A Few Words About Christian Self-Righteousness

[Derideo_Te]

here's just an additional thought. If you were to ask an evangelical, or Baptist, or Catholic or whatever why they do not follow the principles of the Book of Mormon, they would probably answer "well I am not Mormon so those principles don't apply to me". Exactly, so why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians must adhere to their principles? Unless they define themselves as "Christian", Christian principles do not apply to them, just like Mormon principles do not apply to non-Mormons.

Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul argues (paraphrasing) 'what people outside the church do is not our concern. Our concern is what people inside the church are doing'. Hell, Paul got it 2,000 years ago.

It is certainly reasonable for a person who feels their belief system is the best to try to convince others of their beliefs. In a pure sense, that is a gift. It can be seen as an honest effort to improve another's life. However, demanding others follow the rules of your religion is not the same as convincing them to share your beliefs.

I agree. I see nothing wrong in offering someone your perspective and telling them how faith, or a lack thereof, has affected your life and giving them the opportunity to choose a similar path. Insisting that they do, or getting pissed if they choose something else, is quite a different story. That's what I am getting at when I am always saying 'walk your own path with God and let others walk theirs'.

FYI I became an Atheist after God and I came to a mutually beneficial agreement.

In return with not bothering him repeatedly with the inane details of my life and begging him for things he has absolutely no intention of ever doing I would be free to not have to waste my life pretending to worship him and could take full credit for my own accomplishments and failures as the case may be.

When I bumped into him again the other day he said that he wished more people would adopt the same relationship that we have.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Jesus was the most notable liberal I have ever heard of.

 

[BULLDOG]

If a person lacks the capacity for true understanding of the faith they have claimed to embrace, then they haven't embraced that faith at all. They have just chosen certain aspects of it, and ignore the rest. Perhaps they should be pitied, but they are not,and should not be considered practitioners of that faith.

AH!!! You know what just struck me? What Christians like those (maybe all Christians - myself included) could benefit from? A sponsor. We should learn from AA and have someone on speed dial so when we get all high and mighty and are about to do something stupid we can call that person and he can say, "WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! Hold on mother fucker. How is that gambling problem of yours doing? You still polishing off a 12 pack a night? You still jacking off in the shower thinking about porn? Ok well then maybe you need to shut the hell up and worry about that stuff instead of what those people over there are doing."

I like it. I guess most people would call that a 'pastor' but sometimes they need sponsors of their own.

Sadly, there are too few pastors, and too many TV Preacher wannabes

 

[BULLDOG]

here's just an additional thought. If you were to ask an evangelical, or Baptist, or Catholic or whatever why they do not follow the principles of the Book of Mormon, they would probably answer "well I am not Mormon so those principles don't apply to me". Exactly, so why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians must adhere to their principles? Unless they define themselves as "Christian", Christian principles do not apply to them, just like Mormon principles do not apply to non-Mormons.

Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul argues (paraphrasing) 'what people outside the church do is not our concern. Our concern is what people inside the church are doing'. Hell, Paul got it 2,000 years ago.

It is certainly reasonable for a person who feels their belief system is the best to try to convince others of their beliefs. In a pure sense, that is a gift. It can be seen as an honest effort to improve another's life. However, demanding others follow the rules of your religion is not the same as convincing them to share your beliefs.

I agree. I see nothing wrong in offering someone your perspective and telling them how faith, or a lack thereof, has affected your life and giving them the opportunity to choose a similar path. Insisting that they do, or getting pissed if they choose something else, is quite a different story. That's what I am getting at when I am always saying 'walk your own path with God and let others walk theirs'.

FYI I became an Atheist after God and I came to a mutually beneficial agreement.

In return with not bothering him repeatedly with the inane details of my life and begging him for things he has absolutely no intention of ever doing I would be free to not have to waste my life pretending to worship him and could take full credit for my own accomplishments and failures as the case may be.

When I bumped into him again the other day he said that he wished more people would adopt the same relationship that we have.

I think you might be better off to talk to him a little more often, but if it works for you two, it's none of my business. I can't promise that I won't mention I ran into you the next time I talk to him though.

 

[Derideo_Te]

OT but I would really like to thank both BluePhantom and BULLDOG for what is arguably the best thread I have ever enjoyed in this subforum.

 

[BluePhantom]

here's just an additional thought. If you were to ask an evangelical, or Baptist, or Catholic or whatever why they do not follow the principles of the Book of Mormon, they would probably answer "well I am not Mormon so those principles don't apply to me". Exactly, so why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians must adhere to their principles? Unless they define themselves as "Christian", Christian principles do not apply to them, just like Mormon principles do not apply to non-Mormons.

Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul argues (paraphrasing) 'what people outside the church do is not our concern. Our concern is what people inside the church are doing'. Hell, Paul got it 2,000 years ago.

It is certainly reasonable for a person who feels their belief system is the best to try to convince others of their beliefs. In a pure sense, that is a gift. It can be seen as an honest effort to improve another's life. However, demanding others follow the rules of your religion is not the same as convincing them to share your beliefs.

I agree. I see nothing wrong in offering someone your perspective and telling them how faith, or a lack thereof, has affected your life and giving them the opportunity to choose a similar path. Insisting that they do, or getting pissed if they choose something else, is quite a different story. That's what I am getting at when I am always saying 'walk your own path with God and let others walk theirs'.

FYI I became an Atheist after God and I came to a mutually beneficial agreement.

In return with not bothering him repeatedly with the inane details of my life and begging him for things he has absolutely no intention of ever doing I would be free to not have to waste my life pretending to worship him and could take full credit for my own accomplishments and failures as the case may be.

When I bumped into him again the other day he said that he wished more people would adopt the same relationship that we have.

If it works for you and God it's none of my concern. It's your path to walk, brother.

 

[Derideo_Te]

here's just an additional thought. If you were to ask an evangelical, or Baptist, or Catholic or whatever why they do not follow the principles of the Book of Mormon, they would probably answer "well I am not Mormon so those principles don't apply to me". Exactly, so why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians must adhere to their principles? Unless they define themselves as "Christian", Christian principles do not apply to them, just like Mormon principles do not apply to non-Mormons.

Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul argues (paraphrasing) 'what people outside the church do is not our concern. Our concern is what people inside the church are doing'. Hell, Paul got it 2,000 years ago.

It is certainly reasonable for a person who feels their belief system is the best to try to convince others of their beliefs. In a pure sense, that is a gift. It can be seen as an honest effort to improve another's life. However, demanding others follow the rules of your religion is not the same as convincing them to share your beliefs.

I agree. I see nothing wrong in offering someone your perspective and telling them how faith, or a lack thereof, has affected your life and giving them the opportunity to choose a similar path. Insisting that they do, or getting pissed if they choose something else, is quite a different story. That's what I am getting at when I am always saying 'walk your own path with God and let others walk theirs'.

FYI I became an Atheist after God and I came to a mutually beneficial agreement.

In return with not bothering him repeatedly with the inane details of my life and begging him for things he has absolutely no intention of ever doing I would be free to not have to waste my life pretending to worship him and could take full credit for my own accomplishments and failures as the case may be.

When I bumped into him again the other day he said that he wished more people would adopt the same relationship that we have.

I think you might be better off to talk to him a little more often, but if it works for you two, it's none of my business. I can't promise that I won't mention I ran into you the next time I talk to him though.

He is really busy and I hate to bother him unnecessarily. But feel free to mention my name when you do chat to him. He and I share the same sense of gallows humor.

 

[Avatar4321]

If a person lacks the capacity for true understanding of the faith they have claimed to embrace, then they haven't embraced that faith at all. They have just chosen certain aspects of it, and ignore the rest. Perhaps they should be pitied, but they are not,and should not be considered practitioners of that faith.

I see your point. It's a reasonable argument. I will concede that one.

Don't get me wrong. Nobody is perfect, and anyone is subject to fall short of what ever belief system they have chosen. You don't have to be a perfect Christian to be a Christian, (God knows I'm not) but you do have to embrace the basic tenants of that belief, and strive to maintain those tenants.

And I will add that it isn't all that easy to live up to those tenants either.

Speaking strictly as an Atheist I only have myself to answer to when I fall short and I am pretty harsh on myself when I do! I have one absolute rule which is that I will never lie to myself under any circumstances. So when I eff up I admit to myself and try to make amends to set it right asap.

For those who believe that they can simply "ask for forgiveness" and their transgressions will evaporate that doesn't work for me. I have to take action such as admitting I was wrong or apologizing or whatever is appropriate to the party that I have transgressed against.

Not saying that I expect others to live as I do, including those who are Atheists. Just my own personal moral code that I adhere to for no one else's benefit but my own peace of mind so that I can face myself in the mirror each day.

just curious, how does someone ask forgiveness but no admit doing wrong or apologizing? Asking forgiveness and apologizing are the same step and the very act of asking forgiveness admits guilt.

not trying undermine what you say I just don't understand it.

 

[Avatar4321]

If a person lacks the capacity for true understanding of the faith they have claimed to embrace, then they haven't embraced that faith at all. They have just chosen certain aspects of it, and ignore the rest. Perhaps they should be pitied, but they are not,and should not be considered practitioners of that faith.

AH!!! You know what just struck me? What Christians like those (maybe all Christians - myself included) could benefit from? A sponsor. We should learn from AA and have someone on speed dial so when we get all high and mighty and are about to do something stupid we can call that person and he can say, "WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! Hold on mother fucker. How is that gambling problem of yours doing? You still polishing off a 12 pack a night? You still jacking off in the shower thinking about porn? Ok well then maybe you need to shut the hell up and worry about that stuff instead of what those people over there are doing."

I like it. I guess most people would call that a 'pastor' but sometimes they need sponsors of their own.

interesting that you should mention something like that. We have such a program at church, two actually.

the priesthood has assignments to visit every family at least each month. We are to assist them in their Christian duties and take care of one another.

the sisters have a similar program which involves reaching out to the other sisters called visiting teaching.

what you are describing is exactly how the programs work when they are working as they should. Obviously hiccups occur because we are all flawed and don't all take our assignments seriously.

 

[Avatar4321]

Jesus was the most notable liberal I have ever heard of.

it never ceases to amaze me how liberals try to make Jesus like them rather than trying to be like Jesus.

 

[BULLDOG]

If a person lacks the capacity for true understanding of the faith they have claimed to embrace, then they haven't embraced that faith at all. They have just chosen certain aspects of it, and ignore the rest. Perhaps they should be pitied, but they are not,and should not be considered practitioners of that faith.

I see your point. It's a reasonable argument. I will concede that one.

Don't get me wrong. Nobody is perfect, and anyone is subject to fall short of what ever belief system they have chosen. You don't have to be a perfect Christian to be a Christian, (God knows I'm not) but you do have to embrace the basic tenants of that belief, and strive to maintain those tenants.

And I will add that it isn't all that easy to live up to those tenants either.

Speaking strictly as an Atheist I only have myself to answer to when I fall short and I am pretty harsh on myself when I do! I have one absolute rule which is that I will never lie to myself under any circumstances. So when I eff up I admit to myself and try to make amends to set it right asap.

For those who believe that they can simply "ask for forgiveness" and their transgressions will evaporate that doesn't work for me. I have to take action such as admitting I was wrong or apologizing or whatever is appropriate to the party that I have transgressed against.

Not saying that I expect others to live as I do, including those who are Atheists. Just my own personal moral code that I adhere to for no one else's benefit but my own peace of mind so that I can face myself in the mirror each day.

just curious, how does someone ask forgiveness but no admit doing wrong or apologizing? Asking forgiveness and apologizing are the same step and the very act of asking forgiveness admits guilt.

not trying undermine what you say I just don't understand it.

I would never try to speak for TE, but I think he is referring to the practice of confessing to a priest who has no relation to any other person who might have been wronged. His acknowledging the necessity of taking personal responsibility and making things right is certainly in line with Christian and most other religious beliefs. It is we religious people who have been derelict in not making it clear that asking for Gods forgiveness must include making things right for anyone else we might have wronged.

 

[BluePhantom]

just curious, how does someone ask forgiveness but no admit doing wrong or apologizing? Asking forgiveness and apologizing are the same step and the very act of asking forgiveness admits guilt..

Well think of it like this. When someone says "I am sorry that I hurt you by doing X, but you upset me by doing Y" what they are really saying is 'I am sorry that you caused me to hurt you'...'I am sorry that is it your fault.' I hear crap like that all the damned time.

 

[BluePhantom]

Jesus was the most notable liberal I have ever heard of.

it never ceases to amaze me how liberals try to make Jesus like them rather than trying to be like Jesus.

Oh....I think Jesus would be very liberal about some things. Others, not so much. You are going to have a very difficult time convincing me that Jesus would support abortion, for example, or big government. But he would probably support liberal positions on poverty and the environment, for example. He certainly would not support the stereotypical liberal position on religion.

 

[BULLDOG]

Jesus was the most notable liberal I have ever heard of.

it never ceases to amaze me how liberals try to make Jesus like them rather than trying to be like Jesus.

Oh....I think Jesus would be very liberal about some things. Others, not so much. You are going to have a very difficult time convincing me that Jesus would support abortion, for example, or big government. But he would probably support liberal positions on poverty and the environment, for example. He certainly would not support the stereotypical liberal position on religion.

You might want to re-read Numbers 5. Instructions for a man who thinks his wife has been fooling around sure sounds like an abortion to me.

 

[BluePhantom]

Jesus was the most notable liberal I have ever heard of.

it never ceases to amaze me how liberals try to make Jesus like them rather than trying to be like Jesus.

Oh....I think Jesus would be very liberal about some things. Others, not so much. You are going to have a very difficult time convincing me that Jesus would support abortion, for example, or big government. But he would probably support liberal positions on poverty and the environment, for example. He certainly would not support the stereotypical liberal position on religion.

You might want to re-read Numbers 5. Instructions for a man who thinks his wife has been fooling around sure sounds like an abortion to me.

I am very well aware of Number 5 and I agree with you. I have used that chapter several times in discussions myself. However, Jesus did not always agree with the ancient ways and interpretation of Torah. 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath', the woman taken in adultery in John (which granted was added centuries later but reveals a lot about the traditional view of Jesus' attitude in some respects)...lots of places where Jesus said 'you have heard this, but I tell you this'. One would have to go a lot further than quoting Number 5 to make me believe Jesus would approve

 

[BULLDOG]

Jesus was the most notable liberal I have ever heard of.

it never ceases to amaze me how liberals try to make Jesus like them rather than trying to be like Jesus.

Oh....I think Jesus would be very liberal about some things. Others, not so much. You are going to have a very difficult time convincing me that Jesus would support abortion, for example, or big government. But he would probably support liberal positions on poverty and the environment, for example. He certainly would not support the stereotypical liberal position on religion.

You might want to re-read Numbers 5. Instructions for a man who thinks his wife has been fooling around sure sounds like an abortion to me.

I am very well aware of Number 5 and I agree with you. I have used that chapter several times in discussions myself. However, Jesus did not always agree with the ancient ways and interpretation of Torah. 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath', the woman taken in adultery in John (which granted was added centuries later but reveals a lot about the traditional view of Jesus' attitude in some respects)...lots of places where Jesus said 'you have heard this, but I tell you this'. One would have to go a lot further than quoting Number 5 to make me believe Jesus would approve

Jesus himself said he wasn't here to change the law, but to fulfill it. The situation of the woman caught in adultery had nothing to do with abortion, and you are stretching pretty hard to try to associate the two completely different subjects. I suspect you already know that, but are just grabbing for something to say. What exactly did Jesus say or do to make you believe abortion is wrong in every situation? I'm not talking about late term abortion after the fetus is fully formed and viable separate from the mother. That was outlawed a long time ago.

 

[BluePhantom]

it never ceases to amaze me how liberals try to make Jesus like them rather than trying to be like Jesus.

Oh....I think Jesus would be very liberal about some things. Others, not so much. You are going to have a very difficult time convincing me that Jesus would support abortion, for example, or big government. But he would probably support liberal positions on poverty and the environment, for example. He certainly would not support the stereotypical liberal position on religion.

You might want to re-read Numbers 5. Instructions for a man who thinks his wife has been fooling around sure sounds like an abortion to me.

I am very well aware of Number 5 and I agree with you. I have used that chapter several times in discussions myself. However, Jesus did not always agree with the ancient ways and interpretation of Torah. 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath', the woman taken in adultery in John (which granted was added centuries later but reveals a lot about the traditional view of Jesus' attitude in some respects)...lots of places where Jesus said 'you have heard this, but I tell you this'. One would have to go a lot further than quoting Number 5 to make me believe Jesus would approve

Jesus himself said he wasn't here to change the law, but to fulfill it. The situation of the woman caught in adultery had nothing to do with abortion, and you are stretching pretty hard to try to associate the two completely different subjects. I suspect you already know that, but are just grabbing for something to say. What exactly did Jesus say or do to make you believe abortion is wrong in every situation? I'm not talking about late term abortion after the fetus is fully formed and viable separate from the mother. That was outlawed a long time ago.

I am not trying to equate the woman taken in adultery with abortion. I was providing an example wherein the Law said to do one thing and Jesus rejected that and instead taught something else. There are many times in the gospel accounts where Jesus did that. So, simply because Numbers 5 discusses what appears to be an abortion (and I would agree that it is), it does not demonstrate that Jesus would have agreed with that. He may have or may not have. The Bible, obviously, does not record his position on abortion so we are left to speculate.

 

[BULLDOG]

it never ceases to amaze me how liberals try to make Jesus like them rather than trying to be like Jesus.

Oh....I think Jesus would be very liberal about some things. Others, not so much. You are going to have a very difficult time convincing me that Jesus would support abortion, for example, or big government. But he would probably support liberal positions on poverty and the environment, for example. He certainly would not support the stereotypical liberal position on religion.

You might want to re-read Numbers 5. Instructions for a man who thinks his wife has been fooling around sure sounds like an abortion to me.

I am very well aware of Number 5 and I agree with you. I have used that chapter several times in discussions myself. However, Jesus did not always agree with the ancient ways and interpretation of Torah. 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath', the woman taken in adultery in John (which granted was added centuries later but reveals a lot about the traditional view of Jesus' attitude in some respects)...lots of places where Jesus said 'you have heard this, but I tell you this'. One would have to go a lot further than quoting Number 5 to make me believe Jesus would approve

Jesus himself said he wasn't here to change the law, but to fulfill it. The situation of the woman caught in adultery had nothing to do with abortion, and you are stretching pretty hard to try to associate the two completely different subjects. I suspect you already know that, but are just grabbing for something to say. What exactly did Jesus say or do to make you believe abortion is wrong in every situation? I'm not talking about late term abortion after the fetus is fully formed and viable separate from the mother. That was outlawed a long time ago.

I am not trying to equate the woman taken in adultery with abortion. I was providing an example wherein the Law said to do one thing and Jesus rejected that and instead taught something else. There are many times in the gospel accounts where Jesus did that. So, simply because Numbers 5 discusses what appears to be an abortion (and I would agree that it is), it does not demonstrate that Jesus would have agreed with that. He may have or may not have. The Bible, obviously, does not record his position on abortion so we are left to speculate.

Jesus didn't reject the law. If he would have, they wouldn't have listened to him anyway. They saw him as a teacher, not as someone with the authority to change any law. He merely pointed out the fact that they were all sinful as well. It was their decision that they were not worthy to stone her because of their own sin. How is that rejecting any law? How is that substituting anything? At least you admit that your religious beliefs on abortion are speculation of what you think Jesus might have thought, You just haven't shown any reason to believe he would support what you think about it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If a person lacks the capacity for true understanding of the faith they have claimed to embrace, then they haven't embraced that faith at all. They have just chosen certain aspects of it, and ignore the rest. Perhaps they should be pitied, but they are not,and should not be considered practitioners of that faith.

I see your point. It's a reasonable argument. I will concede that one.

Don't get me wrong. Nobody is perfect, and anyone is subject to fall short of what ever belief system they have chosen. You don't have to be a perfect Christian to be a Christian, (God knows I'm not) but you do have to embrace the basic tenants of that belief, and strive to maintain those tenants.

And I will add that it isn't all that easy to live up to those tenants either.

Speaking strictly as an Atheist I only have myself to answer to when I fall short and I am pretty harsh on myself when I do! I have one absolute rule which is that I will never lie to myself under any circumstances. So when I eff up I admit to myself and try to make amends to set it right asap.

For those who believe that they can simply "ask for forgiveness" and their transgressions will evaporate that doesn't work for me. I have to take action such as admitting I was wrong or apologizing or whatever is appropriate to the party that I have transgressed against.

Not saying that I expect others to live as I do, including those who are Atheists. Just my own personal moral code that I adhere to for no one else's benefit but my own peace of mind so that I can face myself in the mirror each day.

just curious, how does someone ask forgiveness but no admit doing wrong or apologizing? Asking forgiveness and apologizing are the same step and the very act of asking forgiveness admits guilt.

not trying undermine what you say I just don't understand it.

Let's use an example to illustrate the point.

You are having a really bad day and when you get to the office you discover that someone has left the windows wide open all night long and the rain has got in and soaked everything on your desk. You are so angry you assume that it was the cleaning staff so you pick up the phone and ream out the janitorial supervisor using some extremely vulgar language.

That evening you are feeling somewhat remorseful for your outburst since you have now calmed down so you get on your knees and pay for forgiveness.

At that point you are all in the clear right? Your sins of using foul language is forgiven and you can just forget that the entire incident ever happened, right?

Wrong!

You never apologized to the janitorial supervisor!

Your asking for forgiveness just made you feel better about yourself but it still left a bad odor behind with someone who had nothing whatsoever to even do with what happened.

Those windows were actually left open by staff who were working late after the cleaning crew had left and they decided to air the place out because they had ordered in some very spicy food and they know you don't like food smells in the office area.

Forgiveness and apologizing are not one and the same thing at all.

 

[BluePhantom]

Oh....I think Jesus would be very liberal about some things. Others, not so much. You are going to have a very difficult time convincing me that Jesus would support abortion, for example, or big government. But he would probably support liberal positions on poverty and the environment, for example. He certainly would not support the stereotypical liberal position on religion.

You might want to re-read Numbers 5. Instructions for a man who thinks his wife has been fooling around sure sounds like an abortion to me.

I am very well aware of Number 5 and I agree with you. I have used that chapter several times in discussions myself. However, Jesus did not always agree with the ancient ways and interpretation of Torah. 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath', the woman taken in adultery in John (which granted was added centuries later but reveals a lot about the traditional view of Jesus' attitude in some respects)...lots of places where Jesus said 'you have heard this, but I tell you this'. One would have to go a lot further than quoting Number 5 to make me believe Jesus would approve

Jesus himself said he wasn't here to change the law, but to fulfill it. The situation of the woman caught in adultery had nothing to do with abortion, and you are stretching pretty hard to try to associate the two completely different subjects. I suspect you already know that, but are just grabbing for something to say. What exactly did Jesus say or do to make you believe abortion is wrong in every situation? I'm not talking about late term abortion after the fetus is fully formed and viable separate from the mother. That was outlawed a long time ago.

I am not trying to equate the woman taken in adultery with abortion. I was providing an example wherein the Law said to do one thing and Jesus rejected that and instead taught something else. There are many times in the gospel accounts where Jesus did that. So, simply because Numbers 5 discusses what appears to be an abortion (and I would agree that it is), it does not demonstrate that Jesus would have agreed with that. He may have or may not have. The Bible, obviously, does not record his position on abortion so we are left to speculate.

Jesus didn't reject the law. If he would have, they wouldn't have listened to him anyway. They saw him as a teacher, not as someone with the authority to change any law. He merely pointed out the fact that they were all sinful as well. It was their decision that they were not worthy to stone her because of their own sin. How is that rejecting any law? How is that substituting anything? At least you admit that your religious beliefs on abortion are speculation of what you think Jesus might have thought, You just haven't shown any reason to believe he would support what you think about it.

Actually I am pro-choice. I just don't think Jesus would agree. If for no other reason there is self-preservation. As I am sure you are aware, without children, especially sons, there was no one to take care of you in your old age. This is why when a man died without leaving his wife a son it was the brother's responsibility to give her one. Without a son, the woman would become a beggar or perhaps even be forced into prostitution or other such extreme measures to survive in her old age. The mortality rate, especially for children, was also very high, so the best way to propagate the species and protect yourself in old age was to have lots of children. If not for moral reasons, there are practical reasons why peasants in antiquity needed to reproduce. Jesus would have been aware of that just as we are today. Thus, I argue he would have opposed abortion partly on this premise.

As far as how people saw Jesus...well that kind of depends on which gospel you read. In Mark and Luke I would agree that he was seen more as a teacher or a philosopher. In Mathew and John...no he is depicted quite differently in those gospels. Matthew depicts him as having the authority to interpret Torah by himself similar to a 1st century Moses. in John he is simply God and therefore has the divine authority to do whatever