This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Liar Lord or Lunatic

Comprising most of Lewis' writings.
Forum rules
Please keep all discussion on topic and in line with our code of conduct.

Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby jo » July 6th, 2004, 10:34 am

"I saw it begin,” said the Lord Digory. “I did not think I would live to see it die"

User avatar
jo
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 5167
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: somewhere with lots of pink

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » July 6th, 2004, 4:32 pm

Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby jo » July 6th, 2004, 4:47 pm

"I saw it begin,” said the Lord Digory. “I did not think I would live to see it die"

User avatar
jo
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 5167
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: somewhere with lots of pink

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Steve » July 6th, 2004, 5:25 pm

User avatar
Steve
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 730
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: Waxhaw, North Carolina, USA

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby jo » July 6th, 2004, 6:12 pm

"I saw it begin,” said the Lord Digory. “I did not think I would live to see it die"

User avatar
jo
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 5167
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: somewhere with lots of pink

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » July 6th, 2004, 6:21 pm

Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby jo » July 6th, 2004, 6:40 pm

"I saw it begin,” said the Lord Digory. “I did not think I would live to see it die"

User avatar
jo
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 5167
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: somewhere with lots of pink

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » July 6th, 2004, 7:38 pm

Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Sven » July 6th, 2004, 8:44 pm

Hi, Jo,
The best explanation I've read of Lewis' trilemma is the book "Between Heaven and Hell" by Peter Kreeft. If you can find a copy of it, while it may not convince you, it will answer your questions.

Selah,
Sven

Image
Rat! he found breath to whisper, shaking. Are you afraid?
Afraid? murmured the Rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love.
Afraid! Of Him? O, never, never! And yet -- and yet -- O, Mole, I am afraid!
Then the two animals, crouching to the earth, bowed their heads and did worship.
User avatar
Sven
 
Posts: 2883
Joined: Aug 1996
Location: Greenbelt, MD, near Washington DC

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby jo » July 6th, 2004, 9:19 pm

"I saw it begin,” said the Lord Digory. “I did not think I would live to see it die"

User avatar
jo
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 5167
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: somewhere with lots of pink

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » July 7th, 2004, 5:03 pm

Yes, Mary's sinlessness is definately another thread. In fact, it is probably another forum altogether as Lewis did not really discuss the issue.

As you indicate, Mary could have made up the story of her virgin birth. Why? As a lie to hide adultery? Self delusion? If I remember rightly, a rumour was spread in the early days of the Church that she was raped by a Roman soldier. Any of these possibilities are very possible, with Mary giving a cock and bull story about God 'overshadowing' her in order to save her humiliation or lie.

So why believe it? Well, why not? There are prophecies in the OT that it would happen. The apostles and early church testified to it. The Church has held to the same belief ever since. There seems to be good reason to believe that it happened.

Answer to question: Ultimately, the story of Jesus' conception could only have come from Mary herself. I suppose it surfaced, if not during His earthly ministry, then in the first days of the early church. It could not have been much later because (as I understand it) the Gospels are final versions of earlier texts, which themselves came from the oral testimony of the first Christians.

Malcolm
Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » July 8th, 2004, 12:53 am

In defense of Christianity, Lee Strobel has written a book, "The Case For Christ" retracing his own spiritual journey. He has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. (I am looking at the book right now, otherwise I would be hard-pressed to remember all that!) Anyway, its worth a read.

Anyone else read it? There is soo much material there!

Elaine
Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Sylvia Lee » July 22nd, 2004, 1:41 am

In reply to the original question...

I think Lewis' main argument was against people who said "'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.'" That is the "really foolish" view, moreso than calling him the Devil, or a lunatic. That was what Lewis was trying to say. Basically, we can either accept Him as our Lord, or we can reject Him completely, but there can be no middle ground with Jesus Christ.
Sylvia Lee
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Jul 2004

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » July 22nd, 2004, 5:00 pm

Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby larry gilman » July 27th, 2004, 1:40 pm

I agree that the L-cubed dilemma falls fall short of a proof. All arguments about the existence of God or the divinity of Christ do. And you have put your finger on one of its basic flaws: it assumes that all the words which create the dilemma are nonfictional. But there is no way to prove this: the only documents that attest to these statements being made at all, the intensely agenda-driven documents of the New Testament, are not subject to any independent confirmation. Of course, I speak according to the coldest possible skeptical standards---but isn’t that the point? If the L-cubed argumed isn’t intellectually binding on someone who does not pre-assume the validity of Christianity and its founding documents, then whatever the good of it may be, it can’t be to convince unbelievers. So even granting that Christ existed, it does not follow that the alleged dilemma exists.

Further, the argument is noncoercive because it is an argument from psychology. And if there is anywhere where we cannot lay down absolute laws about what _must_ and _cannot_ occur, it is the human mind. So even if we grant that the Gospel accounts of Christ’s sayings are (a) absolutely accurate and (b) have omitted nothing that would clarify the picture---and why should any unbeliever grant these points?---it does not follow that Christ’s psychology can prove his divinity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof: and for the uniquely extraordinary claim that a man was God, no probabalistic argument about what a "lunatic" was liable to say or not say is sufficiently extraordinary proof. Lunatic, by the way, is a spin-word. It conjures up a frizz-haired whackazoid proclaiming that he is Napoleon, which the Christ of the gospels obviously was not. But our real-life psychological ills and distortions are infinitely more various and subtle than this cartoon notion.

Christianity does not, thank Goodness, hang by such threads. The value of the L-cubed dilemma is not as a proof for unbelievers, but as a lens through which people who are already Chrisitan can meditate on one aspect of the Incarnation.

Sincerely,

Larry Gilman
larry gilman
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Sharon, VT

Next

Return to Apologetics & Other Works

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 15 guests

cron