Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Socrates in comparison with Jesus. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I admire Socrates very much, unlike Jesus for many immoral reasons.

    Obviously I am assuming that both existed there when actually I've came to the conclusion it's unlikely both of then ever existed. However there 'teaching' is still around, and I favour Socrates very much so for philosophical comfort, moral lessons and so on.

    Does anyone think the story of Jesus is better? Because I don't see how.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I find your stance quite ironic considering your username
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    I admire Socrates very much, unlike Jesus for many immoral reasons.

    Obviously I am assuming that both existed there when actually I've came to the conclusion it's unlikely both of then ever existed. However there 'teaching' is still around, and I favour Socrates very much so for philosophical comfort, moral lessons and so on.

    Does anyone think the story of Jesus is better? Because I don't see how.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think it's quite likely both Jesus and Socrates existed. All the Abrhamic faiths do believe in the existence of a powerful teacher, called Jesus, who lived around the time Jesus was supposed to exist but they differ in belief on the extent of his messianic powers. Obviously the Christians believe he was the son of God, the muslims that he was a major prophet and the jews that he was a good man and great teacher.

    Also Socrates is quite likely to have existed, as he is written about through his disciples Plato and Xenophanes- both of whom give slightly different accounts of his personality and character.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sokrates was a *******, unless you're a limpid pseudo-intellectual kiddie without a smidgen of Greek who has read nothing but plaintive summaries taken out of context. Portrayed by Plato he's somewhat fascist, by Xenophon mean spirited, by Aristophanes a bumbler, in the historiographic record (Aiskhines etc) an educator of tyrants. Not a fan.

    Jesus too had his short comings. I doubt he would have been happy with gentiles becoming Christian anymore than the Buddha would have liked Tibetans and Chinese in his order. I find particularly troubling the apocalyptic aspect of early Christianity. Not to mention the communal leanings. But overall, I'd say Jesus is nicer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    I admire Socrates very much, unlike Jesus for many immoral reasons.

    Obviously I am assuming that both existed there when actually I've came to the conclusion it's unlikely both of then ever existed. However there 'teaching' is still around, and I favour Socrates very much so for philosophical comfort, moral lessons and so on.

    Does anyone think the story of Jesus is better? Because I don't see how.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'd say it's a silly comparison - like comparing a rugby player to a football player.

    I find your statement about "immoral reasons" interesting for, despite having seen many atheists copy/paste many OT quotes around here to make a point about christian morality, never before had I heard anyone do the same with Jesus. Do you happen to have anything specific in mind or are you just referring to the Bible in general and calling it "Jesus"?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InkyPen24)
    I find your stance quite ironic considering your username
    Ironic maybe. Relevant, no. My name is a result of the death of my uncle who's name was John couple of years before I was born and my mum wanted to call me John but not just John, that's all.

    Anyway, when I say immoral reasons I am talking about the doctrine of vicarious redemption which is central to Jesus. This is a method which is taught to children. My comparison is how the teachings of Socrates are a lot better than an immoral one like that. And if anyone can't see what's immoral about vicarious redemption then I have no time to waste on them.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Indra)
    Sokrates was a *******, unless you're a limpid pseudo-intellectual kiddie without a smidgen of Greek who has read nothing but plaintive summaries taken out of context. Portrayed by Plato he's somewhat fascist, by Xenophon mean spirited, by Aristophanes a bumbler, in the historiographic record (Aiskhines etc) an educator of tyrants. Not a fan.

    Jesus too had his short comings. I doubt he would have been happy with gentiles becoming Christian anymore than the Buddha would have liked Tibetans and Chinese in his order. I find particularly troubling the apocalyptic aspect of early Christianity. Not to mention the communal leanings. But overall, I'd say Jesus is nicer.
    Socrates supposed method was to enquire about how little you know and understand that you cannot know everything unless education yourself to the full, by also pointing out the inconsistencies of what is wrong or false. Jesus's teaching is that you can throw away your responsibility on a scapegoat so your sins are washed away. How the hell is that nicer?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    Socrates supposed method was to enquire about how little you know and understand that you cannot know everything unless education yourself to the full, by also pointing out the inconsistencies of what is wrong or false. Jesus's teaching is that you can throw away your responsibility on a scapegoat so your sins are washed away. How the hell is that nicer?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    A well said bit of argument, In this discussion i have to say Socrates' teachings are much more beneficial to the student and that is all that matters. In reply to the previous retort, regardless of weather Tyrants used it or not doesn't mean it's not an effective means of teaching. Quite the contrary, if if can turn a man who wants power from a nobody into a tyrant it's a Very good way of teaching is it not? It allows you to become what you want to regardless of moral belief.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think Jesus is a slightly better philosopher than Socrates. Socrates represented the Greek dissolution of the extreme rational, rational at any price. Jesus was part of that same dissolution (i.e., because of Plato's philosophy) but with the addition of mild oriental features and of a grand morality which it inherited from the Jews.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    BOTH ARE TEACHERSBOTH ARE TEACHERS
    BOTH ARE spiritually influenced/influencing
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Indra)
    I doubt he would have been happy with gentiles becoming Christian anymore than the Buddha would have liked Tibetans and Chinese in his order
    Why would you think that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    Jesus's teaching is that you can throw away your responsibility on a scapegoat so your sins are washed away. How the hell is that nicer?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It seems that you know little of his teachings
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viriol)
    I find your statement about "immoral reasons" interesting for, despite having seen many atheists copy/paste many OT quotes around here to make a point about christian morality, never before had I heard anyone do the same with Jesus. Do you happen to have anything specific in mind or are you just referring to the Bible in general and calling it "Jesus"?
    Equally, I see a lot of atheists who say that Jesus was a great man with wonderful moral messages. "I'm an atheist, but the sermon on the mount is one of the most beautiful speeches in the history of man" is common.

    The whole notion of god having to torture his son in order to forgive people for the sins that he made them do is disgusting enough in itself, but Jesus's teachings were nasty too. There's a lot of focus on forgiveness, but in the wrong way - regardless of what one does, if one submits to Jesus then one will have eternal bliss. But if you don't worship god, you will be eternally tortured in hell.

    Jesus also reinforces the hideous morals taught in the Old Testament by saying that god is unchanging and that the laws of old must remain.

    There's then the idea that Jesus can forgive your enemy for you, and that you should instantly forgive your enemy, or even let them hurt you. He taught that suffering is good (wonderfully exemplified by Mother Teresa!).

    I don't know much about Socrates, as I'm not all that much into philosophy, but I do know that I despise almost all of the Bible, including Jesus and his teachings.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    The whole notion of god having to torture his son in order to forgive people for the sins that he made them do is disgusting enough in itself
    According to the catholic vision, Jesus and God are One. I don't see why you are disgusting if you force yourself to suffer for other people.

    There's a lot of focus on forgiveness, but in the wrong way - regardless of what one does, if one submits to Jesus then one will have eternal bliss. But if you don't worship god, you will be eternally tortured in hell.
    When you read/hear "submit" it has a much broader sense than "worship". In fact, you don't see Jesus refer to anyone as being saved by "submitting" to him, but rather by following his teachings and avoiding further sin. One of his catch-phrases is "go and don't sin again". Conversely, hell is for the "unjust" rather than for the non-believers (keep in mind that there are passages of the Bible in which even non-believers are portrayed doing God's will).

    I think that, at this point, it is interesting to recall the time Jesus says (talking about the "counting" for the final days) anyone helping someone [a child] in need is doing as much good as if he were helping Jesus himself.

    Jesus also reinforces the hideous morals taught in the Old Testament by saying that god is unchanging and that the laws of old must remain.
    That is just false. There is a number of occasions in which Jesus explicitly speaks and acts against "the laws of old". The most famous of these are when he saves the adulterous woman from being stoned (first stone thing) and his going against the "tooth by tooth" of Moses. In fact, there is even a passage in which he talks of such laws as being due to "the hardness of your heart".

    There's then the idea that Jesus can forgive your enemy for you, and that you should instantly forgive your enemy, or even let them hurt you.
    Yeah, can you imagine? The **** wanted a world where no people were enemies? Isn't that just despicable?!

    He taught that suffering is good
    I dare you to support that claim.

    I don't know much about Socrates, as I'm not all that much into philosophy, but I do know that I despise almost all of the Bible, including Jesus and his teachings.
    What are you doing in a philosophy forum then? Don't tell me it was a miracle!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    I admire Socrates very much, unlike Jesus for many immoral reasons.

    Obviously I am assuming that both existed there when actually I've came to the conclusion it's unlikely both of then ever existed. However there 'teaching' is still around, and I favour Socrates very much so for philosophical comfort, moral lessons and so on.

    Does anyone think the story of Jesus is better? Because I don't see how.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'd be wary of taking either individual at face value as they are portrayed in the sources. The main authors for Socrates are Plato and Xenophon, and in the case of the former he may well have constructed an ideal Socrates purely as his philosophical mouth-piece. Did Socrates really believe in the Forms, or is that Plato putting words into his mouth? Food for thought there. Xenophon is equally idealistic due to being a former student of Socrates and his idealisation of the man may have a lot to do with his detestation of Athenian democracy as whole (the very same democracy which executed Socrates). Ultimately, since Socrates didn't write anything himself, about the only thing we can say for certain is that he engaged in dialectic. I cannot really say whether I admired the man or not on that basis.

    As for Jesus essentially the same reasoning applies. The sources (unless you believe they really are the word of God) come from Jesus' friends and of course are going to be idealistic, especially as the Christian movement gained an inertia in the Roman Empire. I really don't have an opinion on either of them for these reasons and it seems, with all due respect, a benign comparison.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    I admire Socrates very much, unlike Jesus for many immoral reasons.

    Obviously I am assuming that both existed there when actually I've came to the conclusion it's unlikely both of then ever existed. However there 'teaching' is still around, and I favour Socrates very much so for philosophical comfort, moral lessons and so on.

    Does anyone think the story of Jesus is better? Because I don't see how.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If another person, one without your exemplary record of historical analysis, made this assertion, I would be inclined to question precisely how much effort they spent coming to this conclusion.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    If another person, one without your exemplary record of historical analysis, made this assertion, I would be inclined to question precisely how much effort they spent coming to this conclusion.
    Such a face palm moment, I'm with you here . To the OP read Aristophanes' Clouds, Socrates existed.
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.