Windwalker, the gospels are completely unreliable. The authors simply collected the legends of Jesus that they could find, without any care to try and sort myth from literal history.
I don't look at them in terms of "reliability". That is not a factor in my mind. Do the words themselves speak of a deeper wisdom in practicality? If yes, than they have truth and value to them, regardless of the mythmaking processes. Mythologies are simply stories to tell human truths, to teach wisdom. And it is the terribly confused modern mind that imagines that truth can only be found in historical facts. That is a problem with their own minds, not the myths.
I don't believe that Jesus said this, since I think the historical Jesus taught second temple Judaism. He would never have demeaned the Torah in this way.
I don't see any of that as demeaning the Torah. I see it as seeing a higher truth, a higher moral stage of development actually. Take a quick look at this:
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
How much of the "Law" is really just speaking to the moral development of children, the "avoid punishment", rule/role stage of development which has not yet internalized the principles of morality in order to make good, sound, and proper moral judgments in situations that are anything but 'black and white" issues? Even the author of Hebrews recognizes this in his own right by saying, "The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ", or to put that another way, to bring us to a higher realization of the "law of love".
So is it dispaenging to say that the world is not as black and white as we may have learned from our parents when they "laid down the law" for us to teach us at our immature moral stage of development? No! It was age-appropriate. Same thing for this "law" of eye for an eye, and so forth. Adult wisdom, in all cultures, recognizes that vengeance is the actions of children, and it does not lead to a healthy society. Warrior stage, tribal stage is not sustainable in a larger, more diverse and dynamic reality.
So whatever the source or "historicity" of Jesus, either saying or not saying those words, the wisdom of it is sound and appropriate to a more mature moral and spiritual life than adults punching each other in the face for paybacks.
However, let's just say for the sake of argument that he did say the above. In that case I would say that he was wrong, and that his teaching was dangerous. Not only does it break down the foundations of societal justice, it also rewards those who are abusive.
Wrong. People often mistake vengeance and payback with justice. "Yeah, hang that ******* by the neck! Fry him in the electric chair for what he did! Make him bleed! Kill, kill, kill!!!" Many call this "justice", but in reality it does not serve as a deterrent for criminal activities. People still act badly, and threats of
retaliation, which is what this idea of justice actually is, do not actually serve to modify a person's tendencey toward bad action in the first place.
Changing the source of the wrong action is the actual cure, not threatening to behead them. If anything, that just makes them try harder not to get caught. It doesn't change them from wanting to do it. It's all external to them.
The real focus should be "make clean the inside of the cup first, then the outside will be clean" (another saying attributed to Jesus). However, of course have rules and laws is in fact necessary, as people need these in order to establish the expectations of behaviors. Laws are good. However, retaliatory actions, just as violence for violence, does not further society into more mature adult ways of functioning in order to keep a healthy society. It's Klingon law. It keeps its members at the tribal warrior stage.
To me, that is what the NT teachings were about. Taking tribal rules written for tribal societies, and growing and expanding them into more cosmopolitan and pluralistic society, where the "law of love" serves to guide from the inside out, in order to navigate a more complex society for the greatest good.
Back to the moral stages graph I linked to above. It's not negating the law of morality, but maturing and fulfilling it at higher stages for a more complex world. "I come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it". Makes wisdom sense to me.
If someone is bullying you, the worst thing you can do is comply with his unreasonable demands. Bullies need to be fought, or they will simply continue bullying you.
No. There are other more mature ways to handle it than violence for violence. Adults learn how to do conflict resolution in non-violent ways. Force is not the way. "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword".
If you lend money to anyone who asks, you will end up in poverty. It is just a very horrible, very morally dubious teaching.
There are mature way to deal with others that protect your own interests, without the choice of violence or being a total doormat to others. "If I don't hit them back, then they'll just take advantage of me", is an indication of powerlessness in a situation. There are ways to exercise power, where no one is harmed. Conflict resolution. Is beating each other up a part of adult conflict resolution? Do you think that's okay to do that in the workplace, and keep your job for long?
I admire Ghandi very much. He and MLK Jr are my two favorite people in history. But he was wrong about "eye for an eye."
I think it is you who are not seeing the deeper wisdom here.
