Stuff that just doesn't make sense

[mahogany]

On Sunday, I finally had a chance to speak with a close friend of mine for the first time in a couple of months. The conversation came around to the subject of religion, and she said to me that she doesn't necessarily believe in God, or that Jesus is the Son of God, but she believes that if everyone followed Jesus' example, the world would be a better place.

That statement just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think that there's room for a middle ground. There's the position that Jesus as presented in the bible, is correct, so He is the Son of God, and therefore everything that He taught is true and correct etc. etc. The only other position, is to reject His claim as the Son of God. If we reject this claim, what then does that make Him? A lunatic? Was He a liar? A fraud? None of these makes for an exemplary role model. Besides, what does it really mean to follow Jesus' example? It's a phrase that I've heard more than a few times, but always in a very casual, context. It seems to me that there's nothing casual about trying to be more like Him. It means more than just being an all round nice guy, and leading a simple life. Jesus was a teacher, and the subject of all of his teachings was very specific - spreading the Good News.

Calling Jesus a great moral teacher while simultaneously rejecting the content of His teachings is flippant, dismissive, and illogical.

Comments

[tup.livejournal.com]

There's the position that Jesus as presented in the bible, is correct, so He is the Son of God...

This doesn't make sense to me. Just because Jesus' teachings may be correct it does not make him the son of God and it does not mean there is a God. It just means that he had some valid moral teaching and if the world followed then it indeed would be a better place.

But people can follow other non religious teachings and still be moral and good.

[mahogany.livejournal.com]

That's not what I'm saying, Tup. I'm not talking about whether or not a person can follow other teachings and be moral and good. That's not up for debate at all. Frankly, I'm puzzled that you would even try to reduce my argument to whether or not a person can follow non-religious teachings and still be moral and good. You know full well that I don't believe that morality is contingent on a person's religious inclinations, so you're really bringing up a different point here.

What I was saying is that to say that Jesus had some valid moral teaching, while denying that he is the Son of God, is to ignore the bulk of his teaching, and therefore doesn't make any sense. If his claims to divinity are fraudulent, then basically you're saying that he is a great big liar. If he's a great big liar, then where's the morality in his teaching? How are you going to weed out the truth from the lies? According to what standard? If you're (and by this I mean standard in a universal sense) judging by your own standards, then He hasn't taught anything, has he? He's either preaching the truth, and therefore His claims to divinty must also be true, or he's preaching falsehoods, and you'd better find a different role model.

My point is that people need to think about what they're saying, and take a stance. Either you're with him, or you're not. There is no middle ground on the issue.

I found a quote by C.S. Lewis that expresses the same sentiment much more eloquently than I ever could:

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 the 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.