Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Crucifiction · 10-25-2004, 05:59 PM

I find that there are far more possibilities than C.S. Lewis allowed for. Perhaps Jesus was simply a Jewish rabbi whose followers twisted his words after death to make it seem like he was God. Or perhaps he is simply a myth; and there's always the possibility he's a juxtaposition{sp} of more than one person.

Happy Wonderer · 10-25-2004, 09:18 PM

Does anybody have references to what Lewis himself thought of Mere Christianity? I believe that started as a collection of wartime radio lectures (ie, propaganda) intended to boost morale and expose the evils of Hitler. It would be funny if Christians were falling all over themselves over a book that he thought of as junk. :devil3:.

There is more depth in his other books, even the Narnia children's series. I actually dislike Mere Christianity on the grounds that it turns a lot of people off from Lewis. His fiction is superb and a lot more morally ambiguous than most Christians realize.

hw

Interesting side note: A close relative of mine was a minister who got really interested in C.S. Lewis' works and his Christian vision. I actually think that the books deconverted him -- not that he tells many people that.

Sven · 10-26-2004, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Are you familiar with the Common Sayings theories and methods for differenting "authentic" sayings from inauthentic ones? There are any number of criteria which can be used to isolate sayings which have a greater probability of orignating with HJ from those which have little or no probability.

John is widely regarded as the least historical of all the gospels, particularly with regard to the sayings of Jesus. The "I am" speech has no independent attestation and there is no shred of any tradition prior to John that Jesus ever claimed to be God. The earlier you go in the sayings traditions, the less "divine" Jesus becomes.

There are some quite rational and defensible critcal reasons for concluding that certain quotations attributed to Jesus (most of them, in fact) are not authentic. Declaring that a critic must accept all or none of the quotations attributed to Jesus in the gospels is just as unfounded as saying we must accept all or none of the Bible itself. There is no such dilemma. That's just another fallacy.

That's not what I meant (sorry, I phrased this really badly

). The basis of Lewis' Argument seems to be that one has indeed to accept the entire gospels as reliable. By investigating which parts are more likely to be genuine and which are not, one already threw this assumption over board. As you said: "there is no shred of any tradition prior to John that Jesus ever claimed to be God". If one came to this conclusion before encountering Lewis' argument, one would simply laugh at it. But if one believed the gospels to be reliable (because one didn't investigate them before) and then encountered Lewis' argument, it would have been simply unnecessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Looks equally inconsistent to me.[Muslims]

How so?

OK, it isn't really inconsistent. Hasty generalization, sorry.

Magdlyn · 10-26-2004, 06:49 AM

Lurking linguist looks at logic.

Alliteration lingering:

a. lunatic?

b. liar?

c. lord?

d. legend!

THX1138 · 10-26-2004, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Lurking linguist looks at logic.

Alliteration lingering:

a. lunatic?

b. liar?

c. lord?

d. legend!

LoL

IamMoose · 10-26-2004, 11:11 AM

I'm rather a fan of Lewis, though I find his apologetics to be too full of fuzzy logic (he wrote some great fiction though). I've argued about this specific quote on a Christian site before and been predictably shouted down, but it's pretty obvious that it's simplistic in the extreme. Maybe Jesus never existed; maybe he existed but never claimed to be the messiah and has been totally misrepresented. Maybe he was Satan .. who knows? I've read Mere Christianity and found it helpful - as a 'seeker' and agnostic - in some ways but irritating in too many others. Lewis suffers from the same thing a lot of Christians do which is making 'leaps of logic'; ie saying, a=c therefore a=b too. There's a step missing out in all of it.

aikido7 · 10-30-2004, 09:03 PM

Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend or Lover?

Or legendary lover?

Magdlyn · 10-31-2004, 07:23 AM

Lying lover?

Lord of lunatics?

10-30-2004, 09:03 PM	#57
aikido7 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Here Posts: 234	Five--count 'em--FIVE!!! Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend or Lover? Or legendary lover?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2004, 05:59 PM	#51
Crucifiction Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The deformation age Posts: 1,809	I find that there are far more possibilities than C.S. Lewis allowed for. Perhaps Jesus was simply a Jewish rabbi whose followers twisted his words after death to make it seem like he was God. Or perhaps he is simply a myth; and there's always the possibility he's a juxtaposition{sp} of more than one person.

10-25-2004, 09:18 PM	#52
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	Does anybody have references to what Lewis himself thought of Mere Christianity? I believe that started as a collection of wartime radio lectures (ie, propaganda) intended to boost morale and expose the evils of Hitler. It would be funny if Christians were falling all over themselves over a book that he thought of as junk. :devil3:. There is more depth in his other books, even the Narnia children's series. I actually dislike Mere Christianity on the grounds that it turns a lot of people off from Lewis. His fiction is superb and a lot more morally ambiguous than most Christians realize. hw Interesting side note: A close relative of mine was a minister who got really interested in C.S. Lewis' works and his Christian vision. I actually think that the books deconverted him -- not that he tells many people that.

10-26-2004, 06:49 AM	#54
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Lurking linguist looks at logic. Alliteration lingering: a. lunatic? b. liar? c. lord? d. legend!

10-26-2004, 11:11 AM	#56
IamMoose Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: On the fringes of the Lake District, UK Posts: 9,528	I'm rather a fan of Lewis, though I find his apologetics to be too full of fuzzy logic (he wrote some great fiction though). I've argued about this specific quote on a Christian site before and been predictably shouted down, but it's pretty obvious that it's simplistic in the extreme. Maybe Jesus never existed; maybe he existed but never claimed to be the messiah and has been totally misrepresented. Maybe he was Satan .. who knows? I've read Mere Christianity and found it helpful - as a 'seeker' and agnostic - in some ways but irritating in too many others. Lewis suffers from the same thing a lot of Christians do which is making 'leaps of logic'; ie saying, a=c therefore a=b too. There's a step missing out in all of it.

10-31-2004, 07:23 AM	#58
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Lying lover? Lord of lunatics?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.