A 21st century Jesus

[Shaker]

Non sequitur to the question ''is it right/sensible to refer to someone you think as mad or bad enough to claim that if you see him you have seen God the father, as a great moral teacher?''

I'm delighted to see that you can at last spell non sequitur correctly; it's a pity that having got there in the end you can't actually deploy the concept properly.

Claiming to be a moral teacher is an empty claim that anyone can make (and many have).

Claiming that "if you see me, you see God" is an empty claim that anyone can make (and many have).

Do you get it now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm delighted to see that you can at last spell non sequitur correctly; it's a pity that having got there in the end you can't actually deploy the concept properly.

Claiming to be a moral teacher is an empty claim that anyone can make (and many have).

Claiming that "if you see me, you see God" is an empty claim that anyone can make (and many have).

Do you get it now?

Your not getting it or maybe you are and deliberately trying to disrupt the thread since previous bollocks of your understanding was flagged. Lewis is talking about people who can't accept Jesus claim to be the son of God but go on about him being a great moral teacher.

[Shaker]

Your not getting it or maybe you are and deliberately trying to disrupt the thread since previous bollocks of your understanding was flagged. Lewis is talking about people who can't accept Jesus claim to be the son of God but go on about him being a great moral teacher.

I know - Lewis hands down from on high his pronouncement that people simply have to take his word for it that they're not allowed to do that. Why not? Because he said so?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I know - Lewis hands down from on high his pronouncement that people simply have to take his word for it that they're not allowed to do that. Why not? Because he said so?

No, I think he is rightly exposing the slovenly thinking that one can be both a great moral teacher AND be considered the worlds greatest con man at the same time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you have a bet with yourself that every time you use the word 'warrant' in a nonsensical manner that you get to eat one of the Ritz crackers that you spunked on last night?

This extreme post just takes the biscuit.

[Shaker]

No, I think he is rightly exposing the slovenly thinking that one can be both a great moral teacher AND be considered the worlds greatest con man at the same time.

To be a con man one has to be conscious of the con; that's to say, one has to be knowingly deceitful. Floo trips up on this point a lot, regularly invoking lies (which by definition entails deliberate mendacity) where sincere mistake is a sufficient, certainly more parsimonious explanation. Can somebody who is entirely and completely sincere about their perceived mission in life but is nevertheless wrong be regarded as a con man?

I notice you haven't even attempted to address the points I raised about Lewis. So it goes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To be a con man one has to be conscious of the con; that's to say, one has to be knowingly deceitful. Floo trips up on this point a lot, regularly invoking lies (which by definition entails deliberate mendacity) where sincere mistake is a sufficient, certainly more parsimonious explanation. Can somebody who is entirely and completely sincere about their perceived mission in life but is nevertheless wrong be regarded as a con man?

I notice you haven't even attempted to address the points I raised about Lewis. So it goes.

Your claim of parsimony is completely debateable.

You are claiming that delusion on his part is more likely. Lewis discusses this anyway. The thing is are people more likely to be taken in by a sincere madman or a calculating con man or either since the claim is the same. The question remains here. Is believing that when people look at you they are looking at God compatible with great moral teaching?


At the end it matters not Lewis divides those correctly between those who are prepared to consider that Jesus may actually be who the gospels and epistles purport him to be and those who do not.


He has little time with those trying to say ''He was a con man but a great moral teacher'' as I suppose you do to.

[Shaker]

Your claim of parsimony is completely debateable.

Occam's Razor. Hitchens's Razor, come to that.

You are claiming that delusion on his part is more likely.

Yes. We have many, many, many, many demonstrable examples of deluded people. We have no demonstrable examples of alleged sons of alleged gods.

Lewis discusses this anyway. The thing is are people more likely to be taken in by a sincere madman or a calculating con man or either since the claim is the same. The question remains here. Is believing that when people look at you they are looking at God compatible with great moral teaching?

Why wouldn't it be?

At the end it matters not Lewis divides those correctly between those who are prepared to consider that Jesus may actually be who the gospels and epistles purport him to be and those who do not.

He has little time with those trying to say ''He was a con man but a great moral teacher'' as I suppose you do to.

Correct albeit for different reasons, because I don't think he was either a con man or a particularly great moral teacher. You don't seem to be able to bring yourself to say why, when Lewis flatly asserts that nobody can regard Jesus as simply a great moral teacher and just that, ruling that option out of court, anybody has to accept his fiat. Who made him the authority - which he poses as - on how anyone is allowed to view Jesus?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Occam's Razor. Hitchens's Razor, come to that.
Yes. We have many, many, many, many demonstrable examples of deluded people. We have no demonstrable examples of alleged sons of alleged gods.

I don't know what argument you are having but it is different from any discussion about the trilemma and whether it's right to suggest that someone who is either the worlds greatest conman, or has a delusion in a way big and bad enough to launch a million internet forums and garner the mouth foaming ire of antitheists, is also a Great moral teacher.   

I think we are therefore talking at cross purposes here.


I know where you stand Shaker but it is not at the centre of the universe.

[Stranger]

I don't know what argument you are having but it is different from any discussion about the trilemma and whether it's right to suggest that someone who is either the worlds greatest conman, or has a delusion in a way big and bad enough to launch a million internet forums and garner the mouth foaming ire of antitheists, is also a Great moral teacher.   

You're (like Lewis) ignoring the reality of the situation. All we have are accounts of what Jesus said written long after his death. Even those accounts don't unambiguously contain claims that he was god. Even if we decide he did make that claim, if he was a conman, he didn't need to be the world's greatest in order for the con to be magnified through pure accident of history. If he was deluded (or a conman), it doesn't negate everything he said about morality; and all that ignores the possibility that the accounts we have are not accurate and we may be talking about (to some degree) a fictional character anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're (like Lewis) ignoring the reality of the situation. All we have are accounts of what Jesus said written long after his death. Even those accounts don't unambiguously contain claims that he was god. Even if we decide he did make that claim, if he was a conman, he didn't need to be the world's greatest in order for the con to be magnified through pure accident of history. If he was deluded (or a conman), it doesn't negate everything he said about morality; and all that ignores the possibility that the accounts we have are not accurate and we may be talking about (to some degree) a fictional character anyway.

I'm afraid analysis and reflection on the Gospels and epistles testify to claims of Jesus special relationship and identification with God and certainly Jesus's role in salvation and forgiveness of sins from an early point in history after the actual life of Jesus. Certainly there is nothing comparable from any school saying that he was merely a great moral teacher. Where is your evidence that Jesus claims are not accurate or were not current within living memory of his being?


I don't think the Jesus as complete or even mainly myth meme has much currency.


Lewis along with many antitheists argues that you can't pull off something which, if a whopper, must be the biggest whopping con in history and be a great moral teacher or even a 'good' man and role model. I know of antitheists who argue he is a very poor moral teacher since he allies himself with a God who they see as pure evil.

[Shaker]

Where is your evidence that Jesus claims are not accurate or were not current within living memory of his being?

Uh oh ...

Lewis along with many antitheists argues that you can't pull off something which, if a whopper, must be the biggest whopping con in history and be a great moral teacher or even a 'good' man and role model.

It's a touching homage to Floo but "truth or lies" are not your only options.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Uh oh ...
It's a touching homage to Floo but "truth or lies" are not your only options.

I fear you are about to confuse historic claims with religion again.


The Jesus myth thing doesn't have much currency.

[Shaker]

I fear you are about to confuse historic claims with religion again.

The Jesus myth thing doesn't have much currency.

If you mean it's a position espoused by a minority of historians, well done, you're stating a fact for a change.

Inconveniently, that doesn't actually make it wrong.

[SteveH]

If you mean it's a position espoused by a minority of historians, well done, you're stating a fact for a change.

Inconveniently, that doesn't actually make it wrong.

I think it's a very small minority, and since historians are the experts, the view of the great majority is probably correct - unless you want to align yourself with other troglodytes, such as climate-change and holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.

[wigginhall]

Well, I think many historians accept that Jesus existed, since this is a parsimonious explanation, but of course, they don't deal with any supernatural claims, since these are not historical phenomena.

[Shaker]

I think it's a very small minority, and since historians are the experts, the view of the great majority is probably correct

Two fallacies for the price of one - unimpressive.

unless you want to align yourself with other troglodytes, such as climate-change and holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.

Except the evidence for these is in no way comparable.

[Roses]

I think it's a very small minority, and since historians are the experts, the view of the great majority is probably correct - unless you want to align yourself with other troglodytes, such as climate-change and holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.

Just because a majority of people believe something to be true, doesn't mean it is so, especially if there is no evidence to substantiate it.

[jeremyp]

By all means demonstrate how rationality opposes Christianity....without confusing rationality with incredulity that is.

Rationality tells us that liquid water cannot support the weight of a human walking on it. It tells us that water cannot be changed into wine without the addition of sugar and yeast (or unimaginably energetic nuclear reactions) and that a person who has been dead for a day and a half cannot come back to life.

Rationality tells me that one person cannot be fully human and fully god at the same time unless humans are gods. Rationality tells me a thousand years is not the same as a day, and if you insist on the other way around too, it renders the words meaningless. Rationality tells me a god that makes a rule that you have to pay for your sins but that it is OK for somebody else to do it and then for that somebody to cheat, then that god is bonkers.

Do not try to apply rationality to Christianity, because it cannot withstand rational examination.

[jeremyp]

He said "I and the father are one", and "he who has seen me has seen the father", but neither statement need mean anything more that unity of purpose and complete agreement.

Are you claiming that Christians who read that interpret it in that fashion? I think that would be bollocks.

[jeremyp]

I'm afraid analysis and reflection on the Gospels and epistles testify to claims of Jesus special relationship and identification with God and certainly Jesus's role in salvation and forgiveness of sins from an early point in history after the actual life of Jesus. Certainly there is nothing comparable from any school saying that he was merely a great moral teacher.

You understand that a claim is not necessarily the same thing as the truth, right?

Where is your evidence that Jesus claims are not accurate or were not current within living memory of his being?

What claims are actual claims by Jesus as opposed to claims made up by gospel writers and epistle writers decades later? Please quote a claim that you know for a fact was made by Jesus.

[jeremyp]

I think it's a very small minority, and since historians are the experts, the view of the great majority is probably correct - unless you want to align yourself with other troglodytes, such as climate-change and holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.

Some fairly respectable historians are mythicists, not many, it is true, but their arguments aren't as bad as you might think.

For the record, my opinion is that Christianity did have a founder who lived in the first half of the first century but I think most of the stuff about him in the NT is mythical.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, I think many historians accept that Jesus existed, since this is a parsimonious explanation, but of course, they don't deal with any supernatural claims, since these are not historical phenomena.

Also what is accepted is that it is more likely that there may have been an individual on which the written Jesus is based but that any individual statement about him, not just the supernatural claims,  are not substantiated.

[SteveH]

Just because a majority of people believe something to be true, doesn't mean it is so, especially if there is no evidence to substantiate it.

It does when the people are the experts in the field.

[Shaker]

It does when the people are the experts in the field.

Ah - infallibility.