LORD LUNATIC OR LIAR DISCUSSION:

Lord, Lunatic or Liar?

After reading Josh McDowell and some of CS Lewis I have become familiar with this common idea that it explains who Jesus really was. However, it like so much of the apologetic literature I have read limits the options.

It’s like people say, well Bush is either good or bad, that a particular action is either right or wrong. The same for me, people say you either believe in God or you don’t. Those are inaccurate notions on the realities of life.

There are other possibilities other than Lord, Lunatic or Liar. So why is this peddled as legitimate? Jesus could have been an ordinary bloke too. He could have been created as many other religious leaders have been manufactured. Why is this overlooked?

BUTXIFXNOT:  You've read the book: you tell us. Kidding.

He was either lying about being GOD, telling the truth, or He didn't know what He was saying (ie insane).

"He" means Jesus of the Bible. There are other options (like perhaps the disciples were making it up, another topic entirely worthy of a thread of itself), but as for the account, many people that deny Jesus concede that He was real and said what the Bible says He said but conclude that He was just a "good teacher". Not an option, if you are looking at the evidence of the Bible itself. If He did what the Bible says He did and said what the Bible says He said, you aren't left with "perhaps He was just an ordinary man" (Who happened to do miracles, get crucified for no reason, have substancial prophecies about Him, speak various prophecies Himself, call Himself GOD...)

Yes I know that some Christians accept the modern version of the Bible by faith that it is accurate. However, there is not a lot of good evidence that it has the historical credentials to be an authority on the life of Jesus.

There is so much that is assumed with regard to Jesus. If you applied the same sort of criteria to Islam or Hinduism you would believe the claims they make about Mohammed's miracles and Krishna's quests.

By the way, where in the Bible does Jesus ever explicitley say that he is God? I an d the Father are one, well my wife and I are one. Those sort of quotes are ambiguous to say the least

ONEGod:  As to the authenticity of Jesus, what other figure has made such a dramatic change in human civilization in so short a time ? Look at what a Judeo-Christian nation has wrought (to the WORLD)in just over 200 years ! ! !

Mike:  Mohammed has probably made even more profound effects. Consider the way Islam has been taking over the Christian landscape. Here in Australia many people have been turning to Islam to escape the oppresiveness of Christianity. It has happened in the US as well. I suppose Mohammed Ali is one notable case.

Ghandi has made an incredible impact to the millions of Hindus and the caste system. The original Buddha has also impacted millions. When you take a very euro-centric view it might seem that Jesus stands out from the rest, but from a global perspective I'm not so sure.

Mike:  Which nation is Judeo-Christian? Are you referring to the USA? Firstly, I'm not sure if it is Judeo-Christian. I do know that Australian and Britain are not. Secondly, I would not be to quick in praising a Judeo-Christian ethic that has been responsible for so much torture, pain and suffering around the globe. If I was a Christian I would probably feel safer appealing to the Jesus ethic which in my opinion is vastly different from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Probably more Jewish than Christian. Not sure!

Here's a second take on what you have said

I suppose if the quote was to be true it should be prefaced by the statement "based on the Biblical record" Jesus was either Lord, lunatic or a liar. But as you have rightly pointed out it is erroneous on its own, and quite misleading. Deceitful even!

TAVITA:  It's legitimate, and being an ordinary bloke and like any other manufactured religious leader would make Him a Liar.

(Joh 20:28) Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Why didn't Jesus rebuke Thomas for this?

RAFAEL:  If Jesus was just an ordinary "bloke", as you say, then you would have no forum like this to come and make your accusations. You pretty much fulfill some of the prophetic sayings of Jesus just by your own words, and the observations you make about other religions are also all foretold by Him. He said there would be false prophets and a great falling away from faith when the end times came. So, we have been warned of these things and they are expected to happen. A faith not tested is no faith at all, and many will not stand to any test when they remain operating in the old nature of the flesh and self ambition - measuring by what they get from a relationship. Dying to "self" so that one can live for God is never popular to the ego of man, but Jesus bids us to deny self, pick up the cross, and follow Him.
God has been very kind to us all in giving His Son to die for our sins and free us from the condemnation of eternal death. To step on that blood shed for our benefit is a grave offense, but how one could really know God's love and then reject it is thankfully beyond me. The evidence is there, but like the person who cannot see the trees because of the forest, some are unable to see even though they have eyes or hear even though they have ears.

Mt 13:15 For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes—so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.’

1Timothy 4:1 ¶ Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

John 17:3 And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.

2Th 1:12 Then everyone will give honor to the name of our Lord Jesus because of you, and you will be honored along with him. This is all made possible because of the undeserved favor of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Mt 7:15 ¶ "Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep, but are really wolves that will tear you apart.

Mt 24:11 And many false prophets will appear and will lead many people astray.

2Th 2:3 ¶ Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

70JUDGE:  Beliefs should be a search for truth and understanding, not denying reality so you can have faith in a compendium of books written by unknown authors over hundreds and hundreds of years complied much later by other fallible men, as 100% literally correct. That is a faith that is truly blind

JOESAEBI:  It doesn't surprise that reason won't oft work with the lost...Look at the Pharisees, they knew that Christ was the Son, yet they desired power, sin, more than salvation...like their father, the enemy.

DOCTRINE 1^ST:  Response to Tavita:  Kind of goes back to the Lord, Lunatic, Liar argument and other options; what makes you think that Jesus actually said this or the exchange even took place?

DOCTRINE 1^ST:  Response to original question.  Because it sounds so darn catchy, the obvious fallacy isn't even entertained. If there's anything that makes a religion attractive, it's catchy phrases. Don't believe me? Jjust tune in into some of the US televangelists.

TAVITA:  Wonder why that is the standard come back question around here..

DOCTRINE 1^ST:  It's the nature of the question that beckons the answer. It's a false tri-hotomy.

QUATONA:  Because the poor LLL-argument is a standard comeback statement around here.

I think what they mean is: If you exclude all other possibilities, only those three are left.

LORD EMSWORTH:  Because around here there are a lot of people who do not accept questionable unstated premises.

DANHALEN:  Because myth and tall-tale are also valid options.

EMMY:  Dear AgnosticMike, you had some good replies, and Jesus told us, while on Earth, that not all would believe. But no book, or message had such an overwhelming impact on humanity, or given so much consolation, and helpful guidance, as God`s Word, the Bible. There are those many, many thousands of Christian men and women, who have, and still are testifying daily, how the power of Jesus`s Love has changed their lives. There is proof, that a man called Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, there were the disciples of Jesus, so terrified after His Crucifiction, and then after a short period of time, they started telling BOLDLY, the truth they had witnessed themselves, and even died for it. Jesus was definitely no Liar, and not many would follow a Lunatic, He turned the world around, He vanquished not only Satan, but also Death. Satan has lost his power over us, and Death lost its sting. Only Jesus leads us back to God and life, He has proven His Love and Power again and again, many have tried to get rid of Him and His Good News, but nobody has, and nobody will succeed. I say this wit love, humility and utter Assurance. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

LORD EMSWORTH:  The problem with the LLL argument is not necessarily its validity, but rather soundness. If correctly stated the argument rests on the premise that the canonical gosples can be taken at face value and then I think it would follow that there are those three options (lord, liar, lunatic). So, no false trichotomy, or something like this, but rather faulty, or at least extremely questionable premises.

MARBLE HEAD:  http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/inde...C_Liar%2C_Lord
I think this sums it up rather well.

AFRAY:  Pretty simple, he claims to be God in John. The Jews want to stone him for this. He claims to have the authority to forgive sins. He performs many miracles by the authority of God. He himself tells us that he has arrived because the time is fullfilled and the kingdom of God is "at hand" and that we should repent and believe in the gospel. He claims he can raise himself from the dead in three days. He prophesies of his own death. He aknowledges himself as the Son of God and King of the Jews and says no one knows the Father except the Son. He says he knows Almighty God and no other does like he does. At the Passover there is no passover lamb, except he tells his disciples that it is his blood and body which will be broken and spilled for many.

This is where the liar, lunatic, or Lord thing comes in. I don't know any average joes that act like that or make those claims.

ZEN WOOF:  I think this is a reasonable question, Mike.

The argument relies on the what the bible said as being the absolute truth of what Jesus taught. This argument does not take into account that what Jesus said was written and interpreted by those who wrote the bible (which wasn't Jesus). So, in reality, the question should be whether the writers and transcribers of the bible for the past 2000 years are liars, lunatics, or telling truth.

Jesus might have preached absolute truth, but how do we know that those who wrote it down were as stainless as Christ? How do we know that they were not influenced by the times and their own prejudices? Their motives could have been virtuous but if as our Christian friends tell us that everyone is a sinner, then surely, some errors must have crept in both at the original writing and as the bible was copied out over the centuries. (Remember, we didn't have mass reproduction until the past 200 years. And some scholars who read ancient texts have shown that the copiers have subtly changed the bible as it was translated and copied through the centuries.)

So, to this being, it is a matter not of whether Jesus was a liar, lunatic, or telling the truth but whether the transcribers and interpreters of this truth were liars or lunatics.

Metta,
ZW

ZEN WOOF:  Hi Emmy.

With great respect, I remind you that the Koran, the suttas, and the Hindu texts are also widely influential in certain areas of the world. The Bible is most influential in the West, but that certainly does not encompass the majority of the population. Remember, 1/3 of the world is Christian; the rest are not.

Metta,
ZW

HAPPY BACKSLIDER:  Emmy. Sure, there are thousands of Christians who claim that their faith has changed their lives. There are also millions of Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, Unitarians, Buddhists, Pagans, Wiccans, and a long, long list of other religions and belief systems, who also claim that their particular brand of faith is life-changing. They also have powerful testimonies to how their faiths have changed them.

What this really speaks to is not so much the power of Christ or any one particular belief system, but the psychological benefits of religion itself. Besides, there is another untold story here -- the many, many Christians who did not find that their faith changed their lives and have, in many cases, resorted to secular means (such as psychiatry for example) to cope. Or those that actually find their faith harmful to their sense of well-being.

I was in many churches for many years, and although it is true I saw some people whose lives had been changed (and again that is more through the effects of religious conversion rather than the faith itself), I saw an equally large number of people who simply struggled with daily life to the point that their faith was of no help to them -- and many were seeing secular psychiatrists or even taking anti-depressant drugs. So much for the life-changing power of God, huh? (it would be very interesting to know what percentage of Christians are taking anti-depressants, I suspect it might be shocking). There is definitely another side to this that many Christians will not admit to.

GRIZZLY:  Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.

Fortunately for us, there are other options. I can think of two off the top of my head.

1) Nonexistent. The Jesus story is just that. A story.
2) Existed, but misquoted. Jesus may have lived, but not said everything attributable to him.
3) Liar. The liar option neve gets the credit it deserves. Look at all the "false prophets" that got people to follow them. Look at Mohammed. Either he is a Prophet of God, Liar, or Lunatic.

See where I am going with that?

RADORTH:  Reply to original question.  Because he claims to be the Son of God, the one and only saviour of the world, and his so-called "inventors" have never been proven to have anything at all to gain from these incredible claims- except persecution and death. His uneducated "inventors" also write metaphors better than Shakespeare.

Oh fine, add "they made the whole thing up" to the list, which IMO just makes you appear even more intellectually lazy.

Rad

RADORTH:  Yes exactly!!!! And I, being intellectually honest, and accepting the stories for the same reasons I accept the Gospels, pick lunatic.

And he didn't even work any miracles anyway.

Man you walked right into that one. And why is it you don't call Jesus, as portrayed, a liar or lunatic then?

Rad

RYAL KANE:  I go more for misrepresented, misunderstood or myth.

DOCTRINE 1^ST:  Please familiarize yourself with what "son of God" meant in era context.

Saviour, or the expected Messiah of the world, according to God's word didn't involve a law away program.

The inventors did have something to gain, and that is the same thing those who invented the whole idea of the expected coming saviour; HOPE!

They were NOT persecuted nor put to death for what they believed, they could have caredless what you belived, they were put to death for what they refused to do.

I don't know about Shakesphere, but the fact they wrote at all proves it was not written by those it is proposed.

~nice day

GRIZZLY: Radorth.   You crack me up. Care to back up your claim of lunatic?

These people don't seem to agree with you.

http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm

DOCTRINE 1^ST:  Okay, let's pull out the worksheet.

1. The Tanach claimed that "X" "Y" and "Z" would happen upon the arrival of the Messiah.

2. Jesus came, claimed to be the Messiah, and was put to death in the same manner many rebel rousers who made this claim were.

3. "X" "Y" and "Z" didn't happen.

Therefore I'm afraid according to premise #1, Jesus is "C" liar.

GLADIATRIX:  Oh pulleezze! Just persecution and death, how about power and wealth that Christians have gotten as they got hold of governments, beginning with the Roman Empire under Constantine. When they emigrated to other countries from their old European seats of power, many used their Christianity as an excuse for stealing everything that wasn't red-hot or nailed down from the non-Christian native populations, up to and including taking the lives of anyone who dared oppose them...just ask the Native Americans or look at what happened to the Aztecs, Incas or Hawaiians.

So spare me this "persecution and death" whine because that's often what Christians have subjected others to in their quest to see to it that "every knee shall bow, And every tongue shall confess to God" (Isaiah 45:23)

You made a claim on another AgnosticMike's threads:  Post #165
"Liar, lunatic or who he and his narrators said he was." IMO you cannot remain intellectually honest and reject all three, and I'm in some pretty good company there.

Do show us how rejecting Lewis' "trilemma" is "intellectually dishonest". First realize that the word "trilemma" was first applied by Josh McDowell who presented his version of it as described here

The term 'trilemma' is not used by Lewis. It is coined by Josh McDowell in his book Evidence Which Demands a Verdict, a collection of quotations and sources intended to save preachers the trouble of reading any actual books. McDowell presents the argument in the form of a simple flow chart, a series of 'either/or' propositions, (Jesus either was or was not the Son of God; he either did or did not believe it Himself, and you must either Accept or Reject him.) McDowell cites various secular and religious writers who insist on Jesus' moral goodness and wisdom and thus rules out the possibility that he could have been mad or bad. ('Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught and died as Jesus died could not have been a liar.') He therefore takes Jesus divinity as proven. In an astonishing post-script he adds:

'The evidence is clearly in favour of Jesus as Lord. However, some people reject the clear evidence because of the moral implications involved. There needs to be a moral honesty in the above considerations of Jesus either as a liar, lunatic, or Lord and God.'

The objections to McDowell's case are well-known, but it is probably worth re-stating them.

1: The argument starts from the premise 'Jesus claimed to be God'. Many of those who reject Christianity do so, not because of moral defectiveness on their part, but because they believe that Jesus made no such claims. They hold, for example, that Jesus' disciples misunderstood or misreported him or that he is a fictitious, mythological or legendary figure.

2: Not all 'madmen' are necessarily drooling imbeciles; delusions are not necessarily incompatible with great wisdom or goodness. It is significant that McDowell quotes a Unitarian named Channing who regards calmness and self-possession as the antithesis of 'madness', and thus that Jesus serenity is proof of his sanity. 'Point me, if you can to one vehement, passionate expression of His religious feelings. Does the Lord's prayer breath feverish enthusiasm?'

3: The logic of the position is that no good and wise person can ever be guilty of a major self-delusion. Yet the Dali Lama claims to be a reincarnation of the Buddha; Joseph Smith and Mohammed both claimed to have been given infallible teachings by an angel of God. If these beliefs are false, then all three must have been madmen or liars; yet all three are widely regarded as good and wise men. On what basis does McDowell reject their claims?

Why does Lewis use such an obviously flawed argument? If he believed it himself, then his reliability as an apologist must surely be in doubt: who knows how many more logical fallacies may have been smuggled into his work? If he did not believe it, then wasn't he simply a charlatan, a snake-oil salesman out to win converts by any means possible?

In fact, Lewis neither claims nor believes that the 'Trilemma' proves the divinity of Christ, and McDowell is guilty of a misrepresentation if he implies that he does.

The fact remains is that this "trilemma" is bad logic that is even rejected by Christians such as the Christian apologist William L. Craig, who gives this basic criticism of the complete illogic of it here:

An example of such an unsound argument would be:

Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.
Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic.
Therefore, Jesus is Lord.

This is a valid argument inferring one member of a disjunction from the negation of the other members. But the argument is still unsound, because the first premise is false: there are other unmentioned alternatives, for example, that Jesus as described in the gospels is a legendary figure, so that the trilemma is false as it stands.

Craig, W. L. , Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, revised edition, 1994, pp. 38-39.

This bit of illogic (the trilemma) is so named because of it's resemblance to a logical fallacy known as the False Dilemma. It's purpose is to force the thought process to take an illogical path by ARTIFICALLY limiting the number of choices. For more on the just what a False Dilemma is go to THIS SITE

As I see it, Lewis's argument is illogical because it simply ignores other possibilites and really need to be rephrased to make it a logical question.......Christ was either:

• 1. Liar
• 2. Lunatic
• 3. Lord
• 4. Myth
• 5. Misquoted
• 6. Mistaken
• 7. Political pawn
• 8. Roman spy
• 9. Popular Amalgam of a real person + fabulous attributes that accrued over time with retelling of the "Jesus" story
• 10. Invention of some Gallilean Fishermen
• 11. One of many different Gods and Goddesses
• 12. Jewish zealot (rebel)
• 13. A renegade Jewish Rabbi accused of blasphemy
• 14. A politician with a populist message
• 15. An invention of Paul (Christainity may really be Paulianity)
• 16. Really be a Yeshu Ben Strada "retread" by Pauline Christians
• 17. The Righteous Teacher of the Essenes who accrued legendary attritubes (son of God, miracle-worker, resurrected, etc.) over time.
• 18. Faith healer/apocalypic preacher with a big ego (anybody think of more possibities?)

This is why the "trilemma" (along with Pascal's Wager) are considered classic logical fallacies and often presented as examples of bad logic in 1st year logic/philosophy classes. My personal favorite is that Jesus was a charismatic but delusional apocalyptic preacher and faith-healer whose delusions about his importance intensified in the months leading up to his anticipated martyrdom. The whole episode was then misinterpreted and exaggerated afterwards by his followers who used elements from other god-myths common at the time to "flesh out" the story to make the "Jesus package" an easier "sell" to people used to having thier morals/ethics wrapped in some kind of god(s?)/goddess(s?)-wrapper.

Here's another rebuttal of the Lewis Trilemma

TAVITA: As you can see I'm Australian and have always been taught that the founding father's of America were christian and the nation was founded on christian beliefs. Is this a lie?

LYNDEN100:  Lunatic is perhaps too harsh a word. I think he obviously suffered from some mental instability and had delusions of grandeur.

He wasn't a drooling nincompoop, but I don't think his elevator went all the way to the top.

Well, some were, some weren't. Quite a few were Episcopalians, such as George Washington. Thomas Paine quite obviously wasn't a Christian. Others, like John Adams and John Quincy Adams, were Unitarians, which, unlike the Unitarian-Universalism of today, was decidedly more theistic but nonetheless far removed from what most Christians today would identify as "Christian." Some, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were deists.

First and foremost, however, they were politicians. And it's not too difficult to find quotes from the founding fathers where they praise Christianity as well as quotes from the same men where they attack and ridicule Christianity.

NIGHTSON:  It's more of a misconception. It's rarely a deliberate falsehood. A large number of the founder fathers were in fact deists. The first six presidents were a mix of deists and unitarians. And seperation of Church and State is one of our most basic principles.

Now the confusion arises from the largely religious population, the statements of some of the more religious founding fathers, and the power of the state governments in the founding of the country

DOCTRINE 1^ST:  Hi Tavita.

Actually, this is a general misconception based on deliberate deception. There are NO elements in our constitution based on any fundamental Christian principles. Some founding fathers were Christian, but many of denominations many Christians today would dismiss as Christian™ while many were deists. I think the most important thing to consider is this; these guys were religious exiles who came to a new country on a large degree because they didn't like the morphed structure of State and religion of the country they just left. Even if by some magic wand all of them where Christian, the fact that the only mention of religion in our constitution is one of keeping away it from the State speaks volumes. It seems they learned a valuable lesson.

~take care

MIKE:  G'day Tav. Not sure what you are saying.

You seem to have missed the point. If Jesus was an ordinary bloke and his life was propped up by others, how could this make him a liar. It would be a simple case of false testimony about Jesus. Do you see that possibility now?

MIKE:  G'day Rafael.

First point. There are forums about Islam and other religions. Does that mean that I am fulflling their prophecies about their prophets and Gods. I'm sure you would disagree,

Secondly, the verses you quote are definitely not explicit. 1. Belive God and Jesus. That is two seperate people. Believe Allah and Mohommed would be a similar example.
2. The other verses don't make any claim to Jesus and God being the same God.

Even at Bible college my theology lecturer told us that there were no explicit verses. If you do bad exegesis you can put your own ideas into some of those verses. That would be lying however.

Regards

Mike

MIKE:  G'day Joe. How do you know that the Pharisees knew. I guess you must have been there in a past life to have such secret knowledge. Do you do palm readings and tea cup readings too.

MIKE:  G'day Emmy sister in Christ.

Glad to see that I'm a part of your family. So you obviously have done some comparitive studies on the faith of Islam compared to Christianity. What statistics have you got? I'm interested, or are you just guessing or passing on what some preacher has told you?

It's funny, but in another thread, many Christians have told me that their is no proof or evidence. They have said that it all comes down to faith. It's funny how there is such a diverse range of belief within the Christian religions.

MIKE:  Thanks Metta. Good points you make. Yes I hav wondered about the transmission and the original stories whether they were completely made up or went through a process of embellishment. It is common for the authors of the New Testament to put their own slant on Jewish writings and prophecies.

Regards

Mike

MIKE:  G'day Rad


What did the followers of the Waco mob have to gain? Do you think that becasue someone gets persecuted and dies that ratifies their belief system as true? Cummon! There have been countless religious systems that have had nothing to gain from the propogation of their religious ideas. Many people die for worthless causes. Of course they are not worthless in their own minds.

TAVITA:  Oh yeah.. I forgot for awhile there, Mike.. it's suppose to be a fabricated story for some weird reason.

JANE THE BANE:  As Agnostic Mike has pointed out, these are hardly the only options out there. My answer is:

A preacher whose apotheosis consisted of the embellishments and myths that blossomed in his wake, falling on fertile ground all across the mediterranean because of their eclectic nature.

MIKE:  G'day Tav.

Not necessarily. As you might be able to see from Gladiatrix there are other possibilities. This is the point of the thread to see whether Christians are honest enough to consider the other possibilities. I suppose what Gladiatrix has done has shown how the LLL idea is faulty logic. I tend to thing it is deceptive.

If you think about the way you are approaching the topic you would also dismiss the LLL for L (Lord) becasue you view the other possibilities with equal disdain as the Lunatic and Liar possibilities. It is like saying an orange is either blue or purple. We know it isn't purple, so that means it has to be blue. Is that silly, of course. Why? Because a better proposition would have been, an orange is either, blue, purple, red, orange, green etc etc.

Is my point clear?

Mike

53ISAIAH:  This simply is not true. ALL the world religions added together still do not equal Christianity

Seems as thought people are arguing the definition of "Christian", "Islam", and the like. My point is that Christianity is the plurality of religion.

DOCTRINE 1^ST:  Mmm...I don't think so.



Christianity would be smaller if one were to remove those denominations some Christians don't consider Christian

JANE THE BANE:  THIS simply is not true. Where do you get your numbers from?

Christianity unites 2.1 billion people under its banner. (And that's if we include people who only attend church when there's a wedding, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses and several other "misfits".)

Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: approximately 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
etc.pp.

Counting yet? I give you a hint: Even if you only add up the Hindus and the Muslims, you'll end up with more followers than with the umbrella term Christianity (which has been used *very* generously here, including groups that this forum wouldn't even remotely consider "Christian").

TAVITA:  Mike I think you misunderstood me, I meant it as sarcasm, in most of your threads your biggest beef is that the gospels were fabricated.
Sure, your point is clear. So is Gladiatrix's. But so what? It doesn't matter what anyone else has to say Mike, the only things you want to hear are the reasonings others have that line up with your own. If I didn't have this life experience of knowing Christ I guess I'd be taken in with all the stuff you guys come up with too. Yes, all those other examples Gladiatrix gave of the possibilities of who and what Christ is sound absolutely great, if that's what you're looking for. I guess the reason most christians don't think about things like that great list is because they've 'experienced' the real thing and have no need to keep on wondering who He really is.

JANE THE BANE:  And non-Christians have experienced something else - yet Christians would claim that they've been deceived.

It's utterly subjective, isn't it?

JANE THE BANE:  Let's take a look at what you said once more, shall we?
”This simply is not true. ALL the world religions added together still do not equal Christianity[emphasis mine]”

So either you have a very poor way with words, or else my point still stands, and "ALL the world religions added together" not only "equal Christianity", but beat it as far as sheer numbers are concerned.

Additionally, let's keep in mind that we are counting Jehova's Witnesses, LDS and similar groups as "Christian" here. G, even *I* count as a Christian, because I haven't bothered to change my registration yet. The same goes for my parents, my friends, my girlfriend... well, most people I know, in fact.

53ISAIAH:  Again I say, given that Christianity is the plurality of religion, I feel that Mohammed in fact is not more profound in his impact to the world.

GRIZZLY:  Many of us here have at one time been Christian, and many of us here had "personal experiences" that we believed to be our relationship with God. We have since re-interpreted those experiences in light of the overwhelming evidence of his nonexistence.

Without any insult intended, I often draw an analogy to my belief in Santa Claus. I had a personal relationship with him. I wrote him letters and he wrote me back. One time he even called me on the phone. It was amazing. Then I realized that Santa didn't exist. I had to reinterpret my relationship with Santa in light of new evidence.

It's the same with God. When I "felt" God's presence, it turns out I was really alone. I know it felt real, but it just wasn't so.

SOUL SEARCHER:  Hi Mike,

"There are other possibilities other than Lord, Lunatic or Liar. So why is this peddled as legitimate?"

Because then their 'logic' falls apart. If one considers that not all we read is 100% correct in the retelling, then they have nothing to grab onto, because in the "God's Word" mindset it's all or nothing.

DOCTRINE 1^ST:  The Bible, full of philosophical expositons of men, in fact much of the themes plagerized, was written soley by men. It's just through faith you assign it to a deity. When it comes to Biblical motifs, there really isn't too much originality in it. So maybe all things being of God, he had no issue using the thoughts of other men to make his case? The philosophy is the same, it's just that religion emboldens it thorugh the idea of God and God's judgments. Which ironically are pretty much the same ol same ol with every religion. If God were to have literature written in his behalf, I would expect some orginality.

~take care

DOCTRINE 1^ST:  There are somethings what I consider universal truths of how we should go about life. This story kind of sums up how I feel about the mismosh of sacred literature taken as some kind of philosophical sacred instruction manual. It's a story from the Babylonian Talmud about Rabbi Hillel, a Rabbi before the time of Jesus as he explains what is well know as an philosophical universal truth that is bound by no culture, no religion, and no race.

"... it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, "make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Rabbi Hillel, Hillel taught him the essense of the Torah by saying to him, "what is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary thereof; go and learn it."

Love God and love your neighbor is a universal truth. And their is no better way to love God than to love his creation; us.

CALIGULANERO:  The bible is clearly a book of fiction. There may have been a man who inspired the stories of the gospels, but he didn't walk on water, turn water into wine, or rise from the dead- those stories are absurd. So taking all of the unbelievable nonsense out and assuming the rest of the story is correct (which is huge leap of faith in my opinion as the gospels do not read as history or first hand reporting) I think liar and lunatic are the only credible options. To believe god sent himself to save humans from himself is abusrd. To believe god would send himself to a remote area of Earth in an ancient time and give little to no historic evidence of his actual existence but make our belief in such a tall tale the basis for our fate for all eternity makes god an absolute idiot. Also, why would god be concerned with reasonably intellegent (but most likely total idiots compared to the most intelligent life in the universe) apes on an ordinary planet that rotates around an ordinary star among millons of stars in a galaxy that is one of billons of galaxies? Humans would be as significant to a god as single cell organisms would be to us. My guess, if he existed, was that Jesus was a semi-wise man whose story got exagerrated and was turned into a god, or he was a Joseph Smith type who was a combo liar/lunatic.

BRIMSHACK:  am never surprised by the tripe that passes for apologetics. There are those who will regard it as a good argument simply because it supports their position. But there are certainly more thoughtful arguments out there than this false trichotomy.

For my own part, I simply refuse to accept the procedure. I do not acept the burden to have a complete and accurate psychological description of anyone before I reject any of their claims. I furthermore do not accept the burden to produce such a description on anyone who lived 2,000 years ago, and whose words are all reported 2nd hand. That someone would regard this as a reasonable expectation is more than a little silly as far as I'm concerned.

MIKE:  G'day Tav


I have no beef as such. As an agnostic I ask questions and propose different scenarios to test people's thoughts.

It's not a case of "if that's what you're looking for" either. I think this is true of many Christians but I'm not looking for anything in particular other that the truth. The point has been made that the Lord Lunatic Liar idea is fundamentally flawed. As I said its just like saying a banana is either black or white. DO you understand.

I Knw many Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists who also say they have experienced the real thing. Just becasue someone say they've experienced the real thing doesn't make it so. They may be lunatics, liars, deluded, daydreamers, brainwashed or many other possible options.

Is my point clearer now.

I have never said or suggested I have the truth. However, if one wants to convince me that they know the truth they have to demonstrate to me their thinking is not deceptive and most of all reasonable.

I am not here to spread any particular philosophy but to test the philosophies and ideas that Christians telll me are so cut and dried.

Mike

MIKE:  G'day 53rd Isaiah. I thought there were only 3.  You said “Again I say, given that Christianity is the plurality of religion, I feel that Mohammed in fact is not more profound in his impact to the world.”

Seriously, your emotional feelings are not a good argument. Just becasue you feel that Mohammed's impact has not been as significant as Jesus doesn't make it so. Other people have provided good statistics and graphics to make their point but all you can say is "I feel". Cummon Isaiah!

TAVITA:  G'day Mike,

Well, you said it yourself, it's the truth you're looking for. You're not going to accept anything a christain has to say unless they are particularly articulate, intelligent, and able to present a well written arguement. It's a shame you can't go to the christian board and ask the scholars there, as most of them don't travel down to this part of the board.
Maybe the only way you will ever find the truth is if you seek it from God Himself..

Blessings..
Tavs

MIKE:  Tav If you only knew the truth about me. You shouldn't be dishonest and put words into my mouth. There are many things I accept from Christians and then their are many things I reserve judgement on. There are not a lot of things that I directly rule out, that's the nature of Agnosticism.

As a student at Theological college the lecturers often made the point that theological study had a reputation for people walking away from faith. I have a number of Christian friends, pastors, teachers, and missionaries who have walked away from their faith.

As for seeking God, it has been a constant prayer for around 5 years. I often tell people I'm not sure if he can hear me, or if he really cares, or if there really is a God, or if he is anywhere near the sort of God we imagined him to be. There are so many possibilities. But I will always remain true to myself and be open to truth wherever it comes from.

So don't make the mistake of being presumptuous. Unless you have the supernatural ability to see the future or read minds making comments like you have is dishonest and deceptive to those who read your comments.

Regards

Mike

MICHABO:  I don't care much about being articulate or intelligent, and as for well-written argument, I just ask for an absence of logical fallacies. I'm looking for evidence, precision and clarity. What I get is poetry and metaphor.

I think you do a disservice to the Christians which are here. I've seen some arguments which rank with some of the better apologists. I've met a very well respected, educated minister, and he used the same fallacies, metaphors, poetry and wishful thinking that everyone else does.

And you know what? Even he would apologize for his abilities, and say that, if only I could talk to the person above him, then I would be convinced. Then I could find answers.

Why do you suppose that is? From the time I talked to friends in High School and was referred to a Youth Leader, almost every Christian seems to have this blind faith that, even though they can't answer simple questions, the people above them, can.

It isn't true. It's a disturbing aspect of faith, and that as much as the arguments themselves is what really turns me off theology.

ANUNBELIEVER:  Some add a 4th 'L' to the first 3 - Legend. They argue that its good to first establish the authenticity of the Gospels - that Jesus did actually say and do what is recorded.

TAVITA:  Michabo Thank you for telling me what it is you really want. It's extremely frustrating to have a conversation with people who outright reject the scriptures as being a fairytale or believe that the New Testament is not authentic. What's the basis for conversation if at every turn this block is put up?... as in the post after yours. There's no point in answering, and try as any christian does, this is usually the response you get. What's the basis for conversation? Is it always required that we have to show the New Testament to be authentic at every turn? If that's the case then you DO need someone who has studied into these things to debate with. I didn't come into this thread to debate, I'm sorry that I've been argumentative and kept it going. When I first responded to this thread it was in the 'questions for non-believers' forum, which isn't meant to be a forum for debate. I'm going to bow out of this thread now, not because I don't want to answer you all, I do, but really, I don't have the debating skills for it. If you all think I'm still being dishonest, well, so be it.

MIKE:  That's a pity Tav becasue I would have like you to have responsed to my last post. I don't think you need good debating skills, just a preparedness to back up some personal statements you made about me. This only makes the message you are wanting to present even less credible. If the messenger is so unreliable then what hope has the message?

Regards

Mike