Psalm 14: Who was Jesus' grandpa?

[CypressDahlia]

The Occupy message is largely an appeal to popular culture and works similarly to Church in that people participate out of fear of inaction. It's a kind of fear-mongering where people are convinced that they're damned forever if they don't testify combined with doses of hipsterism. Mostly, it's a lot of people blaming their personal problems on a single scapegoat. Whereas, fixing things for the greater good as opposed to fixing things simply to advert the bad should have its own merits. Fair-weather campaigns like OWS ("it's only a problem if it's MY problem") are counterproductive in the sense that they don't really teach that. That's why I'm saying things like selflessness, no matter how ideal, should always remain relevant. Surely, it's a little lofty but that's exactly why it's significant: it is something that needs to be worked toward. If we continue to equate "self" into everything, it all simply boils down to a risk-reward transaction, at which point we are just playing a game of moral Capitalism. "Good" is working towards the comfort, peace of mind and peace of body of the greatest possible number of people. And "selflessness" is important to this goal because it comes with the understanding that you might not be one of those people.

[Regantor]

True 'Good', I think it's fair to say, is a positive action which asks for no compromises, both on the individual level as well as on the future society level.

Reinforcing the idea that intelligence is a positive thing for yourself and your society, for instance, is a good thing. Respecting the personal space and property of another person, e.t.c.

Reinforcing the idea that someone should be a hard worker because it's 'patriotic' and 'can help you afford not dying' is not a good thing, just somebody else's agenda wrapped up as being -good-, as it has negative side effects towards them.

Personal objectivity is key.

[Fenn]

The Occupy message is largely an appeal to popular culture and works similarly to Church in that people participate out of fear of inaction. It's a kind of fear-mongering where people are convinced that they're damned forever if they don't testify combined with doses of hipsterism. Mostly, it's a lot of people blaming their personal problems on a single scapegoat. Whereas, fixing things for the greater good as opposed to fixing things simply to advert the bad should have its own merits. Fair-weather campaigns like OWS ("it's only a problem if it's MY problem") are counterproductive in the sense that they don't really teach that. That's why I'm saying things like selflessness, no matter how ideal, should always remain relevant. Surely, it's a little lofty but that's exactly why it's significant: it is something that needs to be worked toward. If we continue to equate "self" into everything, it all simply boils down to a risk-reward transaction, at which point we are just playing a game of moral Capitalism. "Good" is working towards the comfort, peace of mind and peace of body of the greatest possible number of people. And "selflessness" is important to this goal because it comes with the understanding that you might not be one of those people.

Sorry, I shouldn't have used the Occupy example. I knew I was reaching.

But I still just don't see the point in instilling selflessness because it is very rare that people will change their view of it. The message will find its way to two types of people: those who ARE selfless and don't need to be told twice, and those who AREN'T, and usually support their stance on the grounds that it isn't worth it a.k.a. it doesn't make sense. The number of people in an ambiguous state who will be motivated by the message are a minority.

"Good" is working towards the comfort, peace of mind and peace of body of the greatest possible number of people. And "selflessness" is important to this goal because it comes with the understanding that you might not be one of those people.

So I'm going to put in the effort, and then possibly be the worse off for it, simply due to the inherent value of "selflessness"? WHAT? I'd say "screw you." Let me be clear: I'm not saying I am unwilling to make sacrifices, even if those sacrifices don't directly benefit me. But if you're telling me I might get nothing from this except a tingling in my belly, there's no way I'm gonna buy into it.

This whole argument is very humorous for me too because most people who know me consider me a very selfless person. And I wouldn't disagree with them (yes, yes, internet claims aren't worth anything, but what reason do I have to lie?). I'm one of the first people to come to when someone needs something, and I usually never expect anything in return. Yet my sense of "goodness" stems not from any idea of blind altruism, but a rational judgment that being selfless is usually in EVERYONE's best interest, myself included. A selfless act makes me feel good, it builds and improves my relationship with the person(s) I am helping, it betters my reputation, and it improves the world around me. I could go on and on about the mutual benefits of volunteering, but I'll save it for the soon-to-be-revived morality thread. I will say there is rarely ever, if at all, an instance where a selfless sacrifice does not involve at least some inherent reciprocity.

Point is, being selfless isn't something that should be seen as contradictory to logic. There's no reason we need to "avoid overrationalizing" or keeping the two at a safe distance from each other because the coexist rather well.

[CypressDahlia]

Yeah, but don't you see the inherent flaw in that? It only works under the assumption that people value the same things you do. If we're gonna get logical about this, I think a need-based analysis is more suiting. If you're teaching the logic of cost-benefit, it entails that the giver perceives some kind of benefit and, if they don't, the logic is lost the act itself loses merit. If you teach it on a need-basis, then the merit of the act is never lost as the only qualifier is the fact that you gave to someone who needed more than you. At least then people will have a reason to be selfless 100% of the time. Not a particularly strong one, but definitely a consistent one.

[Delphinus]

Let me chip in:

Selflessness does, as Fenn says, make sense when we expect to receive something in return. In addition, what I call deep emotions (emotions that are innate rather than being a product of our socialisation) can dictate the basis of our behaviour. If we prefer to give money to charity rather than to spend it on ourselves due to a deep-rooted love of altruism, that's necessarily a good thing in relation to us.

Morals, I believe, only have meaning in relation to other people. You cannot perform an immoral act on an inanimate object (necrophilia lol). I would also deny the existence of objective morals. However, being part of a society gives the individual obvious benefits. In the past, those benefits would probably have amounted to survival; today, they amount to a better quality of life, fast travel, development of one's capacities, etc. For a society to function there are simple and generally obvious rules that we need to follow - not killing one another on whimsy, for example, and generally being trustworthy. Here Kant's categorical imperative comes in: if everyone in a given society doing something (SPECIFIC - lying is not a valid counter-example) would make said society collapse, it is reasonable to expect members of that society to not do that something, despite the increase in individual benefit it might bring. The benefits of being part of a tribe (survival) outweigh the benefits of killing everyone in the tribe for sexual pleasure (you depraved bastard), for example. It makes sense for member of a society to punish actions that threaten the structure of a society; early legal systems all the way up to Ancient Athens and Rome used that principle as a basis for their jurisprudence. I like the idea of exile as punishment here: it removes all the benefits of society from the transgressor, while not doing anything to damage their individualism.

From here, it's a short leap to see that if your society is communistic, then theft is impossible, while if it's capitalistic, it's not only possible but undesirable. Since society is the fount of morality, this ultimately amounts to a form of cultural relativism, but one which nonetheless makes individuals the ultimate arbitrators of their destiny.

[Fenn]

Yeah, but don't you see the inherent flaw in that? It only works under the assumption that people value the same things you do. If we're gonna get logical about this, I think a need-based analysis is more suiting. If you're teaching the logic of cost-benefit, it entails that the giver perceives some kind of benefit and, if they don't, the logic is lost the act itself loses merit. If you teach it on a need-basis, then the merit of the act is never lost as the only qualifier is the fact that you gave to someone who needed more than you. At least then people will have a reason to be selfless 100% of the time. Not a particularly strong one, but definitely a consistent one.

No, my point is it DOESN'T rely on people holding the same values I do. Ahh, I see what you mean now a bit: if we ONLY teach it as a need-based thing, then if someone fails to PERCIEVE the benefit, they won't do it, even if the benefit is there.

Thing is, that is the problem we are faced with right now anyway. People AREN'T perceiving the benefit, and thus aren't acting for the well-being of others. Furthermore, your reasoning implies that people raised to be naturally selfless will remain that way. I know personally this is not always the case. I grew up learning to be good for goodness' sake, but as I explained my reasons for being kind today are founded firmly in rational thought.

Your strategy would be highly successful and justifiable for teaching children, who are not fully developed and might be incapable of understanding and/or percieving the rational reasons for selflessness. But for the adult population, it just won't work--if it did we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

@Delph. I'm in accord with what you say, so I'm not really suited to a lengthy reply. It's a strong support for the consideration of the well-being of others over oneself in certain situations.

[Kodos]

And on the third day, this thread rose.

So in light of the recent holiday festivities, I'd like to point out that only two of the four gospels describe the birth of Christ, and only one of those two mentions the Magi. But hey, the Bible can't even fucking agree on who Jesus' grandfather was, so why would you expect any better?

I mean, heck, they can't even agree on when the dude was born.

So yeah. Just remember - it's vitally important you live your life according to the incoherent and inconsistent teachings of a man who totally really existed even though nothing about his life, his teachings, or his death can be said with any certainty.

~wisdom~

[ClockHand]

Watching the documentary Jesus Camp. So you guys should watch it if you haven't, pretty interesting and well done.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2947481881/

[corastaur]

This is probably foolish of me, but in response to "a man who totally really existed even though nothing... etc" I guess I always just accept his existence since he is included in not only christianity/bible but also in Muslim faith as a prophet. If you could prove to me that he didn't exist I'd be interested in hearing your arguments Kodos, but otherwise isn't the real argument whether or not he's the son of god? Also somewhere you can find something that describes what sources scholars think the authors of the gospels used. A lot of them were the same, with mainly Luke having unique stories. He's the only one with the full nativity story. Oh and another thing, even if you don't accept that he was the son of god, the teachings that are attributed to him in the bible are actually pretty radicle (for the times) and awesome. His message, especially in the sermon on the mount, was mainly about loving your neighbor and looking out for one another. It's the church that's really messed up... not the teachings. Anyway that was fun

Also havent seen Jesus Camp, will totally go look it up. Happy holidays?

[Kodos]

This is probably foolish of me, but in response to "a man who totally really existed even though nothing... etc" I guess I always just accept his existence since he is included in not only christianity/bible but also in Muslim faith as a prophet.

Islam arose centuries after Christianity. Why is it shocking to you that they would reference Jesus when they also referenced tons of other fictional characters? Is the kitsune a real animal? Japan has it in their mythology, but so do lots of other Asian countries. In China they call it the huli jing, and in Korea it is the kumiho. Does this mean that shapeshifting fox spirits are real creatures? Hell, many of the myths about these creatures mention specific names, places, and dates. There is more evidence in support of the claim that the historical Daji was a shapeshifting fox bitch than that Jesus Christ existed outside of the realm of the imagination.

If you could prove to me that he didn't exist I'd be interested in hearing your arguments Kodos, but otherwise isn't the real argument whether or not he's the son of god?

I just woke up and I am too lazy at the moment to dig up the links, but if you really want them I can get them. But to make a long story short:
1. The Bible gives two anachronistically impossible dates for Jesus' birth.
2. See 1. There is not a single date in history or event which can be connected to Jesus' birth. Literally nothing exists to ground him in fact. There are countless mythological figures with more evidence for their existence that we dismiss as non-existent. Hell, see my above example about Daji.
3. The teachings of Jesus in the Bible are so inconsistent (particularly also when you consider the apocrypha) that it seems extremely silly to claim they are the teachings of a single person.
4. There is not a single reliable contemporary Roman source that mentions anything like the events described in the NT, nor the man himself.
4.1. Even some early Church popes mentioned how unusual it was that no contemporary Roman sources seemed to bother mentioning Jesus.
So in conclusion, the only "source" for the existence of Christ is the Bible, which is so inconsistent and inaccurate that it is absurd to claim it is a valid source of anything. Thus there is not a single reason to believe Christ existed, and plenty to believe he did not. It is certainly possible that there existed a man in Judea who the Christ myth was based on, but that seems implausible given that the Christ myth is a very old mythological archetype and hardly anything new. And even if there was a historical Christ, the one in the Bible is so mythologized and inconsistent that we know literally nothing about the historical one.

Also somewhere you can find something that describes what sources scholars think the authors of the gospels used. A lot of them were the same, with mainly Luke having unique stories. He's the only one with the full nativity story. Oh and another thing, even if you don't accept that he was the son of god, the teachings that are attributed to him in the bible are actually pretty radicle (for the times) and awesome.

Nothing quite as awesome as "accept me as your lord and master or else I will torture you forever."
Jesus was a fucking tool.

His message, especially in the sermon on the mount, was mainly about loving your neighbor and looking out for one another. It's the church that's really messed up... not the teachings. Anyway that was fun

Jesus' teachings were wildly inconsistent. He had some good things to say, for sure, but also lots and lots of horrific things.