I've heard the Lewis argument so often I'm baffled by its power for those who are already believers. I have to say, for those with no preexistent stake in Jesus being divine, it has no evident power. That is to say, there is nothing particularly distasteful about either of the two conclusions the orthodox Christian prefers one avoids, that Jesus was "speaking falsehood and knew it," or that he was "speaking falsehood and did not know it."
The "false dilemma" arguments, too, seem far from disproven. To wit:
Everybody who believes something that is not true, is not today held to be insane. For example, we do not have asylums full of Republicans (or Democrats, if you are of the Republican persuasion.) It is also a fact that in ancient times, it was a perfectly legitimate thing for people to decide they were the Messiah; if they were wrong, they were not generally held to be insane. They were simply held to be wrong (c.f. Simeon Bar Kochba). In all such cases, various aspects of the "end of days" did not come about (for example, the bodily resurrection.) In Jesus' own case, Jesus did
not return within the lifetime of those individuals who heard his voice; etc. By explaining some of Jesus' words as literal, and others as allegorical, it becomes
possible for the Christian to believe in his messiahship; to the non-Christian, these devices are not convincing.
***
3, please logically justify the statement that "lack of belief is a belief." I disagree. I do not say "lack of a bowling ball is a bowling ball," and then go "air bowling." I do not say "lack of a vote is a vote," and therefore attempt to justify the election of Gore over Bush based on people who did
not vote (there was enough trouble with those who DID.) From first principles, the statement is nonsensical. I can understand that a firm, rock-solid faith in atheism could be characterized as akin to a firm belief in one or another religion. Conversely, however, to suspend judgment based on lack of evidence cannot be so characterized. And even the atheist must needs therefore base his arguments on empirical fact, not on prejudice or superstition, or he too must submit to characterization as subjectivist. If, however, he bases his argument on what all men can see and test, with the tests repeatable by a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Rastafarian, he is in fact appealing, rather, to objectivism. You and I and a dozen others can claim we "know God," and disagree on who He is. The "honorable" atheist says only that he knows creation -- and is careful to speak only from the objective evidence. That is, in the language of the religious man, the man of science describes the work of God; the religious man speaks subjectively the mind of man
about God. Who is the bigger blasphemer?
***
Our word "Prophet" comes from the Greek "To speak forth" (Prophetes.) In the bible we see that if a prophet says a thing will come to pass, we may test that by the accuracy of the prediction. However, that is a test of a prophets capacities as a "soothsayer." This is not the primary function of the Hebrew prophets; their function can be better summed up in our phrase "speak truth to power" (as Elijah to Ahab, or as Nathan to David, in a story ending in one of my personal favorite verses, "Atah Ha-ish," or, "You are the man.")
We also have prophets who speak in conditionals: if you do this, this will happen; if you do not do this, that will happen. This is the case with Jonah vis a vis the Ninevites. They repent, and nothing bad happens to them.
So to make of prophecy a small matter of "soothsaying" (against which God provides specific commandments,) is to belittle the calling of prophecy from the beginning.
As I've specified elsewhere here, I disagree with the practice of attempting to market one's own religion to others who have not asked (as opposed to prospective converts who come searching for your message.) It presupposes the insufficiency of others' beliefs, particularly when one goes in search of believers in another religion, as an audience. I see it as an ugly habit not tied specifically to one religion or another, but in my life I do see it as embraced by certain sects of Christianity most vehemently (and were I born in Iran, for example, I may see it as tied to an entirely different group.)
But it should not be understood that proselytizing is restricted in any way to Christianity; only that the proselytizers most active in our culture are Christian proselytizers.
PFnV
