Behold the Trilemma: Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?

[§outh§tar]

From C.S. Lewis' book, Mere Christianity:

---
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 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 patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
---

So, let us all choose one. NO COMPLAINING THAT THESE CHOICES ARE LIMITED. Since apologists insists that we choose one of the three, I thought it would be interesting to see what the sciforums community would pick.

Also try to explain why you chose one of the three. After doing so, feel free to rant about why this logic is faulty or faultless.

 

[anonymous2]

I'd rather like to believe Jesus was a "lunatic" than a deliberate liar. There are people who have existed and exist who can sincerely believe things which are wrong [of course one could say this applies to myself also ]. I'd rather think of Jesus as an honest delusional than a deliberate liar. Look at other "Messiahs" which history supposedly records. Were they all just evil, manipulative liars? Or were some of them sincere? Or even if they knew they were lying, did they have an ultimate goal in lying? To perhaps engender faith, or morality, hope, love, etc?

But as you said, the choices are limited. Christianity could be a combination of history and myth. If one believes this, how much of each? How can one really know?

"Jesus" may have been a conglomerate of other personages, like the "Yeshu" mentioned in the Talmud who supposedly existed around 80 BCE and, according to what the Talmud apparently says, was stoned and his body put on a tree.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

SouthStar, you're forgetting some more options. 1. The authors of the gospels are liars. 2. The authors of the gospels are lunatics. 3. The authors of the gospels are honest, and inspired. 4. The compilers of the NT are liars. 5. The compilers of the NT are lunatics. 6. The compilers of the NT are wise and inspired.

 

[§outh§tar]

whats that with #6?

I already stated in the post that I knew the options were limited. But Christian apologists insist on limiting the choices to those three in particular. Now to humor them, which one of those do you choose?

 

[§outh§tar]

I chose liar because I don't know how a lunatic could possibly fool..

Well you know...

Whatever His message was, it has obviously been distorted over the centuries and modern generations are at a loss to interpret His word. Apologists often claim you simply have to understand the Greek in order to appreciate the NT contextually; of course, these same bibliolaters then discount the validity of any translated Bible (similar to what Muslims do with the Koran).

In all our humanity, it is simply too much to see the Christ as a liar for we have developed such a tender picture of Him. But for Him to insist unbelievers go to hell for not believing in His continually warped biography is simply too much. Maybe He was a lunatic after all. Perhaps He really believed what He was saying. We can never know unless we trust in the contradictory accounts of the Synoptics. And what sane person wants to do that?

 

[locknroll]

I chose lunatic, simply because a liars usually lie for their own benefit, not to mention that you'd have to be pretty smart to lie like that off the top of your head. If he were a liar, jesus would also have to also be a sick and twisted individual. I do not see what jesus planed to gain, or what perverse pleasure he could have had from pretending to be the messiah. If you ask me, anyone who turns the other cheek to get SMACKED AGAIN, is freakin CRAZY :m:

 

[James R]

I would like to know why C.S. Lewis thought that the "great human teacher" option was not a real one.

 

[§outh§tar]

Well, alledgedly Jesus made it explicit that He was God and therefore to claim Jesus was a great human teacher and yet reject His claim to divinity is to call him a liar. It would also be contradictory since liars are not great moral teachers.

--
We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said, or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.
--

 

[anonymous2]

Well, alledgedly Jesus made it explicit that He was God and therefore to claim Jesus was a great human teacher and yet reject His claim to divinity is to call him a liar. It would also be contradictory since liars are not great moral teachers.

--
We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said, or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.
--

Southstar, C.S. Lewis' reasoning was flawed in my opinion. Simple facts, if one accepts what history supposedly records. Look at Baha'ullah? Supposedly a messenger or incarnation of God. What, did he preach pure evil? Look at Muhammad. Now although one could argue that there is unnecessary violence in the Qu'ran, it did speak against female infanticide which history supposedly says occurred in the Arabian penninsula around the time of Muhammad. Look at Guru Nanak. He said he was a prophet of God. Did he preach evil, or did he preach a good morality? Look at Joseph Smith. Look at Mani. Look at Zoroaster. Look at Mahavira. Look at Buddha. Even if all of these people were wrong, they STILL could have preached a decent morality, couldn't they? So it's quite possible to consider someone a good moral teacher and yet consider their connection to the divine or the "ultimate reality" as dubious or even false.

It's PERFECTLY POSSIBLE for "insane" people to preach a good moral system! It's also PERFECTLY POSSIBLE for "liars" to preach a good moral system! One does not need to always practice what one preaches, right? So I think C.S. Lewis was wrong about this argument of his.

 

[§outh§tar]

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said, or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.

-Schaff, The Person of Christ
----------------------

It is contradictory for a person to preach a "good moral system" if they are lying about it, conscious of the fact or not. Were the moral philosophies of these "lesser" prophets as influential on the world? I think not. Can a lunatic have that much command over billions of people throughout the ages? Perhaps for a decade, but for two thousand years?

 

[anonymous2]

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said, or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God It is contradictory for a person to preach a "good moral system" if they are has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.


lying about it, conscious of the fact or not. Were the moral philosophies of these "lesser" prophets as influential on the world? I think not. Can a lunatic have that much command over billions of people throughout the ages? Perhaps for a decade, but for two thousand years?

Yeah, and how does Buddha have a hold on millions of people for even longer than Jesus if he was a liar? How does Zoroaster have a hold on thousands still today? How does Mahavira have a hold on millions even today? How does Guru Nanak have a hold on millions today? How does Muhammad have a hold on millions today? How does Joseph Smith have a hold on millions today? How does Baha'ullah have a hold on millions today?

Yes, a STARK RAVING MAD LUNATIC can have a hold on people. One can be INSANE but still preach a good moral system. What's really so contradictory about that?

If the argument is that merely because "billions" have "believed" in Jesus instead of "millions" for some of the "lesser" prophets, so what? That's not a convincing argument. If I had to guess, I'd say billions have "believed" in Muhammad. Throughout history, I'd say perhaps a billion or more have "believed" in Buddha. I don't know where I'd go to find such facts though-I can't interview the dead.

The popularity of a religious system has NO necessary bearing on its truth. A religious system could be believed by only one person, yet it could still be true.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

*The popularity of a religious system has NO necessary bearing on its truth. A religious system could be believed by only one person, yet it could still be true.

Actually, I wouldn't go so far as to say this. While it may not necessarily have bearing on the entirety of the religious system's truth, I'd say it does have bearing on whatever truthful aspects are present within the religious system. Aristotle (I believe) said that the human will is always attracted by what it perceives to be good. The Yin and the Yang is an idea that says there is a little bit of good in every evil, and a little bit of evil in every good. A murderer is attracted, not to the evil action, murder, but to particular feelings attached to that action (power, adrenaline... etc...), which, in and of themselves, unnattached to action, are good. Likewise, while a certain religious system may have many things wrong with it, there is most certainly truths to be found within it, if there are those who are attracted to it, whatever truths those might be. Indeed, by this reasoning, the popularity of a religious system does have bearing on whether or not a religious system holds truths. The more popular it is, the more likely it is that what is being perceived in that system is true. Perhaps not the whole system is truth, but I would certainly not say that popularity has nothing to say about the question.

As to the question of Jesus, there is a distinguishment to be made between Him and the founders of other religious groups. Namely, that Jesus supposedly claimed Godhead. I don't think anyone here is denying that other religious leaders are wise men, who taught good moral systems. In fact, as far as I can tell, most moral systems agree on most points. The question is, if Jesus claimed to be God, and was known to be a great moral teacher, then what? Is He God? The question isn't, "is He a good moral teacher, and is what He taught more worthy of following than others."

So, in my opinion, as humble as it is, is that Jesus is Lord, God. I call it humble because I am both scoffed at for it, and can offer no proof for it. I simply take it in Faith. That is the central Mystery of my Faith.

I suppose another way this question can be posed is, "If you believe it, do you believe in Jesus' teachings because He is God? Or do you believe that Jesus is God because of His teachings?"

 

[anonymous2]

*The popularity of a religious system has NO necessary bearing on its truth. A religious system could be believed by only one person, yet it could still be true.

Actually, I wouldn't go so far as to say this. While it may not necessarily have bearing on the entirety of the religious system's truth, I'd say it does have bearing on whatever truthful aspects are present within the religious system. Aristotle (I believe) said that the human will is always attracted by what it perceives to be good. The Yin and the Yang is an idea that says there is a little bit of good in every evil, and a little bit of evil in every good. A murderer is attracted, not to the evil action, murder, but to particular feelings attached to that action (power, adrenaline... etc...), which, in and of themselves, unnattached to action, are good. Likewise, while a certain religious system may have many things wrong with it, there is most certainly truths to be found within it, if there are those who are attracted to it, whatever truths those might be. Indeed, by this reasoning, the popularity of a religious system does have bearing on whether or not a religious system holds truths. The more popular it is, the more likely it is that what is being perceived in that system is true. Perhaps not the whole system is truth, but I would certainly not say that popularity has nothing to say about the question.

As to the question of Jesus, there is a distinguishment to be made between Him and the founders of other religious groups. Namely, that Jesus supposedly claimed Godhead. I don't think anyone here is denying that other religious leaders are wise men, who taught good moral systems. In fact, as far as I can tell, most moral systems agree on most points. The question is, if Jesus claimed to be God, and was known to be a great moral teacher, then what? Is He God? The question isn't, "is He a good moral teacher, and is what He taught more worthy of following than others."

So, in my opinion, as humble as it is, is that Jesus is Lord, God. I call it humble because I am both scoffed at for it, and can offer no proof for it. I simply take it in Faith. That is the central Mystery of my Faith.

I suppose another way this question can be posed is, "If you believe it, do you believe in Jesus' teachings because He is God? Or do you believe that Jesus is God because of His teachings?"

I am just basically saying that something is true because it is true, not because any particular person believes in it. For all I know, Manichaeism could have been the true religion, which totally or essentially has died out. Something's true because it's true, not because anyone follows it.

As for your statement about your belief that "Jesus is Lord, God", hey, if it works for you, good. Like I said in my discussion with Jenyar, Christian hope is good in my opinion. If someone could take a Bible, and just cut out all parts except most of John 3:16.. and say.. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, and whosoever believeth in him....shall have everlasting life", then I'd probably still "believe" today. It's other parts of the Bible I have a problem with, the "damnation", the things I don't understand, etc.

And as for "Godhead", Baha'ullah I think claimed he was an incarnation of God, although I'm not entirely sure what that means in the Bah'ai faith. Sai Baba today claims he's an incarnation of God, I think. But, with Hinduism, "incarnations" of God aren't all that rare from what I can tell. Within Hinduism, Krishna is considered an incarnation of God. Some may say he's not historical, but I doubt Krishna believers hold that view.

 

[everneo]

C.S. Lewis & Christians don't make much difference, in the sense, both don't believe in a well balanced opinion. Christians believe whoever refuses to believe in Jesus is either a lunatic or a devil. Lewis argues whoever says what Jesus said is either lunatic or liar/devil.

It is also interesting to note that Lewis takes Whatever Jesus said from bible and is not ready to take whatever Jesus 'did' as mentioned in the bible.

If he wants to prove Jesus a lunatic/liar in this way, first he has to agree that bible is an authenticated record of what Jesus said & did. But, that will make Lewis either a lunatic or a liar, not an atheist.

 

[robtex]

From C.S. Lewis' book, Mere Christianity:

---
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 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.

The is an awsome find S.S.!! It kinda sums up the modern Christian movement today. It is a very hard sell. Logic and deduction today from reading his words was that he was a beautiful soul and rightous man and knowing that Christian proponents immediatly try to cut that off as a valid explaintion of his being by offering various outrageous options and taking away the only rational one...that he was a moral man and (it must have slipped many Christians minds) a pacifist.

"you must make your choice". That should be a Christian slogan...you must make your choice...why such a drive for a immediate answer and why take out the most plaustible explaination as an option?

It is part of a sales pitch which is what Christianity is when you look at it. It's an intro pitch. By accepting that Jesus was a God rather than a man you are accepting the one tennent that makes Christianity unique to all religions. ...if one does that it is a much shorter step to Christianity.

The pitch is not that different than an insurance pitch. Give you some paralells. In an standard life insurance pitch it is made clear that life is uncertain, money set-aside for emergencies is good, insurance is a transference of risk and as a deal closer the consquences of not having the service.

Christainty, which is one of the most (only rivaled by Islamic religion but higher still in total recruitment) recrutive religions in existance and the presmise is the same.

Life is uncertain after death. setting up a plan for the afterlife is important (in this case accepting Jesus), Jesus is the transference of risk (orginal sin) and the deal closer is hell for non acceptance.

I understand their is a reformed Christian movement that is gaining momentum in the works that pushed the morality of Jesus words and inspirations which would be a refeshing change to the threats of eternal damnation that I and I am guessing many of you get on a monthy basis.

As a footnote life insurance generally if you look into the company is a very sound investment..much more so than stocks cd, mutual funds and bonds if you are thinking long term and looking at universal or whole life...but having said that....if you don't buy it you are not guarenteed misery and certainly not for eternity.

 

[Leo Volont]

About ten years ago I read a paper submitted to a Journal of Psychological Studies. It examined the prevalence of Religious Imagery in Psychotic Halluncinations and Delusions. The Paper even supposed the Religious Themes presented in the progress of a series of psychotic episodes were generally in a therapeutic direction -- that they were 'redemptive' and ultimately healing.

So we have scientists now who are at odds with silly old C.S. Lewis, and present quite a contrary premise -- that we can see Valid and Worthwhile Instruction even in insanity.

If Christ was actually a Madman, then He was very upfront about telling Humanity all about the Healing Process He was engaged in.

 

[robtex]

beyondtime and Leo in the flavor of this thread why is it so implausible for christ to have been a great teacher and a man?

It is implausble for him to have been divine because:

A omnipotent God would not need a sacrifice to rid sin
A God would who created man out of dirt would not need a woman to create a son
A God who is loving and just would not torture his son to rid the world of sin
Jesus if he was divine, would not have been able to be killable by man:

The paradign is impossible. There is only so many ways to phrase it but it does not work...the paradign is impossible. Looking for plausible alternatives the most reasonable seems to be that Jesus was a man.

Why is it that Christians automatically reject that...

Explain why Christ cannot be a man.

 

[water]

SouthStar,


Still on your crusade/jihad/some antichristian affray ...

I wonder how far you will go trying to justify your disbelief.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

*beyondtime and Leo in the flavor of this thread why is it so implausible for christ to have been a great teacher and a man?

I did not say it was implausible for Christ to simply be a man. I said that I take it in faith that He is both God and man.

*It is implausble for him to have been divine because:
A omnipotent God would not need a sacrifice to rid sin

Not necessarily. It is a matter of understanding what sin is. An omnipotent God may not have needed a sacrifice to rid the world of sin, but at what cost? The cost would actually be human free will. Furthermore, the cost would also be human intellect, since anything with an intellect has a free will (is aware of possible option and can choose one rationally). I would argue that God COULDN'T do it, because this would be a breaking of the laws that He created, and would be contrary to His own nature. This does not take away from His omnipotency, since omnipotence refers to possible actions. If such an action is impossible, then it is not within the realm of potency, and therefore not an action of the omnipotent. I would even argue that such an action isn't even an action.

*A God would who created man out of dirt would not need a woman to create a son

Again, not necessarily. If "created out of [the slime of the earth]" means that the physical part of man developed out of a single celled organism from the bottom of the ocean, by the process of evolution, then again, not needing a woman to create a Son would be against the laws which He created. You may argue that creating a son without a father to inseminate the mother is against the laws which He created, and I would definitely agree that there is a difficulty there. However, it is not one that may not be overcome, if you are willing to consider theoretical notions (which, no doubt, would seem fantastical to most peopl).

*A God who is loving and just would not torture his son to rid the world of sin

God did not torture His son. Humans did. God simply allowed it to take place, in light of the great goodness designed to come of it. It isn't that God tortured His Son to rid the world of sin, it's that in order to rid the world of sin, one must give totally of Himself, and make the ultimate sacrifice for all.

*Jesus if he was divine, would not have been able to be killable by man:

Jesus' divine nature wouldn't, and wasn't killed by man. Only His human nature was.

 

[anonymous2]

SouthStar,


Still on your crusade/jihad/some antichristian affray ...

I wonder how far you will go trying to justify your disbelief.

I think SouthStar's using his mind. But to some Christians [not saying all], such a thing is "vain philosophy", etc. Not really very much different than how the NT tried to justify its theology by denigrating rationality, from what I can see. But those types of arguments can be used to justify any thought, no matter how ridiculous it is, by simply saying that "God's thoughts are higher than ours."

I think everyone is justified in disbelief about ANYTHING if it doesn't make sense in their minds. Why should people be forced or expected to believe what they DON'T or CAN'T believe according to the use of their own mind?

Since this is a religion forum for general discussion, and not a pulpit for dogmatic assertions, what's wrong with SouthStar's poll?

And if Christianity is in fact the supremely rational religion, then Christians are free to help convince SouthStar of the error of his ways.