C. S. Lewis's Liar/Lunatic/Lord: can it be applied elsewhere?

[Abd_al-Haqq]

kristyn:

Abd al-Haqq:

No, I said his work does not consider it, as its intended audience are those who already believe. For the rest of the world, it is a fallacious argument. As far as his work being a mark of “intellectualism”, it is not intended for a scholarly review, but feel good literature, including the “sophomoric” Narnia series.

Have you read “THe EVerlasting Many”, or 'THe Screwtape Letters" ( my favorite"), or perhaps “Mere Christianity”

I cannot say that I have fully read all of his work, though I am familiar with some of them, and have browsed through “Mere Christianity”. In general, they are “feel good” books for Christians who already accept the faith (much like the “trilam” argument).

 

[Petergee]

Abd al-Haqq:

No, I said his work does not consider it, as its intended audience are those who already believe. For the rest of the world, it is a fallacious argument. As far as his work being a mark of “intellectualism”, it is not intended for a scholarly review, but feel good literature, including the “sophomoric” Narnia series.

You think because he wrote the Narnia series for children, he is incapable of writing adult books? The rest of his works are “targeted” (though I doubt he he used that buzzword) at thinking adults, most of whom would NOT be practising Christians.

HIs like or dislike of them does not invalidate them nor do his “feelings”, which you are speculating about, make 4 or 5 any more untrue. It still stands that there are not only three choices. It is a “false trichotomy”.

I never mentioned his “feelings” or “dislike” of them. What I said was that he would have found your two extra “choices” unworthy of serious consideration in an intellectual discussion.

And you know this due to the NT you have in your hands which was not cannonized or “agreed” upon for over two centuries? You know all this from unknown third hand eye witness accounts? Writings that were amongst other writings that were chosen by groups of Christians simply because it agreed with their theology, not because it agreed with what they truly knew?

Oh dear, it seems not only have you not read Lewis, you have not read the NT either, otherwise you would know that none of the apostles’ deaths are mentioned in it (except for the prediction of Peter’s death). I must admit you are the first person I have ever heard of who apparently wishes to deny that the apostles met horrible deaths. This fact was certainly not disputed by the anti-Christian authoirities who had them killed, nor by secular historians.

People die for causes all the time. This does not validate the cause. I could give you numerous examples of people dying for causes that you would not agree on as being valid.

Why don’t you try an intellectually honest debate? You know that I diod not say “Christianity is right because men died for it.” I said that it is incredible that all ten would choose to die horrible deaths for what was merely a lie they had made up.

The bottom line: There are volumes of Christian writings that would are much better than the “easy” reads of CS Lewis ( interms of reasons to follow your faith). Why allow such a simple “argument” which will be cut to pieces by most thinkers to define your faith? Is not your faith better than that?

Lewis’ work is easy to read but there is depth to it if you bother to do more than skim the surface to look for things to cavil at. I would guess that Lewis’ works convinced more people of the truth of Christianity than any other 20th century author in English except G K Chesterton. Lewis’ Liar/Lunatic/Lord question does not “define my faith” but I find it useful to make people think about what they believe and why.

 

[Petergee]

Abd al-Haqq:

No, I said his work does not consider it, as its intended audience are those who already believe. For the rest of the world, it is a fallacious argument. As far as his work being a mark of “intellectualism”, it is not intended for a scholarly review, but feel good literature, including the “sophomoric” Narnia series.

You think because he wrote the Narnia series for children, he is incapable of writing adult books? The rest of his works are “targeted” (though I doubt he he used that buzzword) at thinking adults, most of whom would NOT be practising Christians.

HIs like or dislike of them does not invalidate them nor do his “feelings”, which you are speculating about, make 4 or 5 any more untrue. It still stands that there are not only three choices. It is a “false trichotomy”.

I never mentioned his “feelings” or “dislike” of them. What I said was that he would have found your two extra “choices” unworthy of serious consideration in an intellectual discussion.

And you know this due to the NT you have in your hands which was not cannonized or “agreed” upon for over two centuries? You know all this from unknown third hand eye witness accounts? Writings that were amongst other writings that were chosen by groups of Christians simply because it agreed with their theology, not because it agreed with what they truly knew?

Oh dear, it seems not only have you not read Lewis, you have not read the NT either, otherwise you would know that none of the apostles’ deaths are mentioned in it (except for the prediction of Peter’s death). I must admit you are the first person I have ever heard of who apparently wishes to deny that the apostles met horrible deaths. This fact was certainly not disputed by the anti-Christian authoirities who had them killed, nor by secular historians.

People die for causes all the time. This does not validate the cause. I could give you numerous examples of people dying for causes that you would not agree on as being valid.

Why don’t you try an intellectually honest debate? You know that I diod not say “Christianity is right because men died for it.” I said that it is incredible that all ten would choose to die horrible deaths for what was merely a lie they had made up.

The bottom line: There are volumes of Christian writings that would are much better than the “easy” reads of CS Lewis ( interms of reasons to follow your faith). Why allow such a simple “argument” which will be cut to pieces by most thinkers to define your faith? Is not your faith better than that?

Lewis’ work is easy to read but there is depth to it if you bother to do more than skim the surface to look for things to cavil at. I would guess that Lewis’ works convinced more people of the truth of Christianity than any other 20th century author in English except G K Chesterton. Lewis’ Liar/Lunatic/Lord question does not “define my faith” but I find it useful to make people think about what they believe and why.

 

[redactorab]

The Lewis conundrum has never struck me as convincing. Lewis says that Jesus must be either:

(a) lying

(b) insane,

or

(c) God.

But isn’t it equally plausible that he might just be:

(d) mistaken?

 

[Abd_al-Haqq]

Petergee:

You think because he wrote the Narnia series for children, he is incapable of writing adult books? The rest of his works are “targeted” (though I doubt he he used that buzzword) at thinking adults, most of whom would NOT be practising Christians.

No, I am mentioning that particular series as part of the total work that he has put out, which plays on Christians who already believe much of what is assumed in the bulk of the totality of his work.
The intention of his adult “works” is not very relevant, given that the bulk of the readers and the bulk of those who revel in them as a bolster to their faith are Christians. Given that his analogies only serve those who already accept assumptions buried in them.

I never mentioned his “feelings” or “dislike” of them. What I said was that he would have found your two extra “choices” unworthy of serious consideration in an intellectual discussion.

Yes, an emotional response (not to mention conjecture on your part). If you find his “official” response, I would be glad to discuss it.

Oh dear, it seems not only have you not read Lewis, you have not read the NT either, otherwise you would know that none of the apostles’ deaths are mentioned in it (except for the prediction of Peter’s death).

Oh dear, not only have you read the NT, but your blind faith as hindered your critical thinking. What does one have to do with the other, and how does a mention or not mention of an apostles death prove the validity of the letter, and if the witness were thrid hand or first? You cannot simply “handwave” your conlusions as if your assumptions are some how fact.
Just as you refuse to argue a fourth and fifth point in order to save the “trilema”, you are also refusing to understand that I do not accept assumptions you have so blindly accepted about the NT.

I must admit you are the first person I have ever heard of who apparently wishes to deny that the apostles met horrible deaths.

Strawman. I have never made such a denial, and the point you feel validates all of your claims about the NT is something of an engima for me because I fail to see how one proves the other:the relationship between the mentioing of a death of an apostle and the validty of the scripture. First, show that one thing provides proof for the other. Then you can accuse me of wanting to deny it or not. (you are putting the cart before the horse)

This fact was certainly not disputed by the anti-Christian authoirities who had them killed, nor by secular historians.

Erroneous. You have yet to show one thing proves the other. Keep in mind, that “assumptions” are the downfall of any thesis. I do not have your blind faith, so I am not willing to piece meal together gaping assumptions to reach a conclusion.

Why don’t you try an intellectually honest debate? You know that I diod not say “Christianity is right because men died for it.” I said that it is incredible that all ten would choose to die horrible deaths for what was merely a lie they had made up.

So then be honest and clear, and state what this means? Men willing to die for your faith is not more incredible than other men who died for other causes. I feel you are not being quite honest. You brought it up, so my question to you now is: So what? Given that other people have given their lives for other causes. So if it does not prove anything about your faith, then why bring it up? I will tell you. Christian writings are full of rhetorical devices to try and “lead the reader”.

Lewis’ work is easy to read but there is depth to it if you bother to do more than skim the surface to look for things to cavil at.

Depth? That is a very elusive term. Bring up a single argument he has made that you feel is a solid argument for the truth of Christianity? Perhaps that would be the best place to start.

I would guess that Lewis’ works convinced more people of the truth of Christianity than any other 20th century author in English except G K Chesterton.

No, I would say that it has convinced more Christians of their faith, or those who had Christian leanings, but definately more Christians.

Lewis’ Liar/Lunatic/Lord question does not “define my faith” but I find it useful to make people think about what they believe and why.

Trilem only works for people who already believe, anyone with any depth of critical thinking will see it for what it is.

 

[mark_a]

Faith101:

no

abraham=muslim
moses=muslim
jesus=muslim
mohamed=muslim

peace be upon themall. They all submitted to God and God alone.

Hello,

There is no disrespect intended in my words below. I feel a simple direct question without tip-toeing will get a simple direct answer.

The thing I find difficult is that, according to Islam:

A people who built a society around their beliefs, had their own prophets, and even recorded their history, the Jews got it wrong.

Inspired by 11 Jewish men who knew Jesus, plus Paul, a former perscuter of Jesus, nearly every one of these men was martyred in Jesus name, believing Jesus was who he said he was, the Catholics also got it wrong.

Mohammed says both of the above corrupted God’s word, then he co-mingles the leftovers, adds more supposedly divinely inspired theology, and gets it right???

---

Sorry for the run-on sentences.

---

 

[redactorab]

Petergee:

Lewis would have been well aware of them, but did not include them [choices 4 and 5] precisely because as an “intellectual” he would have found them utterly ludicrous and not worth serious consideration.

You’re saying it’s ludicrous to even consider the possibility that the gospels might have been manipulated for purposes of evangelization or other motives? Why? Is it also “ludicrous” to consider the possibility that Jesus might have been neither liar, lunatic, nor Lord, but simply mistaken (even though well-meaning)? True, it’s uncomfortable to consider those things, but ludicrous is the wrong word. They are actually logical possibilities.

I like Lewis as much as the next Christian, but this particular argument of his is not airtight.

 

[Petergee]

redactorab:

The Lewis conundrum has never struck me as convincing. Lewis says that Jesus must be either:

(a) lying

(b) insane,

or

(c) God.

But isn’t it equally plausible that he might just be:

(d) mistaken?

Only if he was (b) insane. Surely you’re not claiming that it’s possible for a sane man to honestly believe he is God if it’s not so.

Abd-al-Haqq, I see you have confirmed my suspicions that you don’t want to have an honest argument. You simply ignore my points and try to confuse the issue with non-issues (which I was not arguing about) to disguise the fact that your argument does not hold water. When and if you’re ever ready to have a serious and honest discussion of the issue in the OP, let me know (and show it).

 

[Petergee]

redactorab:

You’re saying it’s ludicrous to even consider the possibility that the gospels might have been manipulated for purposes of evangelization or other motives? Why? Is it also “ludicrous” to consider the possibility that Jesus might have been neither liar, lunatic, nor Lord, but simply mistaken (even though well-meaning)? True, it’s uncomfortable to consider those things, but ludicrous is the wrong word. They are actually logical possibilities.

I like Lewis as much as the next Christian, but this particular argument of his is not airtight.

Of course the gospels were manipulated for the purpose of evangelisation. That was the main reason they were written. “Evangel” = “gospel”. The apostles and many other Christians were being killed for refusing to deny the faith long before a word of the gospels was written. The gospels were written as an EXPRESSION of that faith, not asa BASIS on which to then create a faith.

 

[redactorab]

Petergee:

Only if he was (b) insane. Surely you’re not claiming that it’s possible for a sane man to honestly believe he is God if it’s not so.

I guess it depends on the level of literalness he intended.

And to explore another tack, I’m not sure Lewis gives the “insane” angle a fair shake. He says that a lunatic who made the kind of claims Jesus made would be “on the level of a man who claims he is a poached egg.” Well, maybe not quite. Maybe it would just be a delusion on the level of someone who thinks he’s God.