Hi Billy, On Sep 12, 2011, at 2:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Just one comment about the article below : > The CS Lewis argument about Jesus is repeated so often, by so many, > that it deserves explicit refutation. Basically, said Lewis, either Jesus was > the Son of God or he was either a lunatic or a liar. > > This kind of reasoning is ludicrous and false on the face of it. > > Does it exhaust the possibilities ? Not nearly. Well, it does work as a counterpoint to the claim he was "a good teacher". If Jesus was a bad teacher, then sure, it is possible everything was misunderstood. :-) -- Ernie P. > > Maybe what Jesus said was a case of error but nonetheless based on such things > as sense of mission or awareness of Biblical prophecies. > > Maybe Jesus never said that but was interpreted to have said that by the > Gospel authors. > > Maybe he meant his words to be taken allegorically. > > And so forth. > > These omissions are so obvious that Lewis' argument cannot be taken seriously. > If I am not mistaken, even though Lewis did not present his argument in > syllogistic form, > this is a case of fallacy known as "undistributed middle," > viz , a necessarily false syllogism. > > To use this argument is a really bad idea. You are far better off with Aquinas > even if there are some problems with his syllogisms, too. > > > Billy > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Christian Post > Opinion|Thu, Sep. 08 2011 09:29 AM EDT > Are You a Theocrat? > > Secular Scare Tactics > > By Chuck Colson | Christian Post Guest Columnist > > I want you to guess which prominent American public figure said the > following: “I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at > all.’” He added that what makes a law “just” is that it “squares with the > moral law or the law of God,” conversely “unjust” laws are those that are > “out of harmony with the moral law.” > Well, we just unveiled a statue of him on the National Mall. > > Yes, Martin Luther King penned those famous words in his 1963 “Letter from a > Birmingham Jail.” Those words and the convictions that prompted them changed > America. But today, they would cause the great civil rights leader to be > labeled a “theocrat.” > > “Theocrat,” and related words like “Dominionist” and “Christianist,” are the > latest in a series of epithets directed at Christians who insist that their > faith is not merely a private matter. Suggesting Christians want to impose > biblical law on civil society is an attempt to make a comparison between us > and people like the Mullahs in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. > > Case in point: a recent column in the Washington Post by Dana Millbank that > called governor Perry of Texas a “theocrat.” Given that Perry has been > elected governor of the second-largest state twice, that’s an extraordinary > claim that ought to require extraordinary proof. > > Millbank provides no such proof. Instead, he points to Perry’s belief that > “the truth of Christ’s death, resurrection, and power over sin is absolute . > . .” > > Like us on Facebook > > > Now, if you’re thinking, “I believe the same thing, does that make me a > ‘theocrat?’”, well, that’s exactly the point: by Millbank’s uninformed > reasoning every orthodox Christian is a “theocrat.” > > Millbank fumes that “Perry has no use for those who ‘want to recognize Jesus > as a good teacher, but nothing more.’ Of those non-Christians, Perry asks, > ‘why call him good if he has lied about his claims of deity and misled two > millennia of followers?’” > > I take it Millbank didn’t realize that Perry was using Oxford Professor C. S. > Lewis’s classic argument for the divinity of Christ. If Jesus was not who He > said He was, Lewis wrote, he was either “a lunatic-on a level with the man > who says he is a poached egg”-or a liar. > > That’s called theology, not theocracy. > > Now, there are such things as Christian theocrats, usually called > “theonomists,” but they’re a tiny fringe. The people being labeled > “theocrats” and “Dominionists” by the press today don’t want the United > States governed by a Christian equivalent of sharia law. Like, Dr. King, they > simply believe that their religious positions and moral convictions don’t > disqualify them from the public square. > > The irony is that if this standard had been applied in the past, much of what > is worth celebrating in our history would never have happened. Many of the > great social reforms such abolitionism grew out of specifically Christian > convictions like those of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, Perry’s own > tradition. > > Then, as now, there were those who decried what they deemed the “imposition” > of religious views in public life. If they had prevailed, America would be a > far less just, decent, and civilized place. > > It would be an America where the newest statue on the National Mall would be > given the same demolition treatment that the Taliban gave the giant statutes > of the Buddha in Afghanistan. > > I guess it’s the Taliban and the secular elite who are alike in one way; that > is, they believe some ideas are too dangerous to express in public > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
