Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Liar, Lunatic, Lord

I've heard lots of people quote this argument, but none have ever come close to the clarity or elegance of the original.


" And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of
right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Thirdly, He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was -that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process.


Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips. One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in
history.


Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when
they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and
conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble
and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.


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 the one thing we
must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things 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 patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Who's being moralistic?

OK, here's another thing that really sticks in my craw.  (Yeah, I know I claim to be formerly  cranky...I'm still cranky, I'm just nicer and more gentle about it.)

I run into "pro-choice" folks who fall back into a position of saying that "pro-life" folks are moralistic and judgmental.  I get this often enough that it can't be just me, it must be one of their talking points.  Let me take these points in reverse order.  By saying that someone is judgmental as if it were something negative, they are betraying a self-defeating relativism.  Condemning a man for trying to impose his morality on others is trying to impose YOUR morality on him.

The claim that "pro-lifers" are moralistic is what really agitates me.  If you look at it from a purely scientific perspective, human life begins at the moment of conception.  Any attempt to say otherwise is an appeal to a moral argument. You can try to disguise it by saying that you don't want to be judgmental or that it's "above your pay grade," but placing the beginning of human life at any point other than the moment of conception is being moralistic.

 

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Entitlement and the Evil One

  Be very cautious anytime you find yourself thinking, "I deserve [X]," because it's probably not really you thinking that.  The feeling of entitlement, and resulting anger we feel when we don't get what we think we "deserve" is, to steal a line from Steve Brown, "a lie from the pit of Hell, and it smells like smoke."  Satan's initial attack on humanity (Genesis 3:5) was to imply that God was holding out on us, keeping us from something that we "deserved," and it's still his most effective tactic today.  "I deserve" is almost always coming from a sinister place, so be careful and examine your real motives.  I don't know about you, but for me, "I deserve" is just a way to justify something that has an underlying, sinful (covetous, lustful, angry, gluttonous, et al) root.

K.I.T.

    Hey, if you're not able to get the hardcopy, a pdf of the KIT is available at http://www.archive.org/download/WatchTowerBibleandTractSocietyofPennsylvaniaWatchTowerpubs_0/wtclassic/Kingdom_Interlinear-Greek_Scriptures_1969.pdf.  It probably won't do much good to show it to your JW buddies on a computer, as they'll likely think it's a fake, but you'll know what it says.

Monday, September 14, 2009

An indispensible tool for dealing with the JWs at your door

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures

This rare jewel is kinda hard to come by (try http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=kingdom+interlinear&_sacat=See-All-Categories), but it is worth it's weight in gold.  The Watchtower stopped printing this years ago, I'm guessing either because they got tired of it being used against them, or because they realized that they can't keep their minions in line if they hand them a book that proves that the New World Translation is complete rubbish. 

I've actually had the exquisite experience of watching a JW at my door turn to her senior helper who had walked up and whisper, "He's got a Kingdom Interlinear!"  Nothing like having an interlinear Westcott & Hort with the NWT text in a column next to it, so that you can point out to your doorstep guests that the NWT does indeed NOT say what the Greek text says.






For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Romans 10:2 (KJV)