Replies to Ted on Rand's view of Christianity

In Post 39 of the C.S. Lewis thread on the Quotes Forum, Ted wrote,

Bill I have ignored your requests that I defend a straw man of your own making because after my telling you once on the Good Friday thread that it wasn't my duty to refute what you have made up I didn't feel like repeating myself.

When you quote to me where I said that orthodox Christians claim that Jesus didn't practice what he preached, and answer my questions to you on that thread for that matter, then I will defend it.

Very well, in Post 4 of that thread, you replied to Steve Wolfer as follows,

Fine, Steve. I know the facts. I offered them if you care. Rand's opinion is forgivable, based both on the obscurity of the topic and the fact that she was a Jew and an atheist, but indeed confused and historically ignorant.

You do not contest and you cannot contest that Jesus is portrayed as overcome by anger in the Temple, that he is reported to have whipped the money changers . . . The orthodox churches explicitly preach [this] as demonstrating his human shortcomings. . . .

Then in Post 18 of the same thread, you wrote,

(Think about the "what would Jesus do?" mantra. Should a Christian beat moneychangers with a whip? Of course not, his teachings are more important than his actions.) It is easy to see why Rand would have been misled on the idea.

Aren't you saying here in so many words that orthodox Christians claim that Jesus didn't practice what he preached?

As for answering your questions, I thought I did that? For example, you asked,

Bill, I have a question. Can you provide the source of Rand's description of Jesus as an ideal embodiment of man, and were those her exact words?

And I answered you by quoting Rand's comments in her Playboy interview. If there are other questions that you feel I haven't answered, would you restate them for me? Thanks.

(This was originally Post 43 of the C.S. Lewis thread, reposted here, so Ted can address it if he wants.)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/11, 10:08pm)

Post 1

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 1:31pm

[crickets chirping]

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 2:44pm

That's funny, Luke. Promises, promises! Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. I kept my part of the bargain. But I doubt that Ted will keep his. He will continue to ignore me. He didn't have a case, to begin with, despite his evident posturing.

Ted, you have option of answering me here. No one is stopping you.

But let me make an offer. If there is anyone out there who thinks he can defend Ted's case, feel free to reply. I doubt that I'll be hearing from the horse's mouth. ;-)

- Bill

Post 3

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 3:41pm

I can defend Ted's case, it goes like this:

If you go back to the Council of Nicea (where old men sat and agreed with each other about what was to be considered to be: "The holy Bible"), and you ask yourself questions about their mindsets when they were formulating the rough outline of what was to be called: "Christianity", and you give yourself these 2 options ...

1) salvation comes from sacrificing someone above reproach (morally)
2) salvation comes from sacrificing someone whose real father is God

... and you ask yourself which of the 2 options would these old men have preferred to have been preserved into posterity, then you come to the conclusion that these old men were full of "number 2."

The trouble is that all this historical nit-picking and hysterical psychologizing is actually irrelevant to what, in general, a sacrifice is (and whether it can ever be justified).

A sacrifice is the trade of a higher value for a lower one -- trading something more ideal for something less ideal. It doesn't matter whether the old men (full of "number 2") had some wacky intention to have the sacrifice be God's sacrifice of an only child -- it's still a sacrifice (a trading of something more ideal for something less ideal).

Ed

p.s. [an old puzzle I've never figured out] What did it matter to God anyway if, after the resurrection, God was re-united with Jesus anyway? That's not a sacrifice, it's a family reunion.

Post 4

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 3:43pm

All this argumentation, vituperation, and hard feelings just doesn't rise above my radar. The whole Christianity thing is a scam from top to bottom ... from the Pope to all the miracles of walking on water, rising from the dead, loaves and fishes and on and on. So why is everyone so concerned if Jesus had a fit of temper in the temple over some money changers? Cheeez! It's like arguing over the color of the eyes of some extraterrestrials that might have visited Earth at the time of the Pharaohs to build the pyramids.

Sam

As an aside, can anyone with a historical perspective on the money changers at that time give me some idea as to what currencies were being changed and if these transactions were in any way similar to the currency exchanges we have today? Could the money changers merely be lenders who were making loans and collecting interest?

Post 5

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 4:07pm

I actually put Ted on moderation as well. He responded by saying he wouldn't respond, and then got negative, so I didn't let it through the queue. Haven't seen anything since, though.

Post 6

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 4:59pm

Gaaaaaawd....

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 11:33pm

Ed,

Ted was arguing that, according to Orthodox Christianity, Christ was not (contra Rand) a morally perfect Christian because he engaged in the unChrist-like act of angrily whipping the money changers from the temple -- i.e., of not practicing what he preached. As he remarked in Post 18 of that thread,"Should a Christian beat moneychangers with a whip? Of course not, [Christ's] teachings are more important than his actions." I.e., Christ didn't practice what he preached.

So, I asked him if he thought the pope, an orthodox Christian, would be willing to say that Christ didn't practice what he preached. The question was somewhat rhetorical, as I think it is obvious that the Pope would say no such thing. Ted refuses to address my rebuttal, and I can understand why. He can see the folly of trying to argue that the pope would ever take such a position.

So, when I asked if anyone thought that he or she could defend Ted's case, it is this particular argument that I had in mind.

- Bill

Post 8

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - 12:03am