Well, for one, Jesus promoted all of it when he said that he did not come to destroy the laws of old but to fulfill them. It's a popular misconception that Jesus somehow distanced himself from the events of the OT, but this is simply not the case. His philosophy is in addition to his father's, not in lieu of. He embraced all of it, and did some pretty horrendous shit on his own. Here are some examples from the NT:
Originally Posted by Grumpy
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b]
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[a] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[b] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[c]
27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.
23 Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.
8 But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.
43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell,[a] to the unquenchable fire.[b] 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[b] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
But there is nothing about Jesus' teachings that is revolutionary or profound. Einstein introduced new ideas or improved upon old ones; Jesus did none of that.
It's not about who gets the credit, much of what Jesus said did come from outside sources. The same can be said of Einstein, but we remember him for his coherent integration of what many others said into a cogent whole.
Nonsense. The rationale provided for the moral lessons in the Bible amounts to "Because God said so," or "Because not doing so will get you killed." This is simply a heavy-handed attempt to make people behave a certain way, not an explanation for why certain virtues are good while others are not. It's certainly not where we get our morality.
Much of our current moral thinking came from Jesus
Gandhi? The man who urged the British people to surrender to Germany during WWII, and said of Hitler, "[He] is not a bad man..." ?
as well as many other sources(including Lenin, Marx, Gandhi and Nietzsche),
Your view of history is very much like your view of Christianity: Superficial.
In what way have Jesus' words been misused?
no matter how badly men have misused their words and ideas, the ideas themselves deserve consideration seperately from their history of misuse.
False dichotomy. Immoral acts done in the name of a faith are not the misappropriations of said faith. Justification for such acts can be found in the scripture. The theory of evolution, however, makes no such claims as Social Darwinism.
Or should we throw out Evolution just because Darwin's work has been misused by unscrupulous men in the past with Social Darwinism?
I can only go by what you write, and what you write demonstrates a near-total lack of knowledge of scripture. The very charge to "Please point out where Jesus promoted any of those things" speaks to such an ignorance. If you really had an "intimate" knowledge of them, you wouldn't be trying to erect a false wall between the New Testament and the Old, and you wouldn't draw any such line between Jesus' philosophy and the events of the OT.
Both Gandhi and I have/had a much better understanding of Jesus than anyone who thinks his words and philosophy doesn't have any value or any need to study at all. My education in the Christian texts occupied large portions of my early life(not by choice but by expectation)and I can argue Christian doctrine better than most theists. It is not ignorance of Jesus's words, but intimate knowledge of them that informs my opinion and I think the sinister character you see is non-existent. But so is the son of god character theists see. The truth of the matter is somewhere between those irrational extremes, a view of a falible but moral man who had many profound things to say about how to treat our fellow man.
You also wouldn't say you can't see the sinister character of Jesus if you knew that he ordered children stoned to death for talking back to their father, or struck dead for teasing a bald man. You wouldn't say that if you knew that he called for his enemies to be slaughtered before him.
Clearly you don't know any of this, which is you believe what so many seem to, which is that Jesus is this gentle, peaceful dude who wouldn't hurt a fly, when the truth is much different.