We have accounts from 2000 years ago

[Zzyzx]

.
We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

How about; because we can demonstrate those things those philosophers spoke about, and that they were great for revealing DEMONSTRABLE and repeatable truths and principals?

I know, call me crazy...

[Kenisaw]

.
We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?

Perhaps that should be decided on basis is the guide reasonable and good. It for example says:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

Is there any good reason not to live according to that? If that message is not from God, is it then useless and not good?

Is it not possible to see the value of that message, if we can’t be sure that Jesus or Paul lived?

Would it really make any meaningful difference to you, if you would surely know that everything went exactly as Bible tells? What would that be? Would you then be righteous?

Why does the divinely inspired word of a god need to be decided if it is "reasonable and good"? I guess that's the rationalization one must use so that they can continue to get haircuts and wear clothes of mixed fabrics....

There is nothing wrong with living by that. There is also no reason why the world needs religion to spread that ideal.

To the last point, I will assume that is a rhetorical question since it is an obvious falsehood that "everything went exactly as the Bible tells"...

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

We don't even know for sure if Socrates, Plato or Aristotle even existed. Yet, we base the principles of modern governance on their teachings.

Here's the thing, bluethread. We could discover tomorrow that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle for a fact are made up characters. What does that do to their teachings?
I'll tell you. Nothing. Nothing at all. The philosophies espoused by Socrates et al do not depend on Socrates et al having been real people.
Contrast that with your Jesus. I'm aware of a saying attributed to an apostle that goes something like this "If Christ be not Risen, then our faith is in vain".

[marco]

My point to you is that not all sacrifices are "food for the gods". In fact, nearly all, in HaTorah, are memorials that are eaten by humans. Societies have done and continue to do the same thing for reasons such as patriotism and gratitude, separate from any deity. However, as I stated before, one need not see this as the point of the OP. The OP is much broader than that.

I know that offerings for sacrifice were burned or eaten rather than divinely consumed. We use the word sacrifice metaphorically to indicate an act of unselfishness, such as giving our lives for our country. The word nonetheless pertains to a holy deed or offering for God and it is its religious meaning I was using.

I have absolutely no problem with taking a broader view of the OP. That makes for good, clever discussion.

[marco]

The philosophies espoused by Socrates et al do not depend on Socrates et al having been real people.
Contrast that with your Jesus. I'm aware of a saying attributed to an apostle that goes something like this "If Christ be not Risen, then our faith is in vain".

That's a good point, riku.

From a secular viewpoint the reported words of Christ stand reasonably well against those of Plato and, shorn of divine interpretations, offer much with which we can heartily agree. So allowing Jesus to join Plato and Confucius isn't such a bad thing. We extract from the old what is useful to the new and leave the superstitions and threats where they were.

[rikuoamero]

The philosophies espoused by Socrates et al do not depend on Socrates et al having been real people.
Contrast that with your Jesus. I'm aware of a saying attributed to an apostle that goes something like this "If Christ be not Risen, then our faith is in vain".

That's a good point, riku.

From a secular viewpoint the reported words of Christ stand reasonably well against those of Plato and, shorn of divine interpretations, offer much with which we can heartily agree. So allowing Jesus to join Plato and Confucius isn't such a bad thing. We extract from the old what is useful to the new and leave the superstitions and threats where they were.

Not so me. There is much in the Sermon on the Mount that I disagree with, and find quite stupid. I am aware that there are people who think that sermon to have much wisdom in it.
Basically, if you (generic you) have things that you hold to and the only or main reason you hold to them is that Person X taught them, then how fragile those beliefs are. What happens if Person X is ever revealed to be a liar, or to have never existed?
I can't count the number of people I've talked to who hold to "Thou Shalt Not Murder" because it's a Ten Commandment, because God/Jesus taught it. Well...see how fragile that is? What happens to those people if ever God/Jesus is revealed to be nonexistent? These people have told me, to my horror, they would run around killing and raping.

Basically, for me, if there are good things, good teachings that I hold to, it is not because that person taught it. I hold to "Thou Shalt Not Murder" but I don't hold to it because Jesus taught it, or any other person. I hold to it because it's a good teaching that stands on its own merits. The fact that Jesus (supposedly) taught "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is completely coincidental.

[marco]

Not so me. There is much in the Sermon on the Mount that I disagree with, and find quite stupid. I am aware that there are people who think that sermon to have much wisdom in it.

That accords perfectly with what I've just said: "We extract from the old what is useful to the new and leave the superstitions and threats where they were."

What happens if Person X is ever revealed to be a liar, or to have never existed?
I can't count the number of people I've talked to who hold to "Thou Shalt Not Murder" because it's a Ten Commandment, because God/Jesus taught it. Well...see how fragile that is? What happens to those people if ever God/Jesus is revealed to be nonexistent? These people have told me, to my horror, they would run around killing and raping.

We are in different trains, I think. When I mentioned Plato and Confucius I wasn't including idiots in their list of readers. A lot of what Christ offers is perfectly good and as I say we remove what we don't want. We don't agree with everything Plato says, but his words are interesting and he supplies material for philosophy students.

Basically, for me, if there are good things, good teachings that I hold to, it is not because that person taught it. I hold to "Thou Shalt Not Murder" but I don't hold to it because Jesus taught it, or any other person. I hold to it because it's a good teaching that stands on its own merits. The fact that Jesus (supposedly) taught "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is completely coincidental.

I am not remotely in disagreement. I have said the same thing. You seem to be taking issue because I actually suggested that there are some things in Christ's reported speeches that rank with what Plato might have said. Gandhi likewise uses some memorable lines and offers fine advice. We extract and use - by which I don't mean we bow down and adore. As for fictions -there are many Shakespearean characters that say remarkably wise things - Polonius for example, in Hamlet., or Mark Antony - "the evil that men do lives after them." We can learn from many sources without idolatry and I don't see why Christ is an exception to this.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 37 by marco]

You seem to be taking issue because I actually suggested that there are some things in Christ's reported speeches that rank with what Plato might have said.

Pretty much. I don't see much, if any, hidden wisdom in Jesus speeches. Purely my opinion, but Jesus didn't say anything all that profound. Yeah, he taught to be nice to one another. He also apparently taught to love him and that those who follow him should expect to lose contact with their families.

[JehovahsWitness]

.
We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?

Yes, if we personally find doing so beneficial to our health, mental well being, family and social life and doesn't involve breaking the laws of the land we reside in. Why not? That's what most define as "freedom". We could discover tomorrow that Jesus was for a fact a made up character; if teachings attributed to him are beneficial to an individual then why shouldn't they base their life décisions on them?

[Zzyzx]

.

We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?

Yes, if we personally find doing so beneficial to our health, mental well being, family and social life and doesn't involve breaking the laws of the land we reside in.

If the accounts are not true and one bases life decisions on them, they are making decisions based on illusion rather than reality. Regardless whether there is benefit to mental well being, family and social life (and is legal), the decisions so made are not based on fact but on illusion.

Regarding health benefits from ancient accounts: Basing health / medical decisions on “knowledge� of ancients rather than upon modern medicine is a recipe for disaster – such as praying or using ancient practices for an ill child rather than seeking medical care.

Why not? That's what most define as "freedom".

We do have freedom to base decisions on whatever we like – and to make decisions which are irrational and illogical (or rational and logical). We are wise to learn to make decisions based upon accurate and truthful information (but are not compelled to do so). Many are inclined to confine choices to what “feels good� or is within their comfort (habit) zone.

Often, however, appealing (“feels good�) decisions do not stand up to reality.

We could discover tomorrow that Jesus was for a fact a made up character; if teachings attributed to him are beneficial to an individual then why shouldn't they base their life décisions on them?

If teachings attributed to Jesus and his contemporaries are made up what is the benefit to individuals in worshiping God, supporting religious organizations, building palaces of worship?

“Be nice to each other� doesn't require supernatural beliefs.