In another thread, rbumbalough mentioned the Christians love for the "Trilemma", as argued by C.S. Lewis and other apologists.
The apology goes something like this: Jesus claimed to be God. Since Jesus made this claim, we can only conclude that he must either be a liar (he said he was God when he knew he was not), a lunatic (he thought he was God when he was not) or Lord. We can't call him a "wise teacher" or a "great moral philosopher" and yet reject his claim of divinity. He did not leave this option open to us.
Let me start by saying it is true that many non-believers do praise Jesus as a moral teacher. I've even known some "atheist Christians", those who say they follow Jesus' teachings but don't believe in any of the superstition. Further, I agree with the statement that you can't have one without the other. To reject the claims of divinity, the salvation scheme or the miracles of Jesus is to virtually reject the entire story. Anyone who clings to the picture of the wise and loving Jesus who preached a message of peace and charity that can work independently of the religion is probably someone who's understanding of Jesus is more molded by pop culture than scripture.
Put bluntly, our society tends to view Jesus through rose-colored glasses. The romanticized view of Jesus is so pervasive that even skeptics and other non-believers may be inclined to believe that somehow Christians who persecuted, hated and killed in his name have somehow been getting it wrong all these years.
You have to consciously rip off these rose-colored glasses and read the Gospels with a critical eye, as if you were an outsider learning of Jesus for the first time with no preconceived ideas. Once I was able to do so, I concluded that Jesus, to put it kindly, is highly overrated as a philosopher or moral teacher.
First of all, he isn't consistent with applying his own standards to himself. He tells a rich man to sell all he has and give to the poor (Mark 10:21). But when a rich family is lavishing on him, he says essentially to screw the poor, they'll always be around but he won't (Mark 14:6). He tells us to forgive others (Luke 6:37) but throws a tantrum and condemns entire cities where he was rejected (Matt 11:21).
Second, some of his moral advice he offers isn't practical to say the least. Love your enemies? Do good to those who harm you? Pray for those who mistreat you? Who are we kidding? If Christians had actually practiced any of these teachings, the religion would have been wiped out long ago. Other moral teachings were gruesome to say the least. His vaunted "Sermon on the Mount" included prescriptions for self-mutilation, teachings that have turned out to be tragic for those who take them a little too literally.
Thirdly, the good advice he offered wasn't terribly original or so insightful as to require a divine mind to conceive them. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is straight out of Leviticus (19:18). With Jesus' teachings, what was good wasn't original and what was original wasn't good.
Fourthly, some of the advice was either immoral or missed key moral issues that a divine mind should have commented on. In one parable, he says a king commands all those who do not wish to be ruled by him to be slain (19:27) and he seems fine with that. He often used slaves in his parables and at one point says the one who doesn't obey his master's will should be beaten with many stripes (Luke 12:46-47). He says nothing on abolishing slavery, nothing on gender equality and certainly nothing on democracy.
Finally, he expresses a poor understanding of how the natural universe operates. He could have admonished some basic concepts of hygiene but instead lets people think illness is caused by demonic possession. He believes in the story of Noah's Ark (Luke 17:26-27). He thinks the moon is a light source (Matt 24:29). His lineage is traced back to a literal Adam (Luke 3:38).
I mention all of this for the proper context in which to discuss the Trilemma. More on this later. ***To be continued***
The apology goes something like this: Jesus claimed to be God. Since Jesus made this claim, we can only conclude that he must either be a liar (he said he was God when he knew he was not), a lunatic (he thought he was God when he was not) or Lord. We can't call him a "wise teacher" or a "great moral philosopher" and yet reject his claim of divinity. He did not leave this option open to us.
Let me start by saying it is true that many non-believers do praise Jesus as a moral teacher. I've even known some "atheist Christians", those who say they follow Jesus' teachings but don't believe in any of the superstition. Further, I agree with the statement that you can't have one without the other. To reject the claims of divinity, the salvation scheme or the miracles of Jesus is to virtually reject the entire story. Anyone who clings to the picture of the wise and loving Jesus who preached a message of peace and charity that can work independently of the religion is probably someone who's understanding of Jesus is more molded by pop culture than scripture.
Put bluntly, our society tends to view Jesus through rose-colored glasses. The romanticized view of Jesus is so pervasive that even skeptics and other non-believers may be inclined to believe that somehow Christians who persecuted, hated and killed in his name have somehow been getting it wrong all these years.
You have to consciously rip off these rose-colored glasses and read the Gospels with a critical eye, as if you were an outsider learning of Jesus for the first time with no preconceived ideas. Once I was able to do so, I concluded that Jesus, to put it kindly, is highly overrated as a philosopher or moral teacher.
First of all, he isn't consistent with applying his own standards to himself. He tells a rich man to sell all he has and give to the poor (Mark 10:21). But when a rich family is lavishing on him, he says essentially to screw the poor, they'll always be around but he won't (Mark 14:6). He tells us to forgive others (Luke 6:37) but throws a tantrum and condemns entire cities where he was rejected (Matt 11:21).
Second, some of his moral advice he offers isn't practical to say the least. Love your enemies? Do good to those who harm you? Pray for those who mistreat you? Who are we kidding? If Christians had actually practiced any of these teachings, the religion would have been wiped out long ago. Other moral teachings were gruesome to say the least. His vaunted "Sermon on the Mount" included prescriptions for self-mutilation, teachings that have turned out to be tragic for those who take them a little too literally.
Thirdly, the good advice he offered wasn't terribly original or so insightful as to require a divine mind to conceive them. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is straight out of Leviticus (19:18). With Jesus' teachings, what was good wasn't original and what was original wasn't good.
Fourthly, some of the advice was either immoral or missed key moral issues that a divine mind should have commented on. In one parable, he says a king commands all those who do not wish to be ruled by him to be slain (19:27) and he seems fine with that. He often used slaves in his parables and at one point says the one who doesn't obey his master's will should be beaten with many stripes (Luke 12:46-47). He says nothing on abolishing slavery, nothing on gender equality and certainly nothing on democracy.
Finally, he expresses a poor understanding of how the natural universe operates. He could have admonished some basic concepts of hygiene but instead lets people think illness is caused by demonic possession. He believes in the story of Noah's Ark (Luke 17:26-27). He thinks the moon is a light source (Matt 24:29). His lineage is traced back to a literal Adam (Luke 3:38).
I mention all of this for the proper context in which to discuss the Trilemma. More on this later. ***To be continued***
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
