As an evangelical I always liked the logic of C.S. Lewis' "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord", but as a Catholic I realize now that he was missing the all important "All of the Above" from the selection, as it is truly this that all Protestants should be checking.While most of my non-Catholic friends are sincere when they say "Jesus is Lord", it is acceptance of the faulty teaching of Protestantism (which ever of the 30k flavors they might prefer) that logical must dictate that they too think Jesus was a liar and a lunatic.
If Jesus broke His promise in Matthew 16 of giving Peter the "keys", than isn't He a bold faced liar?
Why did He deceive his followers with "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" if He wasn't in fact telling the Truth?
If He did truly believe we must do this, although we couldn't, than He wasn't merely lying, He was quite delusional. Of course, according our Protestant brethren, He was not only nuts but sadistic as well, for He had His own mother (who they say has no purpose in salvation history) witness His torture and death, when as God He could have easily had her already taken safely to heaven. Sadly, according to this train of thought, He showed more mercy to the good thief than He did the "woman" who bore Him.
Too many Protestants prefer to "feel" than to think, to have their ears tickled than to have their eyes opened, to live with a liar and a lunatic who they foolishly call lord. . . . and with a heavy heart I must admit that way too many Cultural Catholics are sadly doing the same.
.
6 comments:
Christians are too impressed with this question that C.S. Lewis poses. Why be limited to those options? It's a false dilemma. (trilemma?)
Surely there are more options than the ones he gives.
and yet you listed not one?
Well, I was kind of hoping you'd take a moment to think of them for yourself.
Here's an option: He never said that he was the Son of God. That was added by the Gospel writers.
Here's another: He never even existed and the story is as true as the stories of Achilles, Odysseus, etc.
Here's another: He was being metaphorical, and everybody who thinks he's being literal is missing the point.
Another: He was an alien from another planet, and the primitive people who wrote about him couldn't comprehend that, so instead they invented a story that had similarities with pre-existing Greek myths.
I could go on and on. My point is just that there's nothing logical about the choice that CS Lewis provides, because it starts with a false premise. It's the sort of question that only impresses people who are already predisposed to believing it in the first place.
no need to go on, as it seems you have picked a false premise yerself
"Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the SON of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my FATHER in heaven."
Lewis stuck with the three choices of a rational person (aliens are generally excluded from this).
As an ex-atheist, I understand how someone could not believe in a God, but I have never understood the desire for some to attempt to rob another of their belief.
That's only a false premise if one assumes that The Bible is 100% reliable. But even with that, it still leaves open the possibility that the passage is being misinterpreted. After all, don't all Christians refer to God as the Father? Why couldn't Jesus just mean it in the same sense that everyone else does?
So I stand by what I said - CS Lewis takes a false premise and then tries to build on it using logic. But you have to start with a logical premise before you can continue to make a logical argument.
And I'd also suggest that while I agree that aliens are irrational, they are no more irrational than a man who happens to be his own father and can walk on water.
As for trying to "rob" you of your belief, I am doing no such thing. I'm not kidnapping you and holding your head underwater until you give up your beliefs. You've posted something for all the world to see, and I'm writing a response.
A)Peter calls Jesus the "SON" of God, and Jesus exalts him and God.
B) I am Catholic, so the "Bible Only" fallacy doesn't apply to me, but the Nicene Creed does "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made.
C)Oh, I wasn't worried about you robbing me of the Truth, just wondering what drives someone to desire to hurt others. Whether it's true or not, atheism is life without hope or purpose . . .so not really life.
d)If you truly desire truth, I would suggest going to Peter Kreeft's website and listening to some of his lectures. There is also a nice little response to Hitchens and modern atheism "The Godless Delusion" by Patrick Madrid and Ken Hensley. Warning, this isn't Protestant pseudo-Christian reason, but highly intelligent and academic.
Good luck and God bless,
Hope to see ya at the March for Life
Post a Comment