The Blog: Cogito Ergo Blogo
What would Jesus do?
23 December, 2011, 05:13 pm
Posted by JP
Millions of people believe that Jesus is the Lord, the Son of God, sent to earth to teach us how to live. Many others, including some of the founding fathers like Jefferson, modern Unitarians, and a lot of people who don’t consider themselves Christians at all, aren’t convinced that Jesus is the Son of God, but think he was a great moral teacher. When they confront an ethical decision, or a morally loaded issue of public policy, they may ask, ``What would Jesus Do?”
How would Jesus have voted on California’s Proposition 8 -- that is, what views did he have, or would he have had, on same sex marriage? What would he counsel President Obama to do about Afghanistan? Would he oppose the Death Penalty? Would he pay his taxes without protest? Would he oppose abortion? Some abortions? All abortions? How about euthanasia? There are many issues, on which it seems it would be good to have the advice of this moral teacher, whether or not he was or is as divine as some people think.
In order to ask these questions, we need to know something about the historical Jesus: what he said, what he thought, what he did. Of course everything about the historical Jesus has been questioned by someone or another… including his existence.
But even to get started on our topic, we have to assume some things. So we assume that Jesus did exist, and that the gospels, although written sixty or so years after he lived, are accurate at least on the points on which they agree.
The gospels don’t agree on everything. They have Jesus saying different things as he was executed. They don’t all tell the familiar story of his birth in Bethlehem. Matthew has Jesus saying things on the mount that Luke has him saying on the Plain. But, luckily for our purposes, they pretty much agree on his moral teachings.
And many agree that the core of these teachings come to this, from Luke chapter 6:
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them back again. And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
Well, it’s pretty clear that Jesus wouldn’t oppose single sex marriage. He would ask, if I were gay, wouldn’t I want people to allow me to marry? And then he would do as he would want to be done to, if he were gay, and vote for gay marriage.
Or maybe not. When Jesus was asked about divorce, he expressed a pretty traditional view of marriage. He pointed out that God made man and woman, and they become one, and said no divorce except in the case of unfaithfulness. So maybe it’s not clear that he would vote for gay marriage.
One one hand, it seems he would be on the liberal side of things. Sometimes he sounds practically like a socialist. "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,” he said. And to the rich he said, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth….go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." And he famously observed: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Sounds like he would definitely a democrat, or even further to the left.
One the other hand, sometimes Jesus sounds like a pretty extreme individualist. He thought people should give to the poor of their own free will, not through taxes to the state. If Jesus were following the Republican Primary, perhaps the candidate he would have liked best is Ron Paul. The individual should follow his conscience. The key principle is not to harm others.
So it may not be so simple to figure out what Jesus would do. On the show we will get help from Andrew Fiala, who wrote the book What Would Jesus Really Do?
Add a comment
Get Philosophy Talk
Live
Sunday at 10am, PST, KALW, 91.7 FM, Local Public Radio, San Francisco
Streaming
Broadcast live on your iPhone or Android using the Public Radio Player
Podcast
Podcast - individual episodes, multipacks and The Complete Philosophy Talk on sale now
Subscribe
Subscribe to our free weekly download service, and our monthly eNewsletter
Comments
Jesus. Or a representation. Holding a Henry Repeater. Yes. I know guns, somewhat. The Henry rifle was originally chambered for a 44-40 round: big enough to stop a man, but pretty anemic against a bear or a buffalo.
What Would Jesus Do? That very much depends upon what someone thinks Jesus could do. Most would say that, based on lore,he would not carry a Henry Repeater. But, given current circumstances, we don't really know.
Now, when the idea of Jesus was conceived in the mind of God: birth; teachings; death; resurrection, and so on; we wonder when it was that Jesus the half-human, half-divine being knew the destiny awaiting him. He allegedly spoke of being forsaken. So he must have known. Somehow/somewhen. Look, I have always been perplexed by the Christian mythology. There are too many inconsistencies. Too many things that do not add up. I would expect it to be so for other faiths. Well, you can figure it out. I am not a doctor or even a bachelor---those could have earned me mo' money. I'll still die though.
(afterthought:that half-human, half-divine thing had been around awhile, right?
Many people try to answer "what would Jesus do" regarding situations today, many of them to further an agenda of their own that had nothing to do with His - like whoever decided to depict him with a rifle. I think I know what He would say about all those touchy topics like abortion, gay marriage, and such, and I can back it from his words. But others would debate me. These things existed in Jesus' time as well, and he chose not to focus on them. I have to be content with that.
The more important question, I think, is not so much "what would Jesus do," but "what does He want me/us to do?"
Oh, and Dave, on the half-human, half-divine thing...that indeed comes up in many religions (think Hercules, Gilgamesh, Krishna, etc), but that is not actually what comes up in Christianity. He is not half human, half divine - the Christian belief is that He was (and is, and always will be) fully God (John 1:1-3, Col 1:19-20, etc), and at the same time was fully man (Heb 2:11-14, Php 2:7-8). This is what made it so hard to grasp, and led to so many divisions as the church grew and people tried to bend the truth God gave them to fit their human reason and philosophy (think Arians, Myaphisites vs Diaphysites, and so on). Half-human half-divine would have been easy.
What would Jesus do? The folks who love violence and inflicting penalty will cite the wrathful Jesus driving the moneychangers from the temple and his prophecy of the temple's destruction by the Romans. And the folks who favor love and non-violence will cite "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "turn the other cheek". The ambiguities in the New Testament and Old lend themselves readily. Thus warmonger and peacemonger alike may find justification, so convenient!
What would Jesus do? Whatever you want!
Thus one in the same entity can be a god of war and a god of compassion--two in one! Such a deal!
You'd need Mars and Quan Yin, from two different pagan religions to match it.
But I tell you I can't but help feel proud that here in the west we have a real religion, while everywhere else
they have only superstition.
Everyone knows that angels are real but bodhisattvas and other pagan creations are merely mythological.
One only has to look at an angel's beautiful wings to know this is so.
And me? I worship the universal god of sarcasm, the most holy Ambrose Bierce.
Why didn't Jesus write anything?
=
The question should not be: what would Jesus do.
Rather it must be: what will we do?
And surely the answer without any uncertainty or doubt is simply we must do what is right!
Right?
But what is right you may ask?
Do you know, yourself?
Right simply and truly just or equally is: the Oneness of infinite you.
=
Now that is a good question. He certainly could have, literacy was quite common at that time, especially among Jews. There are lots of theories. My personal thought is that he was focusing his time on teaching, knowing that his time was short, and that he was not actually trying to start a new doctrine or religion. His first followers did not write anything (so far as we are aware) for the next fifteen or twenty years, either. The emerging realization that they might actually have to pass things on to another generation is what I think drove them to write - that, and as the church spread letters became necessary. Jesus did his teaching personally, sometimes to crowds but mostly focused on a small group of disciples, so had little need to write.
You are all right, Nathan. All Right. Inasmuch as you are a believer and I am not---we are both entitled to our opinions. Does the Bible say Jesus bled, before and after being on the cross? I thought it did---but maybe I was reading the wrong translation? Blood/bleeding seems to indicate mortality---fleshiness, uh, physical life. So. Hmmmm. What does this mean to the idea of the embodiment of a fleshly being into a spiritual manifestation of God? I just don't get it, Nate. Nothing lives forever---except, perhaps for DNA---but, forever is a long, long time, isn't it?-No? Please don't give me the "thousand years are but a day with God"---such worn out metaphors are useless now...I am a scientist and a philosopher. Look at how Bertrand Russell defined them, if you wish.
I would also say lots of people don't ever think about it at all... they were told some stuff about Jesus, but they don't really think who he was or if he was son of a God, or great teacher, or whatever.. And I this this is most of people in fact.
I'm thinking that the man holding the Henry Rifle might have been one of the great American Indian chieftains, perhaps Gerinomo or Sitting Bull---that is, before the arm and rifle were photo shopped onto a likeness of what someone thinks Jesus looked like. The thing about manipulating reality? Someone, somewhere, sometime will notice---and call you on it.
When people today say Jesus wasn't talking about Government action when He urged people to help others, I think that is a fallacious idea. Surely Jesus would agree with people who choose to band together and work to help others more effectively and that a democratic government is a legitimate tool for that effort!
Pages