>This argument had never been adequately challenged.
Actually, it has, but theists have gone right on using it as if it were
fine.
>In fact, you overlook the full argument. It is actually a "quintilemma." That
>is, Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Myth or Sage/Guru?
>
>Let's take a look at what you've written:
>
><<First of all, this argument assumes that what we know about Jesus
>(i.e., what he said, etc.) is historically accurate. I have never
>seen that satisfactorily proved. Heck, I haven't seen satisfactory
>proof that Jesus even *existed* (though I figure he probably did).>>
>
>If you're truly interested, please refer to "The Historical Reliability of the
>Gospels" by Craig Blomberg (IVP). It is the best scholarly treatment of the
>subject I know.
>
>I might ask you at this point what your reasons are for doubting the
>historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts.
1) The fact that the Bible is a conglomeration of several books, written at
different times by different people.
2) The fact that much of it is pure hearsay.
3) The fact that it is thousands of years old, and has gone through countless
translations and "revisions", many for political reasons.
>You'll have to spend some time
>explaining your standard for assessing testimonial proof, and how you apply it
>to not just one, but several writers.
My standard is simple: prove it to me. As it stands right now, the Bible is
just a bunch of words in a book to me. It holds no more historical significance
than, say, Moby Dick. If you want to convince me that it is historically
accurate,
then the burden of proof is on you.
><<Second, it assumes that, if Jesus did claim to be the son of God
>and really wasn't, then he would have to have been a stark-raving
>lunatic.>>
>
>No, it does not. It only asserts that if Jesus believed himself to be the son
>of God, and was not, he was mentally deluded. Surely you cannot be suggesting
>there is any alternative to this? If so, I'd like to know how one who believes
>himself to be divine, yet is not, is not by any definition off in the head.
I didn't say that there was an alternative.
><<One can believe something totally irrational and still be an
>outwardly sane, even overhwelmingly persuasive, person otherwise (just
>look at David Koresh).>>
>
>That's not the question. The question is can someone believe something totally
>irrational and still be rational? Obviously, the answer is no.
No, the question is whether someone can believe something totally irrational
and still be outwardly rational enough to get along in human society? And the
answer is certainly yes. Indeed, such people can even be incredibly charming
and persuasive (once again, consider David Koresh).
>Now, as to outward manifestations. The "divinity complex" is a recognized,
>psychopathic disorder. It shows itself in egotism, narcissism, antipathy
>toward others, etc.
>
>Koresh was like this. So was Jim Jones. Rasputin, the same. Jesus? Hardly. In
>fact, he was the POLAR OPPOSITE.
Really?
-- "He that is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30)
-- "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,
bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)
-- "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth... and men gather them into
the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)
Those sure sound to me like the words of a narcissistic egotist with antipathy
towards others. Indeed, I think an objective look at Jesus' personality fits
quite well with the "divinity complex" that you describe.
>BTW, Einstein did not believe he was God, and did not manifest any behavior to
>indicate he did. Your example does not apply.
Nice try. My example applies because it shows how rational and irrational
behavior
can easily coexist in the same personality.
><<The point is, there are all sorts of possibilities. To summarily narrow
>it down to two and then immediately discard one of them simply because
>one doesn't like it is incredibly poor logic.>>
>
>Wrong, it is how we operate in the real world all the time.
Oh, is it? That explains a lot. Of course, I already knew that you were in the
habit of discarding arguments and evidence that you don't like, but it's nice
to hear you admit it.
><<And if he was [a liar], so what? Perhaps that was his one character flaw --
>his eccentricity, if you will. He was a good man who did everything in his
>power to bring peace to the world, but he also liked to have a little fun
>by pretending to be the son of a supernatural being. Where's the harm in
>that?>>
>
>Eccentricity? You mean an eccentricity that meant certain death for his
>followers? Some idea of fun.
Well, then perhaps he wasn't such a great person after all. Perhaps he got
a kick out of having that many followers, even if it did mean death for them.
>I might ask you, what was his motive? For the sin of blasphemy, Jesus was
>under penalty of death. Are you saying he would have a little fun if it meant
>the death penalty?
Stranger things have happened, you know.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.