"If you choose not too decide you still have made a choice..."
Sticking with the Rush motiff...
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of thing Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the 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 human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."--C.S. Lewis
from the mind of... Eric | 3:32 PM
27 Comments:
Nice, EL!
Can't go wrong with Lewis. That passage is one of my favorites....
Hey El,
I know I must sound like a bore quoting Jefferson again, but I'm getting into him these days. I think this quote offers a good response to Lewis:
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
I think he was saying that it's possible that since Jesus didn't write the Gospels himself, we can't assume he said everything attributed to him.
Jefferson did attempt to sort out the diamonds. He created his own version of the New Testament in which he removed the words he thought were put in Jesus' mouth.
Here's that book at Amazon:
Jefferson Bible
Personally, I find his teachings remarkable, but don't believe in the miracles attributed to him- it was very common to do that to elevate the status of all sorts of religious leaders of the day.
BTW, I've had Rush tunes in my head all week. 2112, Farewell to Kings, and Hemispheres were all worn out on my turntable.
Oh- so was Abbey Road. I think you'll like this:
Beatles juggler
Ciao,
Sol
What a load of crap! Look at theback cover. It explains a whole heck of a lot!
The 18th century mind- the mind that created America, from the principles of the rationality and the enlightenment!
Why do you hate America Dad?
"The greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation [birth] of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation [birth] of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
- to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823
I've read all your comments and have a few thoughts in mind, but they will have to wait 'til this afternoon/evening... two jobs and all... and I've gotta git out the door even as I type.
Ciao 4 now.
Okey doke, I'm busy too and am trying to scale back on my blog comments.
BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone here Jesus was not the son of God. Like evolution, it's a debate that's really beyond the scope of posting a few paragraphs here and there, no? I'm only saying there is room for other hypotheses about the miracles described in the Gospels, enough for honest people to disagree. In the meantime I think his teachings are worth paying attention to, even for those of us who don't accept the divinity part- doing otherwise would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Sol
I agree, Sol. I believe any take on scripture is worth listening to. The thing is, that your take negates faith. Mine embraces faith.
You put your faith in man's--your own itellect.
I accept the Word of God as literal truth.
Where's the debate, then?
The difference in our approach is that you want people like me to appear ignorant for my reliance on faith. I look at people like you as not even being able to understand the natural world you worship because you don't accept the basic truth about life and its origins.
You have every right to not believe yourself into the bottomless pit--if that's your choice.
I choose to believe the Word of God.
In the end--seeing as how my personal life is a happy and fulfilled one--what harm have I done by placing my faith in God's Word?
What eternal regrets will you have if you have rejected His Word?
Jefferson was a brilliant man... No doubt about that, but there's also no doubt that such people are oftimes blinded by their own brilliance. Please forgive the pun. I could quote "professiong themselves to be wise, they became fools..." but what's the point? It's evident to anyone with half a brain that people who think too highly of themselves are often blinded to anything that stands squarely outside their personal philosophy of life, the universe, and everything. Can I get shout-out for Douglas Adams?
Having said all that, there is enough evidence within the text of all 66 books of the bible to brand the whole as one cohesive unit of thought, as though written by a single author. Which is why the whole of the bible is called God's word. We can debate that another time, but my point is this: one man's reasoned opinion is not enough to negate almost two millenia's worth of scholars and thinkers alike who have had no problem with the Gospel's accounts of the life and ministry of Christ, including His miracles. Of course, that's not to say there haven't been dissenters as well throughout the long years of history.
Jefferson-- returning to topic -- without a doubt, was a brilliant man, but so too was C.S. Lewis, whose very quote was the impetus for this post.
"I'm only saying there is room for other hypotheses about the miracles described in the Gospels, enough for honest people to disagree."
Hmmmm. The Gospel's I've read say the people who witnessed Jesus' miracles were either overwhelmingly astonished, or seriously sceptical, I haven't perceived any middle ground here. For the most part, they were either genuine miracles, or fakes, i.e.; The blind coming to sight, the lame made whole, lepers cleansed, the dead raised.
Others have attempted to explain the miracles of the old testament with a lot of plausibility; Immanuel Velikovsky, for one; specifically his book Worlds in Collision. But these explanations do not destroy God's authorship of said miracles.
To believe in God requires one accept the premise that He is capable of doing whatever he wills, when He will it. If God created the heavens and earth, and formed man from the dust of the earth, and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils thereby making man a living soul, then overshadowing a young virgin, a direct descendant of King David, with his Holy Spirit, thus begetting Himself in human form, would certainly be within His power. If God is who He says He is-- Holy, Righteous, Just, then He must be INcapable of UNholiness, UNrighteousness, and INjustice. And though I've beaten this drum before, I say it again, He cannot lie. It is, in fact, impossible for God to lie...
Some things just have to be taken on faith. But faith is not something we possess within ourselves. To believe in God, and have faith in His word, God must first put that faith in us.
Dad:
"In the end--seeing as how my personal life is a happy and fulfilled one--what harm have I done by placing my faith in God's Word?"
I believe this is known as "Pascal's Wager." Pascal held that it was prudent when considering the risk of eternal damnation for to be a Catholic. He held that faith might hold the key to eternal salvation, and if there was no God, the mistake would result in a pleasant delusion.
One problem is that I would have to turn my back on my own intellect, as you put it, to accept this argument. If there is a God, isn't it a sin to reject my capcity for reasoning, which is a gift from God?
A second problem is that I am presented with literally thousands of religious traditions- all claiming to represent the word of God, many threatening me with damnation if I choose wrong. Which word of God to choose? I am not qualified to say one is superior to the other, and am hopelessly biased toward the one I grew up with (protestant Christianity). I could have stuck with that one, but for me- and I admit this is a very personal position- I did not find that my skepticism was satisfied.
I have also come to believe that if there is a God, then he is not likely to be as vain and vindictive as the God of the Bible. Too much love and patience went into the splendor of creation for it to be just a backdrop for God's desire for worship. And if it we didn't evolve, then too much fake evidence was planted in fossils and rocks and starlight and our own DNA for God not to forgive us for believing that we did.
I guess to sum it up, I'll take my chances.
EL:
Good points. And Douglas Adams rocks. I see the Bible as written by many, though, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Mark Twain also has some good quotes.
Ever read "Letters from the Earth?"
Daddio--
This discussion has brought to mind a song by Nichole Nordeman, entitled "What If"
What if you're right?
And he was just another nice guy
What if you're right?
What if it's true?
They say the cross will only make a fool of you
And what if it's true?
What if he takes his place in history
With all the prophets and the kings
Who taught us love and came in peace
But then the story ends
What then?
What if you dig
Way down deeper than your simple-minded friends
What if you dig?
What if you find
A thousand more unanswered questions down inside
That's all you find?
What if you pick apart the logic
And begin to poke the holes
What if the crown of thorns is no more
Than folklore that must be told and retold?
But what if you're wrong?
What if there's more?
What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
What if you jump?
And just close your eyes?
What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?
What if He's more than enough?
What if it's love?
You've been running as fast as you can
You've been looking for a place you can land for so long
But what if you're wrong?
It's your last questions that brought this song to mind... "what harm have I done by placing my faith in God's Word? What eternal regrets will you have if you have rejected His Word?"
It is my belief, as it is yours, that many will have regrets, and have them at a time when it is too late to make amends.
Anyone who has read this blog lately knows exactly where I stand. Argument is good, in that a lot of good can come from it, but argument can also be stiffling [and I don't think we've reached that point here yet]. Sooner or later that slim pretty pearl diver must come up for air. So in closing, allow me to quote a favorite movie:
Morpheus: "I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."
Fair enough, Anonymous, but I don't see that one must forsake intellect to believe in God. I have forsaken nothing of the sort. And time doesn't permit me at present to answer your objections. God willing, we can get to those later.
Please, feel free to use any old name you wish besides Anonymous. You don't have to give away your email address, and this way I, and others, can easily distinguish between what you comment and, say, several other "anonymouses"
Thanks for your comments, and welcome.
What I find amusing is that the Bible clearly explains the poison of faith in human itellect. In my forty-plus years, I have reasoned, yes--that's right--REASONED that the Bible is right on target concerning this teaching.
And I whole-heartedly agree, D. People ask me why I can't see the glaring contradictions, and I ask 'how is it you CAN?'
"anonymouses"--EL
Or would that be...er...umm...anony-MICE?
Hey Guys,
That anonymouse was me. I didn't realize until now that I clicked the wrong button.
Just making the point that honest intellects can lead to different conclusions.
-Sol
0 0
..
>.<
Hey El,
You work in media. What is your take on Tom Delay's legal defense site posting this Colbert interview (click to play)?
I'm sorry I have been too busy this week and missed the debate here.
The Delay site link is quite slow now. The Colbert Report interview Delay was linking to is here.
Kind of strange.... don't they know who Stephen Colbert is?
All of this talk of abandoning intellect in order to embrace faith. Aren't we forgetting the basic principle that the Bible says saving faith itself is a gift, that it is "not of ourselves".
If that verse is accurate, it seems to me that the believing part has a whole lot LESS to do with us doing anything at all than what we are led to believe from most pulpits in America.
All this coming from a lifelong fundemental Christian who has lost his faith. Though hope remains.
Miroslav--
No one need abandon intellect to embrace faith. And you are most certainly correct, "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God..."Romans 10:17 "...and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God"
Ephesians 2:8
But the bible also says trust not in the arm of flesh, and to study to show yourself approved... yourself... We are commanded to study for ourselves, so we can recognize heresy when and where we hear it.
The modern church has indeed strayed, and caused many believers to stray. but please remember that...
"[You ARE] a key part in an unimaginably large universe."
Every member has purpose. The road was never promised to be an easily traveled. Quite the contrary in fact. But if God has truly saved you, you won't escape. He will bring you back. He will leave the ninety and nine to search you out. Better to serve in the face of uncertainty and doubt than to not serve at all.
Thanks for the comment, and be welcome.
What I don't understand is how anyone who looks at themselves and others' action, motives, etc. objectively can trust human intellect --whether thri own or someone else's--over the soundness of God'a Word.
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thy own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledege Him, and He shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.--Proverbs 3:4-7
My 4-year old spilled something sticky on the keyboard today. Can you tell?
Dad,
I cannot in good faith accept as true something that I don't believe. To do so- to simply "choose a ready guide in some celestial voice" would be intellectually dishonest of me, however weak my intellect.
Instead, "I will choose the path that's clear. I will choose free will."
I'll leave the phantom fears to others.
BTW, Neil Peart appears to be an atheist (or at least an agnostic), and Freewill is actually a critique of religion and especially determinism.
-Sol.
The song is what it is; I made no allusions otherwise. In anger I can say all kinds of things, as can we all, but in all honesty I cannot describe your intellect as weak.
I know your comment wasn't directed to me, yet I have responded nonetheless. We disagree on issues of Faith and God, but that doesn't make you an intellectual weakling... Only in need of Faith and God.
:)
Hey man,
Yeah, good music is good music regardless of one's take on the message. I can't even count how many gospel and religious folk/country/bluegrass tunes I love.
Post a Comment
<< Home