3 ms·

It's completely idiotic. Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? Um, lunatic, obviously. He dismisses atheism with a single sentence, and exhibits an astonishing level of ig

It's completely idiotic. Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? Um, lunatic, obviously. He dismisses atheism with a single sentence, and exhibits an astonishing level of ignorance. If you read it as a Christian, you might not notice the idiocy, but if you aren't a Christian, it's really really bad, so many assumptions, so many times something is glossed over as if "obviously so", when it's so not. Fucking terrible, and obviously so. So overrated. If it's in your top 5, then... wow. That's not good. I mean, it's not quite as bad as the likes of "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel, but that's not saying much at all.

brink 8y ago
How can you say "Lunatic, obviously"? What makes him an obvious lunatic?
- smcameron 8y ago
  What makes David Koresh an obvious lunatic? Are you serious?
  - NateEag 8y ago
    David Koresh's followers were burned to death after he incited them to violence against the authorities. Jesus, if the Bible is to be believed, healed people, told his countrymen to pay taxes to the empire that had conquered and subjugated them, and died quietly after stopping one of his followers from starting a fight with the mob that took him to be murdered. They seem like pretty different people to me. Edit: factual error. I thought Koresh started the fire, but Wikipedia says it's unclear how it began.
    - smcameron 8y ago
      Have you read the Bible? Jesus as the Bible presents him is quite different than the popular conception. I thought the popular conception was a kind of "dumbed down" version, but then, I read the Bible, and found that no, the Bible is even dumber, the popular conception is a "smartened up" version to make it seem more palatable. Why should we suppose Jesus was not a lunatic and was instead a god? For that matter, Why shoukd we suppose Jesus was not a liar and instead was a god? (After all, Jesus proposed to teach others to be "fishers of men", what do you suppose he meant by that, other than to teach them to be con-men?). C.S. Lewis's arguments on these points are to me, not convincing, to say the least.
      - roca 8y ago
        > what do you suppose he meant by that That his disciples would carry on Jesus' work and teaching, which would attract more followers. That does not make them con-men. If they believed Jesus' message then of course they'd want as many people to receive it as possible, indeed it would be irresponsible to withhold it.
      - NateEag 8y ago
        I have read the Bible several times. Not more than fifteen, I think. I don't see much overlap between the popular conception of Jesus and who the Bible depicts him as, but that may be due to growing up in hyperconservative culture, which is oddly unfamiliar with the text it claims to be based on. The more I've read the Bible, the more impressed I've become with Jesus as depicted. Your perception of him as necessarily a lunatic or liar puzzles me. If he was insane, he shouldn't be able to make coherent arguments, let alone handily stump the most talented scholars in his culture. More to the point, I feel like he wouldn't have so consistently focused on taking care of others nor preached such a consistent message. If he was a systematic liar, he must have had a motivation for being one. Perhaps I'm indoctrinated, but I can't see what that could have been based on my knowledge of the text. I assume you're reading the Bible as a pseudohistorical document, with the a priori assumption that all the supernatural events must be false? The arguments for him being God do largely hinge on the Bible being true (perhaps not in every single tiny detail, but certainly on the major claims). If his miracles are lies, then your position makes more sense to me (though they'd be lies from his followers, not him, and I'd wonder why the early Christians went with it, as they were promised the opposite of wordly wealth and power). Note that I wasn't trying to defend Lewis' argument - if you don't find it convincing, you don't, and there's little point trying to persuade you otherwise. I'm mostly puzzled by your perception of Jesus. I myself do believe he is God Incarnate, but I'm used to people seeing him as fictional, a moralist, or a guru, not a madman.
NateEag 8y ago
The irony of your "Um, lunatic, obviously," followed by loud complaints about things being "...glossed over as if 'obviously so', when it's so not" is hard to ignore. Regardless, I don't recall him dismissing atheism in a single sentence, but it has been years and it's quite possible I've just forgotten. What's the sentence?
- smcameron 8y ago
  I can't seem to find my copy of the book right now, having recently moved, it's somewhere among the books in my shelves, but... can't find it. The sentence in question is near the end of one of the chapters in the first half of the book. The second half of the book seems to assume the first half of the book is a given and is consequently a complete waste of time, being built upon a false premise. The only people who think this is a reasonable book are people who are already Christians.
- mjrpes 8y ago
  I have the book and the argument is on pg. 33-34 in my edition: 1. There exists a moral law within ourselves that instructs us on what we "ought" to do. 2. There must be a "mind" behind this force, as "you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions". I think Lewis would revise or abandon his argument if he lived in our age.
  - NateEag 8y ago
    Okay, thanks for the info.
nimbleal 8y ago
> Um, lunatic, obviously He would accept that answer (at least if we take the trilemma argument in isolation). The point is not that he is "Lord", but that good teacher is not one of the viable options[1]. You clearly haven't read him very carefully. [1] Although good teacher whose teachings have been manipulated/corrupted would seem to offer a fourth option. But then what, if any, of his teachings could be reliably attributed to the man himself? So "corrupted good teacher" is practically equivalent to myth. We thus have Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend. Any of those four would seem a rational position.

brink 8y ago

How can you say "Lunatic, obviously"? What makes him an obvious lunatic?

smcameron 8y ago
What makes David Koresh an obvious lunatic? Are you serious?
- NateEag 8y ago
  David Koresh's followers were burned to death after he incited them to violence against the authorities. Jesus, if the Bible is to be believed, healed people, told his countrymen to pay taxes to the empire that had conquered and subjugated them, and died quietly after stopping one of his followers from starting a fight with the mob that took him to be murdered. They seem like pretty different people to me. Edit: factual error. I thought Koresh started the fire, but Wikipedia says it's unclear how it began.
  - smcameron 8y ago
    Have you read the Bible? Jesus as the Bible presents him is quite different than the popular conception. I thought the popular conception was a kind of "dumbed down" version, but then, I read the Bible, and found that no, the Bible is even dumber, the popular conception is a "smartened up" version to make it seem more palatable. Why should we suppose Jesus was not a lunatic and was instead a god? For that matter, Why shoukd we suppose Jesus was not a liar and instead was a god? (After all, Jesus proposed to teach others to be "fishers of men", what do you suppose he meant by that, other than to teach them to be con-men?). C.S. Lewis's arguments on these points are to me, not convincing, to say the least.
    - roca 8y ago
      > what do you suppose he meant by that That his disciples would carry on Jesus' work and teaching, which would attract more followers. That does not make them con-men. If they believed Jesus' message then of course they'd want as many people to receive it as possible, indeed it would be irresponsible to withhold it.
    - NateEag 8y ago
      I have read the Bible several times. Not more than fifteen, I think. I don't see much overlap between the popular conception of Jesus and who the Bible depicts him as, but that may be due to growing up in hyperconservative culture, which is oddly unfamiliar with the text it claims to be based on. The more I've read the Bible, the more impressed I've become with Jesus as depicted. Your perception of him as necessarily a lunatic or liar puzzles me. If he was insane, he shouldn't be able to make coherent arguments, let alone handily stump the most talented scholars in his culture. More to the point, I feel like he wouldn't have so consistently focused on taking care of others nor preached such a consistent message. If he was a systematic liar, he must have had a motivation for being one. Perhaps I'm indoctrinated, but I can't see what that could have been based on my knowledge of the text. I assume you're reading the Bible as a pseudohistorical document, with the a priori assumption that all the supernatural events must be false? The arguments for him being God do largely hinge on the Bible being true (perhaps not in every single tiny detail, but certainly on the major claims). If his miracles are lies, then your position makes more sense to me (though they'd be lies from his followers, not him, and I'd wonder why the early Christians went with it, as they were promised the opposite of wordly wealth and power). Note that I wasn't trying to defend Lewis' argument - if you don't find it convincing, you don't, and there's little point trying to persuade you otherwise. I'm mostly puzzled by your perception of Jesus. I myself do believe he is God Incarnate, but I'm used to people seeing him as fictional, a moralist, or a guru, not a madman.

NateEag 8y ago

The irony of your "Um, lunatic, obviously," followed by loud complaints about things being "...glossed over as if 'obviously so', when it's so not" is hard to ignore. Regardless, I don't recall him dismissing atheism in a single sentence, but it has been years and it's quite possible I've just forgotten. What's the sentence?

smcameron 8y ago
I can't seem to find my copy of the book right now, having recently moved, it's somewhere among the books in my shelves, but... can't find it. The sentence in question is near the end of one of the chapters in the first half of the book. The second half of the book seems to assume the first half of the book is a given and is consequently a complete waste of time, being built upon a false premise. The only people who think this is a reasonable book are people who are already Christians.
mjrpes 8y ago
I have the book and the argument is on pg. 33-34 in my edition: 1. There exists a moral law within ourselves that instructs us on what we "ought" to do. 2. There must be a "mind" behind this force, as "you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions". I think Lewis would revise or abandon his argument if he lived in our age.
- NateEag 8y ago
  Okay, thanks for the info.

nimbleal 8y ago

> Um, lunatic, obviously He would accept that answer (at least if we take the trilemma argument in isolation). The point is not that he is "Lord", but that good teacher is not one of the viable options[1]. You clearly haven't read him very carefully. [1] Although good teacher whose teachings have been manipulated/corrupted would seem to offer a fourth option. But then what, if any, of his teachings could be reliably attributed to the man himself? So "corrupted good teacher" is practically equivalent to myth. We thus have Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend. Any of those four would seem a rational position.