Philosophy rather than religion.

Seattle

Valued Senior Member
How about a new philosophy with no God but based on what everyone generally thinks of as "what would Jesus do?". (edit: I'm not actually referring to Jesus...just the type of philosophy that people generally think of when he is brought up).

Love your neighbor, love your enemy. These are great sentiments but they are never actually applied by religions. Toss out the god, and the administrators (religions) and just take the philosophy.

Don't worry about what came before the Big Bang (but be open to any new info that science may derive), don't worry about what happens when we die (we die) and live life appreciating our fellow man (regardless of what race/sex/country they come from). It's the human race after all.

Wouldn't more be accomplished with such a philosophy than with all of the existing religions?
 
Last edited:
How about a new philosophy with no God but based on what everyone generally thinks of as "what would Jesus do?".

Love your neighbor, love your enemy. These are great sentiments but they are never actually applied by religions. Toss out the god, and the administrators (religions) and just take the philosophy.

Don't worry about what came before the Big Bang (but be open to any new info that science may derive), don't worry about what happens when we die (we die) and live life appreciating our fellow man (regardless of what race/sex/country they come from). It's the human race after all.

Wouldn't more be accomplished with such a philosophy than with all of the existing religions?

Jesus would abandon you and condemn you to hell for not following his laws to the letter. Jesus would ignore your problems if you do not accept him as Lord and worship him unconditionally and with all of you heart. Jesus expects submission. Mandatory love isn't beautiful, it's slavery.

There are so many better moralists than this 2,000-year-old end-times rabbi. Seriously. We've moved on from him.
 
Jesus would abandon you and condemn you to hell for not following his laws to the letter. Jesus would ignore your problems if you do not accept him as Lord and worship him unconditionally and with all of you heart. Jesus expects submission. Mandatory love isn't beautiful, it's slavery.

There are so many better moralists than this 2,000-year-old end-times rabbi. Seriously. We've moved on from him.

I threw him out but apparently you drug him back :)

How about making a positive comment somewhere on this board and surprise me :)
 
Last edited:
I am just here.

So you are satisfied with your puddle-deep examination of Jesus' philosophy? You have no response to the notion that asking WWJD might not be a good idea? That you're dismissing the work of every moralist to come since in favor of an end-times rabbi?
 
So you are satisfied with your puddle-deep examination of Jesus' philosophy? You have no response to the notion that asking WWJD might not be a good idea? That you're dismissing the work of every moralist to come since in favor of an end-times rabbi?

I'm really just not interested in engaging with you. I used WWJD just as an example of a love your neighbor, love your enemy type of philosophy rather than worrying about what some supernatural being would have someone do.

I'm not rejecting every moralist to come. That's your line. You are the one with all of the criticisms. I'm was just thinking of a religion without the religion. A good philosophy without the BS. I personally like an inclusive philosophy of peace and tolerance. I could care less about Jesus.

You might consider cutting back on salt in your diet however.
 
I'm really just not interested in engaging with you.

You seem to have no problems insulting me and slinging ad hominem. It seems the only part you can't be bothered with is an intellectual conversation. :shrug:

I used WWJD just as an example of a love your neighbor, love your enemy type of philosophy rather than worrying about what some supernatural being would have someone do.

It didn't read like an example, it read like a guideline. But okay, thanks for the clarification. If only it wasn't like pulling teeth to get it out of you, this could have been a much more enjoyable experience.

I'm not rejecting every moralist to come. That's your line. You are the one with all of the criticisms. I'm was just thinking of a religion without the religion. A good philosophy without the BS. I personally like an inclusive philosophy of peace and tolerance. I could care less about Jesus.

Why would you suggest a religion at all? And why do you conflate religion with philosophy? At best, religion is proto-philosophy, but it certainly doesn't resemble the concept in any modern sense. Why not just a philosophy? Why add the baggage of religion, and specifically of Jesus? There are better examples.

And why is it important to you that we love our neighbors and our enemies? Have you ever considered the ethical implications of either?

You might consider cutting back on salt in your diet however.

Do you know how to post without making a personal comment?
 
You seem to have no problems insulting me and slinging ad hominem. It seems the only part you can't be bothered with is an intellectual conversation. :shrug:



It didn't read like an example, it read like a guideline. But okay, thanks for the clarification. If only it wasn't like pulling teeth to get it out of you, this could have been a much more enjoyable experience.



Why would you suggest a religion at all? And why do you conflate religion with philosophy? At best, religion is proto-philosophy, but it certainly doesn't resemble the concept in any modern sense. Why not just a philosophy? Why add the baggage of religion, and specifically of Jesus? There are better examples.

And why is it important to you that we love our neighbors and our enemies? Have you ever considered the ethical implications of either?



Do you know how to post without making a personal comment?

The title of this thread is "Philosophy rather than religion" The first sentence starts with "How about a new philosophy with no God..." Where is the suggestion of religion?

I'm not talking about "mandatory" loving of anyone. We can pick the great philosopher Rodney King then "Why can't we just all get along?" :)

Why do I get the feeling that next we are going to be talking about having sex with our neighbors and enemies?

What's so controversial here? Would you prefer hate your neighbors and enemies? Do your best to not get along with anyone! Up with nationalism and down with cooperation?

Your comments about not making personal remarks are ironic. How many times have you called Mazulu "an uneducated crank", "weak minded", "not smart enough to know"? Accurate statements but it is personal.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't more be accomplished with such a philosophy than with all of the existing religions?

Tell that to all the unemployed, abused, victimized or otherwise oppressed people!

IOW, your philosophy would be worth following only if all other people would follow it first. As long as there are people who are not willing to abide by your philosophy, those who do abide by it are at a loss. So your philosophy is not realistically actionable. Other than by masochists, of course.
 
The title of this thread is "Philosophy rather than religion" The first sentence starts with "How about a new philosophy with no God..." Where is the suggestion of religion?

Should we begin with you suggesting we should ask what Jesus would do in a given situation? Or should we start with you defining this as "religion without religion?"

I'm not talking about "mandatory" loving of anyone. We can pick the great philosopher Rodney King then "Why can't we just all get along?" :)

Jesus made love mandatory. Loving our neighbors and our enemies wasn't advice, it was a command given at gunpoint.

Why do I get the feeling that next we are going to be talking about having sex with our neighbors and enemies?

I have no clue. Certainly I've said nothing to give you the impression that the conversation was heading in that direction.

What's so controversial here? Would you prefer hate your neighbors and enemies? Do your best to not get along with anyone! Up with nationalism and down with cooperation?

I'd prefer a more meaningful conversation than merely aping Christian bromides that are based on shallow, even facile notions of right and wrong. What makes you think the only options are loving our neighbors or hating them? I mean, for Christ's sake, you're calling this philosophy. Don't you think there should be some discussion?

Your comments about not making personal remarks are ironic. How many times have you called Mazulu "an uneducated crank", "weak minded", "not smart enough to know"? Accurate statements but it is personal.

Mazulu has earned his scars. And the tersest of my posts to him are responses to trolling or ceaseless repetition. Meanwhile, you're insulting me instead of responding to my points. That's cheap, and classless. I don't necessarily have high standards for an internet forum, but come on.
 
How about a new philosophy with no God but based on what everyone generally thinks of as "what would Jesus do?".

Love your neighbor, love your enemy. These are great sentiments but they are never actually applied by religions. Toss out the god, and the administrators (religions) and just take the philosophy.

Don't worry about what came before the Big Bang (but be open to any new info that science may derive), don't worry about what happens when we die (we die) and live life appreciating our fellow man (regardless of what race/sex/country they come from). It's the human race after all.

Wouldn't more be accomplished with such a philosophy than with all of the existing religions?

There's a thread in this section, created by a poster named 'river,' that proposes the idea of a 'humanity based religion.' Just going from memory, think that was the gist. You might enjoy it. I *think* that's more of what you're driving at.
 
How about a new philosophy with no God but based on what everyone generally thinks of as "what would Jesus do?".
Why Jesus and not Muhammad?
Or why not Trev the Grocer?
Why not yourself?

Love your neighbor, love your enemy. These are great sentiments but they are never actually applied by religions. Toss out the god, and the administrators (religions) and just take the philosophy.
...
Wouldn't more be accomplished with such a philosophy than with all of the existing religions?
Isn't this just Humanism?
 
Jesus would abandon you and condemn you to hell for not following his laws to the letter. Jesus would ignore your problems if you do not accept him as Lord and worship him unconditionally and with all of you heart. Jesus expects submission. Mandatory love isn't beautiful, it's slavery.

.
There are so many better moralists than this 2,000-year-old end-times rabbi. Seriously. We've moved on from him.

Don't blame Jesus for human calamity among ourselves we have in the world, there is some wisdom on how to live among ourselves . We have problem because every one of us wants to satisfy our desires
 
We can pick the great philosopher Rodney King then "Why can't we just all get along?" :)
I suspect that those who feel that way are already trying to follow that advice. It's not always easy. Not to mention, what do you do with those that don't follow it?

The devil is in the details... so to speak.
 
We can definitely be pacifist without being theist. I think Ghandi was a fine example. Pacifist in a radical, almost taoist sense of going with flow and not offending, hurting, or disrespecting any human being. When you think about it, the theism Jesus pushed was actually inconsistent with the pacifism he advocated. That whole idea of believing people who disgreed with you deserved to be tortured in hell. I really can't imagine a less humanistic and compassionate mindset. And thus a whole religion was born fueled by intolerance and hatred for those who dared reject it. A religion forever driven by fervent anticipation of God's soon coming kingdom and the destruction of all outsiders as pagans and heretics.
 
How about a new philosophy with no God but based on what everyone generally thinks of as "what would Jesus do?".

Thomas Jefferson did make an attempt at "Christianity as philosophy" and so called "rational Christianity" -- culling out the supernatural, nescient, conflicting, morally insane / ruthless parts. Declaring himself Christian much in a moral philosophical and culture sense as atheist Marxists celebrated their ideological subservience to a socio-economic and political doctrine. (The "community member" aspect of Jefferson's philosophical version of Christianity maybe best indicated by his surprising rate of attendance at various small, local churches which perhaps cared less about adherence to rigid formula; as well as generous donations to their efforts.)

1816 January 9 - (Jefferson to Charles Thomson): "I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. It is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what it’s Author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognise one feature. If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side, and I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gassendi’s Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics, and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagancies of his rival sects."

Rebecca Bowman: "He [Jefferson] also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian, but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." --Monticello Research Report ; August 1997

1803 April 21 - (Jefferson to Benjamin Rush): "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."

1814 January 24 - (Jefferson to John Adams): "The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

1820 April 13 - (Jefferson to William Short): Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

1821 February 27 - (Jefferson to Timothy Pickering): "No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in it’s advances towards rational Christianity. when we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus, when, in short, we shall have unlearned every thing which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples: and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconcievable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce it’s founder an imposter. had there never been a Commentator, there never would have been an infidel. In the present advance of truth, which we both approve, I do not know that you and I may think alike on all points. As the Creator has made no two faces alike, so no two minds, and probably no two creeds. We well know that among Unitarians themselves there are strong shades of difference, as between Doctors Price and Priestley for example. So there may be peculiarities in your creed and in mine. They are honestly formed without doubt. I do not wish to trouble the world with mine, nor to be troubled for them. These accounts are to be settled only with him who made us; and to him we leave it, with charity for all others, of whom also he is the only rightful and competent judge. I have little doubt that the whole of our country will soon be rallied to the Unity of the Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also."

1823 April 11 - (Jefferson to John Adams) - "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."

Jefferson in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom: "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
 
Thomas Jefferson did make an attempt at "Christianity as philosophy" and so called "rational Christianity" -- culling out the supernatural, nescient, conflicting, morally insane / ruthless parts. Declaring himself Christian much in a moral philosophical and culture sense as atheist Marxists celebrated their ideological subservience to a socio-economic and political doctrine. (The "community member" aspect of Jefferson's philosophical version of Christianity maybe best indicated by his surprising rate of attendance at various small, local churches which perhaps cared less about adherence to rigid formula; as well as generous donations to their efforts.)

1816 January 9 - (Jefferson to Charles Thomson): "I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. It is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what it’s Author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognise one feature. If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side, and I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gassendi’s Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics, and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagancies of his rival sects."

Rebecca Bowman: "He [Jefferson] also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian, but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." --Monticello Research Report ; August 1997

1803 April 21 - (Jefferson to Benjamin Rush): "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."

1814 January 24 - (Jefferson to John Adams): "The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

1820 April 13 - (Jefferson to William Short): Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

1821 February 27 - (Jefferson to Timothy Pickering): "No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in it’s advances towards rational Christianity. when we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus, when, in short, we shall have unlearned every thing which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples: and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconcievable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce it’s founder an imposter. had there never been a Commentator, there never would have been an infidel. In the present advance of truth, which we both approve, I do not know that you and I may think alike on all points. As the Creator has made no two faces alike, so no two minds, and probably no two creeds. We well know that among Unitarians themselves there are strong shades of difference, as between Doctors Price and Priestley for example. So there may be peculiarities in your creed and in mine. They are honestly formed without doubt. I do not wish to trouble the world with mine, nor to be troubled for them. These accounts are to be settled only with him who made us; and to him we leave it, with charity for all others, of whom also he is the only rightful and competent judge. I have little doubt that the whole of our country will soon be rallied to the Unity of the Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also."

1823 April 11 - (Jefferson to John Adams) - "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."

Jefferson in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom: "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

This was what I had at the back of my mind when I started this thread. Thanks!
 
Back
Top