgiveness. Which is different to saying that we have to sin lots to be forgiven lots.

What I am saying is that peoples behaviours are often not a matter of “intuitive” or “counterintuitive” — it is often a matter of habit. Often habits are nested within habits which are nested within habits which are nested within habits… and so on. If we honestly look at our (societies) behaviours we will often find that our behaviours (habits) go in the opposite direction to our values. If we look further we will often find that our thoughts & beliefs (religious or non-religious) are also habits.

Are you suggesting that cultural norms (whatever they may be) are common sense? If you are, then I can understand how people may “perceive” these as common sense simply because these norms (habits) are unquestioned.

From the parable: When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”

In the parable above, people were trying to trip Christ over (crucify him) as he was breaking many cultural norms at the time. He, instead, used their own values to show to them that their own cultural norms went against their own value systems. Christ, in this sense, then does not appear to “me” as a philosopher.

Agreed, in this sense philosophy cannot be cleanly separated from any human activity or endeavour. Both my parents were unskilled, uneducated factory workers but engaged in much philosophy in their day to day life, but I would not call them philosophers as such. They did not use philosophy as a means to an end but it was simply within their nature. So, yes, Christ did engage in philosophy but I would not stick the label of philosopher on him (just like I engage in cooking but I would not call myself a chef).

But having said all this, it is simply a matter of what one wishes to emphasize. In either case, he was a revolutionist and genius and is responsible for western civilization (much to the frustration of many western atheists who enjoy the fruits of his efforts).

7

Before Jesus, the majority of the world were Pagans, who most certainly do not see our relationships to the gods as one of slavery and subservience. Christianity imposed on the world, or at least Europe, a subservient status, enforced at swordpoint.

8

No. That has merely been presented to you as a reason to hate Christians. Christianity is expressing against use of the sword, as is rather obvious in the NT.

And realize that “philosophy” was a European concept. In the Middle East, you either had revelations from God (ie “Saw The Truth”) or you were just one of us confused idiots.

9

On the contrary, Christianity was imposed by the sword. We should judge them by their actions, not their words.

10

Science is imposed by the sword, Judaism was imposed by the sword, Buddhism was imposed by the sword, Democracy was imposed by the sword. Eventually no matter what it is, when idiots get in charge, everything is imposed by the sword.

But how many of those expressly state, “judge not lest ye be judged”.
How many say, “face not an evil man”, “turn the other check”, “forgive 7 times 70 times”.

Christianity and Buddhism are the least of those who eventually got used along with the sword.

If you offended the Roman gods, you were removed from Roman society… by the sword.
If you offended God in Judaism, you were stoned to death (they stopped using the sword directly shortly after Moses).

11

I don’t care. Being the least bad of something is hardly a recommendation. In any case, Christianity has been responsible for more deaths than any other ideology, so it can fairly be called the most bad, rather than the least bad.

12

Absolutely false.

But as you said;

13

Would you say that the people in Christ’s culture, the ones he was preaching to, were aware of this dissonance within themselves, or do you think Christ pointed it out and made them aware of it.

Yes, more or less; I never thought that common sense held any objective weight. Who was it who said that “common sense” is neither common nor sensicle? I forget who, but he was right; you go from one group of people with their own beliefs and values to another group with totally different beliefs and values, and you will notice striking differences in their “common sense”.

Right, so they believed their own “common sense”. But in this case, what would you say is the value they hold which goes against this common sense?

Well, he certainly didn’t have a diploma in philosophy. But historical figures can be place in or taken out of any field of study we like. Newton, in his own day, was seen as a “natural philosopher,” but because he started the branch of study we now call “physics” and established the methods of science we now use today, he has since had that label removed and is now seen as a “scientist”. I can see how many like yourself would feel uncomfortable placing Christ into the category of “philosopher”–I’d agree that first and foremost, he was a spiritualist (actually, first and foremost he was the Son of God, according to some, but I’m skeptical about such supernatural claims)–but I don’t think it’s an objective matter; in the context of this thread, I just think it’s interesting to look at him as a philosopher.

You’re talking about Paganism in a very broad sense, Maia. How did the pre-Christian Pagans view their relation to God?

14

One of the things I like about Jesus, in contrast with most of the people in Old Testament , is that he really seemed to care about making the lives of people better and more enjoyable. He seemed to care about spiritually enlightening others and spreading love, mercy, compassion etc. When I read Old Testament I constantly had the feeling that the book was written just to control barbaric tribes and justify their actions.

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.” – Matthew 6:5-7

Or when he washed the feet of his disciples: “so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”” --John 13:4-7

The symbolic meaning of these stories is still applicable to many people.

15

For a start off, they worshipped many different gods and goddesses, to whom they had many different sorts of relationship.

16

Well that clears things up. Did they not see the gods and goddesses as more powerful than them, and could crush them any time they wanted?

17

They had a rather better opinion of their gods than that. More powerful, but not usually given to wanton destruction, and certainly not the sort of genocidal insanity of the Judeo-Christian deity.

18

But still, different from a parent that wants only what’s best for his/her children, correct?

19

In many of the Pagan mythologies, such as the Greek, we find parental concern. I see none of that in the Judeo-Christian god, if that’s what you’re getting at.

20

Hi Gib,

I think it is pretty obvious that Christ functioned to create cogitative dissonance (or existential dilemmas) in the society/individuals at the time (a major cause of the resultant change that followed).

If we consider a smoker as a metaphor. Smoking is the behaviour (psychological and psychical habit) and we can move away from the notion that nicotine is the cause of smokers smoking (it is just a reinforcer). A person then who holds life as precious (a value) will not experience cognitive dissonance until they are made aware that there is a strong correlation between poor health and smoking. A person who does not hold life as precious ( a value) will not experience cognitive dissonance for reasons associated with health concerns (there may be other factors that cause dissonance but this would be linked to another value). Subsequently, I find it hard to see smoking as an issue of “common sense” - it is largely a behavioural (based on likes/dislikes) habit and to change that behavioural habit we don’t need to experience the counterintuitive. We just need to experience cognitive dissonance and the only solution to this dissonance is to quit smoking (the issue is reduced to a matter of NO choice and we are eventually only left with one action). In effect, we are psychologically cornered (by ourselves) and are only left with one exit plan.

But having said this, this view [of mine] purely depends on our own cultural world views, our personal preferences and our own life experiences. For me. these are learnt characteristics that are the result of the repetitive exposure to what is considered the “norm”. Simply a matter of being programmed without question and this programming does not discriminate based on the individual (all are programmed in the same manner but just have different programs). Language is a perfect illustration of this, language is a cultural norm but there is no common sense basis for it (it is passed on from one generation to the next through learnt behaviour).

At the same time I can appreciate that common sense to you holds a different meaning for you. So yes, to you the Pharisees believed their own common sense (according to your world view). Specifically, the Pharisees beliefs (cognitive habits) were that the most important factor was to uphold the Law and that the relationship to God was not important. But they were still human and so understood and held the values of forgiveness and love (and how they are related to each other). I think the word Pharisees actually means/translates as “separated people” and they came into power around 100-200bc (could be wrong on this). In allowing the sinner (possibly a prostitute) to touch him, Christ was breaking the Law as set out by the Pharisees. He then used their own values (love/forgiveness) to foster cognitive dissonance with them. In this sense they were hypocrites of behaviour but still actually held values (otherwise love/forgiveness could not be discussed as it is not possible to discuss something that is not experienced to even the smallest of degrees — there must be a basis of commonalty and common understanding).

So yes, I think it is interesting to see Christ as a philosopher but I see it far more interesting to see Christ as an existential-psychotherapist. But, at the same time, I respect your point of view and your interest in this topic. I still find the “counterintuitive” element of your view a hard thing to comprehend, but like I said earlier we have different world views, beliefs, understandings and experiences which place a different lens on what we perceive.

By the way, thanks for the great discussion.
Simms