C.S. Lewis on Non-Fundamentalist Christianity

Lachean · 07-07-08, 11:25 AM

I am often asked, when I explain that I do not regard him as my lord or god, whether or not I see philosophical or moral value in the teachings of Christ. Until recently my usual reply would have been "of course, if you pick and choose, there is much value to the Bible."

Then I read the response of C.S. Lewis, who has re-emerged as the most popular Christian apologist, to the notion of Christ as merely a great moral teacher (if not a god):

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis

Now, unless the speaker is god this is really so preposterous as to be comical. We can all understand how a man forgives offenses against himself.

You tread on my toes I forgive you, you steal my money 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 and taking other men's money? Asinine fortuity is the kindest description we should give to his conduct.

Yet this is what Jesus did, he told people that their sins are forgiven, and never waited to consult those other people whom their sins have undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if he were the party chiefly concerned, and the person chiefly offended in all offenses; this makes sense ONLY if he really was the god who's laws were broken, and who's love is wounded in every sin.

In the mouth of any speaker who is not god, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness in conceit unrivaled by any other character in history.

...

That is the one thing we must not say, a man who is merely a man and said what Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on the level of a man who says he is a poached egg, or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice, either this man was and is the son of god, or else a madman or something worse.

You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon OR you can fall at his feet and call him lord and god. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great moral teacher, he has not left that open to us; he did not intend to.

I never thought of it that way... you really must admire Lewis for his logic. Either the gospels are a literal truth, or they are a fraud and an immoral one at that.

So I pose this question to Christians, theists of other faiths, and skeptics as well: If he were not a god, could such an alleged scapegoat for man's crimes against other men be regarded as a great moral teacher?

How should we regard another mere human who claims to forgive your trespasses against another? How should those victims of sin regard sun a person?

EDIT: Because IMO I no longer feel that I can ignore much of what he claimed and died for, simply for that which I find poetic, inspirational or useful (for example you need the Bible to understand much of Shakespeare.) My estimation of the man, if he did indeed exist and was not the god he claimed to be, must encompass his entire message.

mikhail · 07-07-08, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

I am often asked, when I explain that I do not regard him as my lord or god, whether or not I see philosophical or moral value in the teachings of Christ. Until recently my usual reply would have been "of course, if you pick and choose, there is much value to the Bible."

Then I read the response of C.S. Lewis, who has re-emerged as the most popular Christian apologist, to the notion of Christ as merely a great moral teacher (if not a god):

I never thought of it that way... you really must admire Lewis for his logic. Either the gospels are a literal truth, or they are a fraud and an immoral one at that.

So I pose this question to Christians, theists of other faiths, and skeptics as well: If he were not a god, could such an alleged scapegoat for man's crimes against other men be regarded as a great moral teacher?

How should we regard another mere human who claims to forgive your trespasses against another? How should those victims of sin regard sun a person?

EDIT: Because IMO I no longer feel that I can ignore much of what he claimed and died for, simply for that which I find poetic, inspirational or useful (for example you need the Bible to understand much of Shakespeare.) My estimation of the man, if he did indeed exist and was not the god he claimed to be, must encompass his entire message.

I think peoples jesus is more a symbol of a moral person to them based on the ideas of morality they already have.In reality i think following jesus's example in the bible is a good guide to ending up homeless.

DarkWizard12 · 07-07-08, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

I am often asked, when I explain that I do not regard him as my lord or god, whether or not I see philosophical or moral value in the teachings of Christ. Until recently my usual reply would have been "of course, if you pick and choose, there is much value to the Bible."

Then I read the response of C.S. Lewis, who has re-emerged as the most popular Christian apologist, to the notion of Christ as merely a great moral teacher (if not a god):

I never thought of it that way... you really must admire Lewis for his logic. Either the gospels are a literal truth, or they are a fraud and an immoral one at that.

So I pose this question to Christians, theists of other faiths, and skeptics as well: If he were not a god, could such an alleged scapegoat for man's crimes against other men be regarded as a great moral teacher?

How should we regard another mere human who claims to forgive your trespasses against another? How should those victims of sin regard sun a person?

EDIT: Because IMO I no longer feel that I can ignore much of what he claimed and died for, simply for that which I find poetic, inspirational or useful (for example you need the Bible to understand much of Shakespeare.) My estimation of the man, if he did indeed exist and was not the god he claimed to be, must encompass his entire message.

Hmm, I was expecting something different...

I rember my gramps talking about this 5 years ago. Christ is with us all in spirit, therefore when you tread on the toes of another, you tread on the toes of christ. Simple.

Quote:

The Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

Case closed.

Felicity · 07-07-08, 05:59 PM

You refer to the gospels as being "a literal truth, or they are a fraud and an immoral one at that." I don't think what Lewis was saying really should be extended to the gospels--he was talking about the man Jesus.

If Jesus were a fraud, yes--he'd be a lunatic or immoral as Lewis states, but the gospels are the result of those who believed Him and I don't think it's fair to call them immoral. What I mean is, if Jesus were a fraud, the people who were sincere in their belief would not be guilty of anything but poor judgement. You could still find value in what they perceived and testified to in the Gospels.

DarkWizard12 · 07-07-08, 06:16 PM

PLease disregard my last post. I can;t seem to edit it for some reason. It was made in poor perspective.

new coup for you · 07-07-08, 06:28 PM

I read this hilarious article in Harpers or The Atlantic or some other "Upper West Side Jacobin" bull**** magazine basically warning its readers that nominally entertaining Narnia stories might lure their impressionable children into the bosom of Christianity. Like it's a secret that C.S. Lewis was a pronounced public Christian or that his stories were obvious biblical metaphors.

Dezaad · 07-07-08, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

I am often asked, when I explain that I do not regard him as my lord or god, whether or not I see philosophical or moral value in the teachings of Christ. Until recently my usual reply would have been "of course, if you pick and choose, there is much value to the Bible."

Then I read the response of C.S. Lewis, who has re-emerged as the most popular Christian apologist, to the notion of Christ as merely a great moral teacher (if not a god):

I never thought of it that way... you really must admire Lewis for his logic. Either the gospels are a literal truth, or they are a fraud and an immoral one at that.

So I pose this question to Christians, theists of other faiths, and skeptics as well: If he were not a god, could such an alleged scapegoat for man's crimes against other men be regarded as a great moral teacher?

How should we regard another mere human who claims to forgive your trespasses against another? How should those victims of sin regard sun a person?

EDIT: Because IMO I no longer feel that I can ignore much of what he claimed and died for, simply for that which I find poetic, inspirational or useful (for example you need the Bible to understand much of Shakespeare.) My estimation of the man, if he did indeed exist and was not the god he claimed to be, must encompass his entire message.

My perspective has been somewhat different. While I subscribe to the belief that there was a man named Jesus who was rather famous within his social circle in the area of Palestine, I don't actually believe that he necessarily claimed to forgive sin. The Gospel accounts are not credible to me. So, about Jesus himself, I don't believe there are accurate enough accounts to know much of true value about him.

So, I have always evaluated the moral value of the stories as if they were in fact all true. This is sort of a buy in to Lewis' claim that the accounts must stand or fail together, so I agree there. And I further agree that, if they are taken as if they are true, they can be taken as a marvelous story of altruistic love and self sacrifice. There are of course many stories that are this way, very inspirational. I imagine that some of these would also have parts that lose their inspirational quality if you fail to suspend disbelief about certain other parts of them.

As to your OP, I don't think anyone can fail to see that Jesus is either a jerk or a lunatic if he is not a true sacrifice.

I actually think the more interesting question is whether or not God is a jerk or a lunatic if he holds sinful affronts paid in any part by another's sacrifice, no matter how pure. Why should the horrible acts of one person be payable by any other person? Your questions still stand whether or not Jesus is a true sacrifice as long as you ask the right entity. Just ask the Father, instead.

The whacked nature of this kind of Justice is illustrated by considering the following possibility: Hitler may have accepted Jesus right as he died. It doesn't even matter that he committed suicide (if he did), since he still might have accepted Christ just as his life expired. Now, chances are that millions of Jews never accepted Christ and died in Hitler's camps. According to most theology, these Jews will not be in Heaven. Hitler may have gotten in, but not any Jew he killed who didn't accept Jesus? It's perverted any way you slice it. It is an unforgivable perversion of Justice.

And if your questions are not adequately answered in this 'new' context, then the heroic nature of Jesus stories fails. Of course these questions have been asked before, and as far as I'm concerned have never been answered satisfactorily.

Lachean · 07-07-08, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

You refer to the gospels as being "a literal truth, or they are a fraud and an immoral one at that." I don't think what Lewis was saying really should be extended to the gospels--he was talking about the man Jesus.

If Jesus were a fraud, yes--he'd be a lunatic or immoral as Lewis states, but the gospels are the result of those who believed Him and I don't think it's fair to call them immoral. What I mean is, if Jesus were a fraud, the people who were sincere in their belief would not be guilty of anything but poor judgement.

I'll have to pick up a copy of Mere Christianity to quote the context of it, but what I understood him to mean was that either the gospels were an accurate account of what really happened to the son of god (which he believes) or if he were not then the gospels (as an account of his acts) would be a fraud and to regard him as merely a great moral teacher is something that he did not leave up to us.

I do not think he meant that the followers of a false-god would be then rendered immoral, only the fraud of his ministry would have been (being a scapegoat for the atonement of sins.)

Quote:

You could still find value in what they perceived and testified to in the Gospels.

No doubt about that at all, I myself utility in the bible.

Lachean · 07-07-08, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezaad

My perspective has been somewhat different. While I subscribe to the belief that there was a man named Jesus who was rather famous within his social circle in the area of Palestine, I don't actually believe that he necessarily claimed to forgive sin. The Gospel accounts are not credible to me. So, about Jesus himself, I don't believe there are accurate enough accounts to know much of true value about him.

So, I have always evaluated the moral value of the stories as if they were in fact all true. This is sort of a buy in to Lewis' claim that the accounts must stand or fail together, so I agree there. And I further agree that, if they are taken as if they are true, they can be taken as a marvelous story of altruistic love and self sacrifice. There are of course many stories that are this way, very inspirational. I imagine that some of these would also have parts that lose their inspirational quality if you fail to suspend disbelief about certain other parts of them.

As to your OP, I don't think anyone can fail to see that Jesus is either a jerk or a lunatic if he is not a true sacrifice.

I actually think the more interesting question is whether or not God is a jerk or a lunatic if he holds sinful affronts paid in any part by another's sacrifice, no matter how pure. Why should the horrible acts of one person be payable by any other person? Your questions still stand whether or not Jesus is a true sacrifice as long as you ask the right entity. Just ask the Father, instead.

The whacked nature of this kind of Justice is illustrated by considering the following possibility: Hitler may have accepted Jesus right as he died. It doesn't even matter that he committed suicide (if he did), since he still might have accepted Christ just as his life expired. Now, chances are that millions of Jews never accepted Christ and died in Hitler's camps. According to most theology, these Jews will not be in Heaven. Hitler may have gotten in, but not any Jew he killed who didn't accept Jesus? It's perverted any way you slice it. It is an unforgivable perversion of Justice.

And if your questions are not adequately answered in this 'new' context, then the heroic nature of Jesus stories fails. Of course these questions have been asked before, and as far as I'm concerned have never been answered satisfactorily.

I think I understand you, personally I regard the Abrahamic god as the worst of all possible celestial tyranny's ever thought up.

Lachean · 07-07-08, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

Hmm, I was expecting something different...

I rember my gramps talking about this 5 years ago. Christ is with us all in spirit, therefore when you tread on the toes of another, you tread on the toes of christ. Simple.

...

Case closed.

Case closed...

?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

PLease disregard my last post. I can;t seem to edit it for some reason. It was made in poor perspective.

Way ahead of ya DW