Hacker News Reader

TBH, and I say this as a pretty staunch atheist, Jesus sounds like he had a lot of his shit sorted. Most of what I've read about him is just him being fair and advocating respect of everyone involved.

Between about 1000 BC and 0 AD it seems as if humans worked out how to get along in life. I'm on your side in following Christian scripture but I think you can use any of the major texts that emerged during that time and get reasonable results.

In fact my main beef with self-help programs is that they tend to regurgitate a lot of basic lessons that already exist in ancient texts in cleaner and more direct forms, such as Matthew chapters 5-7 in the New Testament (aka the sermon on the mount). I certainly found this to be the case with the type of new age precepts that seems to be popular in training classes for corporate employees.

I'd go even further and say human beings have worked it out multiple times - the little bit of Buddhist literature I've read, or, from the Chinese angle, the Dao De Ching (Tao Te Ching) both contain a lot of wisdom. I'm sure other cultures have worked out part or all of it too.

The sad thing is so much good stuff is out there, however people often don't listen, or take it to heart.

Have you read any classical history ? Thucydides records death camps in his history of the peloponnesian war.

It does not follow that people necessarily behave, even when they know better. We still have that problem today.

In my experience most people that claim to be "Christians" don't follow Jesus' basic teachings. Even the most staunch and dedicated will often fumble through an excuse as to why they don't do what he said to do.

Paul wrote about people that did not follow Jesus or the bible as following God naturally. (in Romans) One of my neighbors is a Buddist and he's a great to have next door. (cleared the snow from my driveway a few times without even me asking)

I have been personally shamed by the good behavior of other people outside my own "faith" group, including atheists. The Jordan Peterson video linked in a near comment pointed out the need to be challenged and take on responsibility, and have difficulties. I think the only way I was able to change some things about my religious beliefs was to hear the criticisms of my "sect" openly and face them.

My big religious change came when I was publicly confronted and shamed by a member that had left the group I was in. I started to fear disobeying true leadership in Jesus more than a man with authority. (being shamed, and wrong at the same time sucks) Proverbs says the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

Well, I no longer follow men blindly, and it's funny what you see in Jesus when you have no religious baggage telling you what he meant...

"Most of what you've read about him" is not equal to "most of what he said".

The most charitable source for this is probably Lewis's trilemma, which argues Jesus was either correct (he's the son of god), he's evil, or he's deluded.

More polemically, you have anything written by Christopher Hitchens on the subject.

I think he was deluded about being the Son of God, but that doesn't mean we should throw out the ethical precepts he advocated. A life lived by the major tenets espoused by Jesus in the Bible - treat other people the way you would want to be treated, be compassionate to people who screw up, take care of people who are less fortunate than yourself - would be a good life. Not surprisingly, those are tenets that are common to most ethical systems, whether they are religious or philosophical.

Remember, he said we were all children of god. It was the hero-worshippers of the day that turned him into a special person. I don't believe he claimed to be any more than the rest of us.

If you do what Jesus said to do, doesn't that make you a follower or a student of his teachings? (the greek word for student is often translated as disciple)

I find it interest that just claiming a title is meaningless if you don't follow the rules associated with that title. But if you follow the rules and don't claim the title, what does that mean?

I do the same thing with Jean-Luc Picard from The Next Generation. WWJLPD?

Thank-you for sharing your story.

You'd probably appreciate the lectures of Dr. Jordan Peterson. Clinical Psychologist. Award-winning lecturer. He loves to bring in Biblical references into his teachings.

"A Good Father Helps You to Become Your Best Self" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA5iEKvHNxk

That was pretty cool, thanks for sharing that, I think I started down a rabbit hole with Jordan Peterson youtube clips. :P

Glad to hear it! I love listening to him - he sincerely has improved my life through his teachings.

I'm a christian, but I'm probably more interested in my personal stoic philosophy first.

What is God? Is God a programmer?

What language was our universe written in?

I find Atheism an excuse to skip these question. I think Agnostic is significantly a better way for Atheists to approach problems.

I'm starting to believe in Simulation Theory, and that a nerd like me created a universe. Thats our Christian "God".

> I find Atheism an excuse to skip these question. I think Agnostic is significantly a better way for Atheists to approach problems.

I know we're getting somewhat off-topic here, but... That's an odd remark? Being an atheist for me is not "an approach", is what I am - I simply don't believe in a god or whatever (anymore). That wasn't a conscious choice (although I was really conscious of it happening), but more of an observation: "huh, I guess I'm an atheist now."

I think you have it backwards:

Atheism is saying "I don't know."

Agnosticism is saying "I don't think it's possible to know."

Most religions are saying "I do know - it written in this book."

Being an atheist does not preclude you from searching for answers, it just means admitting that we haven't found them yet. Agnosticism and religion are excuses to either pretend we can't know, or that we already know.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being inspired by Jesus, the problem is only when people disregard all other inspiration other than the "main one" they have chosen. Christian teaching is good in a lot of ways, but it's also completely lacking in other ways.

People should be inspired and take the best from Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, the Hindu gods, ancient philosophers, modern philosophers, self-helpers and all other sources they can find. When people believe they have found the truth they are destined to never find it, because they stop looking.

Truth is never found, it is a never-ending and eternal process of discovery that should last until death. A lot of people stop living way before they die.

What do you feel is lacking in "Christian teachings"?

A main one would be a focus on the internal world (self-image, thought processes, confidence, inner peace), Christianity is often too focused on acting correctly instead of thinking correctly/crafting a good personality in my view.

Buddhism is stereotypically more focused the other direction. Christian mediation isn't really a thing for example.

Please note that I don't want to get into a stupid pedantic discussion about what Christianity may or may not contain/touch on, my point is simply that no single source will ever contain all the wisdom there can be found - which I don't think can be disputed by intellectually honest people.

> I don't want to get into a stupid pedantic discussion about what Christianity may or may not contain/touch on

Except that you clearly don't know all the teachings, so pre-dismissing anyone helping you learn the parts you think are missing seems short-sighted.

That being said, you are partly right... In general, Christianity answers the question of "What do I do?", while Buddhism answer "How do I do it?" But there are internally-focused teachings throughout the New Testament. The Old Testament was more what you describe than Jesus' teachings.

Sadly, when you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you must not be intellectually honest, it makes me feel you are not very far along ANY spiritual path. Even though again, you are partly correct... your approach to all of this is very ego-driven, and it doesn't sound like you are open to much in the way of discussion.

A discussion about whether everything knowable about the universe is already known/that a single source can contain all the wisdom there is?

You're right, I'm not really open to discussing about that and I'll stand by my statement that people who reject new wisdom are intellectually dishonest.

I don't see how being open to new wisdom and science would make someone less spiritually enlightened. However I'm very interested in hearing why you (seem to) think so, that is fascinating to me.

Beat that straw man hard.

This news story is off the front page, so I hope posting a comment here isn't considered so off topic anymore that it matters. But even something as simple as the "sermon on the mount" is incredibly deep spiritually as well as intellectually. Go read it (it's short) and consider that the list of "physical todos" is always related to some kind of internal concept. I don't think the two can be divorced.

Consider the simple concept of saying "thank you" to someone. Even if you don't feel like it or believe it to be useful or necessary, it can have a profound impact on the inside of the person hearing it.

I would posit that all physical acts start and end with an internal effect, either or both on the doer and the receiver (if there is one).

The law of the old testament is often accused of being a forced list of empty physical requirements. But consider what Jesus said about the law and the commandments, that there are two great commandments, love God and love your neighbor. And then said "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

Not only did he state that the most important things you can "do" are things we cherish as purely internal, they are only useful if expressed externally. And then he responds all criticism of the old testament law by stating they "depend" on the love of God and our neighbors.

A proverb says something like "being hit by a friend is better than love that is hidden." I proved that having love for my wife was utterly meaningless in any way shape or form if I didn't somehow make her feel it too. And the only way I could do that is through a physical act.

Internal only reflections without external expression is selfishness.

But to leave this with one more thought, Paul wrote "...whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."

Maybe there is more the teachings of Jesus than is popularly known or shared?