you imply that:

1 – You are in a better position to say what the teachings of Jesus than others.
2 – That Jesus' teachings boils down to "uuuuh turn the other cheek". — Lionino

Ok, you may have reasonably inferred; I neither think 1 and 2, nor did I intend to imply I did.

You are referring to things like the Gospel of Thomas I am guessing? That is another topic altogether, but Church canon about the gospels has been established from a very early time, and they were aware of these gospels and perhaps others that are still lost. — Lionino

I meant Jesus's words drawn from the canonicals and how these words are understood. That's considered divine revelation in Christianity so presumably wells of ink have been spilled trying to correctly interpret those teachings.

I find gThomas a fascinating document but having read it I do understand why it was not made canon.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. — Ephesians 6:5

Re: the Pauline "Christ" myth (i.e. conspiracy theory) conjured together by committee in Nicea during the 4th century CE reign of Constantine the Great from the diverse strands of hand-me-down hearsay gossip about 'an itinerant, Aramaic-speaking, wonder-worker who preached mostly to (& for) oppressed, poor, illiterate masses' in and around Galilee in Roman occupied Judea during the 1st century CE reign of Tiberius and who was named "Yeshua" (Iesus in Latin) ...

... addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892455

Paul occupies such a fascinating, peculiar place within Christianity. About half of the NT is Paul. His words are Scripture, placed right after the Gospels. Inclusion in Scripture means his words are authoritative. Authoritative means deserving of our attention. And Paul's words are certainly deserving of our attention (if we are Christians); Paul was enormously influential in early Christianity. But authoritative does not mean infallible. It has never meant that. Jesus said "beware the scribes" - the scribes being educated laymen who challenged the priesthood on Scripture in the second temple period. Paul could very well be considered under this label.

Paul draws inferences and these inferences deserve our attention because they do come from somewhere.

While John the Baptist believed in him as the one true savior, Jesus’ nature and teachings nevertheless left John troubled by his apparently contradictory version of the Hebraic violent-conqueror messiah, with which John had been raised.

Most perplexing may have been the Biblical Jesus’ revolutionary teaching of non-violently offering the other cheek as the proper response to being physically assaulted by one’s enemy.

Jesus also most profoundly washed his disciples’ feet, the act clearly revealing that he took corporeal form to serve, which of course included saving. As such a hopeful example of the humility of the divine, Jesus joined humankind in our miseries, joys and everything in between.

In large part, Jesus was viciously killed because he did not in the least behave in accordance to corrupted human conduct and expectation — and in particular because he was nowhere near to being the vengeful, wrathful and even bloodthirsty God.

Followers of Islam and Judaism generally believe that Jesus did exist but was not a divine being [albeit Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet]. After all, how could any divine being place himself/itself down to the level of humans — and even lower, by some other standards? How could any divine entity not be a physical conqueror — far less allow himself to be publicly stripped naked, severely beaten and murdered in such a belittling manner?

Yet, for many Christians this makes Jesus even greater, not less.

Institutional Christianity seems to insist upon creating their creator’s nature in their own fallible and often angry, vengeful image; for example, proclaiming at publicized protests that ‘God hates’ such-and-such group of people.

One can imagine that many followers of institutional Christianity — those ‘Christians’ most resistant to Christ’s fundamental teachings of non-violence, compassion and non-wealth — likely find inconvenient, if not plainly annoying, trying to reconcile the conspicuous inconsistency in the fundamental nature of the New Testament’s Jesus with the wrathful, vengeful and even jealous nature of the Old Testament’s Creator.

Often being the most vocal, they make very bad examples of Christ’s fundamental message, especially to the young and impressionable.

What's bitterly ironic is that some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who’d make better examples of many, if not most, of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional 'Christians' (i.e. those apparently most resistant to Christ’s fundamental teachings of non-violence, compassion and non-wealth).

Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.

I meant Jesus's words drawn from the canonicals and how these words are understood — BitconnectCarlos

Those texts were compiled by the Church. They were written in Kini Greek, translated to Latin. The early Church had several meetings with tens of learned men to discuss these things. I don't think there is any single individual alive who is more qualified to interpret it — which is to go against the interpretation of the Church. Which even then would be goofy, the Church made the Bible, are we going to tell the priest how to preach too?

Which even then would be goofy, the Church made the Bible, are we going to tell the priest how to preach too? — Lionino

We've had our back and forth earlier and I was content to adjourn. But I am truly confused by your insistence and am curious to understand.

I still think it sounds like you wish to restrict even the opportunity to admire, enjoy, and be edified by Jesus to the teachings of the Church. Why? The Church has given itself that authority. Or do you think it to be truly ordained by (a) god?

If I'm not mistaken, you claim you're not even a Christian, yet confidently further restrict the Church so ordained, to just the Catholic one (you realize yet there are Orthodox and Protestants who would think otherwise--and as I said, I was raised Catholic, and have no bone to pick. Its just hard to believe you are seriously taking this stance).

You might be technically correct when you state that if you are against Xtian dogma you're not a Xtian, just as for Buddhists. But even if that were the case, I can't believe you're seriously claiming (as you seem to have been) that one who doesn't adhere to that Church's dogma, has no business formulating opinions about, and discussing, Jesus in a way which differs from such teachings.

Even in something as technical as math or science there are variations and progressions. Even the global "Church," as in the severed Body of Christ, has come up with several interpretations of Jesus. So, your insistence is confusing.

And if your reply is anything like "You can say whatever you want about Jesus, its just not Xtian, or accurate," I'd say that's not what most of your replies sound like. They sound like your saying You can't say anything about Jesus unless it conforms strictly with the teachings of (what?) the Roman Catholic Church as dictated from time to time by the Vatican?

And further, while you are correct to an extent about the ancient Catholic church compiling the Vulgate, precursor to the "Bible," that may give them authority over how their flock interprets the gospels, but not in any way a monopoly over the "right" interpretation. And note, copies of gospels, the letters of Paul had been circulating among the Churches in Greece, Italy and tge Levant long before there even was a Catholic Church. So what if I said I was formulating my hypotheses from those manuscripts in the Hellenic Greek in which they were written? Would that release me from the fetters of the Institution, and free me to think of Jesus in the ways those readings inspire?

With respect, it sounds like either you are repeating a polemic in support of the Catholic Church (in which case, all power to you) or you have so much contempt for the whole thing that it suits you to relegate all talk of Xtianity, Jesus included to authoritarian Dogma, institutional religion, the way some non-Muslims wish to insist that you cannot be a Muslim and not believe in the more fanatical version of Jihad.

Your insistence that all talk of Jesus needs to conform to Church teachings makes no other sense to me. And I assure you, I'm trying to understand.

I find gThomas a fascinating document but having read it I do understand why it was not made canon. — BitconnectCarlos

Because it didn't suit the "orthodox" agenda, right? It was too gnostic. It presented too "mystical" a Jesus and ignored the urgency of the parousia which the early church was fixated on.

But not because there is anything antithetical to the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels, right?

I still think it sounds like you wish to restrict even the opportunity to admire, enjoy, and be edified by Jesus to the teachings of the Church. — ENOAH

No, people can do as they wish from an aesthetic point of view. My point is that by admiring the teachings of Jesus you are admiring a large subset of the doctrines of the Church — the two are not separable. The story of Jesus is given to us by the Church.
Saying "the teachings of Jesus are..." and what follows is in disagreement with Church doctrine is going to be most likely an error, except if:

If your bishop approves your interpretation and the Pope sanctions it ex cathedra, fine — it won't happen anyway because whatever you may have thought of has been thought of before and addressed —, otherwise, it has been rejected by a reason — Lionino

-

The Church has given itself that authority. — ENOAH

I guess so, in the same way that JK Rowling gave herself authority over the Harry Potter IP. You see how that is distinct from simply "giving oneself authority"?

Your insistence that all talk of Jesus needs to conform to Church teachings makes no other sense to me. — ENOAH

I will go over a few premises.

The Church was founded by Peter, one of the apostles.
The current Church is in traditional succession with the early Church.
Our only source of the teachings of Jesus (not a speculative, hypothetising reconstruction of a uncertain "historical Jesus") is the Bible.
The Church edited, translated, and compiled the Bible, as such to construct a narrative that aligns with the tradition followed — as you say, the gnostic accounts were discarded for diverging from orthodox dogma.
That contents of the narrative have an intended meaning.

From these premises, it seems to follow that claiming that the teachings of Jesus are X instead of Y, as stated by the Church, is a mistake of the same nature as claiming a chapter of HP means X when JK Rowling specified from the start it means Y.

I don't think there is any single individual alive who is more qualified to interpret it — which is to go against the interpretation of the Church. Which even then would be goofy, the Church made the Bible, are we going to tell the priest how to preach too? — Lionino

Yet Luther did. You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it.

Because it didn't suit the "orthodox" agenda, right? It was too gnostic. — ENOAH

Yes, although I do have to say even in the synoptics Jesus can get pretty gnostic. I did not pick up anything in there that was antithetical to the synoptics but I only gave it a brief look.

Yet Luther did. — BitconnectCarlos

I think his legacy speaks for the quality of his ideas. Anyone can give their opinions about a topic, and many people may follow, but that speaks nothing of the truth of those opinions. Ridiculous example: Mormonism.

You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it. — BitconnectCarlos

I wouldn't indulgences are doctrine, more like a corrupt practice.

I think his legacy speaks for the quality of his ideas. — Lionino

An interesting statement that leaves room for interpretation.

I wouldn't indulgences are doctrine, more like a corrupt practice. — Lionino

But why were indulgences sold to the public? IIRC it was because through purchasing them one could supposedly lessen the time one's dead relatives spend in purgatory. I couldn't tell you the biblical basis for that one. Religions rely on scripture, but they also rely on tradition and reason and sometimes things just stray too far from scripture. I get the idea that that was Luther's function -- bringing Christianity back to scripture while curbing the excesses of tradition. He's an interesting figure. Nasty anti-semite, but not dumb.

My point is that by admiring the teachings of Jesus you are admiring a large subset of the doctrines of the Church — the two are not separable. The story of Jesus is given to us by the Church. — Lionino

Ok, I did read that in your previous comments. Perhaps I superimposed a more polemical tone in how I read some of the "cloudier" language. Since that's your point, yes. While I think there's room for debate, I have no problem accepting that, and proceeding "aesthetically" as you say. Of course the so-called Bible from which I derive my heretical interpretation is a Church doctrine and therefore by definition any interpretation inconsistent therewith is heretical. I'm contrite for being so fixated that I didn't hear you speaking that simple undeniable truth.

However, two worthies of mention (unless more arise quickly enough)

1. Some interpretations following an independent reading might coincidentally be orthodox. I'm not suggesting the result nullifies that the process was aesthetic. I'm noting that it is reasonable to be flexible about the process if the end result bears orthodox "truth." It might even be viewed favorably as "independent" confirmation. Of course, for what that's worth to the Vicar of Christ which needs no independent verification. I'm just saying...

2. In fairness, the question, what kind of influence has Xtianity been? Does not necessarily call for an orthodox, or theological/ecclesiastical process. Or am I mistaken? In fact to have to answer that question, and associated ones like the role of the historical Jesus, within those confines would be futile. The answer is the Church is God's fiduciary on earth, period.

One would have to proceed historically, as sociological, or, as you said, aesthetically. So though you may have only been after that point quoted above and nothing else; and though I stubbornly bypassed it, I'm not sure why, when the historical Jesus was raised, it would be relevant to insist upon an ecclesiastical perspective, other than to point out, as information, that the ones you were commenting upon happened to be following an historical-critical approach potentially unsanctioned by the self proclaimed catholic and orthodox Church (again, no offense. I recognize much good in thd Church, that is not my focus)

I guess so, in the same way that JK Rowling gave herself authority over the Harry Potter IP. You see how that is distinct from simply "giving oneself authority"? — Lionino

Yes, I now see the distinction. And, trust you see why it's not relevant (unless as info...). If the OP asked has the Harry Potter series been an influence of good, you would not insist that any analysis of restrict itself to an orthodox reading as intended by the author. Even an analysis of the very text.

From these premises, it seems to follow that claiming that the teachings of Jesus are X instead of Y, as stated by the Church, is a mistake of the same nature as claiming a chapter of HP means X when JK Rowling specified from the start it means Y. — Lionino

Yes. And I reiterate that you unblocked me on the first part, i.e. you can stop at mistake. But as a side note the second part raises an interesting variation which doesnt effect my acknowledgement of the first part, but may have implications. The point of the church is to dictate truths we must believe. There is necessarily no room for analysis. JK Rowling has written fiction. In fact, there are many who might argue her intent ought not shape our analysis. And as an author (I dont know) she might encourage creative analyses.

Our question in the OP is more like the analysis of fiction. Quick and simple illustration. These are not intended to follow any strict format of logic nor speak to the OP.

Q. Has Xtianity been a force of good?
A. No. It hasn't followed its own teachings.
Q. How so?
A. Jesus says love your enemies, there are
examples where they have not.
Objection. You can't speak to what Jesus says, you're not the Church.

That's what it seems like you are asserting.

You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it. — BitconnectCarlos

Sorry, Lionino, that's a good point by Bitconnect. I'm really trying to understand. You've already helped me get the first part, I had wrong. Do you recognize how nevertheless you have misapplied it, and assertively?

I do have to say even in the synoptics Jesus can get pretty gnostic. I did not pick up anything in there that was antithetical to the synoptics but I only gave it a brief look. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree with both points above. From my analysis which I acknowledge may or may not be orthodoxy,

1. Yes in the synoptics J can get pretty gnostic. I do not think agnosticism is not orthodoxy necessarily because the former did not conform to the historical J or the early church I.e., first 100 years of the C.E. It was a struggle for dominance of the early Church's opposing "interpretations" gnostic, Arian, Nestorian, etc. An earlier version of that is the struggle between Paul who thirsted for the spread of Christ to the so called Greeks vs those so called Judaisers who insisted that Torah etc be strictly adhered to. Though a compromise appears to have been made, Pauls language (which I would argue was far from antisemitic, but rather, along the lines of, hey brothers, if we're going to spread this thing, we need to let up stuff like circumcision and pork)** arguably, the tragic first seed of Xtianity's shameful history of antisemitism.
EDIT**I don't mean it was fine to insist to his fellow Judaens that we should abandon circumcision and pork. I'm saying that was a concern he was willing to bypass in his desperation to spread the new religion among the gentiles. And tragically from the early Church to very recent times, Paul's choices contributed to corrupt antisemetic interpretations of "the gospels," obviously both Jesus, Paul, and the majority of tge first Apostles, Acts and thereafter, were Jewish, and continued for a while to identify as such.

2. I agree Thomas doesn't "contradict" the canonical gospels, it expands with a multitude of gems which are vague enough that they ready themselves for
many interpretations.
Addendum: thank God it was left out of the canonical gospels.

Sorry, Lionino, that's a good point by Bitconnect. I'm really trying to understand. You've already helped me get the first part, I had wrong. Do you recognize how nevertheless you have misapplied it, and assertively? — ENOAH

I referred to that in a previous comment. Luther says that salvation is by faith. The Church says it is by faith and by deeds. That is doctrine. The structure of the institution (how many bishops, in what conditions a marriage may be cancelled, indulgences) is not about doctrine however.

I referred to that in a previous comment. — Lionino

Apologies.

I would need to review Paul's writings for antisemitism. The first time I really understood Xtian antisemitism was through the Gospels. I have a love hate relationship with the book. Brilliant, life changing teachings from Jesus but also the way the writers contrast Jesus's teachings to those of the Pharisees -- while theologically purposeful and reasonable, unfortunately really requires broader context.

It does bother me that some number of Christians seemingly only read the Gospels and just kind of keep it at that. I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews, but imho the radicalness of Jesus is bolstered in understanding the Pharisees in their broader context. In other words, if Jesus's enemies are just bad, stupid people and Jesus is criticizing them then Jesus is just sort of normal and good, but not radical. Just a reformer.

Luke, I remember, as being especially bad -- from memory, the writers say "the Pharisees, who love money, sneered at Jesus" -- yes, they "like" money because money allows one to contribute to charity and perform acts of good. Pharisaic ideology isn't bad Jesus just emphasizes the other side ("blessed be the poor") but there's reason behind the Pharisees - they're not just wicked. Jesus has a complex relationship with them as in the end of Matthew he tells his followers to do as they say but not as they do.

Have accusations of deicide (Matthew 27:25) and the blood libel at the heart of Christian antisemitism for over a millennium (from pogroms to inquisitions to the shoah) been "an influence for good"? I cannot forget (e.g.) that Wehrmacht soldiers wore "Gott mit uns" belt buckles or that entrances of many concentration camps bear "Arbeit Macht Frei" (paraphrase of John 8:31-32).

addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901070

I would need to review Paul's writings for antisemitism — BitconnectCarlos

You could start (and end) with his letter to the Galatians. But as I said, I don't think Paul was being antisemitic per se. Paul himself, Jewish, and likely a Pharisee.

What I think Paul was doing was responding to a mixed Jewish and gentile faction who insisted that gentile followers of Jesus must adhere to Jewish laws like circumcision and abstaining from pork and other unclean meats. Either, 1. He was sincere about his Christology that Jesus as Christ atoned for humanity, and emancipated it from law *see letter to Romans. Or, 2. He was an "evangelical" genius who realized the Greeks were more compelled by high christology than eschatology, purity laws and sacrifice.

But I'm either recalling or hypothesizing (read Gallatians and you might see why) that Paul's diatribe against the "Judaisers" was used as a weapon against people of the Jewish diaspora, particularly after the Empire converted to Xtianity. At the very least, it (unwittingly) painted a picture.

I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews — BitconnectCarlos

Of course contrary to the teachings of the so called Church, and with respect to that perspective, many have taken a historico-critical approach. And while I am not up to speed, I recall that both the gospels and epistles need to be understood in their historical (Pre-The One Holy and Apostolic Church) context. And--even unashamedly to the authors--you find that there were "political" "scriptural" "religious" motivators in the writing.

We now view it as having recorded history. But to them it was a document glorifying a movement (and the authentic Paul Epistles were mostly addressing instructional concerns of his associated church communities) . The opponents to that movement were portrayed deliberately accordingly. As didactic. But also to set-up the system their way (the way we do still today; though it embarasses us). These are the bad guys so we depict them that way. And their depiction emphasizes their opposition. The Gospels were written after Paul had already established himself in the early church. The "negative" depiction of Pharisees and Saducees was not to record history, and almost certainly not to garner hatred against their own race and heritage as a whole, but to express that the new movement has at least loosened adherence to Tanakh and other traditions, displacing both with the person of Jesus, now truly "the Christ," and that (naturally) the establishment, Pharisees and Saducees opposed that.

I think your comments about Luke and ff, if understood in the context above, reveals that the early church, far from being antisemitic, were carrying on a Jewish tradition, opposing, not Judaism nor the Jewish race, just their "political" opponents in the Sanhedrin.

Revelations/The Apocalypse, which emerged much later, does the same but more cryptically, and now, shifting its focus with respect to their opponent, Rome.

Arguably, just as the Gospels and Epistles are misused to "justify" antisemitism; Revelations has been misused by Protestant factions to justify anti-Roman Catholicism.

What goes around, eh?

Nasty anti-semite — BitconnectCarlos

I take it that you have heard of Ford and Marx then.

I don't like either.

I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews — BitconnectCarlos

I get it, one can read hatred of the Jews into it. Many do. Too many who call themselves Christians do.

But that’s not what I come away with at all - racial, ethnic divisions never made any sense after Jesus. The term “white Christian” drains all meaning from the term “Christian”. All of it.

God singled out and chose the Jews in human history to make clear where any human could go to seek God’s word. They can look to the words the Jewish people kept. That’s why Jesus was Jewish, why he had to be a Jew himself. He both the pinnacle of Judaism and the abolisher of all division among all peoples. His word was never for some ethnicity or race - it was for all on earth who could hear it. It just came through the Jews to simplify a starting point for the rest of us. We carry the Old and the New together now.

The Pharisees do not represent the Jews. They represent themselves, or terrible church leaders. And Jesus didn’t hate them. So we Christians shouldn’t judge them.

If the Pharisees represent anyone, they are like popes who sent men off to crusade, or priests who sexually abuse children, self adorned stewards of the word of God who used their position to sin against their fellow man. Soiling the very name of God. Jesus certainly said these things were sin, and that sin in the name of God was evil. But not once did Jesus specifically damn anyone to hell, so we can’t begin to judge who Jesus might have us hate.

But the Jews represent all of us. Me (Italian Catholic American) and you (whoever you are). The people of earth, who, even standing right there closest to God would still not see him, and killed him. We all are like the Jews in the Bible. We all killed Jesus, at least most of us. No reason to pick out a particular group and hate them. Just blind to your own position right next to “them”.

If you hate the Jews, you hate yourself. And you completely misinterpret the story. (It’s like using a Picasso or a Monet as an example of paint viscosity such that the paintings themselves become a distraction to ignore so you can talk about the components of red versus blue.)

And he was crucified most of all because of a Roman, not any Jew. That’s important for all the haters. Romans, like the soldier who asked Jesus to heal his child and Jesus did so immediately because of the Roman’s great faith, Romans killed Jesus. We are like the Romans, and the Samaritans. All of us.

But Jesus, who was not like any of us, became like all of us, a Jew, so if the Jews are to represent a particular group, it’s the particular group of all of us.

Division among men is a construction of men, like Adam hiding himself in clothes, dividing himself from God. We all do it. Divisions among us are real, but not because of Jesus, but because of what we make of him. We are the ones who divide ourselves from others. Jesus may be said to be the cause of division among us, but it is not along racial, or ethnic lines. That’s stupid.

Hating at all brings judgment on yourself - if you hate, no matter how good it feels to hate, you are already setting yourself below the person you are hating, no matter who they are. Jesus didn’t do that. Christians shouldn’t either.

like Adam hiding himself in clothes, dividing himself from God. We all do it. — Fire Ologist

Nice, Fire. The hypothetical moment when "we" divided/displaced "God's creation" our natural selves, with our constructions, choosing knowledge over life.

It doesn't have to be "bad," as I know you know. But it did kind of go bad, and so one of the hypothetical moments* when "God" surfaced into "our constructions," to "remind us" to construct away but to not to get "lost" in the constructions, I.e. as Jesus, we construct something out of that, call it Christianity, and here we are today. Has it been an influence for good? Of course. Some narratives prioritized life, applied the constructions to that end. Francis Assisi, et. many als. For bad? Yes, some narratives, in spite of Jesus, stayed lost, and took Jesus with them; constructing Jesus not to serve Life, the body-family-community-species, but to serve the constructions. As it happens those Narratives are attracted to Narratives of ego and power. And, it's as easy for a wealthy man to live in God's domain (Living) as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, so...

**also applicable to Buddha as Siddhartha, Vishnu as Krishna, and likelyva few so ons.

The hypothetical moment when "we" divided/displaced "God's creation" our natural selves, with our constructions, choosing knowledge over life. — ENOAH

But it wasn’t just a moment. It happens everyday, by each of us. It’s a story constructed to tell me who I am now.

It wasn’t bad to put clothes on. It wasn’t the knowledge itself. It was knowledge of our own disobedience, that we knew what to do but didn’t do it. This is what we hide, this is what we cover in clothes, our wills, our selves; we hide from each other and make room for sin in the empty space between us, that we construct.

The story in the Bible shows us what is happening right now. And in that context, the context of now, the story of Jesus is unprecedented. The story is that God so regarded us, he would become one of us and being our servant unto death for us, so that even though hidden we could be in his presence again. But we killed him, we still want to hide. That’s just like us, don’t you think?

None of this can be subject to science or we again take the Picasso and see it as a good placemat for easy clean up after lunch - misses the significance of the Picasso to seek the uses and causes of something sublime.

It’s fine if you need lunch to grab a Picasso place mat, but then any old painting would do. Why look to the Bible when there are better sources of history and philosophy and science? Jesus is unlike anything ever painted. He became the painter, like us, and painted himself, for us. He allowed us to be the ones who drew the blood he painted with. So that we might live again, forgiven even for killing him, not simply eating a piece of fruit.

But it wasn’t just a moment. It happens everyday, — Fire Ologist

I agree (I got carried away with the drama of the Eden myth).

It wasn’t bad to put clothes on. It wasn’t the knowledge itself. — Fire Ologist

Not bad, I agree. But I do see it as knowledge itself. Not as in the pivotal moment, but as in beyond its use for survival prehistorically (I imagine) clothes are made up of signifiers making knowledge (for me knowledge is meaning settled upon from time to time). What strikes me, is its uncanny appearance in Genesis.

The story in the Bible shows us what is happening right now — Fire Ologist

Yes. Uncanny, eh? It's tragic that art can be admired universally in pretty much any form except religion. Has Christianity been an influence for good? Maybe the pith of the question is too obvious to ask, it has been an influence, period. Like DaVinci or Einstein, but on a much grander scale. We write good and bad, regardless of the influence.

we killed him, we still want to hide. That’s just like us, don’t you think? — Fire Ologist

lest I misrepresent my angle, I'm approaching this particular segment of this thread as mythico-poetry, not theologically (not saying you are/aren't). But, yes. I do think so. He says, "wake up," and turn your attention. The "Thing" we're all looking for, because we lost it, is not where you're looking. God's world is the birds in the sky, the flowers in the field, who neither reap nor sow, labor nor spin. It's not in the gathering nor the knowing, it's in the living. Dont believe your constructions from time to time, believe in that eternally. Find your soul. What profit is in gaining the whole world but losing your living soul. And not only did his contemporaries kill that in order to remain with their attachments to knowledge, repeating the mistake in Eden, but the moment he died they constructed a fiction in his name, Christianity and we have pretty much been lost in that and its antitheses (heresy, atheism, secularism, science, Islam/Eastern "paganism", hedonism/materialism, communism) ever since.

misses the significance of the Picasso to seek the uses and causes of something sublime. — Fire Ologist

Thank God, 'cause I've wandered so deep into "my" imagination here that science is a faint echo in a remote corner of--by the way--the same system, functioning to find truth, in the end, in the same way, settling upon what is most fitting/functional given all competing factors.

We could ask has Science been an influence of good? And the answer would be, like its sister, religion, it has been a remarkable influence. Good or bad is just how we write.

Just an FYI, because popular understanding of this issue is often cloudy at best: indulgences go back to the ancient Church and still exist today (e.g., there was one for people who couldn't make it to confession because of the pandemic). They go back in the Orthodox tradition as well, although they haven't existed in anything like the current Catholic version since the 1200s or so. The general broad brush stroke picture of the abuse of indulgences gets at the core issue, but often in a fairly misleading way. The theology surrounding the Sacrament of Penance and the Treasury of Merit is complex. Indulgences are for temporal punishment not eternal judgement, and the times associated with them align to periods of earthly penance not "time off" in Purgatory. For the most part, indulgences didn't involve money, but instead acts of penitence, pilgrimage, etc. These were personal sacrifices and spiritual exercises that were supposed to aid in bringing a person back into communion with God and God's church following a breech. A main benefit of the indulgence is that it allowed priests more flexibility surrounding canonical penance (which was generally quite strict; think eating nothing, wearing sack cloth and ashes).

The idea of indulgences being sold for money gets at the basic root of the controversy, although the issue was more about an inability/lack of political will to control the practice (also people wanting indulgences for all sorts of non-financial acts—a focus on "official recognition," essentially). There was never a theological position that you could "buy your way out of punishment after death," embraced as doctrine.

Rather, there was a widespread abuse of indulgences such that they were essentially being sold by people taking advantage of their proliferation outside of financial contexts, including many people with no standing in the Church who were impersonating clergy to work as professional "pardoners." This also gets at the extremely fractured jurisdiction within the church (and the temporal authorities) in this era.

What changed in the early 1500s was that the Pope forbade almsgiving or any other sort of financial donation to be associated with indulgences because of the wide room for abuse, rather than a shift in theology abolishing indulgences. However, there was also a theological move to get people to stop focusing on the indulgence itself, and instead on the intended spiritual/psychological purpose of penance. It probably helped that literacy boomed in this period with the advent of the printing press, which in turn dispelled a lot of the mystery around written certificates.

A lot of stuff on indulgences gets conflated with the controversies surrounding chantries, which were a significantly larger social force. These were establishments that largely focused on masses for the dead (presumably in Purgatory), and were established by nobles, guilds, etc. This isn't all they did, but the criticisms during the Reformation largely focused on their role in saying masses for the dead or the idea of the mass as a "work" in general.

Anyhow, it was very much a bottom up phenomena that was poorly managed due to perverse incentives rather than being an official sanctioned practice or doctrine.

That all said, the Church has made major shifts in doctrine in plenty of other places. Utraquism would be a key example. The idea of the laity partaking in both the flesh and the blood of Christ (as opposed to just the host/body) was enough to motivate violent struggle; whereas post-Vatican II both are frequently given (it is at the discretion of the bishop IIRC). Clerical celibacy largely only for bishops originally. It became mandated largely to solve the issue of powerful nobles essentially bequeathing bishoprics as fiefdoms, a particularly pernicious sort of integralism.

Nice. Thank you.

Good or bad is just how we write. — ENOAH

it's in the living — ENOAH

But isn’t making “good or bad” in the living for us? Isn’t “good” for humans like birds chirping for birds?

Why place “good or bad”, that we make, on some less real level than any other being, like birds make?

You don’t think the “good” or the “bad” we construct is then constructed, being whatever it is? Just because something is constructed only for humans and only by humans doesn’t require that it not be real, not be, not be thereby constructed. Humans are being humans too.