For those who buy “hook, line and sinker” C.S. Lewis' argument about Jesus being either Lord, lunatic or liar (of course implied as the “evil” type), what is your appraisal of Christ's teachings in themselves?
As I have said before, if people are led to believe his teachings are only meaningful if he literally is the son of God and literally rose from the dead, this is problematic. For it is essentially a tacit admission that everything he taught lacks meaning in itself. Hence the reason many fervently add the caveat that we must literally believe in his claim of being God and literally believe in his resurrection for our respect toward him to be “valid” in any way.
The problem with Lewis' implication of Jesus being a lunatic if he is not literally God is that upon scrutinizing his teachings (the vast majority of them at least), it is difficult to argue they have come from the mouth of a crazed lunatic. Now if one rejects this argument, is he not making a scathing indictment of Christ's teachings by insinuating they have come from the mouth of a crazed lunatic?
I have thought up a valid reason Jesus, as merely a highly enlightened human being, may have felt led to equate himself to God without being so. I do not really “believe” this. I simply offer it as a “thought experiment” to expose a truth of profound importance. Imagine Jesus going about his days with an incredibly enlightened mind which he very much wanted to share with the world. As he goes about introducing his ideas, many people display keen interest and attraction to him. The more curious people become of his eccentric and “other worldly” ideas, the more inclined they are to ask him whether he is God. Initially, he is honest. “No, I am not.” This seems to dissuade people from listening to him anymore. But upon further questioning, he eventually responds, “yes, behold, I am God!”
Why might he do this? Because he is an “evil” liar? No, because he badly wants to share his enlightenment with others and it just so happens the most “efficient” way, perhaps only way, to get people to want to hear what he has to say is by propagating the idea that he is in fact God. Would this be “bad” lying? I hardly think so (though I fully sympathize with one that posits all lying to be bad in itself*).
In this case, he is neither Lord nor lunatic nor “evil” liar. Perhaps he is a liar of the “good” sort? “Good” not only as in cunning but morally as well. What “good”, of the moral type, would lying do in this case? Bring hope and meaning to people, including myself!
This “thought experiment”, as I alluded to previously, exposes a truth of profound importance. What truth might this be? That it does not matter whether Jesus was literally who he claimed to be! If one finds meaning in what he taught, then it is meaningful in itself rendering insignificant whether Jesus was literally who he said he was. On the other hand, to deny this is to denigrate all that he taught, implying any faith in God's “divine” precepts to be nothing but a complete mockery!
*Though if one posits all lying to be bad in itself, he must uphold this moral imperative absolutely. As such, if you are a parent or future one, do you hereby promise not to indoctrinate your kids with the "lies" of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny among many other innocuous lies? Husbands with overly large pregnant wives, if she asks you whether she resembles that of a beached whale, will you be honest? Are we probably better off being lied to by our government as to how it protects us from enemies? Perhaps you might like to recant your conviction that all lying is bad in itself?
As I have said before, if people are led to believe his teachings are only meaningful if he literally is the son of God and literally rose from the dead, this is problematic. For it is essentially a tacit admission that everything he taught lacks meaning in itself. Hence the reason many fervently add the caveat that we must literally believe in his claim of being God and literally believe in his resurrection for our respect toward him to be “valid” in any way.
The problem with Lewis' implication of Jesus being a lunatic if he is not literally God is that upon scrutinizing his teachings (the vast majority of them at least), it is difficult to argue they have come from the mouth of a crazed lunatic. Now if one rejects this argument, is he not making a scathing indictment of Christ's teachings by insinuating they have come from the mouth of a crazed lunatic?
I have thought up a valid reason Jesus, as merely a highly enlightened human being, may have felt led to equate himself to God without being so. I do not really “believe” this. I simply offer it as a “thought experiment” to expose a truth of profound importance. Imagine Jesus going about his days with an incredibly enlightened mind which he very much wanted to share with the world. As he goes about introducing his ideas, many people display keen interest and attraction to him. The more curious people become of his eccentric and “other worldly” ideas, the more inclined they are to ask him whether he is God. Initially, he is honest. “No, I am not.” This seems to dissuade people from listening to him anymore. But upon further questioning, he eventually responds, “yes, behold, I am God!”
Why might he do this? Because he is an “evil” liar? No, because he badly wants to share his enlightenment with others and it just so happens the most “efficient” way, perhaps only way, to get people to want to hear what he has to say is by propagating the idea that he is in fact God. Would this be “bad” lying? I hardly think so (though I fully sympathize with one that posits all lying to be bad in itself*).
In this case, he is neither Lord nor lunatic nor “evil” liar. Perhaps he is a liar of the “good” sort? “Good” not only as in cunning but morally as well. What “good”, of the moral type, would lying do in this case? Bring hope and meaning to people, including myself!
This “thought experiment”, as I alluded to previously, exposes a truth of profound importance. What truth might this be? That it does not matter whether Jesus was literally who he claimed to be! If one finds meaning in what he taught, then it is meaningful in itself rendering insignificant whether Jesus was literally who he said he was. On the other hand, to deny this is to denigrate all that he taught, implying any faith in God's “divine” precepts to be nothing but a complete mockery!
*Though if one posits all lying to be bad in itself, he must uphold this moral imperative absolutely. As such, if you are a parent or future one, do you hereby promise not to indoctrinate your kids with the "lies" of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny among many other innocuous lies? Husbands with overly large pregnant wives, if she asks you whether she resembles that of a beached whale, will you be honest? Are we probably better off being lied to by our government as to how it protects us from enemies? Perhaps you might like to recant your conviction that all lying is bad in itself?
If I am reading you correctly when you say,
ReplyDeleteThis “thought experiment”, as I alluded to previously, exposes a truth of profound importance. What truth might this be? That it does not matter whether Jesus was literally who he claimed to be! If one finds meaning in what he taught, then it is meaningful in itself rendering insignificant whether Jesus was literally who he said he was. On the other hand, to deny this is to denigrate all that he taught, implying any faith in God's “divine” precepts to be nothing but a complete mockery!,
you are saying that Jesus could be a well-meaning liar just to get his point across. Of course, to accuse Jesus, who said all liars are of the devil, that he is of he devil, who is teh Father of lies, albeit "for good purpose" in gaining and maintaining attention for himself, it seems that you are logically rationalizing the divinity of Jesus away while trying to retain the validity of his teachings.
But that is like saying the wolf in sheeps clothing is dressed that way for good purpose. He just had to put on that sheep outfit to get his point across.
It seems your logic is driven to deny the person and work of Jesus but retain what good things he said. This is the old "Jesus was a good teacher" argument dressed in a philosophical argument.
Liars have told the truth to win their audience. We call them conmen. Arguing that Jesus was a good - hearted, well intentioned conman instead of God, who he said he was assumes to presuppositions you cannot prove:
1. That Jesus lied when he said he was God [just because you want him to be a liar so you can dismiss him as a lord or God with any authority]
2. That Jesus was a person of honest megalomania who said good things [becasue you don't want him to be a God who he said he was].
It seems you are trying to take C.S. Lewis argument and justify being a Liar who says good things or a Megalomanic who said good things.
Lewis assumed in his cultural society that lacked the relativism and "anything" goes as a possible line of reasoning [no matter how ludicrous]spirit that grip the minds of our culture today, that his audience would see that Jesus was who he said he was OR a Charlatan of some sort and you had to choose which.
You seem to be reasoning that Jesus could be a Liar and Charlatan who said good things. And that is your opinion and you have the right to say it. Even if it denigrates Jesus, turning him into a possible lunatic or liar with good intentions.
The movie of your thoughts could be titled "One God over the Cuckoos Nest." But I think Kevin Spacey already did a version of it in K-PAX (2001)
Although lies can be shown in the Bible to be used for good [Rahab the Harlot], the use of them to establish character and personhood is always considered evil in scripture. Only a mind seized by the relativism of our age would try to argue or justify lying as a spiritually positive possibility - especially when discussing the man who condemned The Father of Lies from the beginning."
It matters very much that Jesus was who he claimed to be and not a Liar or Lunatic. Only a presuppositional rejection of the divinity of Jesus would try to argue otherwise and justify Jesus teachings at the same time. But like I said, that just reduces Jesus to the old "good teacher" model that has been around for centuries.
Gary Hinchman
Gary, thanks for responding. I think what this shows is ever since I rescinded my faith in a concrete God, it is obvious to me that one can craft arguments based on his own perspective (including my own) and come up with the answer(s) he is looking for. Please see some of my blogs that I believe have corollary to this:
ReplyDeletehttp://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/search?q=what's+your+favorite
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/search?q=quantum
Also, would or perhaps MUST God lie (at least in some situations) to uphold his righteousness?
See following blog:
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2010/04/to-lie-or-not-to-liethat-is-question.html