*Pic: Image from here
First published April 18
Alain de Botton argues in his book ‘Religion for Atheists’ that religions still have some very important things to teach us, even if we no longer believe their supernatural claims. Rather than mocking religions, non-believers should instead take the best of what they have to offer.
One religious story that we can all still learn from is the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which describes a conversation about what it means to live fully and how we should treat others. It is a story that nearly everyone knew by heart when I was a child, though hardly anyone does these days. So I repeat it as it was originally told, but with some alternative translations in brackets for the non-religious reader.
Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.
“Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life [to live fully]?”
He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?”
He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God [the Highest Good] with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.”
And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”
But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”
Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead.
“Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite [an instructor in religious law], when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
“But a Samaritan [a half-caste, despised by the religious establishment] while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity [compassion]. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii [pieces of silver], gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’
Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”
He said, “The one who showed him mercy [compassion].”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
I have always thought this to be one of the great works of literature, ethics and morality—as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago. Writers can only aspire to create a story within a story as beautifully realized as this. Philosophers have not been able to improve on its compelling ethical and moral logic.
As a child, I was captivated by the story, particularly when read aloud with feeling. Something about the vividness of the scene and rightness of its message resonated and lodged.
As a teacher, I marvel at the sophistication of the teaching techniques involved, appealing to both the imagination and to reason. Jesus turns the question back onto the lawyer, forcing him to reflect on what he has already been taught and to accept responsibility for his own learning. Rather than preach, he tells him a story. Jesus does not promise him “eternal” life, just “do this and you will live.” The final stroke of genius is to reframe the question: not whether the man in the ditch was their neighbour but which of them was a neighbour to him?
As a lawyer, I am chastened by the confrontation between cleverness and goodness.
As a human being wanting to know how I should live, I am humbled by the example of the good Samaritan and challenged to ponder whether I am rather more like the priest and the Levite than I care to admit.
The story also makes me reflect on what it is that I love with all my heart, soul, strength and mind – what is ‘God’ for me, in the sense that Paul Tillich defines God, as ‘that which is ultimate reality for you; what you take seriously without any reservation.’ And this forces me to reflect further on whether I should be redirecting my attention in life to what is more worthy of such love.
Because of my background and temperament, I also find myself wondering about the relationship between ‘the law’ and ‘love’, between morality and compassion. The story operates at both levels: the Samaritan represents compassion in action; the parable represents moral reasoning in action.
Elsewhere, Jesus unambiguously proclaims his understanding of the Golden Rule, which is the basis of the Abrahamic law: ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you’. This positive exhortation to ‘do good’ to others is a significant extension to the more generally accepted negative injunction: ‘Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.’ This primary obligation to ‘do no harm’ remains the basis of our law today. But it is an insufficient basis for our morality.
The Golden Rule, in one form or another, is universally recognised, because it is integral to the moral fabric of our being. As a very insightful friend recently pointed out to me: ‘It’s not a matter of accepting the rule and acting on it, but of the rule reflecting the universal nature of the impulse.’ The distinctive inflection in the Parable of The Good Samaritan is that it affirms the sovereignty of good and the primacy of love, which transcends the law.
What is most striking about the difference between the priest and Levite and the Samaritan is that the former act partially out of a sense of what convention dictates, what their discriminatory religious rules require of them. By contrast, the latter acts out of a spontaneous compassionate impulse: ‘when he saw him, he was moved with pity.’
The Samaritan does not even have to think about it: he knows what the right thing is to do. It is not a rational analysis of religious rules or moral principles; it is pre-conceptual. I am reminded of Shakespeare’s ‘pity, like a naked new-born babe’ (suggesting an instinctive sense of right and wrong) and ‘the quality of mercy…which is twice blessed: it blesseth him that gives and him that takes.’
Van Gogh’s striking image of ‘The Good Samaritan’ conveys, in all its vitality, the intimacy of the human connection that such compassion can create. It is the relationship between the two central characters, supported by all the forces of nature (including that wonderful horse!), which is the true focus of attention. This is where the real action is, not with the distant figures who pass by. And it is not the ‘personality’ of the characters that is of interest or importance: it is only the power of goodness in action that matters.
This is the work of a great creative genius at the height of his powers, painted in astonishment, trembling, awe and reverence. The artist is fully aware of the power of all the elemental forces involved in this simple story. The painting has a concentrated, untethered wild energy about it that is irresistible. Ever since a good friend sent it to me, it has lodged deep inside me, alongside the story, as a moral force to be reckoned with.
The principal message of the story is the need to ‘put ourselves in the shoes of the other’ and act on our compassion, like the good Samaritan, rather than find reasons for not doing so, like the priest or the Levite. To act requires us to extend ourselves, to make an effort—something Van Gogh makes visceral.
The most revolutionary idea contained in this story, however, is that we should be compassionate to strangers. Here we have a radically extended definition of who we should regard as our neighbour and to whom we should be neighbourly—someone who is anonymous, not part of our family or clan or nation, who does not necessarily share our religious or moral beliefs, whose only qualification for our sympathy and aid is that they are a suffering fellow human being, of equal dignity and worth, with whom we share a common humanity.
Clearly Jesus was millennia ahead of his time! However, the parable makes it clear that individuals were already acting this way: Christianity did not invent compassion or moral action. They are universal values. And yet, while these qualities clearly still endure today, there is also cause for concern.
At the beginning of his wonderful short TED talk on effective altruism, Peter Singer shows a very disturbing video clip of a modern playing out of the Good Samaritan story. A two year old girl is run over by a van and left bleeding in the street by the driver. Several people pass by without offering any assistance. Eventually a street cleaner raises the alarm but the girl dies on her way to hospital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Diuv3XZQXyc
Most viewers of this video clip are horrified by the indifference of the passers-by. And yet, as Singer points out, we know that some nineteen thousand individual children die each day from preventable diseases associated with poverty. We could save many of these if we didn’t treat them with a similar indifference. The same could be said of many of the millions of individuals forced to flee their homes for their own safety and who are now stuck in refugee camps.
In an earlier article, ‘Pippa’s Dilemma: the moral demands of affluence’, I quoted Singer’s modern parable of the child in the pond. If one is walking past a shallow pond and sees a child drowning, one ought to wade in and pull the child out. This might mean ruining an expensive pair of fashionable shoes but most of us would accept that this is insignificant compared to the death of a child. (And, equally clearly, it makes no moral difference whether it is a pair of shoes or a portion of our money that we are called on to sacrifice.)
Singer derived the following moral principle from such a simple act of compassion: if it is within our power to act to prevent something bad from happening to another human being, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, then we have a moral obligation do so. It follows that it would be morally wrong for us not to do so.
According to this argument, it makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbour’s child ten yards from me or a Syrian, Rohingya or African refugee whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. They are fellow suffering human beings of equal worth and must call forth similar compassion and moral concern, irrespective of proximity.
Of course the modern context is different. Instead of being confronted by a single man in the ditch, we are now being confronted by millions of people in refugee camps. But these are all individual men, women and children in no less desperate need of assistance. We may not be able to come to the aid of all of them but we can certainly help some.
Proximity will always make an encounter more immediate, more personally confronting and more difficult to avoid, as well as potentially more satisfying. I would like to believe that it is only a lapse of moral consciousness—rather than a lack of compassion, wilful blindness or indifference—that prevents us from experiencing a similar sense of moral obligation when confronted by the more distant but equally disturbing realities witnessed on our television screens.
Whether we respond individually to these modern day people in the ditch will depend on our ability to respond personally to the story about the Good Samaritan or the child in the pond. Arguments about the responsibility for and scale of the problem, or any political views we may have about our national policies on refugees and asylum-seekers, are secondary to the personal ethical and moral issue: Do we care and are we willing to act on that care?
The Good Samaritan shows us very practical ways to act as individuals: he gives the person in need immediate first aid, then takes him to a place of safety and then gives some money to a third party to help maintain him until he gets back on his feet.
There is nothing particularly heroic about what he does. He is not a saint. He doesn’t devote his whole life to helping the poor. He just does his bit as an individual. The only difference between the situation facing him and us is the magnitude of the problem, not the nature of the required personal response.
We may not be in a position to do all that he does but we can certainly give some of our money to third parties who are in a position to do some of it for us.
* * * * * *
If the need for compassion is recognised and a moral obligation to give money for such a purpose is accepted, the further practical and moral question arises: how can we ensure that the money we give is actually getting to the people who need it most and is making a positive difference?
Fortunately, we can now have confidence in some of the answers, thanks largely to the work of one of the world’s leading charity evaluators, GiveWell, which has carried out extensive independent research in order to rate the effectiveness of charities. It currently recommends only six charities in the world as meeting its very strict criteria for effectiveness.
One of the top rated charities it has consistently recommended is GiveDirectly, which has just launched an exciting new initiative to help refugees overseas, where the need is greatest.
Uganda is a country which in 2016 took in more refugees than any other, including the whole of Europe at the height of the crisis. Yet despite having limited resouces, its government has very progressive policies for the nearly 1.4 million people who have sought refuge there. It has granted refugees basic rights—like education, work, freedom to leave their settlements and own property and apply for citizenship—in order to help them rebuild their lives. The major thing that holds these people back is lack of capital to get a start.
With this in mind, GiveDirectly has launched its new program in Uganda, after carrying out a very successful pilot project there. The program has been very carefully designed to have maximum impact. It plans to make substantial lump sum cash payments via mobile technology and bank accounts to refugees and locals in neighbouring support communities. It uses an aid model which has been tried and tested in its two other established programs and which independent research has shown to be very effective.
The underlying philosophy of GiveDirectly is one of maximum transparency in its operations and maximum empowerment of the people it seeks to help. In everything it does, it affirms the dignity of the individual as a fundamental value and guiding principle. It believes that those most in need of our financial assistance know better than anyone else how to use it. It provides the cash grants unconditionally, without any strings attached. All the evidence supports their faith that recipients use the money they are given wisely and effectively to rebuild their lives.
Donors to GiveDirectly can be very confident that their money is getting to the people who need it most and is making a real difference to their lives. This charity should particularly appeal to those people (including many libertarians) who are concerned that governments and charities may not use their donations to the best purpose and who believe in maximum individual freedom and autonomy. You can find out why GiveWell and Peter Singer’s organisation The Life You Can Save rate this as one of the top charities in the world, by visiting Effective Altruism Australia’s website: https://effectivealtruism.org.au/
Whether or not we support the current refugee and asylum-seeker policies in Australia—a topic we should be actively engaged in as responsible citizens— we can each feel compassion as individuals for the plight of victims of displacement and famine around the world and we can each accept some personal moral responsibility for doing our bit to help them. The easiest and best way to do this is by making a donation to a charity of proven effectiveness.
If you like the way well established traditional charities like UNHCR, Oxfam, Medecins Sans Frontiers, Save the Children and Care Australia help refugees overseas, you can donate to their specific programs. If you prefer to help refugees in Australia, you can donate to the very active Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.
However, if you like the idea of giving the money directly to the individuals most in need overseas and letting them determine how best to help themselves, then you can now donate with confidence to one of the most effective charities in the world, GiveDirectly: https://givedirectly.org/refugees
******
The Parable of the Good Samaritan gives us a very clear personal choice when confronted by the extreme suffering of our fellow human beings: we can look away and pass by, as the priest and the Levite did, or we can act on our natural compassion, as the Samaritan did.
The ‘culture of uncare’ tells us it’s OK to look away and pass by—‘it’s not our problem’, ‘there’s nothing we can do that will make a difference’, and so on. As I argued in an earlier article—‘It’s up to all of us’—that culture of disavowal and negativity must be resisted, for the sake of our personal and global health and wellbeing. One of the best ways to do this, in the present context, is to donate to a charity of proven effectiveness and to encourage others to do likewise.
Nearly all of us can afford to give something. Most of us can afford to be much more generous and give much more than we currently do. Remember, we enjoy the second highest relative personal wealth in the world and most of us are in the world’s top 10% in terms of income.—something I also discussed in that earlier article.
We should be willing to share more of our incredible good fortune, because it is the right thing to do. As Beth Barnes shows in her wonderful short TEDx presentation, if we all did so, we would very quickly make the world a much better place for everyone, not just for the lucky few: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtWINl3C_7s
It may be true to say that charity begins at home: but it should never end there. It may be true that one individual cannot change the plight of the millions presently in dire need: but we can certainly change the lives of some of them through our individual action.
The Good Samaritan changed the life of one man in the ditch. His example still resonates 2000 years later, with the same clear message to each one of us: “Go and do likewise!”
*Scott MacInnes has a background in teaching, law and conflict resolution. He is now retired and writes occasional articles about politics, morality and faith, and how these relate to each other. He believes that all our values—spiritual, aesthetic, moral and political— need to hang together with integrity. He has a strong commitment to effective altruism. He is passionate about the value and importance of art, literature and (especially) music. He lives and enjoys walking in the beautiful Tasmanian landscape overlooking the D’Entrecasteau Channel. Above all, he is grateful for this precious life we share, in all its mystery. For other articles by Scott MacInnes go to: http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/category-article/155
Leonard Colquhoun
April 17, 2018 at 11:34
A very thoughtful, perceptive and at times challenging re-estimation of religion in general and, importantly for all of us in the Western tradition, of Christianity and of its Judaic roots, and as far as you could get, and long for, from the dross on social media, and of the shallow sloganeering typical of ‘true believers’. (Without veering to the other extreme of Pollyanna-ising religions.)
Two observations in tune with de Botton’s approach:
~ teaching^ about religions in general, and of our heritage creeds in particular, should be a core area of school curriculums;
~ the sort of critical analysis de Botton applies to this parable should find a place somewhere in a rational and subject-focused English syllabus, and as well, the crucial role the King James Bible played in the history of our language (surely something you’d expect would be strongly taught in credible English majors in Arts / Humanities faculties as a matter of, um, ‘course’).
^ Should academics who can’t / won’t / don’t distinguish ‘teaching about’ from ‘preaching’ (and who thereby diss their professions and institutions) be sent to a severe re-education / rehab camp, say, in an old Hydro village? Or in (what they call) ‘bogan’ outer suburbia?
Miss T. Eyes
April 17, 2018 at 14:00
Thankyou, Scott.
Very moving, particularly your well presented reminder of the Good Samaritan’s fine example.
Simon Warriner
April 17, 2018 at 14:11
Taking the parable of the Good Samaritan as axiomatic, what conclusions can we draw about a society that allows it’s leaders to lie with impunity and to start wars of aggression? What does it say about the media industry that fails to question those lies and slavishly republishes them for profit?
And yes, Leonard, religion delivers much of value, all of it non-denominational. It is the denominational stuff that has been the cause of more wars for the glory of “god” than for any other cause. That, particularly should be at the core of any religion curriculum.
Wining Pom
April 17, 2018 at 17:42
So just change the word god for morality and all is acceptable. But it seems that some religious folk don’t understand morality. Look at Abbott’s interpretation of the Good Samaritan story.
If all religious folk were like you Scott, life would be fine, but I just cannot understand how there are right wing Christians. As far as my teachings went, I understood Jesus to be a socialist.
Paul Matthews
April 17, 2018 at 18:59
So often we bemoan the fact that the government is impotent to change society for the better, and this is often true, but Christ would not have us get away with that alone. He calls us to take personal responsibility for the suffering and brokenness around us, and while not becoming a ‘hero’, to develop a posture of readiness to help.
Thank you Scott, for your fantastic commentary on a very moving parable.
Lynne Newington
April 17, 2018 at 20:11
You seem to forget indirectly that it’s the taxpayer and the ordinary bloke on the street who provide the money through donations down the track, and through charitable organisations …
Jon Sumby
April 18, 2018 at 00:00
Interesting article, and it neatly sums up the Liberals and Tories desire to undo the welfare state, as well as other thinkers, notably in some Jesuit Colleges in the US.
Col
April 19, 2018 at 11:15
Did the good Samaritan change the life of Scott MacInnes also?
Thanks for the beautiful writing. Would you please write more, perhaps on the Prodigal Son?
max atkinson
April 19, 2018 at 14:19
Another superb article.
Thanks again, Scott.
Peter Bright
April 19, 2018 at 21:11
Wining Pom at #4 says [i]” .. but I just cannot understand how there are right wing Christians. As far as my teachings went, I understood Jesus to be a socialist.”[/i]
Both you and your teachers are right, Mr Pom. Or should I say, Left.
The view that the political Right is wrong, and that the political Left is right, is gathering momentum, and so it should.
Look at http://www.thechristianleft.org/ where this appears ..
[i]”Wikipedia says it pretty well in the following paragraphs:
The Christian Left is a term originating in the United States, used to describe a spectrum of left-wing Christian political and social movements which largely embraces social justice.
The most common religious viewpoint which might be described as ‘left wing’ is social justice, or care for the poor and the oppressed. Supporters of this might encourage universal health care, welfare provision, subsidized education, foreign aid, and Affirmative Action for improving the conditions of the disadvantaged. Stemming from egalitarian values (and what Jesus Himself said), adherents of the Christian left consider it part of their religious duty to take actions on behalf of the oppressed.
The Christian Left holds that social justice, renunciation of power, humility, forgiveness, and private observation of prayer (as opposed to publicly mandated prayer), are mandated by the Gospel (Matthew 6:5-6). The Bible contains accounts of Jesus repeatedly advocating for the poor and outcast over the wealthy, powerful, and religious. The Christian Left maintains that such a stance is relevant and important. Adhering to the standard of “turning the other cheek,†which they believe supersedes the Old Testament law of “an eye for an eye,†the Christian Left often hearkens towards pacifism in opposition to policies advancing militarism.”[/i]
Now this from Matthew 21:12-13 King James Version (KJV)
[i]”12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”[/i]
A den of thieves. Hmmmn. In this week’s startling revelations and some admissions by the guilty, the Big Four banks and the AMP are self-confessed thieves.
Their god is money – money at any price, and that blatantly breaches the First Commandment .. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
.. and they call themselves Christians.
Jack Jolly
April 19, 2018 at 23:43
#10 … Oddly many of the most right leaning are evangelical Christians.
I’ve pondered the psychology of their belief in the ‘rapture’ where they shall be taken to a better place. People like Scott Morrison have done their best to promote policies that are the antithesis of the moral teachings of Jesus, yet seem to think themselves good people without a conflict of interest who will be “saved”.
Strangely, no one in their own church calls them out. You hardly ever hear church leaders speaking to moral issues of government policy. There is no real opposition to wars – just token hints. The church is yet another institution that has failed to live up to its convictions. In trying to get funding for schools and political favours has the church turned its back on its central tenants, cashing them in for the sake of political power, money and influence?
Is it only membership that gets you a seat on the rapture jet based upon frequent flyer points where you buy your ride to paradise by virtue of being in the right club and rewarded loyalty? If so, that suggests that they either don’t believe in their central morality or they think Jesus is such a chump that they can con him in the same way they con the electorate. In reality the only person they con is themselves.
Few really buy it. It’s a pantomime.
Peter Bright
April 20, 2018 at 01:10
Combine the first sentence of Jack’s contribution at #11 with almost his last, and we get …
[i]”#10 … Oddly many of the most right leaning are evangelical Christians. In reality the only person they con is themselves.”[/i]
Spot on, Jack!
Simon Warriner
April 20, 2018 at 13:54
re #11 … You need to start with the premise that political party appointed members masquerading in the role of elected representatives do not understand conflicted interest. From that perspective their confusion about their “goodness” and the likelihood of any Christian god deigning to “save” them is much more understandable. Likewise the confusion being demonstrated by the nominal “left” in this article : https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-20/democratic-party-sues-russia-trump-wikileaks-conspiring-hurt-hillary-2016-election
There are few things more odious than a political ideology utterly convinced that it is right and that its opponents are wrong.
Reality is best described with multiple perspectives … something our resident champion for the left might like to consider.
Jon Sumby
April 22, 2018 at 16:56
Re #14, Russell … Have a look at the Wikipedia article on Jesus.
‘In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, “He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees”. Richard A. Burridge states: “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more”.
Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, “In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary”. Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.’
Scott MacInnes
April 23, 2018 at 20:38
My thanks to each and every one who took the trouble to read my article and for the many thoughtful and kind comments, which I appreciate. It is good to know that the story still resonates.
#1 I agree with you Leonard that it is important that this rich cultural heritage form part of everyone’s basic education. However, significant learning, in my experience, depends more on ‘how’ rather than ‘what’ is taught and the example of the teacher here is crucial — something sociologist John Carroll talks about in his fascinating account of the relationship between popular culture and high/deep culture in ‘Ego and Soul’. I should also add, as matter of clarification and out of fairness to Alain de Botton, that this is my own personal response to the Parable — I was not aware of his critical analysis when writing it.
#8 Yes Col, of course, the Parable changed and continues to change my life. I reflect more on both parts of it and I donate much more these days than in my less conscious and more selfish earlier life!
I refer to Rembrandt’s great painting of ‘The Prodigal Son’ in a brief discussion about the importance of forgiveness in my last article ‘The Unity of Art, Literature, Music and Life’, where I also refer to other writing on the subject — Leunig’s prayers, Mozart’s music, Shakespeare’s plays and Marilynne Robinson’s two great novels ‘Gilead’ and ‘Home’, which are really a retelling of the story of the return of a prodigal son closer to home. Marilynne Robinson writes more beautifully on this subject than I could ever have imagined possible.
#5 ‘He calls us to take personal responsibility for the suffering …’
Thank you Paul for reminding us of this emphasis in the parable, which is also my own emphasis in the article.
Unlike my previous articles concerning issues of public morality, the focus of this article is intentionally and solely on the issue of each individual’s ethical and moral responsibility to respond by taking personal action. (This, in my view, remains fundamental, irrespective of any views we may have about the existence of Jesus or God or the authenticity of the Gospel, irrespective of the suffering caused in the name of religion, irrespective of what views we may have about public policy regarding asylum-seekers and refugees or the welfare state, irrespective of the mendacity and hypocrisy of some of our politicians and the media, etc. — all of which are in themselves legitimate topics for discussion but not the subject or point of this article.)
I would add that that it is not just a call ‘to develop a posture of readiness to help†but a call to actually DO something practical to help in response to that call.
Unfortunately, many of the people who say they love this parable and agree with its message and who even accept its application, in principle, to fellow human beings in desperate circumstances overseas, will still not donate even the cost of a coffee a week to help alleviate their suffering — something I believe nearly every adult in our society can well afford. And I believe most of us — even many like myself on very low incomes — can afford to give much more than that.
As I wrote in my previous article, failure to take this crucial next step ‘tends to be the biggest hurdle – we need to act (not just sit) on our moral convictions. This means we must be prepared to make a commitment to extend ourselves in order to do the right thing, which usually involves some personal effort, sacrifice and cost.’
Simply put, I would rate the success of this article solely in terms of increased donations to effective charities. Although ever hopeful, I must admit to not being very sanguine!
Lynne Newington
April 24, 2018 at 22:47
“When the papal legate was asked how heretics were to be distinguished from the faithful, he replied “Kill them all, God will know his own.†–
Strangely enough in a book I read recently applying to the Jews whether forcibly baptised or not.
Jon Sumby
April 25, 2018 at 09:54
Re. #16, Russell … You write, ‘I suggest the ‘scholars’ you speak of are of a Christian persuasion’, that is a derogatory comment against professional, trained, scholars and historians. In fact, two of the mainstream historians who have done much research in this area and argue the evidence of a historical Jesus are Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman; both are atheists.
There are mentions of Jesus in non-Christian texts.
It is also a fact that Jesus was a Jew and remained Jewish his whole life. The early form of Christianity that he preached is more properly regarded as a sect, or branch, of Judaism. Also, Jesus wasn’t white.
None of this is controversial and is accepted in the research community. There are now essentially two Jesus’ one is the mythical Jesus, the one believed in by Christians and who walked on water etc.
Then there is the historical Jesus of whom little is known. Some of what is known is that he was baptised by a travelling Jewish preacher, John the Baptiser, and that Pontius Pilate had him executed. The year of this execution has been reexamined and recalculated and and is out of whack with the current dating system, scholars now think Jesus was crucified around 30-36 AD (and he was born around 7 to 4 BC). His crucifixion is a historical event recorded in several non-Christian texts.
The ideas you have been espousing about Jesus being a constructed myth were assessed, debunked, and discarded some 30 years or more ago.
A few years ago there was a bit of media and publicity and campaigning to try and shift climate deniers, the tagline was simple:
‘97% of climate scientists consider that climate change is caused by humans’.
This was to show that the overwhelming consensus of scientific experts in the field of climate research is that human-caused carbon emissions are driving global warming.
I suggest something similar for you to think about.
If the statement was, ‘97% of archaeologists, historians, and biblical scholars agree and consider that Jesus was a real person.’ What would you do?
I was of a similar opinion for many years, saying that Jesus was a mythical figure; concocted to draw in followers and create easy to remember stories of faith. Then about 20 years ago I had a conversation with someone at a party. This caused me to wonder, so I went looking and found that the research community, the experts in the field, had concluded Jesus was a real person. So what did I do?
I just changed my mind to fit with the current best research knowledge. And you know what? Nothing happened. Apart from that I just think it is an interesting fact that Jesus was a real person.
I have had to do this several times. When I grew up it was the prevailing belief that dinosaurs like the Brontosaurus spent most of their time semi-floating in lakes and rivers as they were simply too big to support themselves physically on land. Then dinosaur researchers debated and concluded that actually these dinosaurs did usually walk on land. And that is how they are depicted now.
Then there was the discovery that some species of dinosaurs were warm blooded. Then that they weren’t grey or brown as usually depicted but had multicoloured and patterned skins. Then that some species were feathered, e.g. the Velociraptor seen in the film Jurassic Park.
Each one of those discoveries was a, ‘Gosh! Really!’, moment for me and I had to dump previous conceptions.
The facts of Jesus’ life are not really critical. It is the Jesus of Christ myths that Christians follow, and those stories have transcended the mundane details of the actual man’s life.
As you note, the sect of Judaism that Jesus started did not gain a large following until after his execution, when the sect came under the control of Paul the Apostle and started the change into the religion we know today as Christianity.
FYI These are worth a look:
“We do know some things about the historical Jesus — less than some Christians think, but more than some skeptics think. Though a few books have recently argued that Jesus never existed, the evidence that he did is persuasive to the vast majority of scholars, whether Christian or non-Christian,” said Marcus Borg, a retired professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University
https://www.livescience.com/3482-jesus-man.html
and,
These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question – which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
Lynne Newington
April 25, 2018 at 14:14
Posted by Jon Sumby on 26/04/18 at 05:54 AM
Thanks John, it’s great to introduce information for those who haven’t thought upon these things seriously as it it takes a lot of time and energy.
It’s the interpretation that gets lost along the way.
The diversity of Tasmanian Times is wonderful, really.
Lynne Newington
April 26, 2018 at 00:35
“It is also a fact that Jesus was a Jew and remained Jewish his whole life,†as correctly stated by Jon. It was the Catholic Church who tried to make him into a glorified gentile by covering his Jewish identity with the loin cloth.
Catholics don’t have the “snip” as a mandatory part of their identity, yet claim the full megillah. [legitimacy they’re not so pedantic about when fathering children and abandoning them].
A point of interest if you have access through your local library, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have something of value, if you find the time of course.
Lynne Newington
April 26, 2018 at 19:28
“It is also a fact that Jesus was a Jew and remained Jewish his whole life,†who would argue about that?
Roman Catholics have never had the snip as part of their identity, ever, maybe for health reasons, or during during the war or by choice, son’s following their fathers footsteps.
The covering by the loin cloth of Christ has become a constant reminder of the murdering of thousands for being who they are for generations.
No further arguement from me.
Jon Sumby
April 26, 2018 at 21:46
Re #24 … Russell, you are wrong.
‘The New Testament chapter Acts 15 records that Christianity did not require circumcision. With the exception of the commemoration of the circumcision of Jesus in accordance with Jewish practice, circumcision has not been part of Catholic practice. According to an epistle of Cyprian of Carthage, circumcision of the flesh was replaced by circumcision of the spirit
Historically, the Catholic Church denounced religious circumcision for its members in the Cantate Domino, written during the 11th Council of Florence in 1442. This decision was based on the belief that baptism had superseded circumcision (Colossians 2:11-13):
11. In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
12. when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13. And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses.
Colossians 2 is the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It is authored by Paul the Apostle and Saint Timothy.
Jon Sumby
April 28, 2018 at 12:14
Re #27, Russell … Many very skilled historians have spent decades looking at the scarce materials relating to events 2,000 years ago trying to determine some evidence of the historical Jesus.
Then you state this; ‘Paul, the man who, pissed off his face, fell of [sic] his horse and landed on his head on the road to Damascus, claiming then to “saw a great light and heard a voiceâ€. He was blind (drunk) for three days.’
This is an exceptionally detailed description of an event that happened 2,000 years ago. Can you point me to the written witness statements that describe this event and how drunk Paul was? Are there contemporary paintings that depict this drunken episode? Did Paul write about this drunken falling off a horse escapade in a letter or a diary?
Lynne Newington
April 29, 2018 at 22:00
“If you aren’t going to read and accept the Old Testament (which is basically a historical account of the time, not a religious one) and if you aren’t going to read Robert Eisenman’s James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I & II, Grave Distractions” ..
Speaking on historical accounts of time, without contention, do you count the Hammurabis laws and his predecessors valid?
You appear to take the ones you mentioned above seriously enough, if I’ve not misunderstood you. There are quite a few more, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Books_of_the_Bible_and_the_Forgotten_Books_of_Eden
Peter Bright
April 30, 2018 at 16:45
Russell, at #32 you state that you “don’t believe in any god.”
There are many who have the same embittered view. I suspect that they, maybe like you Russell, have been deeply hurt, perhaps having been victims of those who pretend to Christianity but who, when tested, instantly abandon that standard and show their proclaimed faith was pure sham. I won’t mention Liberal politicians in general because you might think I am referring to today’s crop of heartless, unprincipled, deceit-ridden, money-worshiping Liberal politicians. Which I am. However I didn’t mention it. OK?
To approach the truth, one has to rise above all this, and through suffering or spiritual perception, we will.
We all know what suffering is.
There’s an example of spiritual perception in Romans 1:20 ..
[i]”For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made … so that they are without excuse.[/i]
Hmmmn. “Invisible things” .. what does that mean? How can anyone see that which is invisible? Weird.
To understand this, a basic understanding of atomic physics (high school level will do) offers the key.
It’s in this sphere of knowledge that we learn that the human body, for example, is not really a relatively solid material thing at all, but rather a shape consisting entirely of atoms – which are themselves almost entirely empty space. In short, that’s us Russell – perambulating nothings .. “not” + “thing” = no thing = nothing.
Yet we are each “clearly seen” by others – even though the underlying Created reality of our form is not visually perceived; that is, it’s invisible.
Because it’s clear to some of us that we have been Designed by a Creator Being to express Life, “we” are the “things” that have been made to have an understanding of Creation, and we are therefore without excuse for not doing so.
The evidence and power of Creation not only surrounds you Russell, it is in you, and it indestructibly permeates the universe. Its benefits can be accessed without limit or diminution.
“ .. in him (the Creator Being) we live, and move, and have our being.â€
That’s where you are too, Russell.
Rejoice, and be glad!
Jon Sumby
April 30, 2018 at 17:27
Re #29 … Russell, you wrote; ‘Why did Saul/Paul supposedly fall off his horse then?’
Dear me, I’ve never believed that and didn’t mention it. Nobody believes anymore that Paul was riding a horse. That was a visual flourish put in Renaissance to Victorian times’ pompous oil paintings to make the image more dramatic as befitting a major event in the Bible and also reflecting viewers perceptions of the time. Even then the event was often depicted with Paul and his comrades as walking, which is what people in his position would have done.
Nowadays he is always depicted as walking and then falling to his knees or prone on a dusty trail. Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven.
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
If he was on a horse why not mention that? As in, ‘And he fell from his horse’.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
His comrades ‘stood speechless’. They stood up in the stirrups? Horses generally walk faster than people (bigger animal, longer gait) so it would be tedious and impractical for only Paul to be mounted. This is why the pompous oil paintings I mentioned usually depict them all on horseback, and yet; ‘the men which journeyed with him stood speechless‘.
8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
Here they led him by the hand but if he had a horse it would have been commonsense to put him on the horse and lead with the bridle; particularly if his comrades are also mounted. Leading a newly blind person walking on foot by the hand from the saddle makes no sense. But a group of people walking, one falling, and then being led by the hand fits more with the text than inserting a horse into the narrative.
9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
You wrote, ‘He was blind (drunk) for three days’. How did he drink? Was wine teleported into his stomach?
Re #32 … You write ‘The Old’s events have largely been verified by science and archaeology’. Obviously this means you believe that the Ark was real? 99% of archaeologists and historians do not consider that there was ever any Ark, or Flood, or animals two by two. If the Ark was real how did penguins come to be on the Ark, given that they are from the southern hemisphere and Antarctica?
You ask ‘Why don’t you answer my points about the Crusades and Inquisition?’ That is off-topic and irrelevant to the issue of the historical Jesus.
Lynne Newington
April 30, 2018 at 20:30
Let’s not be too condescending, it can be as wounding as the sword.
We’ve all seen plenty of that.