Unbelievers. Are there any moral flaws in Jesus?
I can understand how unbelieving works. Unbelievers see people who do believe in a supernatural fiction, --- whom believers must emulate and obey. Believers must believe what is told to them by proxies. Proxies that the bible tells us are likely not accurate.
Gnostic Christians knew that the reality of a supernatural God can never be proven, --- without one popping up. We also recognized that one God popping up would be a proof of concept for the many Gods theories that Gnostics favored.
In other words, debating the reality of God or Gods of a supernatural type was a waste of time, and that his moral fibre should be where we put our debate and arguing skill.
Moral arguments can have an end game, --- where people learn how to live better, --- instead of learning about a supernatural God that we can never emulate or believe in.
I think that is how an atheist thinks like, from my own past.
From a moral view, with open minds, Gnostic Christians found moral flaws in Yahweh. Those same flaws, to some extent, were put into the Roman Jesus. Not so for the Gnostic Jesus.
This question is more for the unbelievers because I expect less bias from those who do not expect Armageddon.
The question does not seem to be very clearly put, since you list at least five Jesus persons: the biblical, the Roman, the Gnostic, the one who is identical to Yahweh and the possible original one behind the myth. Does the question in the first line refer to all of them, or only one ?
As to the biblical Jesus of the textual account, which is the one which interests me the most, I would say yes, quite a few moral flaws: the promotion of racism, (It is better to give food to dogs, etc.) the promotion of belief in inherited original sin, the promotion of the idea of making no investment because of the immediate world ending, the idea of thought crime (Thinking of adultery is committing it.) the promotion of violence ( Cleansing the temple.) and several others.
Do I think that on balance the Jesus of the text was more morally good than bad, especially in the effects of his legacy on the following ages ? Yes, in the later Roman empire, the dark ages an the middle ages, perhaps, after that, into modern times, perhaps not, and into the future almost certainly not.
Debating whether Jesus had any moral flaws is beside the point. Don't get me wrong; Jesus is alright with me. But if he ever existed, he's been dead for over two thousand years. So-called Christian's, however, continue to plague us with their militant sanctimony, their "I know better than you" hubris, and their rank hypocrisy. So instead of arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, let's talk about how we can purge superstition from the human psyche.
Jesus that you read in the Bible is an amalgamation NOT a person. He was fabricated in the first century as propaganda. Much like Robin Hood, King Arthur, and The 3 Bears. Fictional characters can have whatever morality traits the reader wants to assign.
A morality story told to promote an immoral agenda.
He disses his mother. He rejects his family.
He hates Samaritans.
He tells his followers that anybody not with him is against him.
He murders a fig tree because he's hungry for figs which are out of season.
He encourages his followers to not wash their hands before eating. Since he's God, he knows about germ theory, which means he's deliberately spreading disease.
Jesus is petty, paranoid and vengeful, just like his dad. Oh, wait. He IS his dad. So let's also give him credit for all the heinous shit perpetrated by Yahweh in the Old Testament.
Xtians argue that Jesus was human, but if he were, he was subject to the same flaws/sins that humans are subject to. He said that to think of adultery/sex was to commit it. Jesus obviously understood the act of sex; when he considered it, did that not make him a fornicator? Even if he did not include himself in the act, isn't that like watching porn? If he thought about sex without getting aroused, then he was not human. If he got aroused, how could he not imagine having sex? That's also not human.
Well whilst I don't accept the movement of the goal posts you're attempting there it's not that hard to state moral flaws in the character of Jesus. He seems to have some anger management issues for a start. Cursing fig trees throwing trantrums at the money changers at the temple. He even got angry at a leper that asked to be healed.
I'm so glad you asked. He promoted the concept of infinite punishment for finite crime, encouraged followers to abandon their families in pursuit of reward in an imaginary world which never came to be as he promised (Second Coming), upheld inhumane the laws of the Old Testament such as slavery, broke the 5th Commandment with his condescension toward his mother, and showed anger to those who would not listen to him. For a more detail examination of his flaws, I refer you to the video below which is an excerpt from Robert Ingersoll's ABOUT THE HOLY BIBLE, of the parts :
VIII. THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHRIST
IX. IS CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE?
X. WHY SHOULD WE PLACE CHRIST AT THE TOP AND SUMMIT OF THE HUMAN RACE?
He, Santa Claus and Tinkerbell all have the same moral flaws, the same as any other fictional character since they don't exist and never did.
As far as the fables go, if they were real, would they have moral short-comings .... I think the answer is an obvious "Yes".
The Bible claims Jesus was sent as a messenger to all mankind ..... so why didn't he leave a note, a stone tablet or 10 foot eternally flaming letters? His mission was to be a messenger to all mankind, those would have been successful if he were who he was claimed to be. Having failed that mission, signing up for the mission in the first place would be a moral failing.
Since it is all fiction, how about skipping only what is in the bibly and look at other stories, the ones left out, like Jesus's earliest miracle: as a child, getting angry and pushing a friend off a roof. Then, after the kid died, bringing him back to life.
I do not think it is an accidental flaw, however, the indoctrinated mindset that religion has imposed on people of "blaming the victim and not holding the guilty accountable" has caused major problems in society.
It is actually in their doctrine. Supposedly, an innocent man was tortured and executed so that the guilty may go free.
Yes, assuming he actually existed, he told people to drop everything and follow him. Caring for family and children and the future didn't matter because the world was soon going to end anyway. Christianity is nothing more than a death cult that got lucky.
Yes. He took 12 men from there families leaving their children to the scourges that women & children suffer without a man to pseudo protect & provide for them. He spent time in a desert hallucinating & hearing voices. Off his meds no doubt. A "fisher of men"? Sounds like a gay bar.