If this is so then, the Kingdom of God could not currently be established, nor could it ever be established. The Kingdom of God, according to the teachings of Jesus is free from evil. Evil still exists on earth, so there could be no Kingdom now. Also, according to Kant, man can never achieve the highest good, so the Kingdom of God on Earth could never be established, because there is no evil in the Kingdom of God according to the teachings of Jesus, who Kant believes we should learn from. If Kant means that the kingdom is to come then how can it come if we cannot fully reach the highest good? Also, how can the kingdom of God be on earth when Kant has eliminated the entire way of how we get to the kingdom of God by eliminating the fact that Jesus teaches us that He died for sins which sins is what makes us unworthy of coming into the kingdom of God. Many of the teachings of Jesus are based on things that cannot be reasonable according to Kant, because they involve what Kant describes as supernatural. So how can Jesus be the model for how to achieve …show more content…
Religion is an example of the moral law. Moral law is first and a “religion” is built around it. This is why Kant thinks he is Christian. He sees that Christianity out of all the “religions” is the best example of moral law. The teachings of Christ best conform to his idea of what is moral. Christ is just a teacher. The teachings of Jesus the man best represent what Kant believes is moral law. Therefor he follows the teachings of Jesus. But it is not the teachings of Jesus that make him Christ: it is the “supernatural” events surrounding the birth, life death, and resurrection of the man Jesus that make Him Christ. Therefore, to follow the teachings of Jesus does not make a person a Christian. It is the acceptance of the supernatural events surrounding His life that make a Christian. This makes Kant no different from a person who follows the teachings of a prophet. Jesus was not just a prophet; He was God