Mere Christianity

[AnimatedDirt]

Doesn't sound that ridiculous to me, did not Jesus heal lepers? Didn't Jesus raise people from the dead? Didn't Jesus feed the masses? If you think those kinds of things are ridiculous, then you must think Jesus was pretty ridiculous as well. The things I mentioned were not logically impossible, and I have a high degree of confidence in science to solve the problems as it has solved a great amount of problems already.

The "fact" that Jesus did these things is amazing proof.  These cures were not carried out as we do cures for disease now.  A person does not get cured from leprosy from one moment to the next, yet the Biblical acct. states as much.  But we are back to you and others like you that cannot regard these ancient texts as true or even remotely true.  Science can and will solve many of these problems.

While the things I mentioned may not be a miraculous over night thing, they are not logically impossible, one day we may wake up and see one of those things has been achieved. And all the while god seems to have left the "miracles" to be accomplished by man.

You easily disregard that this was achieved 2000 years ago.

In 1905, Einstein wrote some papers;
"Scientists call 1905 Albert Einstein's annus mirabilis â€" his year of miracles."
From this article.  Albert Einstein's Year of Miracles: Light Theory
Now, just because we fully understand that Einstein was right and in the face of orthodox physics of the day, does that make his discovery and work any less "miraculous" today?
Does the fact that the Wright Bros. having flown the first airplane in 1903 make it any less amazing and miraculous because today we are able to fly back and forth from space?

The point was that the amount of things god does decreases as man begins to understand how things are done. I was just mentioning the kinds of things that could be used as evidence for the god of Abraham, not things I believe in, because I don't believe anything.

The only thing you are doing here is acknowledging that humans have the capacity to understand "miracles".  This does not remove the point that it was done prior to there being any such knowledge...it/they were truly miracles.

Eradicating disease will take a long time and a lot of effort but it is possible as has been proven by eradicating many diseases already. Bringing back the dead seems pointless to me as I don't want to be brought back from the dead, I also think that no matter how good a copy of me it is, it will not be me. Perfect justice I don't think is even possible, along with a perfect utopia.

I agree, perfect justice and a perfect utopia cannot exist in our world.  Perfect justice and a perfect utopia are, however, described well in the 66 books.  This is something we look forward to, but not here until all is made new.

And for the record: an atheist can believe anything, as long as they don't believe in any god or gods. This kind of dig at "Atheists" is not very effective.

Not a dig at all.  It was meant to simply say it sounds odd to hear those words coming from someone promoting the opposite of faith.  To mention miracles of Jesus and say, "It doesn't sound rediculous...".  If it offends you, I sincerely apologize.  It was simply a "hmm" moment for me.  

I won't take your word for that. The concept of a god not providing reasonable evidence for its existence until the point it's too late is nothing short of useless.

I believe there is reasonable proof.  Otherwise you're wasting your time with a crazy person.

[Davin]

Doesn't sound that ridiculous to me, did not Jesus heal lepers? Didn't Jesus raise people from the dead? Didn't Jesus feed the masses? If you think those kinds of things are ridiculous, then you must think Jesus was pretty ridiculous as well. The things I mentioned were not logically impossible, and I have a high degree of confidence in science to solve the problems as it has solved a great amount of problems already.

The "fact" that Jesus did these things is amazing proof.  These cures were not carried out as we do cures for disease now.  A person does not get cured from leprosy from one moment to the next, yet the Biblical acct. states as much.  But we are back to you and others like you that cannot regard these ancient texts as true or even remotely true.  Science can and will solve many of these problems.

Given the successes of science in the past, I'm sure man will accomplish all those things, while god will continue to do nothing just as if it doesn't exist.

While the things I mentioned may not be a miraculous over night thing, they are not logically impossible, one day we may wake up and see one of those things has been achieved. And all the while god seems to have left the "miracles" to be accomplished by man.

You easily disregard that this was achieved 2000 years ago.

If it had been accomplished 2000 years ago, why is it as if it hadn't been accomplished?

In 1905, Einstein wrote some papers;
"Scientists call 1905 Albert Einstein's annus mirabilis â€" his year of miracles."
From this article.  Albert Einstein's Year of Miracles: Light Theory
Now, just because we fully understand that Einstein was right and in the face of orthodox physics of the day, does that make his discovery and work any less "miraculous" today?
Does the fact that the Wright Bros. having flown the first airplane in 1903 make it any less amazing and miraculous because today we are able to fly back and forth from space?

I fail to see the point you're attempting to make. I had shown you the advances in science showing that if a god existed that was able to perform miracles, man has done much more than this god ever did. Jesus supposedly cured a few people while science has the potential to cure every one.

The point was that the amount of things god does decreases as man begins to understand how things are done. I was just mentioning the kinds of things that could be used as evidence for the god of Abraham, not things I believe in, because I don't believe anything.

The only thing you are doing here is acknowledging that humans have the capacity to understand "miracles".  This does not remove the point that it was done prior to there being any such knowledge...it/they were truly miracles.

The point I'm getting at is that to man thousands of years ago, "miracles" were simply mans lack of knowledge of how things work. They weren't miracles, just people didn't understand what was actually happening.

Eradicating disease will take a long time and a lot of effort but it is possible as has been proven by eradicating many diseases already. Bringing back the dead seems pointless to me as I don't want to be brought back from the dead, I also think that no matter how good a copy of me it is, it will not be me. Perfect justice I don't think is even possible, along with a perfect utopia.

I agree, perfect justice and a perfect utopia cannot exist in our world.  Perfect justice and a perfect utopia are, however, described well in the 66 books.  This is something we look forward to, but not here until all is made new.

The perfect utopia you seem to want is a place where everyone just does what god wants, much like the 1984 distopia.

And for the record: an atheist can believe anything, as long as they don't believe in any god or gods. This kind of dig at "Atheists" is not very effective.

Not a dig at all.  It was meant to simply say it sounds odd to hear those words coming from someone promoting the opposite of faith.  To mention miracles of Jesus and say, "It doesn't sound rediculous...".  If it offends you, I sincerely apologize.  It was simply a "hmm" moment for me.

You do realize that you are acting as if your original statement was made in response to a response I hadn't made yet right?

If that happened, that would be something to consider that would be undeniable. However the power of god seems to suspiciously weaken as human understanding of nature and our technology improves.

There are many things that God cannot do. He cannot tell lies, He cannot save anyone that doesn't wish to be saved, He cannot force love, to name a few. Omnipotence is not the ability to do ANYTHING, it is the ability to do anything one wishes. You wish, with a finite mind, to eradicate disease, bring back dead, perfect justice, a perfect utopian existence...and you call yourselves "Atheists"...you sound more like believers than disbelievers.

Then I mentioned that if you think the things I listed were ridiculous, then you'd have to equally think that Jesus was ridiculous.

It helps if you keep the conversation in chronological order.

Also, don't worry, I haven't been offended since I was like ten. I was merely pointing out your obvious dig that makes no sense with the understanding of what an atheist is and isn't.

I won't take your word for that. The concept of a god not providing reasonable evidence for its existence until the point it's too late is nothing short of useless.

I believe there is reasonable proof.  Otherwise you're wasting your time with a crazy person.

You may very well be a crazy person, I have no reason to think your are nor do I have any reason to think you're not. Just because someone let's their rational guard down in certain cases does not make a person crazy. There are many people who do not apply rational reasoning with their friends because they trust them, it doesn't make them crazy. Many people do not apply rational reasoning when listening to an expert, it doesn't make them crazy.

For the utility of talking to a crazy person: if someone does not show the errors in thinking that a person uses when talking publicly, then more people may believe the irrational reasoning than otherwise. Look up the Solomon Asch experiments on conformity, to see how easily a person can go along with an unopposed group.

[dgmort19]

Animated Dirt, you know how to get the party started.  

Now, on the topic which generated so much discussion, I believe I mentioned that C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Lunatic or Liar" argument was flawed. Where I was mistaken was to assume that this title accurately represents his idea. Though I had read it before, it had been so long that I'd forgotten how the thing actually goes. I have since reached the bit in his book, Mere Christianity, that illuminates his thoughts, and they are as follows.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic â€" on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg â€" or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. 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. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Where Lewis makes an illogical leap is to assume that a man cannot be a "great moral teacher" while simultaneously, genuinely or otherwise, claiming to be God. I believe Whitney made this point already. Lewis insists that the only alternatives to the truthfulness of Jesus' claims are lunacy (a non-clinical term which, based on his "poached egg" comparison, indicates that he uses it to mean psychotic individual -- or perhaps it was simply his wry wit at work again...) or the Devil.

Firstly, who can say what motivation a man might have for claiming godhood? Financial gain, power, respect, or perhaps something else. Perhaps a man would claim these things so as to grab the attention of the public and spread his wisdom. We simply don't know. To leap to the conclusion that Jesus must have been either correct, or else a psychotic Jew/devil, is to neglect the possibility that he was both a "great moral teacher" and a liar who saw fit to say this thing about himself.

Furthermore, assuming he was human, what if he really believed it? What if this extreme delusion was the only symptom of his mental illness? Could he not also be a "great moral teacher" then?

[AnimatedDirt]

Animated Dirt, you know how to get the party started.  

Now, on the topic which generated so much discussion, I believe I mentioned that C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Lunatic or Liar" argument was flawed. Where I was mistaken was to assume that this title accurately represents his idea. Though I had read it before, it had been so long that I'd forgotten how the thing actually goes. I have since reached the bit in his book, Mere Christianity, that illuminates his thoughts, and they are as follows.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic â€" on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg â€" or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. 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. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Where Lewis makes an illogical leap is to assume that a man cannot be a "great moral teacher" while simultaneously, genuinely or otherwise, claiming to be God. I believe Whitney made this point already. Lewis insists that the only alternatives to the truthfulness of Jesus' claims are lunacy (a non-clinical term which, based on his "poached egg" comparison, indicates that he uses it to mean psychotic individual -- or perhaps it was simply his wry wit at work again...) or the Devil.

Firstly, who can say what motivation a man might have for claiming godhood? Financial gain, power, respect, or perhaps something else. Perhaps a man would claim these things so as to grab the attention of the public and spread his wisdom. We simply don't know. To leap to the conclusion that Jesus must have been either correct, or else a psychotic Jew/devil, is to neglect the possibility that he was both a "great moral teacher" and a liar who saw fit to say this thing about himself.

Furthermore, assuming he was human, what if he really believed it? What if this extreme delusion was the only symptom of his mental illness? Could he not also be a "great moral teacher" then?

The problem here, dgmort19 is that this Jesus, while "simply" claiming to be God...didn't simply claim to be "God", but the Creator and Sustainer of life...more so, the SAME GOD of the OT, in human form.  The very "I AM" from the OT and one reason the Jewish leaders set out to kill Him.

Now couple this with the notion from Event_Horizon;

However my second point was that looking at the overall Christian narrative which retroactively characterizes God in the later works of the New Testament causes problems with that already dubious consistency. Obviously the later works and the original story have two vastly different characters for God.

from this post and many others that claim the OT God and NT God CANNOT be the same God.  When you see it from this perspective, then you see the "Lunacy" point.  I think Event_Horizon mentions the point again in a bit more detail, I coudn't find it though.

Christ is either a madman, not to be listened to at all, a great liar, or He is who He says He is...I think C.S. Lewis puts it spot on.

[Davin]

Christ is either a madman, not to be listened to at all, a great liar, or He is who He says He is...I think C.S. Lewis puts it spot on.

However I know this is a false dichotomy because dgmort19 had provided at least two other possibilities. Another possibility is that Jesus never actually made any claims that he was god/son of god, and other people looking to create a son of god used him and put words into his mouth. Yet another possibility to show at least as many missing possibilities as the false dichotomy of C.S. Lewis. A point made with fallacy is not spot on.

[AnimatedDirt]

Christ is either a madman, not to be listened to at all, a great liar, or He is who He says He is...I think C.S. Lewis puts it spot on.

However I know this is a false dichotomy because dgmort19 had provided at least two other possibilities. Another possibility is that Jesus never actually made any claims that he was god/son of god, and other people looking to create a son of god used him and put words into his mouth. Yet another possibility to show at least as many missing possibilities as the false dichotomy of C.S. Lewis. A point made with fallacy is not spot on.

Possibilities are [strike:1cljfae9]infinite[/strike:1cljfae9] (oh wait...some person told me using infinite is infantile) seemingly abundant.  Let's stick with what IS written and claimed, that way we have a basis for argument/discussion.

[Davin]

Christ is either a madman, not to be listened to at all, a great liar, or He is who He says He is...I think C.S. Lewis puts it spot on.

However I know this is a false dichotomy because dgmort19 had provided at least two other possibilities. Another possibility is that Jesus never actually made any claims that he was god/son of god, and other people looking to create a son of god used him and put words into his mouth. Yet another possibility to show at least as many missing possibilities as the false dichotomy of C.S. Lewis. A point made with fallacy is not spot on.

Possibilities are [strike:3s28k7lb]infinite[/strike:3s28k7lb] (oh wait...some person told me using infinite is infantile) seemingly abundant.  Let's stick with what IS written and claimed, that way we have a basis for argument/discussion.

I have no idea who told you that. What I had written is in response to what you had written and claimed, thereby maintaining your proposed basis for argument/discussion. It's still a fallacy, and a pretty clear one.

[dgmort19]

Christ is either a madman, not to be listened to at all, a great liar, or He is who He says He is...I think C.S. Lewis puts it spot on.

But can he not be a great moral teacher who has told a very specific lie?

[AnimatedDirt]

But can he not be a great moral teacher who has told a very specific lie?

Great morals?  This from a crazy person that claims to be God and did all the "bad" things in the OT?  If He's a fake, then God doesn't exist and his morals are simply ideas that we (humanity) had already or would've come up with anyway...what is so great?  How can He then be great or anything other than a liar, lunatic, or crazy?

[LegendarySandwich]

But can he not be a great moral teacher who has told a very specific lie?

Great morals?  This from a crazy person that claims to be God and did all the "bad" things in the OT?  If He's a fake, then God doesn't exist and his morals are simply ideas that we (humanity) had already or would've come up with anyway...what is so great?  How can He then be great or anything other than a liar, lunatic, or crazy?

No matter how much we try to explain this to you, I have the feeling you won't get it from our point of view, so we should agree to disagree.

I agree that if he wasn't the son of God, he wasn't anything special -- and since I don't think he is, I don't think he is.

[dgmort19]

No matter how much we try to explain this to you, I have the feeling you won't get it from our point of view, so we should agree to disagree.

I concur, and this is the trouble of philosophical/religious debate. I am not, however, quite ready to throw my hands up.

Great morals? This from a crazy person that claims to be God and did all the "bad" things in the OT?

He does not have to be crazy. That is one of my points. If this is a lie of which he is consciously aware, I do not see how this intrudes into the validity of his less supernatural moral observations. Even if he does believe it, the same stands true of his moral teachings. So he believes he's God. What impact does this have on his idea of turning the other cheek? To insist that he cannot be a great moral teacher because he harbors a specific delusion is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

e.g. "Yeah, turn the other cheek SOUNDS great and all, but look who it came from; Nutter Butter over there."

If He's a fake, then God doesn't exist and his morals are simply ideas that we (humanity) had already or would've come up with anyway...what is so great?

Is Einstein unimpressive because someone was eventually bound to generate the theory of relativity?