tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472132520678444830.post3166232406920631267..comments2023-10-31T12:17:06.174-04:00Comments on Kurt's Thought Emporium: A Challenging Thought Experiment For The Believerkurthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15134204795575817327noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472132520678444830.post-52765907911841683982010-04-18T14:35:28.653-04:002010-04-18T14:35:28.653-04:00Gary, thanks for responding. I think what this sho...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 I think what this shows is ever since I rescinded my faith in a concrete God, it is obvious to me that one can craft arguments based on his own perspective (including my own) and come up with the answer(s) he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:<br /><br />http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/search?q=what's+your+favorite<br /><br />http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/search?q=quantum<br /><br />Also, would or perhaps MUST God lie (at least in some situations) to uphold his righteousness?<br />See following blog:<br /><br />http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2010/04/to-lie-or-not-to-liethat-is-question.htmlkurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15134204795575817327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472132520678444830.post-13410573450777978052010-04-17T15:01:32.370-04:002010-04-17T15:01:32.370-04:00If I am reading you correctly when you say,
This ...If I am reading you correctly when you say,<br /><br />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!,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />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]<br /><br />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].<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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) <br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Gary HinchmanGary Hinchmannoreply@blogger.com