CS Lewis - Liar Lunatic Lord (Split from Evolution or Creation)

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Because, IMO, liar, lunatic, and lord aren't the only options. UNLESS I'm misunderstanding the constraints that are being put into the situation.

There are a tremendous amount of IF's that would make this into one hell of a theoretical that it really evades the nature of the question. I don't think this would be Lewis' desire. But instead, when I used to ascribe to this mantra, I took it as a matter of these are the three options ===> pick one. However, when looking at the entire spectrum of inquiry there are so many things to evaluate that it becomes a false dilemna if for no other reason than inundation of theoretical things. Does that make sense?

You would need to give those other things wouldn't you. What are the other options.

 

[muffler dragon]

Well, there is a really good case to be made that Jesus is not the Messiah, or to be more accurate, not the Messiah the Jews were expecting when reading their Torah. And as much of the Apocalyptic based future did not occur as exactly as Jesus foretold, you could make a case that he was indeed mistaken in some of his beliefs. An argument has been made that his followers resorted to the Risen Christ beliefs as a means of his followers dealing with the difficulty of the abject failure of Jesus fulfilling the role of the Messiah that the Jews were expecting.

But as to Gospel, in part it can't get the facts straight on a number of things relating to Jesus' last days. And while in my profession, the law, a non-similar version of facts is often sign of truth, i.e., that a rote lie was not lock step fabricated and memorized, you have to admit that one's decision to say that Jesus was not mistaken is as much faith as fact. Several discrepancies in the story have to be explained away. And while the explanations may be valid from someone's viewpoint (or indeed valid historically - I mean, none of us were there), we are more accurately talking about faith inspired opinion of what is said in the Gospels, and not pure "fact."

Your second paragraph has reminded me of those who view the Gospels as midrashic in nature. If you're not aware; then this would mean allegorical, homelitic (spelling), etc... with the main goal being a moral instead of a factual truth. Something to be gained philosophically let's say.

Btw, I agree and like what you wrote.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB, I don't know what else to tell you. You keep wanting to make more out of Lewis' argument than he was stating in this instance. You attack it and him by claiming he makes assumptions and conclusions that are just not there--they really are your own projections into the argument. You have set up strawmen left and right in order to knock them down. This of course is just my perspective here, but sometimes you seem so over-zealous to discredit the New Testament at every point, you appear to lose the ability to see that such an issue is not at stake everytime someone references it.

Before getting in to the dry analysis of Lewis once again, I need to say a few things.

1 - After having given the "Straw man" retort a great deal of consideration ever since it seemed to be about the only thing 89 would ever say in response, I would like to point out something. I am not setting up straw men just so I can then knock them over. If this were a face to face discussion, Bgrad, I'd be asking you questions and waiting for answers. Questions like, "I understand you to be saying X. Is that what you're saying?" And then I'd wait.

But...

This is a message board. the rules are different. So... I say "I understand you to be saying X. If that's what you're saying then I agree/disagree for the following reasons." That's not a "Straw man" in the truest sense, Bgrad. It's just me trying to have a message board discussion without having to wait for several hours to read your answer to the question "Is this what are you saying?" Before proceeding.

So, I would ask that you please not pull this bullshit "Staw man" excuse out, and instead, correct my apparent misunderstanding of what I took your earlier post to mean. Thanks.

2 - While it is true I don't find the New Test credible, my whole discussion here has been about Lewis' credibility, about what I believe are Lewis' assumptions... your assumptions. For example, for purposes of this discussion - It is a fact, is it not, that you believe the Gospels are true. It is likewise a fact that some people dont believe they're true. That is what I've argued here, and have not stated any opinion on the actual truth of the Gospels. The important part for dissection of Lewis' argument isn't whether the Gospel's are true in fact with an eye on belief or disbelief in Christianity. It's whether we can rely on their "truth" to credit or discredit Lewis' argument. It's my position that we cannot, because the Gospels are not 100% no questions asked true beyond dispute. In short, I find your response trying to box me in to the same box Lewis presents... Actually... it's not a box.. it's the hula hoop of circular reasoning. (I just made that up, )

Now then, on to the nuts and bolts.

As for your fourth alternative, you are just flat out wrong. There is nothing in the Gospels that describe or indicate Jesus was mistaken about himself or his teachings. You may personally believe this about him or the people who wrote the Gospels, but it is not what is described in the Gospels.

See the hula hoop? Would it help if I made the following example?

Actually.... you've done a good job making it for me (the example):

Let's put it this way, what if I said if you read Lord of the Rings you must come to the conclusion that Frodo Baggins was either a martyr, an idiot, or a pawn; but at no time can you argue that he was only a wise sage. If someone attacked this argument by saying, well duh, Frodo is a fictional character, so there is another option; or that Tolkien didn't mean him to be any of those choices, so there must be others; or that there was some crazy guy who thought he was Frodo Baggins who lives down the street from me, so there are other options, the conclusion is that the person making these criticisms really doesn't understand what is being asserted in the first instance. Likewise, if one were to draw conclusions from the original statement that are not there, such as why am I asserting that a martyr or a pawn cannot be wise, then again, the person really isn't responding to the original statement that is saying if one wants to limit their understanding of Frodo's character to being a wise sage, they really haven't grasped the character present in the story. I don't know if it helps, but this is exactly the type of argument Lewis is making about Jesus in this instance, no more, no less.

Now... if I have no larger point to be making, we can indeed look at the Frodo presented in Lord of The Rings and determine if he was any of those things. But... suppose I, as does Lewis, DO have a larger point to make. That point being that Frodo not only was real, but also one of the three choices outlined.... And this is where I think you fail in your response. You suggest Lewis has no larger resolution in mind when he outlines his Liar Lunatic business... But, that's totally and completley disengenious. I'm more than a little insulted you'd think I'd be stupid enough not to understand the "lager picture" here. Incidentally, this disengenuity is the catalyst for my earlier objections you dismissed as "straw men"

In other words, don't do as Lewis does.... walk me down some path of feigned innocent purpose, only to reveal in some fell swoop you were setting me up for conversion later. (That said, I don't believe you truly intend to convert me, or that if you ever did, you've given up all hope of that) This is why I strongly agree with Jwin's strong disagreement that Lewis wasn't trying to convince Atheists and or Agnostics. Lewis wasn't a stupid man, Bgrad... and you know he wasn't, that's why you quote him as often as you do. He understood how to hide the ball. "Oh no, I'm just saying The Gospels paint a certain picture... I don't pretend to know what that picture is..." Only to later reveal what that picture must be. That Jesus was Lord, and not a lunatic or a liar.

Think I'm making this up? Lewis' argument is innocent of purpose?

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said, or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.

Chapter 9, (As you know, the stuff quoted by me, and expanded upon by you, is the end of chapter 8)

All I'm saying is, don't bullshit me.

BKB,
Don't know how much of Lewis's argument you've read. But Lewis does address the mistaken argument. The claim and one I of course agree with is that it would have been impossible for Jesus to merely be mistaken. Being a Jew in that day, Jesus very much would have studied and understood the Jewish God. This was verified many times in the New Testament. To make the claim that Jesus made about being God with His background and His religion He couldn't have been merely mistaken. Lewis argues that mistaken is off the table. People who made that claim in Jesus day were put death. And He was. Only He rose again just as He said He would. Something that those other "Jesus" you mention haven't done.

These assumptions are incorrect, Tscott. That's my whole point. It assumes the truth of the story in the first place. Jesus could be mistaken about his identity and he need not be a liar, lord or lunatic. Saying "Well, he was a jew and he knew what he was doing" is where the assumption expresses itself. How do we know he knew what he was doing? Because the Gospel says so..... let me try and set it up more clearly, in it's most simple form:

1 - The Gospel says Jesus could only be A, B or C.
A - Why couldn't he be X?
2 - Because the Gospels only allow for A B or C.

In and of itself, that's fine. It's a circular argument, completely unassailable. It's also meaningless. And that's my point. If all Lewis is saying is The Gospels paint a picture, and here it is... well.. OK... so what? But, that's NOT his point. His point is to take this sudductive circular logic, and then rest on it's truth later.... See my quote of Lewis above...
"Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. "

As with Bgrad... don't bullshit me.

BKB, t BuckeyeScott, just showed me an error I was making in my argument, for which I am very thankful. I have been saying that the the Gospels do not present Jesus as being mistaken and therefore it is not a logical conclusion to make from the picture of Jesus given us. That said, the Gospels also don't present Jesus as being a liar or a lunatic, but it is a conclusion one could come to upon reading them. This being the case, Jesus being mistaken about who he was is also a possible conclusion one could come to. However, as t BuckeyeScott has already pointed out in the previous post, Lewis addresses elsewhere why the mistaken option is not valid. Furthermore, in the preceeding paragraphs I posted above, I think it is quite clear that Lewis considered anyone who would be mistaken about their identity to such a degree as Jesus would have if he is not God, would have to be a lunatic. In fact, this seems to be the reason why Lewis included it as one of the three logical conclusions.

Once again, at the risk of being accused of putting up more straw men, are you sitting there suggesting to me that Lewis' only point is to make the following argument:

The Gospels paint a picture of Jesus as A, B or C.
Therefore, the Gospels have painted a picture of Jesus as A, B, or C.

If you agree with me that Lewis has an acutal purpose, please, for the love of poop, stop with this insufferable nonsense about how he's innocently outlining for the rest of us idiots what the NT says but posits or suggests no conclusion. Again, if all he has to say about the topic is "The Bible says what it says" I find his inclusion in the discussion a complete waste of time. And, it is quite obvious to me you don't believe that Lewis is just stating the obvious... for the benefit of the rest of us morons who are unable to read a text and realize "They painted a particular picture of this character, but not some other picture." If you did believe that, I can't understand why you cite him so frequently.

As I read Lewis, he is saying that if one is to read the Gospels and analyze the picture of Jesus presented in them, then there are only three logical conclusions to the analysis: liar, lunatic, or Lord. In doing this, he was not trying to show that liar and lunatic are wrong conclusions and therefore by default Jesus must be Lord (in which case one could argue a dilemna has been created).

But, as I quoted in Chapter nine, this is preciely what he's doing. PRECISELY.

Rather, Lewis was saying that Jesus as a moral teacher, and not God, is not a logical conclusion based upon the picture of the Gospels (which of course is not to say that it is not a possible conclusion, just not a logical one) because at least by the definitions he is using the terms are mutually exclusive.

And he does this without any support. He assumes, as I stated before, that a Lord cannot be a Lunatic. That a liar, cannot be a lord. That a great moral teacher can't be a Liar, or a Lunatic. Well, why can't they? You say "By his definitions they cant" To which I say his "argument" then boils down to:

Given A, B and C we cannot conclude D.

Great, Lewis. Thanks for wasting my time with the obvious.

I take this to mean:

1) If Jesus is God, then he can also be a moral teacher.
2) If Jesus is a liar, then he cannot be a moral teacher because someone who lies about his identity cannot be considered moral.
3) If Jesus is a lunatic, then he cannot be a moral teacher because one should not trust the "silliness" that comes from a lunatic.

Or even more simiply, Lewis is asserting that a moral techer cannot be a liar or a lunatic, which is more of an ontological statment than anything else.

I can live with that. It being ontological.... in that it's completley meaningless then.

But, Lewis didn't stop there.... and people who cite his nonsense don't stop there either.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Before getting in to the dry analysis of Lewis once again, I need to say a few things.

1 - After having given the "Straw man" retort a great deal of consideration ever since it seemed to be about the only thing 89 would ever say in response, I would like to point out something. I am not setting up straw men just so I can then knock them over. If this were a face to face discussion, Bgrad, I'd be asking you questions and waiting for answers. Questions like, "I understand you to be saying X. Is that what you're saying?" And then I'd wait.

But...

This is a message board. the rules are different. So... I say "I understand you to be saying X. If that's what you're saying then I agree/disagree for the following reasons." That's not a "Straw man" in the truest sense, Bgrad. It's just me trying to have a message board discussion without having to wait for several hours to read your answer to the question "Is this what are you saying?" Before proceeding.

So, I would ask that you please not pull this bullshit "Staw man" excuse out, and instead, correct my apparent misunderstanding of what I took your earlier post to mean. Thanks.

2 - While it is true I don't find the New Test credible, my whole discussion here has been about Lewis' credibility, about what I believe are Lewis' assumptions... your assumptions. For example, for purposes of this discussion - It is a fact, is it not, that you believe the Gospels are true. It is likewise a fact that some people dont believe they're true. That is what I've argued here, and have not stated any opinion on the actual truth of the Gospels. The important part for dissection of Lewis' argument isn't whether the Gospel's are true in fact with an eye on belief or disbelief in Christianity. It's whether we can rely on their "truth" to credit or discredit Lewis' argument. It's my position that we cannot, because the Gospels are not 100% no questions asked true beyond dispute. In short, I find your response trying to box me in to the same box Lewis presents... Actually... it's not a box.. it's the hula hoop of circular reasoning. (I just made that up, )

Now then, on to the nuts and bolts.


See the hula hoop? Would it help if I made the following example?

Actually.... you've done a good job making it for me (the example):


Now... if I have no larger point to be making, we can indeed look at the Frodo presented in Lord of The Rings and determine if he was any of those things. But... suppose I, as does Lewis, DO have a larger point to make. That point being that Frodo not only was real, but also one of the three choices outlined.... And this is where I think you fail in your response. You suggest Lewis has no larger resolution in mind when he outlines his Liar Lunatic business... But, that's totally and completley disengenious. I'm more than a little insulted you'd think I'd be stupid enough not to understand the "lager picture" here. Incidentally, this disengenuity is the catalyst for my earlier objections you dismissed as "straw men"

In other words, don't do as Lewis does.... walk me down some path of feigned innocent purpose, only to reveal in some fell swoop you were setting me up for conversion later. (That said, I don't believe you truly intend to convert me, or that if you ever did, you've given up all hope of that) This is why I strongly agree with Jwin's strong disagreement that Lewis wasn't trying to convince Atheists and or Agnostics. Lewis wasn't a stupid man, Bgrad... and you know he wasn't, that's why you quote him as often as you do. He understood how to hide the ball. "Oh no, I'm just saying The Gospels paint a certain picture... I don't pretend to know what that picture is..." Only to later reveal what that picture must be The Jesus was a Lord, and not a lunatic or a liar.

Think I'm making this up? Lewis' argument is innocent of purpose?



Chapter 9, (As you know, the stuff quoted by me, and expanded upon by you, is the end of chapter 8)

All I'm saying is, don't bullshit me.


These assumptions are incorrect, Tscott. That's my whole point. It assumes the truth of the story in the first place. Jesus could be mistaken about his identity and he need not be a liar, lord or lunatic. Saying "Well, he was a jew and he knew what he was doing" is where the assumption expresses itself. How do we know he knew what he was doing? Because the Gospel says so..... let me try and set it up more clearly, in it's most simple form:

1 - The Gospel says Jesus could only be A, B or C.
A - Why couldn't he be X?
2 - Because the Gospels only allow for A B or C.

In and of itself, that's fine. It's a circular argument, completely unassailable. It's also meaningless. And that's my point. If all Lewis is saying is The Gospels paint a picture, and here it is... well.. OK... so what? But, that's NOT his point. His point is to take this sudductive circular logic, and then rest on it's truth later.... See my quote of Lewis above...
"Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. "

As with Bgrad... don't bullshit me.



Once again, at the risk of being accused of putting up more straw men, are you sitting there suggesting to me that Lewis' only point is to make the following argument:

The Gospels paint a picture of Jesus as A, B and C.
Therefore, the Gospels have painted a picture of Jesus as A, B, and C.

If you agree with me that Lewis has an acutal purpose, please, for the love of poop, stop with this insufferable nonsense about how he's innocently outlining for the rest of us idiots what the NT says but posits or suggests no conclusion. Again, if all he has to say about the topic is "The Bible says what it says" I find his inclusion in the discussion a complete waste of time. And, it is quite obvious to me you don't believe that Lewis is just stating the obvious... for the benefit of the rest of us morons who are unable to read a text and realize "They painted a particular picture of this character, but not some other picture." If you did believe that, I can't understand why you cite him so frequently.


But, as I quoted in Chapter nine, this is preciely what he's doing. PRECISELY.


And he does this without any support. He assumes, as I stated before, that a Lord cannot be a Lunatic. That a liar, cannot be a lord. That a great moral teacher can't be a Liar, or a Lunatic. Well, why can't they? You say "By his definitions they cant" To which I say his "argument" then boils down to:

Given A, B and C we cannot conclude D.

Great, Lewis. Thanks for wasting my time with the obvious.



I can live with that. It being ontological.... in that it's completley meaningless then.

But, Lewis didn't stop there.... and people who cite his nonsense don't stop there either.

I understand that you don't think that those terms are mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive is part of Lewis's argument. I agree with him, obviously. He believes that it is against God's very nature to lie, or to be insane. The argument elsewhere is that if God were those things He wouldn't be God. I agree. I also agree that a great moral teacher wouldn't be insane or liar, seeing as lying is not moral, and insane people don't make good moral teachers. Liars and the insane aren't perfect which is part of the claim about being God in Lewis's estimation, one in which I agree.

Edit: I thought of this a moment later.
Of course Lewis assumes the accuracy of the gospels as part of the argument. Now you disagree with the veracity of those gospels. We can have another "fun" conversation about that but I think its irrelevant to the conversation. If we do in fact assume that the Gospels aren't accurate then how could anybody still come to conclusion that Jesus is a good moral teacher? In other words I believe you can't take some of Jesus's statements without taking them all. There's no reason for me to take anyone seriously that uses only part of what Jesus said. If we're not willing to accept all of the account of what Jesus said then why would accept any of it. And then if He didn't actually exist then would I care about what he says anyway. I could just go to Aesop's fables for moral teaching. So of course Lewis's argument hinge on the Gospel's being an accurate account.

I think once again BKB we are at odds. I do remember that you believe something different than I do about God's inherent goodness and this may actually be the problem you have with the argument.

I guess I think the real problem is that underlying assumption. BGrad Lewis and I believe the terms are mutually exclusive; you do not.

 

[muffler dragon]

I understand that you don't think that those terms are mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive is part of Lewis's argument. I agree with him, obviously. He believes that it is against God's very nature to lie, or to be insane.

t:

I realize that what you wrote isn't to me, but it might provide a segue into your previous request of me. It's a lot easier to go singularly instead of spamming a number of concepts to answer your former question about possibilities.

This one piece is HUGE, and I'm sure you'll agree.

Incarnation.

The presumption you make above is that Jesus couldn't have lied, because he is God. Now, you had made an allusion to how well Jesus would have been informed on the traditions and Scripture of his people. I agree with this principle since Yeshiva would have started early and extensive. However, IF we presume this to be the case; THEN we find the wheels on the bus starting to go off because one cannot presume incarnation without proving the case from a Scriptural and tradtional point of view. Furthermore, to jump from liar (human) and/or lunatic (human) to lord (divine) is quite a leap. There are numerous considerations contained within. This could go into more discussion about the nature and work of the Jewish Messiah, but I'll stop for now.

The argument elsewhere is that if God were those things He wouldn't be God. I agree. I also agree that a great moral teacher wouldn't be insane or liar, seeing as lying is not moral, and insane people don't make good moral teachers. Liars and the insane aren't perfect which is part of the claim about being God in Lewis's estimation, one in which I agree.

I would have to say that lying is determined "good" or "bad" based on context. Thus, it's not a black/white item. Just a thought.

Edit: I thought of this a moment later.
Of course Lewis assumes the accuracy of the gospels as part of the argument. Now you disagree with the veracity of those gospels. We can have another "fun" conversation about that but I think its irrelevant to the conversation. If we do in fact assume that the Gospels aren't accurate then how could anybody still come to conclusion that Jesus is a good moral teacher? In other words I believe you can't take some of Jesus's statements without taking them all. There's no reason for me to take anyone seriously that uses only part of what Jesus said. If we're not willing to accept all of the account of what Jesus said then why would accept any of it. And then if He didn't actually exist then would I care about what he says anyway. I could just go to Aesop's fables for moral teaching. So of course Lewis's argument hinge on the Gospel's being an accurate account.

How about this? Let's evaluate Jesus' words and see if the only way of interpreting them would have been for what you see them to be. Game? I know many people who still believe in Jesus' words, but don't see them as a statement of the divine.

I think once again BKB we are at odds. I do remember that you believe something different than I do about God's inherent goodness and this may actually be the problem you have with the argument.

I guess I think the real problem is that underlying assumption. BGrad Lewis and I believe the terms are mutually exclusive; you do not.

Why do you see them as mutually exclusive?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I understand that you don't think that those terms are mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive is part of Lewis's argument. I agree with him, obviously. He believes that it is against God's very nature to lie, or to be insane. The argument elsewhere is that if God were those things He wouldn't be God. I agree. I also agree that a great moral teacher wouldn't be insane or liar, seeing as lying is not moral, and insane people don't make good moral teachers. Liars and the insane aren't perfect which is part of the claim about being God in Lewis's estimation, one in which I agree.

Fine... lets assume they are mutually exclusive... Then what he has said is this:

Given what story G says about charecter J, J can only be A, B or C, but he cannot be D.

Well, so what? Seems pretty obvious to me and doesn't say ANYTHING about truth. Lewis' mistake, and yours, is you take that and try to add a particular meaning to the variables....

Lewis goes from: This story(*key word) can only be understood as outlining a charecter who is Lord, Liar or Lunatic - and since I don't see how he's a liar or a lunatic, this charecter must be a Lord. (See, again, Chapter 9 quote above "I have to accept the view that He was and is God.")

But... that's NOT the only conclusion available. And it's because he skips the word "Story" and its meaning.

In other words, he does NOT need to conclude Jesus was Lord. He could easily accept that the STORY is lies. The STORY was written by Lunatics. Or even that the STORY was written by men who were mistaken. In other words, I DON'T NEED to conclude that Superman is a real superhero because he's presented as such on the silver screen. EVEN IF I ACCEPT THE INTERNAL TRUTH OF THE MOVIE'S OWN PREMISES. Superman does not come in to being as a REAL thing simply because a movie about him exists.

In other words.... Lewis assumes that which is in question, to prove that that which is in question is correct. Which is poor proof indeed. Which is my point....

Edit: I thought of this a moment later.
Of course Lewis assumes the accuracy of the gospels as part of the argument. Now you disagree with the veracity of those gospels. We can have another "fun" conversation about that but I think its irrelevant to the conversation. If we do in fact assume that the Gospels aren't accurate then how could anybody still come to conclusion that Jesus is a good moral teacher?

Because one does NOT have to be a God to be a great moral teacher.

In other words I believe you can't take some of Jesus's statements without taking them all. There's no reason for me to take anyone seriously that uses only part of what Jesus said. If we're not willing to accept all of the account of what Jesus said then why would accept any of it.

Nonsense.

Let's look at this as easily as we can using real world example....

I say 1 + 1 = 2.
I also say I was raised by bats.

Does whether or not I was raised by bats have shit to do with whether or not 1+1 = 2 is correct?

If Jesus said "Love you neighbor" the morality of this statement loses NO credability if Jesus also said he knew Abraham, was the Son of G-d, or was raised by bats... it is either Great Moral Teaching, or it is not. But, none of that other shit makes a difference.

And then if He didn't actually exist then would I care about what he says anyway. I could just go to Aesop's fables for moral teaching. So of course Lewis's argument hinge on the Gospel's being an accurate account.

And one has to ask, then... why don't you rely on Aesop then?

Which is why I was willing to give Lewis the benefit of the doubt earlier - even though I don't truly believe it - that he's merely trying to convert the converted. If you believe the Gospels, you're of course going to believe the Liar, Lunatic, Lord thing... But... it's not any sort of proof, or logical support... and this is where Lewis fails, because he presents it as: Given the Gospels, I MUST believe Jesus was LORD... but.. he, once again, skips right over the believability of them in the first place. As you do. You say, "I believe A. Story X says A. I agree with story A, therefore I believe X is true." But... so fucking what? We still dont' know if X is true... you've simply assumed it is... and gone about "proving" its truth by assuming it's true.

I think once again BKB we are at odds. I do remember that you believe something different than I do about God's inherent goodness and this may actually be the problem you have with the argument.

Not sure what you're talking about. My belief in G-d has nothing to do with Jesus' being a lord, liar or lunatic. My belief in G-d's nature (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with Jesus' being a liar, lord or lunatic... and certain has NOTHING to do with CS Lewis' weak rationale.

I guess I think the real problem is that underlying assumption. BGrad Lewis and I believe the terms are mutually exclusive; you do not.

I conceded above in this post their exclusivity.... and doing so resulted in a circular argument. Lewis might as well have been arguing that Water is Wet, therefore Jesus is Lord. The structure of reasoning takes the same form, afterall.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

t:

I realize that what you wrote isn't to me, but it might provide a segue into your previous request of me. It's a lot easier to go singularly instead of spamming a number of concepts to answer your former question about possibilities.

This one piece is HUGE, and I'm sure you'll agree.

Incarnation.

The presumption you make above is that Jesus couldn't have lied, because he is God. Now, you had made an allusion to how well Jesus would have been informed on the traditions and Scripture of his people. I agree with this principle since Yeshiva would have started early and extensive. However, IF we presume this to be the case; THEN we find the wheels on the bus starting to go off because one cannot presume incarnation without proving the case from a Scriptural and tradtional point of view. Furthermore, to jump from liar (human) and/or lunatic (human) to lord (divine) is quite a leap. There are numerous considerations contained within. This could go into more discussion about the nature and work of the Jewish Messiah, but I'll stop for now.

Suffice to say that we disagree on whether the scripture does or does not allow for incarnation. I don't believe it's germane anyway. I will go this far your Jewish traditions and their interpretations only go so far with me. While still important Jewish tradition isn't scripture, and managed to get them to ignore and even beat there own prophets, the ones of the Torah. Its the same Jewish tradition that didn't obey the commandment to give the land a sabbath year rest and led to the captivity. Also since I whole heartedly believe that the Jesus did die and did rise again 3 days later, I tend to believe the things that Jesus said about himself and the meanings of the Torahdic passages than what Jewish tradition said they mean. That will be my last statement on that subject.

Lewis paints the picture for of Jesus forgiving sin. I need not rehash that. The only one who could forgive sin is God. That's the claim.

I would have to say that lying is determined "good" or "bad" based on context. Thus, it's not a black/white item. Just a thought.

I really don't know what to say as I just completely disagree.


How about this? Let's evaluate Jesus' words and see if the only way of interpreting them would have been for what you see them to be. Game? I know many people who still believe in Jesus' words, but don't see them as a statement of the divine.



Why do you see them as mutually exclusive?[/quote]
Lewis paints the picture for of Jesus forgiving sin. I need not rehash that. The only one who could forgive sin is God. That's the claim. That's just it: Lewis is arguing with those people who find a different interpretation of Jesus's words.

So maybe we can agree here then. If Jesus was in fact claiming deity then Lewis was not giving a false dilemma.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

BKB, I don't feel like quoting. sorry.
I get so frustrated on this message board because it seems like I have a problem communicating my ideas. It's almost like I don't type English (entirely possible I admit). Whatever it is I'm sure it's my failing and not Lewis's. I'm sure that frustrates you as well. I'm thinking about how to respond.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

I know this is slightly off-topic but I thought it might clarify one point that seems to be getting danced around a little bit.

What if Jesus simply suffered from delusions of grandeur? (I guess that puts him under the lunatic section) So he was a great man who due to mental illness believed he was the son of god. As such he felt it was his duty to help his people and enlighten them thus causing him to be a great moral teacher.

If I have missed some arguement that would destroy this possibility I apologize.

 

[muffler dragon]

t:

I realize that you state this is your last statement on it, but I would like the opportunity to respond. I understand if I get no response. No worries either way.

Suffice to say that we disagree on whether the scripture does or does not allow for incarnation. I don't believe it's germane anyway.

I'm confused by your "germane" statement. I don't understand how Scriptural support FOR incarnation could not be germane to the claim that Jesus IS God. Maybe it's a misuse of terminology or misunderstanding on my part. If it's not germane; then is it a matter of blind acceptance without foundation?

I will go this far your Jewish traditions and their interpretations only go so far with me.

Point of clarification: I am not Jewish. While I revere the work and thoughts of the Sages, they are not mine.

While still important Jewish tradition isn't scripture, and managed to get them to ignore and even beat there own prophets, the ones of the Torah. Its the same Jewish tradition that didn't obey the commandment to give the land a sabbath year rest and led to the captivity. Also since I whole heartedly believe that the Jesus did die and did rise again 3 days later, I tend to believe the things that Jesus said about himself and the meanings of the Torahdic passages than what Jewish tradition said they mean. That will be my last statement on that subject.

A thought to think about in the future (if you're so inclined):

To rail against the work of the Sages is to cut your nose off to spite your face. IF it weren't for the Jewish Sages; then you wouldn't have the first 2/3 of your Bible. Thus, to throw the baby out with the bath water is a very precarious thing to do. Furthermore, there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura in it's most literal sense. Tradition is rampant in all religions. This is not something that you can escape.

Lewis paints the picture for of Jesus forgiving sin. I need not rehash that. The only one who could forgive sin is God. That's the claim.

Would you be interested in discussing this further?

I really don't know what to say as I just completely disagree.

Would you lie to save the life of another?

Lewis paints the picture for of Jesus forgiving sin. I need not rehash that. The only one who could forgive sin is God. That's the claim. That's just it: Lewis is arguing with those people who find a different interpretation of Jesus's words.

So maybe we can agree here then. If Jesus was in fact claiming deity then Lewis was not giving a false dilemma.

Ahhh... I think I see where you've been attempting to come from all along. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you arguing not that Lewis is attempting to convert, but instead to correct those who ascribe different meanings to Jesus' words? If this is the case; then Lewis' discussion has nothing to do with people outside of Christendom. Thus, a moot point. Let me know.

 

[muffler dragon]

I know this is slightly off-topic but I thought it might clarify one point that seems to be getting danced around a little bit.

What if Jesus simply suffered from delusions of grandeur? (I guess that puts him under the lunatic section) So he was a great man who due to mental illness believed he was the son of god. As such he felt it was his duty to help his people and enlighten them thus causing him to be a great moral teacher.

If I have missed some arguement that would destroy this possibility I apologize.

For the adherents of Christianity, I see this event to be impossible. For those who are not adherents, what you raise is possible.

 

[jwinslow]

It's not like he was a soft-spoken, wishy washy purveyor of moral advice, he turned his own people and religion upside down in very controversial and combatative ways.

Is it possible he was confused? Perhaps, but his message did not leave room for judging it in grey areas, imo. That's what this boils down to with Lewis' comments. Maybe he was confused and perhaps there are nuggets which can be gleaned from it anyway, but his bold and commanding message did not leave room to judge it anywhere but either extreme imo.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

t:

I realize that you state this is your last statement on it, but I would like the opportunity to respond. I understand if I get no response. No worries either way.



I'm confused by your "germane" statement. I don't understand how Scriptural support FOR incarnation could not be germane to the claim that Jesus IS God. Maybe it's a misuse of terminology or misunderstanding on my part. If it's not germane; then is it a matter of blind acceptance without foundation?



Point of clarification: I am not Jewish. While I revere the work and thoughts of the Sages, they are not mine.



A thought to think about in the future (if you're so inclined):

To rail against the work of the Sages is to cut your nose off to spite your face. IF it weren't for the Jewish Sages; then you wouldn't have the first 2/3 of your Bible. Thus, to throw the baby out with the bath water is a very precarious thing to do. Furthermore, there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura in it's most literal sense. Tradition is rampant in all religions. This is not something that you can escape.



Would you be interested in discussing this further?

Allow me to back track [sound] Beep, Beep, Beep [/sound] I'm not willing to get into a discussion with you whether the Torah allows for Jesus to be Messiah and God or whether the Torah predicted the things the way Christians say it does. We obviously differ. I don't think, then, I was clear on what I said so I will give (hopefully) clarity to that. I absolutely believe in the Torah is scripture and inerrant. I don't believe that the Jewish interpretations that you and others present them as are correct or bear much meaning to me. In other words because of the Cross I believe the Torah passages we believe point to Jesus and his works actually point to those things. I firmly believe the Torah. I also believe that Jewish traditions based on, but outside of the Torah have the very real possibility of being wrong.

Hope that helps.

Would you lie to save the life of another?

Have you ever heard the end doesn't justify the means? For sure I'm not sure what I would actually do, but I believe the answers should be no. I don't believe a human's existence ends on this earth, and ultimately I am called to obey. If I'm imagining the hypothetical right I can't be held responsible for the wrong another committed if I was in the right. Here on this earth we value human life more than being right with God, but I'm definitely not sure that's the way God sees it. There's more to it, but I'm not sure I can adequately give more than that here.

Ahhh... I think I see where you've been attempting to come from all along. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you arguing not that Lewis is attempting to convert, but instead to correct those who ascribe different meanings to Jesus' words? If this is the case; then Lewis' discussion has nothing to do with people outside of Christendom. Thus, a moot point. Let me know.

It's possible, but I'm not really sure that's what he was doing. Mere Christianity was not oringally a book, but a series of Radio Talks that aired during WWII (IIRC). I guess I still agree with the idea that Jesus couldn't merely just a moral teacher.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It's not like he was a soft-spoken, wishy washy purveyor of moral advice, he turned his own people and religion upside down in very controversial and combatative ways.

Now wait a minute.... I'm confused. It's off the topic of CS Lewis, but I remember making the suggestion that Jesus' actions were of this nature - being a departure from the orthodox religion of the day, only to be met with objections that nothing Jesus did ran afoul of Judiasm (My discussion was if healing on the sabbath was "work" or not). Which is it? And, in fairness to you Josh, I don't remember it being you specifically who said Jesus never ran afoul of what was then the prevailing Jewish law(s).

Is it possible he was confused? Perhaps, but his message did not leave room for judging it in grey areas, imo. That's what this boils down to with Lewis' comments. Maybe he was confused and perhaps there are nuggets which can be gleaned from it anyway, but his bold and commanding message did not leave room to judge it anywhere but either extreme imo.

If we agree, then that means that Lewis' motives aren't as innocent as Bgrad's suggestion, doesn't it? I mean, in order to understand whatever might be Lewis' message - to have it have any meaning at all - would you agree that we have to add outlying information to the statements? By this, I mean, you add the suggestion that Jesus was giving a bold and commanding message, and then filter that thru Lewis' Liar Lunatic landscape.... but.. Lewis, according to what I understand Bgrad to be saying, never intended for that.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

MD,
I forgot to add that I never thought you were a Jew. That part was also worded very poorly, apparently. Of course I do understand that the Traditions greatly affect your belief system which is what I meant. Sorry for any confusion or for any offense the statement might have caused.