The Atheist Thread: Re-envisioning Social Mores

[Eleven]

Lewis argumentation there is pretty weak. Jesus could easily be a great moral teacher who happens to have misapprehensions about his own nature. That is to say if he even said many of the things which have been attributed to him.

Indeed. Taken individually, some statements attributed to "Jesus," the literary figure, make more moral sense irrespective of his sanity, and other things do not. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" versus the thoughtcrime of committing adultery "in his heart," say. If you make it an all-or-nothing proposition, either everything he said was moral because he was God or nothing was because he wasn't God, defining goodness as Godness, then maybe it stands up.

Reminds me of the Jefferson Bible, which still has Old Testament references but in which TJ tried to excise the supernatural from the Gospels. It's actually titled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," incidentally.

[Qrazy]

Reminds me of the Jefferson Bible, which still has Old Testament references but in which TJ tried to excise the supernatural from the Gospels. It's actually titled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," incidentally.

Interesting.

[Eleven]

Interesting.

The last three verses are: "Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. / There laid they Jesus, / And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."

Then I picture a No County for Old Men-like hard cut to black.

[Qrazy]

It seems to me all Lewis is saying is that you can't separate Christ's divinity from his humanity. The mushmilk hedge about "great moral teacher" is missing, literally, half the point, and the most important point.

You can interpret the teachings in various ways, I guess, and read a teaching into his sacrifice. But Christ didn't die to teach anyone anything. He died for our sins, period.

Is all Lewis seems to be saying. My two cents.

I find it pretty easy to separate. In fact I just did it.

I would then even further separate the actual individual Christ from the historical evaluation of Christ from the canonical Catholic Christ from the Christ of the various other versions of the testament from the Christ of the oral tradition and so on.

[Qrazy]

Right. Which is very clever and all, I guess, but in Lewis' view is to miss hedge the bet and miss the point entirely.

Yeah because he's a hardcore fairly literalistic Anglican. Which in my eyes is missing any remotely reasonable metaphysical point entirely.

[number8]

But he's presupposing that there is a Lord (the 10 commandments God) to begin with which is what would make the teachings immoral (I am the Lord your God, no other Gods before etc).

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the immoral part largely comes from the standpoint of it being blasphemous.

I guess I took it differently; that Lewis was saying Christ's teachings are inherently immoral and destructive, but because he happens to be divine, that makes them okay.

It's similar to the Epicurus argument that if god is unable and unwilling to prevent evil, then why call him god; if god is willing but unable to, then he is not a god; and if god is able but unwilling to, then he is a gigantic cocksucker who does not deserve worship. I think Epicurus put it in different words.

Lewis' position, as I understand it, would be the equivalent of believing that last option, but his identity as god supersedes his status as a gigantic cocksucker. That is to say that Jesus teaches people terrible things, but since he is the son of God and the Lord, he's allowed to. If you don't believe that he's the Lord, then you're just following terrible teachings for no reason.

[Mara]

Lewis' position, as I understand it, would be the equivalent of believing that last option, but his identity as god supersedes his status as a gigantic cocksucker. That is to say that Jesus teaches people terrible things, but since he is the son of God and the Lord, he's allowed to. If you don't believe that he's the Lord, then you're just following terrible teachings for no reason.

No, no, no. Sorry. I've read dozens of Lewis' books. He believes that Jesus taught good and socially constructive things, but that to accept his teachings while denying his divinity is to ignore the fundamentals of his message.

[Wryan]

Which teachings are you thinking of that are inherently destructive and immoral, 8?

[Qrazy]

I'm not sure Lewis is overly concerned with metaphysics as he is theology, which overlap but aren't quite the same thing.

Do you have a point here? What's your religious background? Your claim was that for Lewis it would be missing the point to separate Christ's divinity from his humanity. Well obviously, because Lewis is working from the premise that... 'Let's say for now it's an open question whether or not Jesus is the son of God, but there certainly is a Christian God and the 10 commandments are absolute.' If I accept those latter two premises than sure then I have to say Jesus was either a lunatic, devil or son of God. But since I don't accept those premises he can still just be a great moral teacher for me who mistakenly believed he was the son of God... this is referring to the canonical Christ, not even the historical Christ.

And I would venture that many who would refute the divinity of Jesus and claim he was just a moral teacher almost certainly wouldn't believe he could be a demon because that's a largely Christian concept (although not exclusively). So then either Jesus was a lunatic or he had a number of valuable teachings but happened to believe he was something he is not. If we don't accept Lewis initial premises we are not stuck in his trilemma. So his trilemma really only speaks to bad Christians since they accept the initial premises but deny the divinity of Christ.

[Qrazy]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the immoral part largely comes from the standpoint of it being blasphemous.

I guess I took it differently; that Lewis was saying Christ's teachings are inherently immoral and destructive, but because he happens to be divine, that makes them okay.

It's similar to the Epicurus argument that if god is unable and unwilling to prevent evil, then why call him god; if god is willing but unable to, then he is not a god; and if god is able but unwilling to, then he is a gigantic cocksucker who does not deserve worship. I think Epicurus put it in different words.

Lewis' position, as I understand it, would be the equivalent of believing that last option, but his identity as god supersedes his status as a gigantic cocksucker. That is to say that Jesus teaches people terrible things, but since he is the son of God and the Lord, he's allowed to. If you don't believe that he's the Lord, then you're just following terrible teachings for no reason.

Yes I assumed he was coming from a blasphemy standpoint because I don't know of any teachings of Christ that are immoral or destructive. Which did you have in mind?

[number8]

Which teachings are you thinking of that are inherently destructive and immoral, 8?

It's not what I think. I was making a guess at what Lewis was saying. But Lewis himself actually gives an example when he wrote about Jesus:

One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you...But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes...? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did...and never waited to consult all the other people who [where sinned against]. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin...

At best, it's asinine. At worst, it's redemption that's absolved of responsibility, which you can make a case for being immoral.

[Wryan]

Yes I assumed he was coming from a blasphemy standpoint because I don't know of any teachings of Christ that are immoral or destructive. Which did you have in mind?

You yourself mentioned something earlier, about essentially dictating membership requirements in the faith and not allowing anyone to follow any other religions/faiths/gods. That could be considered somewhat immoral.

EDIT: Nvm, I think I misread that part. If Jesus isn't God, his teachings make him out to be, thus making him sacrilicious, etc. Sorry.

[Mara]

At best, it's asinine. At worst, it's redemption that's absolved of responsibility, which you can make a case for being immoral.

To me, though, this is just making the same point as in the above quote: with divine Sonship, Jesus is a religious leader. Without it, he's kind of a nut.

[Qrazy]

It's not what I think. I was making a guess at what Lewis was saying. But Lewis himself actually gives an example when he wrote about Jesus:



At best, it's asinine. At worst, it's redemption that's absolved of responsibility, which you can make a case for being immoral.

It could also be the power of unconditional forgiveness which plenty of psychiatrists and religious individuals (who aren't Jesus or the son of God) use all the time. He is not absolving them of all responsibility toward the injured party, he's absolving them of their guilt. Yes, you did something wrong but you are forgiven for it. That doesn't mean you can go around killing people and not have repercussions, but if you make reparations and are truly sorry you shall be freed from your guilt.

[Qrazy]

To me, though, this is just making the same point as in the above quote: with divine Sonship, Jesus is a religious leader. Without it, he's kind of a nut.

But I mean in this case if Jesus was the only son of the divine does that make all the other religious leaders nuts? Or less so because they did not claim to be the son of God (which I'm not sure Jesus himself did) but only that they spoke to God(s)?

Isn't this whole thing a huge theological contention in Christianity anyway? That is in terms of the Bible (and the holy texts) whether it is meant that Jesus is the son of God much as Abraham was the son of God etc versus that Jesus was literally the son of God.

[D_Davis]

No, no, no. Sorry. I've read dozens of Lewis' books. He believes that Jesus taught good and socially constructive things, but that to accept his teachings while denying his divinity is to ignore the fundamentals of his message.

Correct. He also believed that Jesus' teachings were very radical and challenging.

[number8]

He is not absolving them of all responsibility toward the injured party, he's absolving them of their guilt. Yes, you did something wrong but you are forgiven for it. That doesn't mean you can go around killing people and not have repercussions, but if you make reparations and are truly sorry you shall be freed from your guilt.

Well, you or I or Thomas Jefferson would prefer to see it that way, but many Christians don't. That's the whole premise of deathbed conversions. Be truly sorry and accept Jesus after living a life of sin, then the gates of heaven will be open to you. Jack Chick made a tract specifically stressing the importance of Jesus' ability to do this. That's where the "destructive" part comes in.

[Raiders]

No, no, no. Sorry. I've read dozens of Lewis' books. He believes that Jesus taught good and socially constructive things, but that to accept his teachings while denying his divinity is to ignore the fundamentals of his message.

This is sort of what number8 is saying. That Lewis is saying the teachings are only, by and large, of any merit if you accept Jesus was who he said he was. Otherwise, you are following extreme pacifism, ridiculous levels of forgiveness and a general conduct that has little place in a world where there is no God or afterlife (Lewis' implications, not mine).

[D_Davis]

Anyway isn't this whole thing a huge theological contention in Christianity anyway? That is in terms of the Bible (and the holy texts) whether it is meant that Jesus is the son of God much as Abraham was the son of God etc versus that Jesus was literally the son of God.

Correct. Some, like myself, believe that we are all the sons of daughters of God, metaphorically speaking, just as Jesus was.

[Mara]

But I mean in this case if Jesus was the only son of the divine does that make all the other religious leaders nuts? Or less so because they did not claim to be the son of God (which I'm not sure Jesus himself did) but only that they spoke to God(s)?

Isn't that pretty much the basis of all religious identification: which religious leaders you think are right, and which you think are nuts? I don't think you're going to find anyone in the world who thinks they're all right. And if you think they're all nuts, you're an atheist.

[Qrazy]

Well, you or I or Thomas Jefferson would prefer to see it that way, but many Christians don't. That's the whole premise of deathbed conversions. Be truly sorry and accept Jesus after living a life of sin, then the gates of heaven will be open to you. Jack Chick made a tract specifically stressing the importance of Jesus' ability to do this. That's where the "destructive" part comes in.

Yeah... but those people are assholes.

[Qrazy]

Isn't that pretty much the basis of all religious identification: which religious leaders you think are right, and which you think are nuts? I don't think you're going to find anyone in the world who thinks they're all right. And if you think they're all nuts, you're an atheist.

w00t!

[Qrazy]

I dunno, do you?

Your argument is moot because it falls almost completely outside the context of what Lewis was actually saying.

It's like Lewis is talking about the National League and you're arguing about the validity of the designated hitter rule. Sure, it's all baseball but wtf? What you're saying has nothing to do with nothing.

Also, see Mara's post above.

Not really, I've painstakingly elaborated on it for you but I'm not going to do it for a third time.... okay maybe just once more... Lewis is saying 'WTF people who deny Jesus divinity??'... 'And they're saying 'WTF Lewis I don't believe that Jesus was divine nor do I believe in the devil! Jesus might be a little bit crazy but he was still a good moral teacher!' And then Lewis says 'But, but blasphemy?'... And then they say 'Fuck off Lewis this is the Atheist Thread GTFO.'

My point is that the people saying that Jesus was a good moral teacher are largely the ones that don't accept Lewis initial premises so the argument he's constructed for their sake dissolves itself.

[D_Davis]

Yeah... but those people are assholes.

[Eleven]

Isn't that pretty much the basis of all religious identification: which religious leaders you think are right, and which you think are nuts? I don't think you're going to find anyone in the world who thinks they're all right. And if you think they're all nuts, you're an atheist.

Sometimes religious leaders can have good points, but if they claim to be channeling God, then yeah, they're lying or lunatic or...um...largely mistaken. Damn alliteration.