collyblom

I'm not sure I'm in the right place for this, but I wanted to know what people thought of the following:

It's a quote from here.

Roland

This is the classic false dilemma argument.

I can think of at least one other possible alternative:

The person who wrote the Gospel of John made up the quotes.

I thought Lewis was supposed to be such a smart guy.

Ellis14

Here is more information on this particular logical fallacy:

http://skepdic.com/falsedilemma.html

post tenebras lux

I think that many people will query the 'great philosopher' tag. How about just calling him as writer of great children's books, who happened not to like children.

One reason why he isn't held in very high esteem for his philosophy is the way he just ignores alternative answers. In this case, he didn't pause to wonder whether Jesus actually existed. Nor did he pause to consider the wider question of: if a 'Jesus' did exist upon which the Gospels are 'based', the Jesus who appears in the bible may bear little or no relation to whichever real person or persons (and whether actually called Jesus or not) it was 'based' upon.

A simple example is King Arthur. Just because historians may one day be able to say where and when the real King Arthur ruled, it does not mean that he really is asleep under Richmond Castle and that one day he will return to rid England of the, um, Saxons.

Luxie

collyblom

I think it's also got a lot to do with the way the question is worded. For example, by using the term "lunatic" (no longer in use today), it makes it a lot harder to contemplate the possibility of this person actually experiencing passing periods of mental illness. In terms of schizophrenia particularly, this is true (funny how schizophrenics are often associated with having unusual religious beliefs).... Also, the statement is *almost* convincing because the person it is directed to will probably have little experience with mental illnesses, and is therefore ill-equipped to refute the claim, and may end up basing their belief on the integrity of the person posing the dilemma.

Epictetus

Though I disagree with Lewis, I think in fairness to him we should not saddle him with our disapprobation since he was trying in his own limited way to explain and shore up his own faith when he wrote this stuff. And he did it in an unobnoxious fashion.

Rather, our irritation should be focused on people like Josh McDowell who have taken what Lewis said to the extreme end of the spectrum. They are quite clearly obnoxious, misinformed, illogical, and sadly lacking in scholarship.

Bumble Bee Tuna

A weak argument on two levels:

1. Jesus does sound kind of like a lunatic, so we can't rule out that option.
2. He left out an option- Legend: Jesus was made up/his quotes were made up.

-B

ex-xian

Or what about this one (I think I read in Bishop Spong's book), Jesus thought he was the messiah, but he was mistaken.

Maxmixer3000

Couldn't it be said that Jesus never claimed he was the messiah. Didn't he merely want to clean up the corruption that was apparent in the Jewish politics/religion of his time.
More of a monk than a messiah.
The idea of Jesus as messiah was later inserted into the NT ( claiming to be in Jesus' words), to lend credence to the burgeoning religion of Christianity.

Just my thoughts,
Maxine

Source

collyblom

I first came across it in The Alpha Course, as used by Nicky Gumbell (which I reckon is a well put together series, although has serious holes in it). And I quoted it as used by Eric Holmberg, dodgy anti-secular music pseudoscholar....