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

[jwinslow]

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.

I'll be honest, this is a bit wordy, perhaps you could clarify a bit. How am I adding outlying information by saying Jesus was giving a bold and commanding message? Where is that debatable?

Now if you are approaching this from the bible being potential inaccurate, that's another ball of wax. It's been awhile since I've read it, but I believe Lewis' statement operates from the context of the Bible's retelling of Christ's teachings, assuming them to be accurate.

...

edit: I'm starting to catch up now, as I honestly did not digest the very long exchanges you recent had. I also have not gone back through the entire thing either, so my understanding of your viewpoint may be limited.

I think the answer involves both stances to a degree. Lewis tried to use logic & reason to evaluate what Jesus was. His conclusion is indeed that Christ was Lord, but I do not think that "seductive" phrase was intended to prove Him as God. I believe he intended to strip out the gray areas with regards to Christ's teachings, and I think he has a pretty valid point.

I believe he wants people to truly evaluate Jesus in detail for what he taught, and not sit on the fence casting dispersions and snagging useful morsels at the same time. I think that line intends to help one come closer to understanding Jesus, and then decide where you stand.

So while you are correct that it is not devoid of purpose, I also think bgrad is correct in asserting the statement stands without forcing one conclusion as correct.

..

Perhaps Christ's teachings have selective truths from which we can learn, even if he is grossly mistaken. The best and worst of speeches can provide great insight and lessons. But those morsels do not change the nature of the teachings, which fall into one extreme or another, depending on the observer.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Jwin, I'm not going re-state what I've already said in the long winded passages above, but to me your observation would be more forceful if it were not for the first paragraph of Chapter 9, where Lewis does exactly what Bgrad says he's not doing... Concluding Jesus must be Lord.

I understand and freely admit that one who already believes in the validity of the Gospels will accept the Liar Lunatic Lord trilemma rationale. In that regard, it's preaching to the believers, and really isn't particularly useful in terms of purpose. Eh... I guess I shouldn't say that, since I can't really say what a believer would/should feel... I just don't see the observation as adding anything useful to a belief in Christianity at all if that's all it is. I mean, if I already believe in the divinity of Jesus as described in the Gospels - I'm already not going to buy the "Great moral teacher" angle, so... why bother reminding me not to buy it?

No... as I think you agree with me... Lewis was clearly trying to find a way to convice non-believers to believe. My point is simply that his effort fails, and on multiple levels.

 

[Gatorubet]

t:

I'd like to ask you a question, and feel free to take some time to answer it.

IF Jesus truly understood the nature of G-d from a Jewish perspective; THEN do you not think that that would cause a major problem in his role of Messiah?

This may need to be moved to the Official Bible thread, but your statement made me think about this particular situation.

That was the point I was trying to make regarding "mistaken."

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'll be honest, this is a bit wordy, perhaps you could clarify a bit. How am I adding outlying information by saying Jesus was giving a bold and commanding message? Where is that debatable?

I glossed over this part, and wanted to make sure in my post directly below yours when I said "long winded" you didn't take that to mean I was refusing to re-state that part you quoted. My thinking was about my long winded passages on the last page....

So, I'll try to clarify what I was getting at in the the block you quoted from me....

What I meant by adding information to the question, and then filtering it through the Liar Lunatic paradigm, was ... well... I guess your question itself is sorta what I meant. You ask, "How is that debatable?"

And that's the point... it IS debatable. The reason it's debatable is because you're resting, as does Lewis, on some sort of vague remark which might have several meanings, but you are - at least as I read you - in sole charge of what it's supposed to mean and it's not open to criticism. I mean, was it "bold" or "commanding" to say "the Lord is One" (Mark 12:28) when that was just Jesus agreeing with the same commandment made in Deuteronomy? Of course, I don't mean for this lone example to represent the entirety of an argument regarding the vagueness you rest on, but I hope it's illustrative.

Likewise, what Jesus said at all is debatable. I mean, while I appreciate that you take the words in the Gospels as true and as the actual words of Jesus.... whether that is true or not is highly debatable and has been the subject of much debate since they were ever set on to parchment.

The Gospels are not first hand accounts. We can't know if Jesus, assuming he did exist, ever said any of these statements attributed to him. To the extent that he didn't say any one of these "Bold" or "Commanding" things, well... were does that leave us?

So, what I mean is - you add meaning to the variables, meaning you already believe, and then say what follows must be true. It's Special Pleading.

 

[jwinslow]

If you do not wish to accept the Bible or Christ's teachings as truth or trustworthy records of such, that's fine. But using that to trivialize this debate is frustrating to say the least.

If he didn't make those statements, then what's the point of making such a long-winded rebuttal?
If the Bible is as potentially unreliable as you like to repeat frequently, then there's no point in even evaluating what Lewis has to say, let alone taking him to task on this board for it.

Do you understand why this is difficult to hold a debate, when the context for the statement and subject matter is being blown to pieces, by a rebuttal that amounts to saying everything we think we see may be fallacy?

 

[jwinslow]

To an extent, you're arguing a variation of what Lewis said.

If Jesus wasn't what the Bible said He was, then the credibility of Christianity is crushed.
If Jesus wasn't who He said He was, then he was asking folks to give their lives to a greatly flawed belief system.

Regardless of whether there are still grains of truth inside of those teachings, the message itself falls apart. Whether you want to call that a lie (unintentional or otherwise), lunacy or whatever... it certainly is not 'wise' or 'Gods will'. That's CS Lewis' point.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

If you do not wish to accept the Bible or Christ's teachings as truth or trustworthy records of such, that's fine. But using that to trivialize this debate is frustrating to say the least.

Josh, my point on this thread is not to state any position with regard to the actual truth or non-truth of the Bible - specifically Christianity - and I don't believe I have (Though I would obviously admit I have in the past on other threads). My remarks on this thread are limited to recognition that the truth of them is not self evident. That's all.

If he didn't make those statements, then what's the point of making such a long-winded rebuttal?

Because Bgrad asked me what I found "wrong" with the Liar Lunatic Lord trilemma and whether or not those statements were made is questionable, and thus a valid objection.

If the Bible is as potentially unreliable as you like to repeat frequently, then there's no point in even evaluating what Lewis has to say, let alone taking him to task on this board for it.

Again, I was asked... it's not like I just decided to pound away on CS Lewis just out of the blue, on some whim. And I say again, the Bible's reliability is germane to the limited issue on this thread, regardless of whatever I may have argued in other threads. I'd ask you to disassociate my former remarks with the limited argument I'm trying to make here since there is no overlap of purpose... and if there is any, it's not intended.

Do you understand why this is difficult to hold a debate, when the context for the statement and subject matter is being blown to pieces, by a rebuttal that amounts to saying everything we think we see may be fallacy?

Sure. No one likes being told what they think is not as obvious as they'd like to think it is. But.. maybe it's just me... I like it when my beliefs are challenged. I guess you do not. That's fine. You're not required to like having to support your positions. In that respect, when you decide to chime in to these threads, perhaps I just ought to move straight past your opinion(s). Would that help?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

To an extent, you're arguing a variation of what Lewis said.

If Jesus wasn't what the Bible said He was, then the credibility of Christianity is crushed.

I've not argued that. At least not here.

If Jesus wasn't who He said He was, then he was asking folks to give their lives to a greatly flawed belief system.

So what if he was? This problem, if I can call it that, only has meaning if those he converted are subject to damnation on account of his "lie" Which, of course, isn't necessarily self evident either. For what it's worth, I surely don't believe it (That if Jesus wasn't Christ, Christians burn)

Regardless of whether there are still grains of truth inside of those teachings, the message itself falls apart. Whether you want to call that a lie (unintentional or otherwise), lunacy or whatever... it certainly is not 'wise' or 'Gods will'. That's CS Lewis' point.

How does the message fall apart? I truly don't understand this thinking. And, it comes full circle... whether or not the Gospel's are true or not doesn't matter (as Bgrad said on page 1, but for a different reason) in discerning Jesus' ability to be a great moral teacher. "Love your neighbor" is either good advice, or it is not. Jesus' divinity... the Gospel's expression that Jesus is divine... notwithstanding. One does not support, nor rely, on the other. That's all.

If you'd like, show me otherwise. Establish how the two are necessarily related. But, if you'd rather not, then don't. At least you know where I stand and why I stand there.

 

[jwinslow]

Sure. No one likes being told what they think is not as obvious as they'd like to think it is. But.. maybe it's just me... I like it when my beliefs are challenged. I guess you do not. That's fine.

I don't mind having my beliefs challenged. But the opposing viewpoint and reference point in history is so slippery that it's hard to debate your side. See the following line to clarify.

You're not required to like having to support your positions. In that respect, when you decide to chime in to these threads, perhaps I just ought to move straight past your opinion(s). Would that help?

It would help if you were providing some form of alternative context, based on something concrete than idle speculation. That's where the frustration comes from on my end.

If you don't believe Christ said what he did, or the Bible misrepresented, explain what has led you to believe this. Give me a starting point from which to discuss this. Simply stating "it might not be" is too open ended to properly respond.

Instead, some of these arguments seem to cover a number of bases, using the unknown to poke holes at my base's credibility, without really showing where you're coming from. Not that I don't understand your arguments as much as the multi-faceted stance is a bit difficult to debate against.

 

[jwinslow]

I'll try and keep history on this subject in those threads. My apologies for that.

So what if he was? This problem, if I can call it that, only has meaning if those he converted are subject to damnation on account of his "lie" Which, of course, isn't necessarily self evident either. For what it's worth, I surely don't believe it (That if Jesus wasn't Christ, Christians burn)

I wasn't arguing that they were damned if Jesus was wrong/lied/etc. But they most certainly are living and patterning themselves after a lie, whether it was intentional or innocent. There may still be lifestyle benefits to living that flawed faith system, but I don't believe that changes it's overall nature.

How does the message fall apart? I truly don't understand this thinking. And, it comes full circle... whether or not the Gospel's are true or not doesn't matter (as Bgrad said on page 1, but for a different reason) in discerning Jesus' ability to be a great moral teacher. "Love your neighbor" is either good advice, or it is not. Jesus' divinity... the Gospel's expression that Jesus is divine... notwithstanding. One does not support, nor rely, on the other. That's all.

I'll get into more detail here later (hopefully tonight, if not probably not till late sun/mon), but his message was not a simple, vague set of life advice. It was a radical diversion from the lifestyles around them, including many devout Jews.

I'm not denying that there were many life lessons one can glean from Christ, or Gandhi, or even Dictators in select examples. But those snippets do not change the flawed nature of the belief system he taught.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I don't mind having my beliefs challenged. But the opposing viewpoint and reference point in history is so slippery that it's hard to debate your side. See the following line to clarify.It would help if you were providing some form of alternative context, based on something concrete than idle speculation. That's where the frustration comes from on my end.

If you don't believe Christ said what he did, or the Bible misrepresented, explain what has led you to believe this. Give me a starting point from which to discuss this. Simply stating "it might not be" is too open ended to properly respond.

Instead, some of these arguments seem to cover a number of bases, using the unknown to poke holes at my base's credibility, without really showing where you're coming from. Not that I don't understand your arguments as much as the multi-faceted stance is a bit difficult to debate against.

I think you're attribiting much more to my motivation than is my actual motivation. I have not "supported" why I don't believe Christ said or did what he did, or that the Bible misrepresents the same because whether that is true or not is not of consequence. The only reason I bring up that it MAY NOT be true, is because it's a valid objection to Lewis' trilemma.

Why you're personalizing this ("My bases credibility") I do not understand. I'm simply outlining why I think Lewis' argument is crap. I think I've supported why I believe this. I'm not trying to fling some sort of insult at Lewis just for the sake of doing so... and I honestly can't see where anything I've said about CS Lewis has you questioning anything regaridng the validity of the Bible.. or even that I'm calliing it invalid. I'm saying, simply, because it is POSSIBLE that it is not valid, the Trilemma argument fails to support itself. That's all.

If you want me to go on and on about specifics why I personally don't believe the New Test, then this is not that thread. We can have that debate again on the "Official Bible Thread" if you like... I'm not sure I have anything else to add to what I've already said on the topic, though... But, if you want, we can do that.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'll try and keep history on this subject in those threads. My apologies for that.I wasn't arguing that they were damned if Jesus was wrong/lied/etc. But they most certainly are living and patterning themselves after a lie, whether it was intentional or innocent. There may still be lifestyle benefits to living that flawed faith system, but I don't believe that changes it's overall nature.

Without a note of the consequences of "pattering themselves after a lie" I can't see how or why this objection has any relevant meaning, which is why I said what you quoted. So what if you're living a lie? Does it make you happy? Does it make you a better person than you are without the lie? So, what does it matter if it's a lie?

Frankly, calling it a "lie" isn't even something I'd really prefer to do. Being a Christian - behaviorally, whatever that may be - isn't a "lie" I'm just trying to use the word you used for consistency sake.

I guess my point is simple, on this issue - whether or not Jesus is "wrong" only has the meaning/consequence you fear if Jesus was right.

Hmmm... let me say that more directly - The problem with Jesus not being who he says he was, is only deterimental to his current believers if Jesus IS who he said he was.

Does that make sense to you?

I'll get into more detail here later (hopefully tonight, if not probably not till late sun/mon), but his message was not a simple, vague set of life advice. It was a radical diversion from the lifestyles around them, including many devout Jews.

Didn't say it was. But, I look forward to your observations.

I'm not denying that there were many life lessons one can glean from Christ, or Gandhi, or even Dictators in select examples. But those snippets do not change the flawed nature of the belief system he taught.

If it's easier, I'd really rather this thread stick more to this question than getting in to detail about whatever Jesus' message was. I mean, do as you please, but here I'm really more interested in what the "flawed nature" observation has to do with anything? (I think it's on topic with regard to the "great moral teacher" angle)

Like I've said... even if we assume Jesus was batshit crazy, how does "Love your Neighbor" become "Flawed" or "unworthy" or.. whatever...

Are you simply saying it's being flawed shows Jesus wasn't G-d? That's just a circular conclusion we'd already have established in "admitting" the flaw in the first place, so again, I don't see the relative importance to the lable of flaw or not vis a vis the message(s) he gave and people pattern their life after.

Once again... does it bring you comfort? Does it make you a better person? If yes, who fucking cares if it's "flawed"

 

[Gatorubet]

Do you understand why this is difficult to hold a debate, when the context for the statement and subject matter is being blown to pieces, by a rebuttal that amounts to saying everything we think we see may be fallacy?

In any debate you have to prove every element of your position. When you stake out a large part of the factual content of any debate as "this is given to be true before we start chatting", you usually win the debate.

Problem is, that is not a debate or a discussion, but a lecture. And that is fine. Nothing wrong with that at all. And you are indeed correct that it is hard to have a debate under those parameters, but not for the reasons you think. If you make a statement of fact, it is demonstrably true or not. Saying "the Gospels are true" is not of the same demonstrably true nature. Being sincere and passionate about your religious beliefs is of little import at all. By that I mean, every flavor religion can produce very nice moral people who have relied upon their religion and received spiritual gifts. Hindu Gods answer prayers too, at least they say prayers and miracles happen. The Koran fills its readers with an overwhelming sense of well being and truth as well. Catholics know that saints can heal. Protestants know in their heart and soul that praying to the Saints is a crock, but that the Word in the Scriptures is true and gives a feeling of being Born Again that others can never know.

Somebody, or all of them, or none of them, is right. But those assertions of truth accompanying the discussion are not capable of "debate" if each one starts off by saying, "Well - before we begin, let's agree that (fill in belief) is true because (fill in Holy Book) says so.

This is a hard subject to debate because saying to believers that their belief system in essentially worthless in this debate sans proof is a hard thing to hear. It is offensive to the senses. But if one is to have a true "debate" about the truth of one's theology, you have to start with the proposition that others do not start in the same place as you do. Starting the debate with a Presbyterian implies a given set of beliefs. Starting with a Christian broadens and lessens those beliefs, depending on the flavor denomination. Starting with Deists is a wider set. Starting with a group that might be atheist is to have to start from scratch.

So while it is not easy, it is useful to start from scratch if only to reconfirm one's beliefs through examination. To believe something because they were brought up that way, or because their parents taught them that way is - to me - the least useful argument. As a person who was not brought up in the church I enjoy - and require - a church that lets you look at the issues from even a heretical standpoint. I mean, if we cannot defend a view and articulate it, why should anyone believe anything that we have to say? I am a piss poor Christian in many ways, as I hold several heretical views that might even kick me to the curb. But as I was not brought up to believe "this is so" like my Baptist wife, learning other viewpoints does not hamper me by totally disrupting my theological views. I just input the info and ponder it. As such, I am not a literalist, and so nothing in the theory of evolution detracts from my view of God and his role on earth.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

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."

t:

I'd like to ask you a question, and feel free to take some time to answer it.

IF Jesus truly understood the nature of G-d from a Jewish perspective; THEN do you not think that that would cause a major problem in his role of Messiah?

This may need to be moved to the Official Bible thread, but your statement made me think about this particular situation.

That was the point I was trying to make regarding "mistaken."

I actually have not read this book, but I do remember the author explaining it in an interview... it was along these same lines. He reviews the historical Jesus vis-a-vis historical Judaism. There's a volume II as well.

 

[muffler dragon]

[quote='BusNative;119767;8]I actually have not read this book, but I do remember the author explaining it in an interview... it was along these same lines. He reviews the historical Jesus vis-a-vis historical Judaism. There's a volume II as well. [/quote]

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