Jesus Christ: Moral Teacher or Cruel Sadist?

There are some things in society which appear to just be taken as a given, regardless of your political, ideological or religious persuasion. They are all obvious, and mostly common sense that any morally functional person would agree with. Murder is bad. Kindness is good. Not in the least bit controversial because they are pretty much accepted by humanity as a whole. There are, of course, those who disagree with these assertions but it is still shocking (or, at the very least surprising) when this occurs.

I would like to take this opportunity to challenge a certain idea which seems to be held by people without question regardless of affiliation. Namely: that Jesus Christ was a good person and an exemplary role model.

While there are a few people who are speaking out against this idea already, it seems as though the majority opinion is in Jesus' favor. Bill Maher (an atheist comedian who is often very critical of religion) states that Jesus was a great man who can be admired even if he was not the son of god. Political Editor of New Statesman magazine Mehdi Hasan (a practicing Muslim) likes to extol the virtues of Christ by claiming him as a liberal. People on both sides of the political spectrum like to claim Jesus as their own, or at least express admiration for the man. My question is simple: Why? Why would you want to have someone like Jesus on your side? Why must he be praised, even by those who claim not to believe?

I did not choose this topic without reason. I sincerely question the idea that he is to be admired. As I'm sure you will know by now I am an atheist. So right off the bat, the idea that this man was the human incarnation of a celestial creator is not one I lend much credence. My specific problem is with those who also take this view, yet still insist on claiming Jesus was a moral man.

One of the most common arguments in defense of Jesus and the New Testament is that the barbarism of the Old Testament is undone by the forgiving, loving Christ. However, if one were to read the Bible, it would soon be discovered that it is a faulty argument. For example, in the Old Testament, when genocide, infanticide, slavery, incest and rape are all condoned, demanded or glorified there is no mention of Hell. Once the god of the Old Testament was done with you, that was it. Not so with the loving, forgiving Jesus. It is in the New Testament that Jesus claims that his followers should fear a god who "is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28, also mentioned in Luke 12:5), condemns entire cities to this ghoulish afterlife (Matthew 11:20-24 & Luke 10:10-15) and also claims that anyone who does not believe in him will be "cast ... into the fire, and ... burned" (John 15:6).

With this terrifying vision of what awaits unbelievers after they die, what does Jesus recommend as a means for cleansing sin in the here-and-now? Self mutilation, naturally. For it is better to have cut your own hand or leg off, or plucked out your own eye "rather than having two hands or two feet ... with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire" (Matthew 18:8-9).

Oh, and those who are cast into the fires of Hell can not only expect punishment, but "everlasting punishment" (Matthew 25:46). So basically, if you don't follow the teachings of Jesus, your soul will be tortured forever and ever. No appeal. No second chances.

It was not just the frankly hideous ideas about eternal hellfire that leads me to question Jesus' moral character. He reaffirms the Old Testament rule that children who "curseth father or mother, let him die the death" (Mark 7:10). That sounds awfully forgiving, doesn't it?

I would now like to turn to the work of famous Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. He pointed out in his book Mere Christianity that arguments for Jesus as a moral teacher were flawed. He stated that:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell... But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to (p40-41).

Lewis goes on to affirm his personal faith that Jesus was in fact the son of god. However, his argument against those who do not believe yet still claim Jesus as a good moral teacher is rightfully scathing. Anyone who reads the words of Christ and does not believe he was the son of god cannot also claim that he had any moral seriousness. The sort of things Jesus promoted were just as (if not more) horrific as the barbarism of the Old Testament.

I would like to conclude by saying that I harbor no ill will to any believing Christians. I do not share your beliefs but you are perfectly entitled to have them. My problem is with non-believers who simply bend to the conventional wisdom that Jesus, messiah or not, was a great person. All the evidence one needs is right there in the gospels. Any mortal man who uses ideas like Hell to frighten people to follow him, or encourages parents to murder disobedient children, or people to mutilate themselves is not, by any sensible person's definition, a good moral teacher.