RE: Why is Jesus not a "madman"?
February 11, 2013 at 10:10 pm
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2013 at 10:12 pm by naimless.)
I don't think that is their purpose but I'll digress.
I am not a Christian, my post was aimed for Christians that frequent this forum to help me understand how they choose son of god over "madman".
I have had experiences where I am god. At the moment I accept I am a bit of a madman.
I felt me and Jesus may have had a bit in common. I'm interested in people's dreams and hallucinations and visions and psychotic states.
I don't really see it as something worse than him actually being the son of god.
I can take it metaphorically because he could have meant that he was "a" son of god as opposed to "the", and "god" was the universe. Similarly, I feel I am 13.7 billion years old.
But Lewis says, "no". That is patronising to Jesus. Well yes, but then it is also patronising to the other people that believe they are god to seclude them as something other than Jesus.
Furthermore, if I am the "something worse", there isn't a lot I can do about it.
I am not a Christian, my post was aimed for Christians that frequent this forum to help me understand how they choose son of god over "madman".
I have had experiences where I am god. At the moment I accept I am a bit of a madman.
I felt me and Jesus may have had a bit in common. I'm interested in people's dreams and hallucinations and visions and psychotic states.
I don't really see it as something worse than him actually being the son of god.
I can take it metaphorically because he could have meant that he was "a" son of god as opposed to "the", and "god" was the universe. Similarly, I feel I am 13.7 billion years old.
But Lewis says, "no". That is patronising to Jesus. Well yes, but then it is also patronising to the other people that believe they are god to seclude them as something other than Jesus.
Furthermore, if I am the "something worse", there isn't a lot I can do about it.
