Rules versus humans
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 7:46 pm
Belinda brings up an interesting point in a thread over in one of the Ethics forums.
Jesus, as a guide, is both man and God. Because he is both, he can be seen as an example to follow, sort of like, how would God live in the world we currently inhabit if he were one of us. So we ought to follow Jesus because he is the ultimate example. It seems that Jesus (like Socrates) led as much (if not more so) through example than through laying down a set of prescribed or detailed rules for people to reliably refer to and follow. He didn't tell us specifically what to do; he taught us to follow his example. Perhaps he taught us to follow our instincts and be true to them.
Of course, the New Testament (as with the Old Testament) was ultimately written down by fallible humans, but from the canonized works that the Catholic Church eventually adopted, we tend to see Jesus as a healer and as being merciful toward others (with some minor exceptions, such as overthrowing the table of money the Pharisees were collecting).
There were apparently some writings in existence at the time of canonization that portrayed Jesus in a less benevolent way. I believe there was a gnostic text (if I remember correctly) that described Jesus causing someone who was trying to bully him to suddenly drop dead (or something along those lines). The Catholic Church decided to eliminate that particular account from the official record.
Granted, perhaps all the texts are just plain wrong and over embellished or something, amounting to little more than a fairy tale. However, is Jesus (like Socrates) not left to us as a kind of open enigma in which we can model our own judgements and decisions? Are they not the essential hero for us who doesn't follow a set of prescribed rules but dynamically interacts with the world around us through some perhaps undeclared priorities or principles?
In that sense, from the fact that some texts were chosen but others not, does Catholicism not reflect (at least at its inception) a kind of idealized vision of what it is to be a good person? If so, what exactly is that ideal, and is it adequate or worth pursuing on its own merit?
Thoughts?
Jesus, as a guide, is both man and God. Because he is both, he can be seen as an example to follow, sort of like, how would God live in the world we currently inhabit if he were one of us. So we ought to follow Jesus because he is the ultimate example. It seems that Jesus (like Socrates) led as much (if not more so) through example than through laying down a set of prescribed or detailed rules for people to reliably refer to and follow. He didn't tell us specifically what to do; he taught us to follow his example. Perhaps he taught us to follow our instincts and be true to them.
Of course, the New Testament (as with the Old Testament) was ultimately written down by fallible humans, but from the canonized works that the Catholic Church eventually adopted, we tend to see Jesus as a healer and as being merciful toward others (with some minor exceptions, such as overthrowing the table of money the Pharisees were collecting).
There were apparently some writings in existence at the time of canonization that portrayed Jesus in a less benevolent way. I believe there was a gnostic text (if I remember correctly) that described Jesus causing someone who was trying to bully him to suddenly drop dead (or something along those lines). The Catholic Church decided to eliminate that particular account from the official record.
Granted, perhaps all the texts are just plain wrong and over embellished or something, amounting to little more than a fairy tale. However, is Jesus (like Socrates) not left to us as a kind of open enigma in which we can model our own judgements and decisions? Are they not the essential hero for us who doesn't follow a set of prescribed rules but dynamically interacts with the world around us through some perhaps undeclared priorities or principles?
In that sense, from the fact that some texts were chosen but others not, does Catholicism not reflect (at least at its inception) a kind of idealized vision of what it is to be a good person? If so, what exactly is that ideal, and is it adequate or worth pursuing on its own merit?
Thoughts?