Loading...My book, Love Thy Stranger: How the Teachings of Jesus Transformed the Moral Conscience of the West, is coming out this week (March 24) with Simon & Schuster. You can get it most anywhere you get your books.
I have started doing “book events” for it, where I explain it and read a few portions of it for 20-25 minutes or so before taking questions. I decided that the best approach would be to read the beginning and end, while summarizing the far more extensive middle in my own words on the spot.
And I thought blog readers would like to see what the beginning and end would look like, in case they’re interested in seeing what lies in between in the book itself. This will take three posts. The first is the Introduction to the book (here below). I did publish a similar post a couple of years ago, but I added some bits and edited it for the published version. Here it is:
******************************
Introduction
Strange(r) Altruism
Most people I know are moved by
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I read your book God’s Problem and learned that although you are an atheist, you feel very deep empathy, sympathy, and compassion for people who are currently experiencing severe trials in the world. In fact, I felt that your sensitivity to human suffering seemed even greater than my own, even though I am a Christian.
This made me wonder whether compassion might be influenced not so much by religious belief itself, but perhaps by neurochemical factors in the brain, such as oxytocin.
Buddhism also teaches compassion, but my impression is that the differences between Buddhists themselves can sometimes be greater than the differences between Buddhists and non-Buddhists. That is one of the reasons I began to think about this possibility.
Shinji＠Tokyo
Yes, I think it’s the physiology of the brain that makes the difference; we simply have no control over our hormones, etc., and they are determinative for so much of what we think feel and are….
Dear Dr Ehrman-If i may say so, I am so looking forward to reading your latest book. There is a small grammatical question I would very much like to ask your view of, if I may? Is the name ‘Paul’, deriving from
the Latin paulus, meaning “small,” “little,” or “humble”, closer to elachistos or mikros is greek?
Good question. I don’t know for certain, but it’s what I’ve read.
Dear Dr Ehrman-Thank you for your kind reply. In the interest of clarity on my part, you would state that ‘Paulus’ is linguistically closer to the greek mikros, rather than elachistos?
elachistos is the superlative form of mikros — “the smallest” I suppose Paulus is more like mikros.
How timely your book is!
Awesome topic. Three questions off the top of my head:
1] You said that similar altruistic teachings can be found among other Jewish teachers of Jesus’ day. Can you give a few names and examples?
2] You briefly mentioned Asian cultures. In your view, do Asian cultures (or any other cultures) have the sort of turbocharged altruism that you are saying Jesus brought to the West?
3] What is the first example you know of where Jesus or a Christian sent aid to someone they would never know?
1. Sirach. Hillel.
2. I don’t know how to answer that
3. When Jesus allegedly healed the Syro-Phoenecian woman’s daugher long distance.
God causes or lets happen earthquakes, famines and floods, then He is pleased when we respond and help the victims. What did early Christian thinkers say about that conundrum?
They agreed. And thought either that evil supernatural forces caused the damage or that God did for reasons of his own.
What I was trying to say is that you have a truly kind and loving heart
THanks you. I appreciate it. Wish I could show it more!!
There are no ‘Christian moral principles’. Moral principles are concepts like honesty, fairness, kindness, altruism, etc.
Principles exist independently of any religion. There are no principles that are unique to or originated from Christianity.
Rather than referring to ‘Christian principles’, it would be more accurate to say that there are Christian norms, values, and practices – – which may or not be moral.
Are they really “not written into human DNA”? Is Christianity a separate sentient life form?
I’m not a scientist so I don’t know about the DNA part, but I do know that the practice of helping strangers was the product of humans – – NOT Christianity.
It was expressed in part through Christianity, along with many other practices that may or may not have been consistent with moral principles.
The reason the concept became an accepted practice is because it aligned with moral principles.
If Jesus taught ‘hate thy stranger’ and similar messages, he no doubt would have been rejected. It is our “human DNA” that allows us to make the distinction, and that is ultimately responsible.
As evidenced by the way the Christian practice of slavery died out because it did not align with moral principles.
So … you recognize that: there is currently a “heightened hatred and hostility toward the “other.” “; and we live in “times of power and dominance”.
And to address this, you write a book that should reasonably be expected to support the overall morality of a religion that is: in large part responsible for the heightened hatred and hostility toward the “other”; and the ‘power and dominance’ that is doing so much harm?
Christianity may not be a monolith but people often think of it as a monolith that is in and of itself moral – and that’s the problem.
Do you seriously think that the take away from your book will be that people should act in accordance with the few practices that you mention? I doubt it.
I think the main take away will be that your book supports the (false) notion Christianity is the source of our morality.
Your book will likely be used to support the efforts of those who persecute marginalized groups, and who use Christianity to gain power and dominance to the detriment of others.
Wouldn’t it be better to urge people to focus on actual moral principles that are independent of any religion?
I doubt if you would think that’s the point if you read the book, since I say the opposite.
Thanks for responding.
In your own introduction you suggest:
“These are the issues we will be considering in the chapters that follow: the Christian revolution in ethics based on love, charitable giving, and forgiveness.
There can hardly be a more important time to reflect on these Christian moral principles.”
And there are similar references about reliance on Christianity in the introduction and in promotional materials.
Are you saying that later on in the book you say the opposite of your assertions in the introduction and the promotions for the book?
You can’t advocate for people to follow a narrow set of what you consider to be Christian practices or values, and not expect them (or many of them) to project it to Christianity overall. That was my point.
If one of the goals of the book was to advocate for certain moral behaviors, why do it in the context of religion? Make an argument that can stand on its own merits rather than trying to justify it by linking it to Jesus or Christianity.
No one should be doing anything simply because they think Jesus or Christianity supported it.
As you know, I’m not religious, so I don’t urge for morality on religious grounds. And I don’t think because Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity advocate one morality or another should have any bearing on our moral judgments. But they are worth considering, and if anyone does claim to be a follower of Jesus, it would very much be useful if they actdually followed his teachings. My book is very much more specific in its claims than you are getting from a brief reading of a few lines. And CONSIDERING the relevance of important moral teachings by Jesus, Confucius, Gandhi, or anone else doesn’t mean converting to Judaism, Christianity, Confusionism, Hinduism, or anything else.