How moral are the
teachings of Jesus, really? Don't ask Bandoli. He's suffering from a severe case of anachronism and begged question disorder. Here's his first problem:
The immorality in the biblical laws, commandments and rules, is found
in the motivation behind them. You shall not kill/ steal from/ lie to a
"brother" because it is "Gods [sic] will", not because it is an evil unethical thing
to do to your fellow man. Not that you'll find a place where it says, "because it is God's will". Bandoli's conception of theistic ethics is rather skewered. Rather, it is held that God is the source of all morals; He is not the motivation but rather the plumb line, and one does not do unto one's brother because they are as much made in the image of God as one is one's self. Simple? Yes, but Bandoli missed it. And he threw this begged question as well: At the same time it's obviously fine to kill people
outside your own tribe/congregation. God himself do this all the time by the
thousands. As if it were done merely on the basis of these persons being outside the tribe or congregation. No, that's never said to be the reason to kill anyone. People are killed in judgment; Bandoli has no answer to this, only argument by outrage. That being the case, we can only "sound bite" back at him.
We would think that the
teachings of a "God" or "son of God" should at least be coherent, consistent and
with flawless moral. Well, the teachings of Jesus are none of these things. Drum roll, please. Here comes the anachronistic analysis.
The morality of Jesus teachings is at best dubious. Jesus is both tolerant
and categorically intolerant in his teachings. Vague generality as usual. Intolerant of what? Error? Injustice? Bandoli doesn't specify here, he just whines. Sometimes he shows signs of
social consciousness; sometimes he is completely without such. Ditto. Ask for specifics somewhere else. Sometimes he
reacts like a furious four-year-old when he does not get things his way, (ex:
the fig tree story (Matt. 21:18-19, Mark 11:12-14.)), At least we have an example here. Four year old, eh? Does Bandoli get mad at weeds he yanks out of his lawn? Not that this was anywhere close; see here. he renounce [sic] his
closest relatives (Matt. 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21.) And for what purpsoe? To serve the Kingdom. For eternal life for others. Bandoli merely begs the question of such things being relevant, then deems it "immoral" because he assumes that they are not. Same here: and he
constantly threaten people with eternal torture in hell (To threaten people with eternal burning in hell for not believing
in him as the true son of God, is not a particular ethical thing to do by any
standard). Other than, if they actually exist. Then it is decidedly immoral NOT to say something -- though if Bandoli checks the texts, he will see that such "threats" are seldom if ever delivered personally, and do not form a part of missionary preaching in the Church.
He tells his disciples to turn the other cheek, but he also tells them to slay his enemies before him. (Luke 19:27). As usual, Bandoli mixes two situations. The former deals in matters of interpersonal relationships and insults. The latter deals in judgments which are merely assumed undeserved. He says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matt. 7:1) but Jesus himself judge all his opponents and enemies (usually to eternal torture in Hell). Decontextualized exegesis yet again. See here. "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30). That's right. Problem is, what? He says "…but whosoever shall say, Thou fool [to his brother], shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matt. 5:22), but then Jesus himself calls people "Fool" on several occasions (Matt 23:17, Luke 11:40; 24:25). Not quite relevant. See here.
The Golden Rule.
You should do towards others what you want others to do towards you.
Together with the rules of loving yours enemies and turning the other cheek,
these sayings are often seen as some of the main teachings of Jesus. But we also
find this in the sayings of Confucius around 300 BC, and in the writings of the
Chinese sage Lao-Tse, a contemporary of Confucius. In the Indian "Manus laws" we
find that "we should be angry with those angry with us, but bless those who
curse us." We find the "Golden rule" in the Buddhist "Dhammapada". And of
course we find the Golden rule in the writings of Plato (428-347 BC). And in the
writings of a jewish sage with the name Hillel (ca. 80-60 BC) we also find this
rule. The philosopher Celsus also tells us in the second century that this rule
is not particular for Christianity, but actually very old. He also says that
this "rule" is usually found in a lot less "rural and crude" form in the earlier
pagan texts. That's nice. The question to all of this is, "so what"? No one claims any particular moral teaching of Jesus is original; if anything, we would expect Jesus to teach the highest morals found in the annals of men. Does the Confucian version become less admirable just because it is found in Buddhist teachings? Not hardly. The whige of originality lacking is a strawman.
The teaching of loving ones enemies seems kind of hollow
coming from Jesus, who does not seem to follow this teaching himself.
Frequently he condemns his own enemies, calling them "Ye serpents, ye
generation of vipers" (Matt. 3:7, 23:33, Luke 3:7) and make a habit
of threaten people with eternal torture in Hell. Moronic comment here, devoid of understanding of what love constitutes -- and how such exchange served that purpose in the ancient world.
Jesus
refers often to his followers as his "flock of sheep" and he is the
"good" shepherd. (This is actually a heritage from the Sumerians 3-2000 BC, from
whom the Assyrians got it, and later again the Egyptian god Horus was called
"the good Shepherd" long before Christ). Anyway, sheep are not considered to be
among the brightest creatures on this planet, and thus the analogy is very
suitable for many Christian congregations. But to send his disciples forth
"as sheep in the midst of wolves" like Jesus do (Matt. 10:16, Luke
10:3), is not what a "good" shepherd should do. Bandoli never fits the pieces together that the heritage he notes shows that comparison to sheep was not offensive and that the "brightness" of the sheep was not an issue. as for being sent among wolves, Bandoli takes the metaphor to extremes for his own purposes; he may as well say that Jesus was teaching that his disciples had white, woolly hair. Once again, the message of the Kingdom was the message of eternal salvation. If you could eternally save the "wolves" with it, it would be immoral to NOT go in among them.
Jesus is actually the main
advocate for the idea of eternal condemnation to Hell in the Bible. No one talks
more of Hell and eternal damnation than Jesus. True at least here. He gives the believer two
choices, either blind faith in him as God, or eternal torture in Hell. "Blind" faith? Not quite. See here. If you
don't believe, you go straight to hell when you die, no matter if you have lived
a flawless moral life and never thought a bad thought. And who has done that, exactly? No one. Strawman. If you don't believe
you are doomed, on the other hand if you just believe and regret your sins, you
can be ha [sic] homicidal, psycopathic sadistic chainsaw massmurderer [sic] and still go to
heaven (according to the teachings of Jesus.) But going to heaven and being
a moral person is not the same thing. No kidding. Now spin it this way: the grace of God is so effacacious that it can save even that murderer. See more here.
The
motivations behind your actions are crucial to whether they can be considered
moral or not. If the fear of punishment is the only thing keeping a
person from hurting another, that person is usually concidered to have low or no
moral. Or if someone doesn't want to help an injured fellow person, unless he or
she gets rewarded in some way, it's not what we call a moral or ethical
behaviour. Well, Bandoli has his head in his sandbox if he thinks that's the motivation for morality in a Christian's life. It isn't fear of punishment that motivates, but gratitude for one's salvation. See link above.
The motivation for doing good deeds or moral behaviour in
Christianity is the fear of God. You don't want to cross God because then you
could lose your ticket to heaven, to your personal salvation. False. This is not taught in the Bible and is only found taught in a few oddball sects with a skewered view of the relationship between faith and works. Thus the
motivation for decent behaviour is then purely selfish and egocentric. For
serious Christians their relation to their God is often more important than
their relations to other people. With God their personal eternal salvation is at
stake. As noted, false. The proper motivation makes good relations to other people intrinsic to the relationship with God.
The moral teachings of
the Bible and of Jesus are unethical as the reason for being moral or ethical is
the fear of Gods [sic] punishment and of losing the reward of eternal salvation. The
believer is not rewarded for moral and ethical behaviour, but for their blind
faith. He can repeat it as many times as necessary, but it won't get any more accurate with the repetition.
Genuine moral end ethical behaviour don't need any motivational
promises of rewards, or inhumane sadistic threats of eternal torture. Then I wonder what Bandoli makes of penal theory which says so in a less than eternal sense. Well, aside from links above, see also here part 2, on alleged sadism, etc. Bottom line: The motivation is not reward or punishment, but love and gratitude. Any questions?
How does Bandoli anachronize the rest of the Bible??
