Behold the Trilemma: Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?

[water]

I think everyone is justified in disbelief about ANYTHING if it doesn't make sense in their minds. Why should people be forced or expected to believe what they DON'T or CAN'T believe according to the use of their own mind?

This is totally not the case. If you don't believe in something -- for whatever reason --, then you don't believe in that, done deal, end of story. You don't go on and on and on about what you *do not* believe, do you?

Do people fervently post on forums about their disbelief in Santa and pink elephants? No. Why not? Because they don't believe in them, Santa and pink elephants are nothing to them.
More seriously, it is safe to say that most people don't believe that the governments of their states have ulterior motives with their citizens. Do you see and hear people going around, saying how they don't believe that the governments of their states have ulterior motives with their citizens? No. Why not? Because they do not believe the governments of their states have ulterior motives with their citizens.
If you don't believe something, you don't talk about it much, or not at all.

But what does SouthStar do? He posts and posts about his disbelief; he posts and posts, trying to dig up some evidence, some scripture that would confirm that the tradition he was brought up with is wrong. Why does he do this? If he would be *sure* that what he was taught is wrong, he would not talk about it much, would he, and certainly not as fervently as he does, would he?!

So he is posting either
1. Because he is full of resentment for the tradition. (Which is understandable.)
2. He is trying to justify his disbelief. -- Since his disbelief is obviously far from surety.

3. I don't buy that the reason is that he is "merely investigating arguments". He puts great amounts of effort and time into this, and one wouldn't do that "just because".

It is not so long that he said he lost his faith, and thinking that he completely recovered from that within a few weeks -- no, I don't believe that. He is not a robot.

Since this is a religion forum for general discussion, and not a pulpit for dogmatic assertions, what's wrong with SouthStar's poll?

Wrong? Taken out of context, nothing is "wrong" with this poll. But knowing SouthStar's history here, I'd say that he is in personal distress. And I can understand him. I just wish he would understand himself too.

And if Christianity is in fact the supremely rational religion, then Christians are free to help convince SouthStar of the error of his ways.

Sarky, aren't we?

 

[anonymous2]

But what does SouthStar do? He posts and posts about his disbelief; he posts and posts, trying to dig up some evidence, some scripture that would confirm that the tradition he was brought up with is wrong. Why does he do this? If he would be *sure* that what he was taught is wrong, he would not talk about it much, would he, and certainly not as fervently as he does, would he?!

I think SouthStar is going through an opposite phase. He apparently believed in the Christian religion wholeheartedly, and now since he sees things in it which don't make sense to him, he's trying to figure them out and reconcile them. He may post many anti-Christian things perhaps because he wants to get input and try to reconcile Christian faith with reason in his mind and perhaps even return to his prior Christian faith. Notice that his tagline or whatever one calls it says "I WANT TO BELIEVE". I believe him. He's struggling and trying to figure out what the truth is. That doesn't necessarily mean he's an "evil anti-Christ", does it?

Sarky, aren't we?

It may be sarcastic, but it's also true: if Christianity is true and really makes sense, Christians are free to help convince SouthStar of its truthfulness. If a person is a Christian, and he/she wants to help return a wayward brother to the faith, maybe it'd be a good idea to show him some love, and not condemn him in his studies. Maybe he'll see that love and think of a reason why he believed in the first place, by seeing Christ in you? That's if you're a Christian. I'm not entirely sure if you are or not.

Also, SouthStar at least once capitalized the pronoun "His" when SouthStar referred to Jesus in the "body" of a sentence. I think this is actually SouthStar's practice, he capitalizes a pronoun referring to Jesus in the "body" of a sentence. What does that tell you? To me, it tells me that at least part of SouthStar still "wants to believe", that he still has at least a bit of respect for Jesus, and that SouthStar still has a "part" of him that is "Christian". He's in conflict.

Just my opinion.

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar,


Still on your crusade/jihad/some antichristian affray ...

I wonder how far you will go trying to justify your disbelief.

No, antichristian crusade here.. I was only amused by C.S. Lewis' ultimatum because I actually used to believe it and use it in apologetics myself. Need I create an antiMuslim thread to show I'm not biased?

 

[§outh§tar]

*A God would who created man out of dirt would not need a woman to create a son

Again, not necessarily. If "created out of [the slime of the earth]" means that the physical part of man developed out of a single celled organism from the bottom of the ocean, by the process of evolution, then again, not needing a woman to create a Son would be against the laws which He created. You may argue that creating a son without a father to inseminate the mother is against the laws which He created, and I would definitely agree that there is a difficulty there. However, it is not one that may not be overcome, if you are willing to consider theoretical notions (which, no doubt, would seem fantastical to most peopl).

I don't know that the Biblical account anywhere gives the option of life created out of "the slime of the earth" or the 'bottom of the ocean". It seems your interpretation is a bit arbitrary..

*A God who is loving and just would not torture his son to rid the world of sin

God did not torture His son. Humans did. God simply allowed it to take place, in light of the great goodness designed to come of it. It isn't that God tortured His Son to rid the world of sin, it's that in order to rid the world of sin, one must give totally of Himself, and make the ultimate sacrifice for all.

Or God could just have made us perfect in the first place.. no?

*Jesus if he was divine, would not have been able to be killable by man:

Jesus' divine nature wouldn't, and wasn't killed by man. Only His human nature was.

According to the Bible, Jesus wasn't killed. He voluntarily gave up his Spirit ("It is finished") but that really is another debate.

 

[§outh§tar]

It is part of a sales pitch which is what Christianity is when you look at it. It's an intro pitch. By accepting that Jesus was a God rather than a man you are accepting the one tennent that makes Christianity unique to all religions. ...if one does that it is a much shorter step to Christianity.

The pitch is not that different than an insurance pitch. Give you some paralells. In an standard life insurance pitch it is made clear that life is uncertain, money set-aside for emergencies is good, insurance is a transference of risk and as a deal closer the consquences of not having the service.

Christainty, which is one of the most (only rivaled by Islamic religion but higher still in total recruitment) recrutive religions in existance and the presmise is the same.

Life is uncertain after death. setting up a plan for the afterlife is important (in this case accepting Jesus), Jesus is the transference of risk (orginal sin) and the deal closer is hell for non acceptance.

Interesting analogy for Pascal's Wager. I must admit I often slap myeslf on the forehead and call myself a fool for rejecting something this lucrative and this promising.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

I don't know that the Biblical account anywhere gives the option of life created out of "the slime of the earth" or the 'bottom of the ocean". It seems your interpretation is a bit arbitrary...

Actually, the Genesis account that I'm most familiar with describes it in that way (the slime of the earth, or the mud of the earth), which is quite similar to how the first evolutionary stages were said to be. If the Bible is to be taken as truthful, and the evolutionary model is the best scientific model that we have right now concerning the development of life here on earth, then I think it most suitable to make that interpretation. I don't consider it arbitrary at all.

Or God could just have made us perfect in the first place.. no?

God did.

According to the Bible, Jesus wasn't killed. He voluntarily gave up his Spirit ("It is finished") but that really is another debate.

I have no arguments with this.

 

[water]

That doesn't necessarily mean he's an "evil anti-Christ", does it?

Uh. When did I ever say that he's an "evil anti-Christ"?! Did you read what I wrote?

I doesn't really matter about which religion his struggle is. The point is that he is disappointed with the tradition he was brought up with, and I dare say he is hurt. I wish he would see his hurt, and not try to rationalize it.

It may be sarcastic, but it's also true: if Christianity is true and really makes sense, Christians are free to help convince SouthStar of its truthfulness.

This is totally not the issue. I don't consider myself a Christian, and I am not here to "help return a wayward brother to the faith", that is none of my business.

But I can see when someone is rationalizing his hurt, in order to somehow get over it. Like you said, he is in conflict.
The sad part is that he seems to understand [SouthStar, are you reading?] this conflict only in regards to the religious content, disregarding the emotional charge that comes with it.

I just wish he could let it out, cry over it. That would do him more good than any scriptorial reference or argument.

 

[water]

Interesting analogy for Pascal's Wager. I must admit I often slap myeslf on the forehead and call myself a fool for rejecting something this lucrative and this promising.

Pascal's wager is squeamish escapism. It's a try to bargain with absolutes, a try to make a business transaction out of the belief that is to be dearest to your heart. One can go for Pascal's wager only if one thinks oneself a robot.


(Sorry, Blaise, but your wager is encouraging one to be a coward.)

 

[Tiassa]

Just a blast from the past: Click Here

 

[Medicine*Woman]

RosaMagika: If you don't believe in something -- for whatever reason --, then you don't believe in that, done deal, end of story. You don't go on and on and on about what you *do not* believe, do you?
*************
M*W: When someone gives up an addiction, they go through withdrawal. The same thing applies to those who give up something as addictive as Christianity. It is not an overnight process. It could take years to get over, and talking about one's addiction as in "spilling one's guts" is helpful in the withdrawal process. It may seem annoying to those who simply don't care about the addict's process of deprogramming and reformation process, but it serves a greater good to those who've "been there and done that" withdrawing from religious addiction. To deny someone the benefit of a sympathetic ear when one needs to "bare their soul" is selfish, inhumane and mean -- but, of course, that does describe you very well.
*************
RosaMagika: Do people fervently post on forums about their disbelief in Santa and pink elephants? No. Why not? Because they don't believe in them, Santa and pink elephants are nothing to them. More seriously, it is safe to say that most people don't believe that the governments of their states have ulterior motives with their citizens. Do you see and hear people going around, saying how they don't believe that the governments of their states have ulterior motives with their citizens? No. Why not? Because they do not believe the governments of their states have ulterior motives with their citizens. If you don't believe something, you don't talk about it much, or not at all.
*************
M*W: Belief in Santa and pink elephants is not an addiction unless you are five-years old and it's Christmastime. I've never heard of anyone obsessing over pink elephants the way certain folks obsess over Christianity. There is more truth believing in pink elephants than in Christianity.
*************
RosaMagika: But what does SouthStar do? He posts and posts about his disbelief; he posts and posts, trying to dig up some evidence, some scripture that would confirm that the tradition he was brought up with is wrong. Why does he do this? If he would be *sure* that what he was taught is wrong, he would not talk about it much, would he, and certainly not as fervently as he does, would he?!
*************
M*W: You are so wrong! Posting one's new found belief is therapeutic. If you are bored by it, you should not read what SouthStar posts. Every human being has the right to seek solace from people they know and are close to. SouthStar has already told us that he really has no one in his life except the Christians he knew. He had a hard time talking to one of his closest Christian friends who basically shut him off. Perhaps, some of us on sciforums want to support SouthStar through this process of deprogramming and withdrawal. Some of us have been through the same withdrawal from the evil clutches of Christianity, and we understand what SouthStar is going through. He is airing his innermost feelings about his decision to reclaim his soul. That is to be admired, because it's a very hard thing to do. He needs to lean on us and for us to listen to him as he recovers from many years of spiritual imprisonment. If you don't want to be a part of his recovery, just don't read his posts, but it IS NOT for you to say or complain that SouthStar posts too much! You probably even think that your posts are not boring!
*************
RosaMagika: So he is posting either
1. Because he is full of resentment for the tradition. (Which is understandable.)
2. He is trying to justify his disbelief. -- Since his disbelief is obviously far from surety.
3. I don't buy that the reason is that he is "merely investigating arguments". He puts great amounts of effort and time into this, and one wouldn't do that "just because".
*************
M*W: Again, you're wrong:
1. I should think that a person withdrawing from Christianity would have a lot of self-resentment, because the addiction was self-inflicted over a number of years or one's lifetime. Also, there's a lot of disillusionment that occurs when one finds out the truth. It takes time to go through the grief process, and sudden disbelief in one's chosen religion (addiction) is a feeling of great loss.
2. I suspect SouthStar is having a lot of mental anguish right about now. He's experiencing guilt, because that's what he had been taught to do by Christianity. He's trying to weigh the truth and the fiction he's been taught by Christianity. The truth has finally outweighed the fiction.
3. I doubt that SouthStar is "merely investigating arguments," I believe he is in the process of proving his arguments. He's throwing them out here to us on sciforums, because I believe he doesn't have anyone in his personal life who will tell him the truth. He trusts us because we have no reason to lie to him.
*************
RosaMagika: It is not so long that he said he lost his faith, and thinking that he completely recovered from that within a few weeks -- no, I don't believe that. He is not a robot. Wrong? Taken out of context, nothing is "wrong" with this poll. But knowing SouthStar's history here, I'd say that he is in personal distress. And I can understand him. I just wish he would understand himself too.
*************
M*W: No, it has not been that long since he first lost his faith, and he is trying to reconcile himself to the fiction he believed and now to the fact he has found. If you know that someone is in "personal distress" and you still write a hateful post like you did about SouthStar's "history here," you have the compassion of a robot. You say you understand him, yet, you "wish he would understand himself, too." Why are you pushing him? This could be a long process SouthStar will go through, and it was HIS choice. It's no skin off of your back. Why would you be so hateful as to condemn him for his posts that are obviously healing to him? You need to take a course in Compassion 101. You disgust me.

 

[David F.]

C.S. Lewis is absoultely right on in this quote. Jesus does not give us the option of thinking he is just a great teacher. You have to love him or hate him - there is no in between. Jesus is Lord God or he is a complete wacko. I question perhaps the possbility of liar - crazy maybe but how can it be that he does not at least believe his own rehtoric? All the same, leave the poll the way it is.

 

[anonymous2]

C.S. Lewis is absoultely right on in this quote. Jesus does not give us the option of thinking he is just a great teacher. You have to love him or hate him - there is no in between. Jesus is Lord God or he is a complete wacko. I question perhaps the possbility of liar - crazy maybe but how can it be that he does not at least believe his own rehtoric? All the same, leave the poll the way it is.

Such a strict dichotomy does not make the most sense in my opinion. Do you consider another of the alleged prophets or godmen to be either "Who He Said He Was", as if it's the OMINOUS statement that Christians seem to make of it, or completely wacko? I don't love or hate him, because I don't know if what the Bible says about him is completely historically accurate. I could love or hate what the Bible SAYS he said, but that doesn't mean I'd have love him or hate him personally.

And if someone already accepts everything the Bible says about Jesus as completely historically accurate, then most likely that someone is already a Christian, right? It depends on the Jesus someone has in his or her mind I think.

 

[David F.]

OK, good point. Maybe the poll should be Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or the Bible Lies.

Yes, you are right, to love/hate him, you must at least believe that what the bible says Jesus said is accurate. Even if you believe the Bible to be an accurate record, you might still not be a Christain.

 

[anonymous2]

OK, good point. Maybe the poll should be Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or the Bible Lies.

Yes, you are right, to love/hate him, you must at least believe that what the bible says Jesus said is accurate. Even if you believe the Bible to be an accurate record, you might still not be a Christain.

How many people do you know accept everything in the Bible as historically accurate but who is not a Christian? The Bible says Jesus performed many miracles and resurrected from the dead. I'd think that'd be convincing enough for many people, unless they believe that Jesus' power was from an evil force (which the Bible tries to argue against with its blasphemy of the holy spirit warning).

 

[TheERK]

This is totally not the case. If you don't believe in something -- for whatever reason --, then you don't believe in that, done deal, end of story. You don't go on and on and on about what you *do not* believe, do you?

Do people fervently post on forums about their disbelief in Santa and pink elephants? No. Why not? Because they don't believe in them, Santa and pink elephants are nothing to them.

No, they don't go on about those things because they are not relevant in our society. It is perfectly valid to debate and bring up an idea that you don't believe in as long as it has relevance. In other words, because most people actually *do* believe these things, disbelief is justified as a topic. Because nobody believes in pink elephants, discussion regarding disbelief in them is worthless. There's nothing to debate because everybody agrees.

If you don't believe something, you don't talk about it much, or not at all.

You couldn't be further from the truth. See above.

But what does SouthStar do? He posts and posts about his disbelief; he posts and posts, trying to dig up some evidence, some scripture that would confirm that the tradition he was brought up with is wrong. Why does he do this? If he would be *sure* that what he was taught is wrong, he would not talk about it much, would he, and certainly not as fervently as he does, would he?!

Wow, this is ignorant. Look, Southstar debated endlessly when he was a Christian, and it's not surprising that he doesn't stop as a non-believer. Why are you looking for hidden motives, when it is obvious that the guy simply likes the discussion? Pretending that he is insecure with his beliefs or lack thereof, simply because he discusses them, is complete nonsense.

So he is posting either
1. Because he is full of resentment for the tradition. (Which is understandable.)
2. He is trying to justify his disbelief. -- Since his disbelief is obviously far from surety.

Or he gets an intellectual kick out of discussing those things. Also, having disbelief 'far from surety' is not wrong, as I'm sure you know.

 

[robtex]

C.S. Lewis is absoultely right on in this quote. Jesus does not give us the option of thinking he is just a great teacher. You have to love him or hate him - there is no in between. Jesus is Lord God or he is a complete wacko. I question perhaps the possbility of liar - crazy maybe but how can it be that he does not at least believe his own rehtoric? All the same, leave the poll the way it is.

That is heart wrenching. Love or hate with no inbetween. How can you live in a world where all your neigbors are either loved by you or hated by you based on your perception or realization of their belief in JC?

Why can there be no inbetween. Why can't one just admire him? Why can't someone just respect him. How can this great man's words, so pure and good, full of acceptance, love, praise and mutual respect be re-defined thousands of years later to be "You love him or hate him..no inbetween?" Kinda like when Bush says you are for us or against us. Kinda exactly like that.....

That is your summation of Jesus Christ..."love or hate?" How can a man known thoughout history as being possibly the most accepting man that ever lived fostered a religion that has such extremes that there is no middle ground?

Do you realize that by that philosphy everyone who is not a Christian is by your defintion your enemy and someone you should hate?

Jesus is the Christian word for love by the words printed in the new testiment by his deeds and actions weather or not they happen....they are all acts of kindness, compassion, loyalty and love. Jesus was love and you Christians that follow him sometimes forget this and use fear and hate ...with bizzare statements likes CS Lewis'es that force one to take sides.

If you ignored CS Lewis silly comment and could for us post all the groups that hate (not disbelieve, not are indifferent to, not who just like but not love), Jesus Christ....that would be nice.

When CS Lewis sprouts baloney like that he is making a future enemy out of a possible friend. Jesus Christ the pacifist would never approve of this.

 

[§outh§tar]

Actually, the Genesis account that I'm most familiar with describes it in that way (the slime of the earth, or the mud of the earth), which is quite similar to how the first evolutionary stages were said to be. If the Bible is to be taken as truthful, and the evolutionary model is the best scientific model that we have right now concerning the development of life here on earth, then I think it most suitable to make that interpretation. I don't consider it arbitrary at all.

What if the next big thing in science was how life on earth came from an asteroid? Would you "adjust" your interpretations to suit that too?

 

[David F.]

That is heart wrenching. Love or hate with no inbetween. How can you live in a world where all your neigbors are either loved by you or hated by you based on your perception or realization of their belief in JC?

Why can there be no inbetween. Why can't one just admire him? Why can't someone just respect him. How can this great man's words, so pure and good, full of acceptance, love, praise and mutual respect be re-defined thousands of years later to be "You love him or hate him..no inbetween?" Kinda like when Bush says you are for us or against us. Kinda exactly like that.....

That is your summation of Jesus Christ..."love or hate?" How can a man known thoughout history as being possibly the most accepting man that ever lived fostered a religion that has such extremes that there is no middle ground?

Do you realize that by that philosphy everyone who is not a Christian is by your defintion your enemy and someone you should hate?

Jesus is the Christian word for love by the words printed in the new testiment by his deeds and actions weather or not they happen....they are all acts of kindness, compassion, loyalty and love. Jesus was love and you Christians that follow him sometimes forget this and use fear and hate ...with bizzare statements likes CS Lewis'es that force one to take sides.

If you ignored CS Lewis silly comment and could for us post all the groups that hate (not disbelieve, not are indifferent to, not who just like but not love), Jesus Christ....that would be nice.

When CS Lewis sprouts baloney like that he is making a future enemy out of a possible friend. Jesus Christ the pacifist would never approve of this.

Jesus Christ is a passivist? Why would he then turn over the tables of the money changes and use a (small) whip on them? Why would he call the Pharisees hypocrites and verbally abuse those who he considered bad? Why was he constantly talking about the kingdom of God and destroying those who opposed God - burning them in the fires of Hell?

Mt 6:2
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Mt 6:5
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you *, They have their reward.

Mt 6:16
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you *, They have their reward.

Mt 15:7
Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrins the commandments of men.

Mt 16:3
And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern * the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

Mt 22:18
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

Mt 23:13
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Mt 23:14
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mt 23:15
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mt 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment *, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Mt 23:25
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Mt 23:27
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Mt 23:29
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

Mt 24:51
And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mr 7:6
He answered and said unto them *, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Lu 11:44
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

Lu 12:56
Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?

Mt 3:12
Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Mt 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Lu 3:17
Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

and this is only a few. Do you read the same bible I do? In Revelations, it talks of Jesus coming to destroy his enemies.

Jesus proclaims himself to be God and the Judge of the whole Earth. If you accept him as such, then you may love him. If you reject him as God and Judge then how can you love someone who will send you to a lake of fire and "force" you to bow down and proclaim him as LORD/Master.

 

[TheERK]

That is heart wrenching. Love or hate with no inbetween. How can you live in a world where all your neigbors are either loved by you or hated by you based on your perception or realization of their belief in JC?

You missed the point. Jesus wasn't your ordinary neightbor: he was a figure who claimed to be God. The point is, if this is true, then I suppose everything else he said is true and we'd do best to follow him.

If it is not true, then he was not a 'great teacher'. C.S. Lewis was correct: wishy-washyness isn't an option when it comes to Jesus. True, we don't have to 'hate' someone just because they're either a liar or insane, but we don't call that figure a great teacher, either. There are plenty of people even today with claims and teachings similar to Jesus. But we don't listen to what they have to say, and respond 'Oh, he's not God, but he's a great teacher nonetheless.' We say 'he's insane' or 'he's a scammer.'

 

[stretched]

Yo Dudies,

From CS Lewis:
"Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God."

My choice out of the three would be- "Shut him up for a fool". At least we have plenty evidence of historic and contemporary psychological conditions where seemingly reasonable moral espousements are wrapped up in a dellusional package of "I am God". A fairly common occurrance across all cultural spheres.

However CS Lewis is reasoning from his subjective Western Christian Judaic background and upbringing. His choices are severly limited by this. If CS Lewis was maybe from China or Japan, would he have formed only these three outcomes? Methinks not. Comparing the alleged outporings of the alleged Jesus, to the wisdom and insight put forth by Confucious or Lao-Tse for example, would greatly question his apparent exemplary morality. And as a bonus, neither Confucious or Lao-Tse claimed to be god, or condemned others to a hell for disbelief in their path.

Furthermore the wisdom of these two Eastern teachers are not hearsay, nor contradictory. So I think maybe CS Lewis could add to his choices the option of: "Was and is Jesus only a figment of religious fantasy, existant only in the fabricated mythology of mankinds creative search for solutions to the question of mortality?"

Allcare.