Heres another cs Lewis essay I liked....

‘What are we to make of Jesus Christ?’ This is a question, which has, in a sense, a frantically comic side. For the real question is not what are we to make of Christ, but what is He to make of us? The picture of a fly sitting deciding what it is going to make of an elephant has comic elements about it. But perhaps the questioner meant what are we to make of Him in the sense of ‘How are we to solve the historical problem set us by the recorded sayings and acts of this Man?’ This problem is to reconcile two things. On the one hand you have got the almost generally admitted depth and sanity of His moral teaching, which is not very seriously questioned, even by those who are opposed to Christianity. In fact, I find when I am arguing with very anti-God people that they rather make a point of saying, ‘I am entirely in favour of the moral teaching of Christianity’ — and there seems to be a general agreement that in the teaching of this Man and of His immediate followers, moral truth is exhibited at its purest and best. It is not sloppy idealism; it is full of wisdom and shrewdness. The whole thing is realistic, fresh to the highest degree, the product of a sane mind. That is one phenomenon.



The other phenomenon is the quite appalling nature of this Man’s theological remarks. You all know what I mean, and I want rather to stress the point that the appalling claim, which this Man seems to be making, is not merely made at one moment of His career. There is, of course, the one moment, which led to His execution. The moment at which the High Priest said to Him, ‘Who are you?’ ‘I am the Anointed, the Son of the uncreated God, and you shall see me appearing at the end of all history as the judge of the universe.’ But that claim, in fact, does not rest on this one dramatic moment. When you look into his conversation you will find this sort of claim running throughout the whole thing. For instance, He went about saying to people, ‘I forgive your sins’. Now it is quite natural for a man to forgive something you do to him. Thus if somebody cheats me out of five pounds it is quite possible and reasonable for me to say, ‘Well, I forgive him, we will say no more about it.’ What on earth would you say if somebody had done you out of five pounds and I said, ‘That is all right, I forgive him? Then there is a curious thing, which seems to slip out almost by accident. On one occasion this Man is sitting looking down on Jerusalem from the hill about it and suddenly in comes an extraordinary remark — ‘I keep on sending you prophets and wise men.’ Nobody comments on it. And yet, quite suddenly, almost incidentally, He is claiming to be the power that all through the centuries is sending wise men and leaders into the world. Here is another curious remark: in almost every religion there are unpleasant observances like fasting. This Man suddenly remarks one day, ‘No one need fast while I am here.’ Who is this man who remarks one day, ‘No one need fast while I am here.’ Who is this Man who remarks that His mere presence suspends all normal rules? Who is the person who can suddenly tell the School they can have a half-holiday? Sometimes the statements put forward the assumption that He, the Speaker, is completely without sin or fault. This is always the attitude. ‘You, to whom I am talking, are all sinners,’ and He never remotely suggests that this same reproach can be brought against Him. He says again, ‘I am the begotten of the One God, before Abraham was, I am,’ And remember what the words ‘I am’ were in Hebrew. They were the name of God, which must not be spoken by any human being, the name which it was death to utter.



Well, that is the other side. On the one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom Hitler was the most same and humble of men. There is no halfway house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and asked him: ‘Are you the son of Brahma?’ he would have said, ‘My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.’ If you had gone to Socrates and asked, ‘Are you Zeus?’ he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, ‘Are you Allah?’ he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, ‘Are you Heaven?’ I think he would have probably replied, ‘Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.’ The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion, which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are not looking for a piece of toast to suit you you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met him. He produced mainly three effects — Hatred — Terror — Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.



What are we to do about reconciling the two contradictory phenomena? One attempt consists in saying that the man did not really say these things; but that His followers exaggerated the story, and so the legend grew up that he had said them. This is difficult because His followers were all Jews; that is, they belonged to that Nation which of all others was most convinced that there was only one God — that there could not possibly be another. It is very odd that this horrible invention about a religious leader should grow up among the one people in the whole earth least likely to make such a mistake. On the contrary we get the impression that none of His immediate followers or even of the New Testament writers embraced the doctrine at all easily.



Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there is no conversation that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.



Then we come to the strangest story of all, the story of the Resurrection. It is very necessary to get the story clear. I heard a man say, ‘The importance of the Resurrection is that is gives evidence of survival, evidence that the human personality survives death.’ On that view what happened to Christ would be what had always happened to all men, the difference being that in Christ’s case we were privileged to see it happening. This is certainly not what the earliest Christian writers thought. Something perfectly new in the history of the universe had happened. Christ had defeated death. The door, which had always been locked, had for the very first time been forced open. This is something quite distinct from mere ghost-survival. I don’t mean that they disbelieved in ghost-survival. I don’t mean that they disbelieved in ghost-survival. On the contrary, they believed in it so firmly that, on more than one occasion, Christ had had to assure them that He was not a ghost. The point is that while believing in survival they yet regarded the Resurrection as something totally different and new. The Resurrection narratives are not a picture of survival after death; they record how a totally new mode of being has arisen in the universe. Something new had appeared in the universe: as new as the first coming of organic life. This Man, after death, does not get divided into ‘ghost’ and ‘corpse’. A new mode of being has arisen. That is the story. What are we going to make of it?



The question is, I suppose, whether any hypothesis covers the facts so well as the Christian hypothesis. That hypothesis is that God has come down into the created universe, down to manhood — and come up again, pulling it up with Him. The alternative hypothesis is not legend, nor exaggeration, nor the apparitions of a ghost. It is either lunacy or lies. Unless one can take the second alternative (and I can’t) one turns to the Christian theory.



‘What are we to make of Christ?’ There is no question of what we can make of Him; it is entirely a question of what He intends to make of us. You must accept or reject the story.



The things he says are very different from what any other teacher has said. Others say, ‘This is the truth about the universe. This is the way you ought to go,’ but He says, ‘I am the Truth, and the Way, and the Life.’ He says, ‘No man can reach absolute reality, except through Me. Try to retain your own life and you will be inevitably ruined. Give yourself away and you will be saved.; He says, ‘If you are ashamed of Me, if, when you hear this call, you turn the other way, I also will look the other way when I come again as God without disguise. If anything whatever is keeping you from God and from me, whatever it is, throw it away. If it is your eye, pull it out. If it is your hand, cut it off. If you put yourself first you will be last. Come to Me everyone who is carrying a heavy load, I will set that right. Your sins, all of them, are wiped out, I can do that. I am Re-birth, I am Life. Eat ME, drink Me, I am your Food. And finally, do not be afraid, I have overcome the whole Universe.’ That is the issue.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your experiences are your reality and I am sure they are real to you. I believe you created them yourself. We all create all of our own experiences whether we realize it or not.

Our belief creates them.

I know what I know from my experiences too. I am no different from you in that regard.

No, I don't know how you first heard of Jesus, and I am sure it is an amazing story and a wonderful personal experiences.

You reality is yours Wouldee.

Keep it.

You created it.

But don't think that you created it for everyone else. We have our own realties and our own truths.

And yes, we created them. You don't know my reality or my truth and you have never been there.

I don't know yours and I have never been there.

But one is not right and the other wrong.

Only thinking makes it so.

I agree.

truth and knowing the truth knows no right and wrong for judging another's knowledge just because it is not shared.

It would be a guess, at best, to do so.

we've gone off a tangent agreeing with one another.

oops.

Well, with all due respect I know you seem to feel that you are "doing the right thing" here. I guess it might be something that Christians are taught should be done otherwise they are not being good Christians.

You have to understand though that some people on this Earth do not share your religious beliefs or convictions. Some of us have a spirituality that is all our own. We prefer to keep it sacred and close. Then there are those who are atheists or agnostic. Likewise, they have their views.

And then there are those who prefer to keep an open mind, listen to others and try to make sense of it. We feel it is our right to question dogmatic religious sources. This was my position earlier when I addressed you and your stance of "right and wrong". Simply put, there is no right and wrong because there is no final word here. There is theory, supportive evidence, hypothesis, credibility and assertion. Do you understand the difference?

No problem.

I don't want you to think I am mis-representing your position. The idea of the recognitions of ages and era's through time is not foreign to me, and admittedly too many years have gone by since I've informed myself of the academics studied to retain all that information which I familiarised myself with. However - much of this information to which you refer was not even available at the time I wandered down the halls of academia. Non-the-less, that being said - what do these references born out of the conclusions of Evolutionary research have to do with biblical themes - other than to stand in non-intersecting paths. We can no more introduce these themes into biblical theory, than we can introduce biblical concepts into the claims of evolution.
How can this idea of evolution and all that must prevail to hold the theory together exist within the biblical claim of the flood. It can't. The flood must be denied to preserve the continuum of evolution. The bible holds no truths if the premise of a 4.5 billion year old earth is to be accepted with Dinosaurs walking the earth long before the advent of man. My interpretations of Evolution would make no sense to you forcing biblical premises to be accepted, just as your biblical interpretations make no sense to me being forced to accept pagan myths as fact. In the realm of "biblical truths" - there is no Lilith. Just as there is no flood in evolutionary theory as an explination of the origin of the species.

We're attempting to reach the same destination walking in paths that are diverging. Perhaps we would be better off not attempting to assume we know each others beliefs better than the one who has done the research.

Hi Krisma
Allow me.....Is it possible that Christianity is true in your own mind?

What part of it?

All of it.

Are you still there.......

ahhhhhh....

CS Lewis.


here's an excerpt from John Bunyan's Holy Wars written 400 years ago.




'But suppose he should, if he get us to yield, save some of our lives, or the lives of some of them that are underlings in Mansoul, what help will that be to you that are the chief of the town, especially you whom I have set up and whose greatness has been procured by you through your faithful sticking to me? And suppose, again, that he should give quarter to every one of you, be sure he will bring you into that bondage under which you were captivated before, or a worse, and then what good will your lives do you? Shall you with him live in pleasure as you do now? No, no; you must be bound by laws that will pinch you, and be made to do that which at present is hateful to you. I am for you, if you are for me; and it is better to die valiantly than to live like pitiful slaves. But, I say, the life of a slave will be counted a life too good for Mansoul now. Blood, blood, nothing but blood is in every blast of Shaddai's trumpet against poor Mansoul now. Pray, be concerned; I hear he is coming. Up, and stand to your arms that now, while you have any leisure, I may learn you some feats of war. Armour for you I have, and by me it is; yea, and it is sufficient for Mansoul from top to toe; nor can you be hurt by what his force can do, if you shall keep it well girt and fastened about you. Come, therefore, to my castle, and welcome, and harness yourselves for the war. There is helmet, breastplate, sword, and shield, and what not, that will make you fight like men.

'1. My helmet, otherwise called an head-piece, is in hope of doing well at last, what lives soever you live. This is that which they had who said, that they should have peace, though they walked in the wickedness of their heart, to add drunkenness to thirst. A piece of approved armour this is, and whoever has it, and can hold it, so long no arrow, dart, sword, or shield can hurt him. This, therefore, keep on, and thou wilt keep off many a blow, my Mansoul.

'2. My breastplate is a breastplate of iron. I had it forged in mine own country, and all my soldiers are armed therewith. In plain language, it is a hard heart, a heart as hard as iron, and as much past feeling as a stone; the which if you get and keep, neither mercy shall win you, nor judgment fright you. This therefore, is a piece of armour most necessary for all to put on that hate Shaddai, and that would fight against him under my banner.

'3. My sword is a tongue that is set on fire of hell, and that can bend itself to speak evil of Shaddai, his Son, his ways, and people. Use this; it has been tried a thousand times twice told. Whoever hath it, keeps it, and makes that use of it as I would have him, can never be conquered by mine enemy.

'4. My, shield is unbelief, or calling into question the truth of the word, or all the sayings that speak of the judgment that Shaddai has appointed for wicked men. Use this shield; many attempts he has made upon it, and sometimes, it is true, it has been bruised; but they that have writ of the wars of Emmanuel against my servants, have testified that he could do no mighty work there because of their unbelief. Now, to handle this weapon of mine aright, it is not to believe things because they are true, of what sort or by whomsoever asserted. If he speaks of judgment, care not for it; if he speaks of mercy, care not for it; if he promises, if he swears that he would do to Mansoul, if it turns, no hurt, but good, regard not what is said, question the truth of all, for it is to wield the shield of unbelief aright, and as my servants ought and do; and he that doth otherwise loves me not, nor do I count him but an enemy to me.

'5. Another part or piece,' said Diabolus, 'of mine excellent armour is a dumb and prayerless spirit, a spirit that scorns to cry for mercy: wherefore be you, my Mansoul, sure that you make use of this. What! cry for quarter! Never do that, if you would be mine. I know you are stout men, and am sure that I have clad you with that which is armour of proof. Wherefore, to cry to Shaddai for mercy, let that be far from you. Besides all this, I have a maul, firebrands, arrows, and death, all good hand-weapons, and such as will do execution.'



http://bible.christiansunite.com/bun/holywar05.shtml

The whole book can be read online for free without registering or making known one's presence on the site. Refreshing access to literary treasures.




hope you like it as much as I like the CS Lewis quote.

Krisma

When you say there is no right and wrong here....

Why are you investing so much time and effort attempting to prove Christianity wrong? Your efforts to prove it wrong defeat your own belief statement....that there is no right or wrong. Your actions undercut what you say.

In other words....

You prove you really do believe it is right or wrong, no matter what you say, or there would be no debate. Why debate otherwise.

The christians are right or wrong. The real world exists no matter how we posture ourselves to it. Right? It either is as the Christians say it is or it isnt.

Good point!

Krisma

Allow me some fun...

When you say there is no final word here, I just have to ask. Is that 'your' final word?

You see, I believe there is a final word here. There is a truth. 'The' truth. Our opinions line up with that truth...ie the real world or they do not.

I say there is a final word here, christianity is true or it is not. You say no, there is no final word here, only speculation and theory. But in saying there is no final word here you are allowing yourself the "final word" on this matter and denying me the debate.

Very good argument Jessie!

The thing I have learned is that nobody likes to be told that they are wrong, no matter what.

But when we say "There is no right or wrong" is it admitting that we are not sure we are right?

Or are we just annoyed at someone who we think is "wrong" telling us that we are "wrong?"

Can we first find a middle ground and say that we all have opinions?

Is my opinion better than your opinion?

Well then, we might look at the evidence.

Then we present to the other person why we think we are correct and why we think they are not correct.

In order to have a real discussion or debate both parties HAVE TO FIND A MIDDLE GROUND and they have to be willing to look at evidence or proof presented by the other person.

Now, if all you have is your Bible and your personal experience, then, in the best way you know how, I want to know why you chose to believe it.

I don't want to be preached to.

I don't want you to quote God. As in stating: "God said this or that..."

That is absurd.

You may quote scripture but be prepared to tell me who wrote it and why and why you believe it in an historical sense.

I don't believe the Bible as the word of God, but I don't discount some historical significance in some of it. But all things written have agenda and motive or at the very least, purpose.

JB

No, I don’t think you are misunderstanding me. I have clearly shown that there are contradictory accounts of Genesis. However, as I explained, it’s not me alone who initially noticed this. It’s been addressed and studied by various scholars of the bible. I know you seem to feel secure in your understanding of the two depictions and that is why this should be of interest to you. It is not intended to prove you wrong but simply put, it doesn’t quite jive. Moreover, the issue of Eve and the first woman and when exactly she was created in relation to Adam is debatable.

I understand that your feeling is that I can not rightfully interject any archeological or historical evidence to further displace any of these biblical assertions; however, I hope you can understand how frustrating that is for me. It’s like trying to shine a bright flashlight on credible evidence and they keep insisting that we didn’t have flashlights when this was written so turn it off.

However as you wish, in the case of Genesis 1:27 the first man and woman were created simultaneously.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

And then

Genesis 2:18-22 (not so simultaneously)

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."


This is where the conflict arises. It’s not the only contradiction of course but it’s the biggest in my view. It also would be setting the tone for how women would be viewed in the rest of the scripture and henceforth.

You were asking about Lilith. She is mentioned once in the bible but Lilith is the most important of a small collection of named female demons in Jewish legend. Historically, she is actually older than Judaism (at least Judaism as defined as a post-restoration phenomenon). Her earliest appearance is probably in ancient Sumer. Although it is far from certain, she may be a minor character in a prologue to the Epic of Gilgamesh. In the ancient world she also sometimes appears in magical texts, amulets, etc., intended to thwart her activities. She appears once in the Bible (Isaiah), in a context that associates her with demons of the desert, and again in some Dead Sea Scroll passages clearly based on the Isaiah reference. Somewhere between the eighth and tenth centuries, CE, she makes an appearance in a satirical work entitled the Alphabet of Ben Sira. It is here that she is first given what has become her most famous persona: the first wife of Adam (before Eve). In this story, she is created at more or less the same time as Adam, and, as was Adam, out of the ground. Because of this she tries to assert her equality, an assertion which Adam rejects. Refusing to conform to Adam's desires, she escapes from Eden, and is subsequently replaced by the more subservient Eve (who has less claim to equality, since she was made out of Adam's side). Having escaped Eden, Lilith takes on her renowned role as baby-stealer and mother of demons. She also promises to leave babies alone who are protected by amulets with the names of the three angels Snvi, Snsvi, and Smnglof.

That’s a little about her so clearly she is no small player in the mythology of the ancient Hebrews. I won’t bore you with it unless you are interested however.

I have never once disclosed what my personal beliefs encompass so I’m not sure what you meant to address by that last comment.

JB pretty much nailed it. I dont even need to speak up. Good thing because I sure am hungry.

Hi Jeannie bean

Psalm 22 written by David 1000 yrs prior to Christ....
Is 53 by Isaiah, 750 bc

These are too accurate on the details and accounts of Jesus death and resurrection for me to deny.

manuscript and textual evidence leads me to believe both their accuracy in translation, and their time of writing 100's of years prior to the event they foretell etc....

The laws of avgs and statistical evidence is astronomically in favor of the voracity of scripture and the life of Christ when these and the many other prophecies are literally fulfilled in Jesus life and death.

Let me know what you think after you read these two chapters....

BZZZZ...WRONG!!!! The reality of God is followed by sign wonder & miracles...it's part of His divinity. His DIVINE nature exposed to those who earnestly seek after Him.

Something most here want insistantly ignore. The ressurrection power is very real & lifts man to a higher place than He could ever attain by himself.

It can't be ignored by those who haven't expereinced when there are the testimony of those who have.

BTW...I can say what I said before because I know what you think from past posts on various subjects so don't act so surprized that I have you pegged.

'Jessee11',

I'm sorry for interrupting here, but I'm trying to follow this exchange you're having with Krisma, and I can't help but think that the obvious is completely ingnored, or unconsciously missed out.

When you ask a question like:

'...Is it possible that Christianity is true in your own mind?...'

and then follow that question by the following words from Krimsa:

'... When you say there is no right and wrong here...'

It would appear that you are attempting to set someone up?!?!?

I could be wrong, but if that is your intention 'jessee11', getting your point across that is, and possibly even winning the point, who knows. But since you are new around here, I thought it would help you to know a few tthings about Krimsa.

Again I wouldn't want to presume about the meta relationship you hold with women in general, but Krimsa wouldn't fall in the push-over, easily impressed by the 'bibleman' types.
I'm not referring to you specifically of course, 'jessee11' since you appear to be sensible, and sensititve to a large extent, and you should be commanded for that.

Now back to Krimsa. It will be important that you 'get' the perspective she is trying to point out to you, otherwise, getting YOUR point across will not happen anytime soon.

The point being that this is not about 'right or wrong'. As Krimsa pointed out to you, there is no such thing.

I can hear you as you're reading these words 'jessee11', '... what does he mean, '...there is no sch thing as 'right and wrong'...'

Well, here it is Jessee11, there is this human concept of right and wrong, and that is a good thing, a RIGHT thing you could say.

But that is not your perspective of right and wrong now is it 'jessee11'???

Yours, is a perspective of ABSOLUTE right and wrong, where christianity, ANY AND ALL OF IT, undistinguished, would be the ultimate right, and everything else the ultimate wrong.

ABSOLUTES 'jessee11', are absolutely wrong!!!

I 'beleive' that is Krimsa's point to you, which I 'believe' further, is missed.

Absolutes, is the ultimate contaminating agent of the mind, the heart and the soul.

Absolutes are like sclerosis, it blocks and hardens the thought process.

If I'm wrong here, please don't mind me and just carry on with your exchange.

And if I'm right, do just the same and carry on with your exchange.

I certainly do not consider the right or the wrong of it, in the end, to be of any absolute consequences.

I believe however, that insisting on absolutes, ultimately stifles, scleroses, and blocks the possible 'spirit' that often can flow, and nurture, between free human beings, when they simply ALLOW IT!!!

Well I guess I should speak up as it relates to me personally. If you scroll back I explained to you a little about my background and the scientific method? When a premise is questioned, you basically develop what is referred to as a hypothesis. It’s just an "educated guess" on your part. Then you systematically put that hypothesis to the test over and over and you might add and you might change and you keep diligent notes of what you have already done or changed in some respect. This process can go on for a very long time.

This is how I view these religious forums and debate. So far just about all of us have been able to make assertions. Some of us are basing these directly on our own belief systems. Others are not. That is irrelevant in my opinion.

What is important is that not one person here has been able to claim truth. Not one. Some have made outstandingly brilliant arguments, some have griped a whole lot but we have ALL participated in the discussion. There is no right or wrong in my humble opinion, only a basis to continue. You, my friend, have no concrete answers, neither does JB, nor does Abra, nor I. No one. But we can argue these points as long as people are around who enjoy participating and if it helps one person, wonderful.