Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Jesus Foundationalism

As written by ghjm on reddit

Morals
● Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you.
● If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
● If someone takes your shirt, also give them your coat.
● If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.
● Give to anyone who asks of you, and if someone takes something from you, do not
demand it back.
● Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.
My summary: Do good until it hurts. Then do good some more. This is ​not​ the Golden Rule or
the Wiccan Rede. He doesn't talk about what ​you​ want at all. You are instructed to maximize the
good you do for others, full stop, that's all she wrote.

Beatitudes
● Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.
● Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
● Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.
My summary: In each case the normal idea of what comes next is reversed. So in the
aggregate, I think the idea is to make you question your assumptions. Each of them also
contains the assurance that perseverance will be rewarded and that your difficulties and
troubles are temporary.

Parables
● The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35)
● The parable of the shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8a)
● The parable of the vinyard laborers (Matthew 20:1-15)
My summary: Like the beatitudes, these stories each contain a striking reversal. The person
helpful to strangers is of a persecuted race; the manager is rewarded rather than punished; the
laborers are told to suck it up even though their sense of being cheated seems legitimate. None
of these are easy to understand or interpret. Like the beatitudes, the parables force you to
question your assumptions. Jesus does not provide simple answers and forces you to struggle
for understanding, which I think is the point.

Metaphysics
● Our father in heaven ("Abba, father")
● The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman mixed into about sixty pounds of flour
until it worked all through the dough.
● The mustard seed (Mark 4:30-32)
My summary: God exists, has a fatherly relationship with us (where "us" includes Jesus), and
inhabits the "Kingdom of Heaven." The Kingdom of Heaven is like a tiny seed or grain of yeast,
which nevertheless grows into something greatly powerful. Also, it is in some way mixed into the
fabric of the world around us.
Okay, so where does this leave us with Jesus Foundationalism?

Question 1: Is it consistent?
I think the answer is yes. There is nothing in these utterances of Jesus which contradicts
physical reality or interferes in any way with scientific materialism. The Beatitudes could possibly
be understood as a physical claim of future events, and the objection could be raised that
throughout history, people who mourn have routinely died before finding comfort. But "inherit the
kingdom of heaven" is not a materialist claim, so it's reasonable to suppose that none of the
Beatitudes are intended as materialist claims.
I'm not sure if this solves the problem of classical foundationalism being self-refuting. The
question is: If beliefs are justified ​only​ through Jesus Foundationalism, then is belief in JF
justified? I don't think we have proof that it is, but unlike CF, with JF we don't know that it isn't,
either. It is possible that JF could be constructed from the ​actual​ utterances of Jesus, if only we
had a record of all of them. You can't ​show​ JF to be self-refuting, as you can with CF.

Question 2: Is it Christianity?
Most elements of modern Christianity are missing. There is no original sin, no sacrifice, no
redemption of the world, no requirement to claim salvation in the name of Jesus, no claim that
Jesus is the only path to salvation, and no notion that God has a plan for each of us or that God
directly or immediately answers prayer. However, it ​does​ include the idea that God exists,
Heaven exists, and that our troubles will be lifted. The parable of the vinyard laborers could also
be understood to suggest that every laborer will earn the promised reward, even if they begin
their labors late in the day, which is similar to the promise of modern Christianity.

Question 3: Is it moral?
It lacks many of the moral difficulties of modern fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity. The God
of Israelite genocide is entirely absent. The notion that God demands belief and obedience is
entirely absent. What is demanded of a Christian is ​much more onerous​ than any of this:
Christians must dedicate themselves ​entirely​ to doing good for other people. It's hard to see
how any claim could be sustained that this is an immoral act. Of course it means that practically
nobody calling themselves Christian is actually Christian. But most Christian sects already make
this claim, for various reasons.

Question 4: Is it acceptable to skeptics/atheists?


Skeptics and atheists will of course not believe JF. But followers of modern Christianity are
unacceptable to skeptics/atheists not because they believe what they believe, but because they
insist on passing laws and creating social structures that force specific dogma on to
non-believers (for example, teaching young earth creationism as if it were science). None of this
appears in JF. I don't see any reason why a JF-adherent ought to be unpalatable to a skeptic as
a co-worker or a person whose home you would visit or whose beliefs you would discuss
rationally.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai