Originally posted by knightmeister For those of you who think that I am some kind of ToO stalker it's time to put the record straight. To me ToO's view of Jesus is very dangerous. It encourages perfectionism , denigrates the grace of God and is not consistent.
The main problem with it is that he thinks he can take a slice out of Jesus's words and dismiss or ignore the rest. This is ...[text shortened]... tter , it just has to be challenged and the real motives and beliefs have to be revealed.
Much of what you say would accurately describe the way I see you, or any other theist for that matter. But I try to see it from thier perspective and realize that you may actually believe some of the nonsense that comes off your finger tips into your posts.
What seems to me to be most dangerous about ToOs arguments is that you seem to strugle to defend against them and repeatedly resort to personal attacks. Why cant you argue it plainly and logically? And if he appears to have got tired of discussing it with you, then leave him alone.
Originally posted by knightmeister Lewis's great logic here is simply a false trichotomy. -----lemon-----
Good argument , well explained!
I think he's saying that a man who claimed that he was going to be the judge of ALL humanity at the end of time would be locked up as insane or seen as dangerous by anyone who was being honest with themselves. This is exactly what he claimed in ...[text shortened]... delusion and whatever he teaches should NOT be trusted. It's an open and shut slamdunker.
I think he's saying that a man who claimed that he was going to be the judge of ALL humanity at the end of time would be locked up as insane or seen as dangerous by anyone who was being honest with themselves.
He's saying that either Jesus was the son of god, or a lunatic, or the devil of hell. You cannot see why this is a false trichotomy? I see nothing necessarily precluding one from adopting other options. For example, that Jesus was just a human teacher. Perhaps Jesus was a sincere guy but just quite mistaken in many of his claims. Or perhaps the Jesus described by the bible has no actual referent. I guess that you and CS Lewis find other options not included in his trichotomy to be simply unavailable, but neither you nor Lewis has made any good arguments for this.
Originally posted by LemonJello [b]I think he's saying that a man who claimed that he was going to be the judge of ALL humanity at the end of time would be locked up as insane or seen as dangerous by anyone who was being honest with themselves.
He's saying that either Jesus was the son of god, or a lunatic, or the devil of hell. You cannot see why this is a false trichotomy? I ...[text shortened]... tomy to be simply unavailable, but neither you nor Lewis has made any good arguments for this.[/b]
Or perhaps the Jesus described by the bible has no actual referent.--lemon--------------
Maybe when Jesus was giving us teachings he was reported correctly and when he came out with the God stuff they were making it up? One problem is that Jesus's teachings are riddled with the God stuff.
You can of course question the veracity of the Bible account but that would be intellectually dishonest since the claim "he is a great human teacher" is based on that very Biblical evidence. CS Lewis's argument is based on the premise that the person is accepting the Biblical account as evidence of the greatness of Jesus's teachings. Do you understand this?
Lewis is not saying that it's impossible to see Jesus as a human teacher who has been misrepresented/miss-sold by others , he 's just saying that if one accepts the Gospel account then there's not much room for seeing Jesus as just a "teacher" who thought he was a man like you and me. He's either off his rocker , or he is the real deal.
Originally posted by LemonJello [b]I think he's saying that a man who claimed that he was going to be the judge of ALL humanity at the end of time would be locked up as insane or seen as dangerous by anyone who was being honest with themselves.
He's saying that either Jesus was the son of god, or a lunatic, or the devil of hell. You cannot see why this is a false trichotomy? I ...[text shortened]... tomy to be simply unavailable, but neither you nor Lewis has made any good arguments for this.[/b]
Perhaps Jesus was a sincere guy but just quite mistaken in many of his claims.--------------------lemon--------------------
It's an easy mistake to make really I suppose. I am going to be the sole judge of mankind when the stars fall from the sky? I will decide who gets to heaven or not?
oops!! Sorry , no I meant that I was just a normal bloke like you?
He would not be just mistaken but wildly deluded and egotistical beyond belief!!! The psycho hospitals of the world are full of patients with less severe delusions.
Originally posted by knightmeister Or perhaps the Jesus described by the bible has no actual referent.--lemon--------------
Maybe when Jesus was giving us teachings he was reported correctly and when he came out with the God stuff they were making it up? One problem is that Jesus's teachings are riddled with the God stuff.
You can of course question the veracity of the Bible ac ht he was a man like you and me. He's either off his rocker , or he is the real deal.
Maybe when Jesus was giving us teachings he was reported correctly and when he came out with the God stuff they were making it up?
No that's not what I meant. Do you know what a 'referent' is?
You can of course question the veracity of the Bible account but that would be intellectually dishonest since the claim "he is a great human teacher" is based on that very Biblical evidence.
It would not be "intellectually dishonest" if one had reasons to find certain parts of the biblical accounts credible and other certain parts incredible. So, you're wrong again.
CS Lewis's argument is based on the premise that the person is accepting the Biblical account as evidence of the greatness of Jesus's teachings. Do you understand this?
That the bible may be taken as evidence that Jesus was a great teacher in certain ways in no way precludes one from coming to the conclusion that Jesus was simply sincerely mistaken in other claims. So what's your point?
Originally posted by knightmeister Perhaps Jesus was a sincere guy but just quite mistaken in many of his claims.--------------------lemon--------------------
It's an easy mistake to make really I suppose. I am going to be the sole judge of mankind when the stars fall from the sky? I will decide who gets to heaven or not?
oops!! Sorry , no I meant that I was just a normal bloke l ...[text shortened]... e world are full of patients with less severe delusions.
You cannot be serious can you?
He would not be just mistaken but wildly deluded and egotistical
That one is "sincere" in his being mistaken would mean to first order that he believes the claims he puts forth, despite that these claims are inaccurate. Sure, maybe the claims are outrageously inaccurate. Sure he could have other faults too, like being delusional in some ways or egotistical. I'm not convinced it would make him a "madman" or "lunatic" as CSL claims.
Knightmeister, a lot of the things you have said seem to be true,but I think you are pressing it a little far. Keep in mind who you are representing(Jesus Christ). I don't think you should stop standing in defense of the gospel, just remember that there are others here beside ToO that need help.
2 Timothy 2:24-26
(24) And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
(25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
(26) And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
Originally posted by knightmeister Yes and Jesus clearly taught men to live by his invisible presence. However , it is unclear if ToO subscribes to this or many other things that Jesus taught. He seems to think Jesus is just a "teacher" , but Lewis's logic points out the error of such thinking.
Have you ever heard ToO speak about the resurrection of Christ ?
Originally posted by twhitehead Much of what you say would accurately describe the way I see you, or any other theist for that matter. But I try to see it from thier perspective and realize that you may actually believe some of the nonsense that comes off your finger tips into your posts.
What seems to me to be most dangerous about ToOs arguments is that you seem to strugle to defend a ...[text shortened]... logically? And if he appears to have got tired of discussing it with you, then leave him alone.
I have tried to argue it plainly and logically, he declines. I do think he believes what he is saying. Most dangerous folk do. I don't think he realises that it is intellectual hypocrisy to on one hand support the words of Jesus on one subject but refuse to explore the rest of it. I plainly and simply put this to him from the very beginning and he said I was being a distorter.
Maybe I should leave him alone , but then again he refuses to stop his assault on Christians using his false Jesus and distortions of St Paul as a weopon. As long as he keeps doing that there is always going to be a challenge to it. He sees fit to be a fly in the ointment for others but he can't take the heat himself.
Originally posted by jaywill Have you ever heard ToO speak about the resurrection of Christ ?
I might have missed it, but I have never even heard ToO claim to be a Christian. He claims to follow Jesus’ teachings because that is where he (ToO) sees the truth. He claims (rightly or wrongly: that is a matter for debate) that many Christians who claim, among other things, to also follow Jesus, but who do not do so (again, a matter for debate).
Again, I likely missed it, but I am not sure what ToO’s concept of “salvation” entails. You have a different view from the conventional (if simplistic; at least I am putting it simplistically) “when I die I’m going to heaven” versions. Some Buddhists would see it in terms of Nirvana and escape from the wheel of Samsara. A Zen Buddhist might use terms such as salvation/hell for iterative states of consciousness.
So I am not sure how ToO would understand resurrection. There seems to be a lot of room for argument about such things among all sorts of Christians.
Originally posted by knightmeister No. He probably thinks its one of those silly teachings of Jesus he can amputate without anyone noticing.
I find it highly improbably that the resurrection is a 'teaching of Jesus'. I also disagree that discounting Paul is 'amputation'. I find the argument that the Bible as it is currently is a set of books clearly and indisputably put together by God to be rather weak to say the least. I think any Christian has the right to dispute the findings of any past Christian including those who chose the books of the current Bible. If you disagree with me, then I would be interested in your argument, and also how your argument does not apply to other findings of similar past Christians regarding the pope, Jesus' mother, etc.
Jesus was no teacher....
05 Sep '08 20:50
Back to Top