GakuseiDon

Lewis didn't believe so. In the same section of "God in the dock", Lewis said, "In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man."

That's Lewis's opinion. So, is he right? Are there any great moral teachers who were also recognised as being quite mad?
Then it would be out of scope of the trilemma. I'm not trying to prove that Jesus was God, either.

GakuseiDon

Lewis said, "In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man."

Have there been any great moral teachers who were recognised as being quite mad?

GakuseiDon

So you agree with the trilemma then? That Buddha, if he existed, and if he was quoted accurately, was who he said he was, or he was lying, or he was a madman?

Vorkosigan

Yes, I understand that. But I don't see the logical contradiction between madness and great ethical teaching. The fact that offhand we can't think of any nutso ethical would not necessarily confirm Lewis' point. That point is already invalidated because we know numerous ethical thinkers who were also humans and therefore lied, as humans will.



Irony of ironies...I suspect if we sifted through the Church's list of saints, we'd find many who taught about ethics, and were quite mad.

Quote:

Then it would be out of scope of the trilemma. I'm not trying to prove that Jesus was God, either.

Don, it looks like you want to argue that within the tiny little world it creates, Lewis' argument isn't flawed. Perhaps that is true. But in order to create that world, you have to accept innumerable premises (we know what Jesus said, it was all faithfully reported, liars and lunatics cannot be great moral teachers, etc) that will not hold up under scrutiny.

Peter, that was an absolutely crushing post. :notworthy

Vorkosigan

Mediancat

But is a complete lunatic necessarily recognizable as such by everyone? There are many people who are quietly mad, convinced they are God or the son of, yet who could quite easily pass in normal society -- or, worse, gain followers through the strength of their convictions, lunatic or not. Jim Jones was a wonderful example of this. Was he mad? Probably. But did he convince people he was a holy man and moral teacher? Oh, yes.

Rob aka Mediancat

Roland

If Lewis is so brilliant, did he ever confront the following dilemma?:

Why is it that all the quotes attributed to Jesus in The Gospel of John are DIFFERENT FROM THE QUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO HIM IN THE SYNOPTICS?

On what basis, therefore, do we have even the slightest confidence that Jesus actually said all those things John's Gospel claims he did? If he had uttered them, why wouldn't any of the Synoptic writers have picked up on them and included them in THEIR gospels? The sayings of Jesus found in the fourth gospel are obviously fabrications made by a person with a specific theological point to get across.

Lewis should have seen that.

CX

I don't want to hijack or derail this thread so maybe we should think about starting another. That being sad I have always been utterly bemused by the claim that Jesus was a great moral teacher. Much of what Jesus is purported to have said, when divorced from twisted apologetic, was not especially moral by contemporary standards. The things that are contained within the teaching of Jesus (love your neighbor, give to those in need, pacifism, etc.) which are decent moral principles are totally unoriginal. I think the pagan philosopher Celsus made this point far better than I am making it now. I'd be interested for someone to point out one unique or completely orginal moral principle promulgated by Jesus.

RED DAVE

I remember my first response to this: what a piece of patronizing crap!

1) It is extremely iffy that he said he was God.

2) If he did, he was incredibly outside the Jewish tradition as it was and is. Therefore, why should Jews accept him at his word. And, in fact, few Jews did or do. If fact, why should nayone but some kind of Biblical literalist accept his words, as writtin in the gospels?

3) Lewis never could figure out why his wife Joy's family (Jewish) were not overjoyed by her conversion of xtianity. He was, in fact, borderline antisemitic.

RED DAVE

Secular Pinoy

Indeed, if we accept the findings of the Jesus Seminar, and especially Robert Funk's interpretations of them in his book Honest To Jesus, I cannot see why he would be considered a great moral teacher. In the said book, Funk emphasized the radical teachings of Jesus. He flouted social convention, ridiculed ordinary thinking, and had ironic or unconventional endings in his parables.

Toto

I give, Peter. Who authored those quotes?

And, as far as I know, the Buddha never claimed to get a unique insight into enlightenment, and at least some Buddhists do not consider enlightenment to be the result of supernatural inspiration.