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

[PlanetFrnd]

Thanks 'Bus. I'll have to check that out some time. Was there anything in the article that really peaked your interest?

Sadly, I don't remember much more than the general topic, but that was what stood out to me. It's been a while - it took me a few tries on google just to get the name right (tried "medicore" and "average" too )

 

[muffler dragon]

[quote='BusNative;119770;3]Sadly, I don't remember much more than the general topic, but that was what stood out to me. It's been a while - it took me a few tries on google just to get the name right (tried "medicore" and "average" too )[/quote]

Interestingly enough, I've read (and owned) one book that was an evaluation on Jesus, and that was Jesus The Theologian by Brad Young. I don't throw that out as a recommendation, but instead, as how little I've read outside of the Gospels. Oddly enough, I find Paul to be a more interesting read, because he was so much more on the fringe.

 

[buckeyegrad]

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?

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.

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.


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.

BKB, I am really surprised that you think Lewis, I, or anyone else is trying to "bullshit" you in these arguments. Of course Lewis has a bigger objective in mind (after all, he was probably the greatest 20th Century, popular, Christian apologist) and he is very up front with it. There is no trying to act innocent on his part. He is always very forward with his intentions. I like to think I am the same. (Keep in mind that Mere Christianity originated as a series of lectures by Lewis on BBC radio during WWII in an attempt to show how Christianity was a superior religion to the neo-pagan and/or philosophical underpinnings of Nazi Germany.)

The point I have been trying to make about the L L or L argument as presented in Chapter 8 of Mere Christianity, which is what you quoted, is that it is not about which of the three choices are most valid or if they are mutually exclusive. Rather, in itself, it is an argument against the notion that Jesus was exclusivly a good moral teacher based upon the only evidence we have about his life and teachings. Remember, at this point in his argument, Lewis is okay with leaving it the reader to conclude liar or lunatic.

Your disagreement with this line of reasoning, at least as I understand it now, is that Lewis then uses it at the beginning of Chapter 9 to then conclude that lord is the only option of those three worth considering. I agree that he does this, at least as far as I can remember...its been a good 7-8 years since I read that chapter. If this is your beef, then I think we should look at what he says in chapter 9 about this new argument to determine how strong his reasoning is for selecting lord as an exclusive option. I'd be glad to go back and re-read the chapter this weekend to see what evidence and reason, if any, he gives for such a conclusion.

Ultimately, here is my point. Lewis' logic is very progressional in that he gives his reasons for one belief and then, having dealt with that issue, moves unto what can we conclude next if that is true. When looking at such arguments, if you want to effectively critique them, you have to look at each individual point and identify where the error in logic occurs. That is to say, where does the the person make too big of a jump or present a false dilemna. As I thought you were specifically criticizing the logic of lunatic, liar, or lord as the only three logical possibilities based upon the evidence, I argued in defense as such. I honestly did not realize you were actually criticizing the next move Lewis makes, which is to say only lord works of those three (i.e. the chapter 9 argument, which you did not originally quote, and which is a different point to analyze) than the moral teacher argument. That is the next step in his argument and like I said, upon re-reading that chapter this weekend I'll be glad to give my opinion and discuss with you as to how well Lewis does in arguing this next step in progression of his position.

 

[muffler dragon]

The point I have been trying to make about the L L or L argument as presented in Chapter 8 of Mere Christianity, which is what you quoted, is that it is not about which of the three choices are most valid or if they are mutually exclusive. Rather, in itself, it is an argument against the notion that Jesus was exclusivly a good moral teacher based upon the only evidence we have about his life and teachings. Remember, at this point in his argument, Lewis is okay with leaving it the reader to conclude liar or lunatic.

Isn't the argument that Lewis is making based on his interpretation of the "only evidence we have about his life and teachings"? This, in itself, leaves the opportunity for more options. But sticking with Lewis, he reads the text and comes up with three different options:

1) Liar - human consideration based on fidelity.
2) Lunatic - human consideration based on mental stability.
3) Lord - divine consideration (assuming that the usage of Lord denotes more than just authority).

When one reads the Christian Gospels, I fail to believe that these are the only three options that can be rendered. There are too many other human faculties that can be considered in the human element. I guess I would say (at the barest minimum) that Lewis argument is starkly incomplete. Thus, it's impossible to proceed further due to it's lack.

Ultimately, here is my point. Lewis' logic is very progressional in that he gives his reasons for one belief and then, having dealt with that issue, moves unto what can we conclude next if that is true. When looking at such arguments, if you want to effectively critique them, you have to look at each individual point and identify where the error in logic occurs. That is to say, where does the the person make too big of a jump or present a false dilemna. As I thought you were specifically criticizing the logic of lunatic, liar, or lord as the only three logical possibilities based upon the evidence, I argued in defense as such. I honestly did not realize you were actually criticizing the next move Lewis makes, which is to say only lord works of those three (i.e. the chapter 9 argument, which you did not originally quote, and which is a different point to analyze) than the moral teacher argument. That is the next step in his argument and like I said, upon re-reading that chapter this weekend I'll be glad to give my opinion and discuss with you as to how well Lewis does in arguing this next step in progression of his position.

Personally, I believe that an argument can be raised against Lewis progressional reasons AND an argument can be raised against Lewis conclusion. The two together would be a false dilemna; whereas, the first one by itself is simply incomplete.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Muffler,
What other conclusions then could be drawn given the only evidence we have about his life and teachings? You say there are more but don't offer them.

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffler,
What other conclusions then could be drawn given the only evidence we have about his life and teachings? You say there are more but don't offer them.

When I think back to the Christian Gospels and Jesus' words, I think of the following possibilities:

Plagiarist/Copy-cat - many of his phrases are from previous Sages; yet, makes no mention.
Political Criminal/Insurrectionist - he was executed by Rome.
Hypocrite - often speaks of being Torah observant while breaking commandments.

Those are three that just come to mind right now.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Plagiarist/Copy-cat - many of his phrases are from previous Sages; yet, makes no mention.
Political Criminal/Insurrectionist - he was executed by Rome.
Hypocrite - often speaks of being Torah observant while breaking commandments.

Why wouldn't all of those fall under the broader title of "liar"? Plagiarist and hypocrite kind of speak for themselves as falling under that category. As for political criminal/insurrectionist, if this is what he really was, then why did he make claims to Pilate that he was not such a person (i.e. he lied to Pilate)?

 

[muffler dragon]

Why wouldn't all of those fall under the broader title of "liar"? Plagiarist and hypocrite kind of speak for themselves as falling under that category. As for political criminal/insurrectionist, if this is what he really was, then why did he make claims to Pilate that he was not such a person (i.e. he lied to Pilate)?

The Liar/Lunatic/Lord usage by Lewis is based primarily on the "I am God" type statements; not everything in the mix. Hence, the distinction. I don't necessarily agree about hypocrite, but that's neither here nor there. My main point is that I don't think the 3-L situation by Lewis is all-inclusive.

 

[jwinslow]

Your first example equates perfectly to 'liar'. The general point of the 3-L statement was to refute the 'good teacher' definition of Christ.

Do you see other conclusions from observing his life that would fit in this 'good teacher' definition, when looking at the entirety of his work?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BGrad -

Keeping my analysis, then, to the 3L without an eye on Lewis' intentions (which, I have to tell you, progressional thinking or not, strikes me as foolish - the fact is in Chapter 9 Lewis does assert a conclusion and is therefore open to scrutiny on it. Chapter 9's conclusion, incidentally, is 1 sentence or two.. he then goes on to talk about atonement (Admittedly in a fashion I find to be more palatable than the "punishment" theory of atonement) I'll try and satisfy your question of me.

"Rather, in itself, it is an argument against the notion that Jesus was exclusivly a good moral teacher based upon the only evidence we have about his life and teachings."

For this to be the case, for it to be true, then my remarks about the mutual exclusivity of the 3L MUST be true. And it's not. Your retort to that, which above was "by the way he's defining the terms, they are the only three options" is Special Pleading (in that Lewis owns the vocabulary and assesses its meaning making it immune from scrutiny) and fallacious.

Likewise, removing the immunity provided by the special pleading, you must face the fact that his 3 options are not mutually exclusive with regard to great moral teachers. A liar may well be a great moral teacher. You (or Lewis) needs to establish that this is not true, and cannot simply assume it's true because it sounds good. (Edit: What I mean is - and so I'm clear: you (Err... Lewis, I mean) need to connect how lying about his divinity has anything to do with his ability to provide solid information about morality.) I'm more willing to bet a liar is not a great moral teacher, however, than I am to accept that a lunatic is not. What does lunacy have to do with moral teaching? The answer, on it's face is - NOTHING. That is to say, even if we allow the 3L to be exclusive... it must be established that a Liar or a Lunatic can not also be a great moral teacher.. it does not follow.. and is falsifiable.. take Buddah for a quick example.

Furthermore, Lewis plays fast and loose with what he's talking about for effect. Truly, it's not "Liar Lunatic Lord" it's Lunatic, "Devil of Hell," Lord... or Lunatic, Fiend, Lord...

Well... how is that evident? I mean, funnily enough, Lewis himself has given us the 4th option to the 3L... but... forgiving that...

Devil of Hell... Fiend....
What, exactly, is hellish or fiendish, about the Jesus described in the Gospels? And this gets to my point to Jwin... For the "fiend" description to have any meaning at all, we have to assume the following:

Mankind is doomed to damnation
Jesus - if a lord - can save us from that damnation
Jesus - if not a lord, but a lying fiend - does not save us from damnation
Jesus lied about his ability to save, and we are not saved - revealing his "fiendishness"

The assumptions here, and there are at least three, which are required to keep this afloat fail.
1 - Hidden in the Jesus lying about being a Lord, and instead actually being a fiend has no real consequence. If not a lord, Jesus could not save us in the first place, so his lying about "saving us" did nothing. We were doomed to damnation before him... we are doomed after. Your belief of doomedness makes no difference. (But, with regard to his teachings being moral or not, we have no reference point. Love your neighbor is moral, or it is not.... to credit Lewis' idea - we have to choose the black and white.. if Jesus WAS who he said he was, we love the neighbor.... if he as not, we should do the opposite. G-d would want us to HATE our neighbor, since the Lying Fiend told us to love. This is, of course, a load of crap.)
2 - We have to believe the Christian mindset that we're doomed in the first place and need the saving. And that's what I've been saying about it assuming the very issue that is in question to prove the question. It's circular.
3 - To be truly a "devil of hell" we have to believe that not only was he lying about his identity, but that believers in Jesus as Christ - the people he duped (assuming, again, that he's a "fiend") would have been saved if they had not been "duped" by the "fiend" in the first place. Hard sell. Real hard sell - not only do we have to assume we're doomed, we have to assume a "fiendish Jesus" prevented us from knowing some other "real" savior.

I feel I want to say more, but I have to get running and so on... I've made this post relatively quickly and so if I've skipped a step or two, I apologize.

 

[muffler dragon]

Your first example equates perfectly to 'liar'.

Technically, plagiary deals with theft instead of lying (i.e. deception). I agree that it's related, but it's not equal to.

The general point of the 3-L statement was to refute the 'good teacher' definition of Christ.

Yet, the plagiarist/copy-cat would fit, because a "good teacher" would normally reference primary sources.

Do you see other conclusions from observing his life that would fit in this 'good teacher' definition, when looking at the entirety of his work?

It may sound rudimentary, but I would like for you to define "good teacher" for me. Would you mind?