Jesus was a divisive celebrity, his contemporaries either loved him or hated him passionately. To this day, opinions are divided about his political teachings, i.e. whether he had a coherent political teaching at all, and whether it makes sense to talk about that teaching while disregarding the resurrection-related cult.
The Messiah expected by Judaists is quite a political figure, a triumphant king of the world. He may perform miracles, but they're not in his job description, and the script developed by scripture analists doesn't anticipate Him rising from the dead. As opposed to the script, Jesus is less political (doesn't object to paying taxes to Emperor Augustus, doesn't start an uprising to kick out the Roman oppressors, doesn't allow people to elect Him king), apparently, he doesn't triumph (ends up in the gallows, the cross being its equivalent at the time), and then his resurrection puts his achievements in a fundamentally new light. But what if he didn't rise? Let's examine what changes in that case.
In order to talk about Jesus' political teachings from an unbiased vantage point, it makes sense to subscribe to the Judaist majority opinion that he was executed, died and... stayed dead, end of story. The pious tradition is hereby suspended, at least for the duration of the arguments that follow. This leaves a Jesus "only" a man, and the man's teachings can be examined in their own right. Siddharta (the Enlightened), Aristoteles, Plato, Socrates, Zarathustra, Epicthetos, Hedon, Lao Ce, Alexander the Great and Muhammed all entered history books as "only" men, and that doesn't stop people studying them. Let's use a single standard and not brush Jesus aside on grounds that according to some (be it the founders of our civilisation), he also rose from the dead.
What did Jesus teach according to the Gospels? His parables are summed up by these four values: brotherhood, equality, responsible freedom and meritocracy (BERM for short). These four values seem to be quite close to the slogans of the French Revolution, but at second sight, they are quite far from them in substance. Jesus teaches that all humans are brothers/sisters and are, therefore, equal; freedom is valuable only if it comes with a sense of responsibility for the state of the world; and the community should be led by those who merit through humility to lead it. All of Jesus' statements fall under these four values and none of His statements contradict any of these four values. Let's appraise this teaching in its own right: is there any other set of values that would benefit the world more than BERM? If yes, what is that, where is it implemented, and where can its results be checked? In the absence of such an alternative, BERM is the best and, therefore, prevails, whether taught by Jesus or not, and whether the teacher of BERM rose from the dead or not.
Let's test whether our assessment of BERM is based on a single standard, by applying it to Siddharta and His teachings for instance. Suppose the Buddha was "only" a wise man who gave His followers earthly teachings that serve as the foundations of a relatively successful civilisation.
What did Siddharta teach? Compassion, love of all beings, keeping a distance from all physical stimuli and passion, and the happiness of a relative indifference. Now suppose Siddharta gets a critical reappraisal by modern science. Suppose critics think he was deluded, he was never enlightened and never reached Nirvana (especially as there is no such place). Suppose modern science concludes that not one extraordinary detail about Siddharta is true, He was merely a teacher, nothing beyond that. Does that invalidate his teaching of compassion, love of all beings, distance from stimuli and passion, happiness of relative indifference? No, it does not. A relatively successful civilisation is built upon this teaching, why should members of that civilisation suddenly reject its core values? Does it follow that "Siddharta" is a take-it-or-leave-it package you either accept or reject as is? No, it does not. There may be many people (there ARE many) who are not sure whether the Buddha was the Buddha and whether He ever made it to Nirvana, but they do know from experience that a relatively successful civilisation is built upon his teaching, and that success confirms the teaching.
So if you want to rid Buddhist civilisation of the Buddha, you may have bitten off more than you can chew. It's not enough to say that Siddharta was deluded and made up a non-existant Nirvana he never reached. You must also add that Siddharta was not a wise man, that he failed as a human, the civilisation built upon His teaching is nothing, which annuls His teaching. This is going to be a hard sell to Buddhists. (There is a better product you can actually sell: the Buddha was a great wise man, but the Nazarean was an even greater wise man, at least the civilisation based on His teaching is more successful, and should thus be considered as an upgrade.)
What does this suggest regarding the teaching of Jesus, the Wise Man of Nazareth? Aspiring to implement BERM built the world's most successful civilisation, which confirms Jesus' teaching even in the absence of faith in His resurrection or anything supernatural. It doesn't even challenge the idea that He may have been the Jewish Messiah, because the Jewish Messiah was not supposed to rise from the dead or be the Son of God to begin with, there was no such requirement. The "Wise Man of Nazareth" package is not a take-it-or-leave-it proposition that you either accept with resurrection or reject completely. There may be many people (in fact, there should be many non-believers) who are not sure whether Jesus actually rose from the dead, whether He actually sits on the Father's right and whether He'll actually come to judge the world, but they do know from experience that aspiring to implement BERM has resulted in the most successful civilisation of all time, which confirms the teaching. This is sufficient for ensuring the Christian World's success and coexistence in prosperity.
Openness is a key component of any argumentation that relies on a single standard: if there is a wise man who is even greater than the Nazarean, if there is an approach that's better and more just than BERM, if it results in a civilisation that is even more attractive than Christianity, great, let's have the data. Let's see what that approach is, let's assess its merit, and consider the comparative outcome as a potential upgrade. (If you know of any such approach, please submit it in a comment.)
No comments:
Post a Comment