Which is all that one needs to argue. The original argument is based on the
premis that the only possible outcome is that Jesus was truly the Lord.
However, by showing that other possibilities exist, I have shown that the
logic of the "lord, liar, lunatic" argument is far from compelling. Indeed,
given the array of possibilities, Occam's razor would force us to choose almost
any one except for the "lord" hypothesis.
>In truth I chose not to include it here mainly because
>of its irrelevence, and I had hoped my comments had made clear the reason
>why.
Your comments only made clear that you were not paying attention.
>In case it is still unclear, the reason is that the LLL Trilemma
>cannot be a proof for anything if in fact it is a dilemma - it's one
>question torn between three poles. Some have made no pains about telling
>us which answer they prefer. As a matter of fact, if I were to forget what
>I know in other areas I would conclude that the third option - Jesus was
>actually the Son of God - is by far the least likely.
That's all that I'm saying. The LLL Trilemma is not logically compelling,
unless one already accepts the desired conclusion.
><<PG>>
>>>The premise is that Jesus was an
>>>historical figure whose words are generally preserved in the bible. If
>>>this is true, the only options are:
>>>
>>> 1) Jesus thought He was NOT the Son of God (DECEIVER)
>
><<RS>>
>>And if he was, 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?
>
>Certainly, *perhaps* that was the case. The Trilemma *requires* that fact,
>but here is what else it would say: If a person did not reason, "I only
>have three options - I had better choose one!", and if they were
>sufficiently familiar with the life and words of Jesus of Nazareth, in
>particular his high moral teachings, they would probably think it unlikely
>that he was also a prolific liar."
Look at my other post for scriptural quotes concerning the nature of Jesus'
character.
>If Jesus was just out to have a little
>bit of fun (I can appreciate this), one might reason, why would he take it
>to the point of death by extreme torture?
Perhaps because he was a little off his rocker.
[Scriptural quotes]
>One can see quite clearly that Jesus was prepared to maintain his teachings
>about himself, even if doing so meant he would be tortured and killed.
This is all assuming, of course, that the quotes you provide are historically
accurate. How do we know that they are?
>Thus, deliberate DECEIVER (Liar) seems unlikely in favor of the second
>option - Jesus was DELUDED (Lunatic).
>
>>> 2) Jesus thought He was the Son of God but wasn't (DELUDED)
>
><<RS>>
>>Again, if he was, so what? People can believe in something irrational and
>>still be relatively normal and well-balanced otherwise. But, of course,
>>I went over all of this in the parts of my post which you deleted. Did you
>>even read it?
>
>You seem to be implying that since I didn't come around to your view, I may
>not have even given it due consideration. Such confidence! :-)
I can't help it. <g>
>To the issue at hand. You say that "people can believe in something
>irrational and still be relatively normal and well-balanced otherwise."
>Your Albert Einstein example is along similar lines, so I have <SNIPPED> it
>for the sake of brevity. You precede that final point with "Why is it hard
>to believe that a person can be incredibly wise and resourceful in some
>areas, and completely irrational in others?" - again, all part of the same
>point.
>
>Well the LLL Trilemma agrees with you. Genius in one area does not require
>genius in all others. But you've twice used the word "irrational" and yet
>we are talking about *morality* and not rationality per se. In this sense,
>the second option as 'Lunatic,' is misnomered. What it does not mean to
>say is that Jesus must have been stark raving mad, not able to retain his
>poise and composure. As both sides readily point out, Jesus shows every
>appearance of being sane.
Well, not quite, but that's another issue.
>But in another sense, 'Lunatic' is perfectly appropriate. The difference
>between the Einstein example and Christ, is that Einstein did not think he
>was the divine messiah, the culmination of millenia of prophecy, capable of
>great miracles, forgiving sins, raising the dead, and dying and
>resurrecting as the savior of the human race.
It is a quantitative difference, but not a qualitative one. The point is,
a person can be simultaneously rational on most issues and blindingly irrational
on one, or several, particular issues.
>The first option (LIAR) says
>he didn't really believe all of this, and the second option (DELUDED) which
>we are discussiong now, says that he actually did believe all of these
>things. C.S.Lewis has written that this would put him on the level of a
>person who says they are a poached egg. The magnitude of the claims make
>it so. If Jesus was not who he said he was, but sincerely believed it, he
>was a basket case.
Perhaps he was a basket case. That still wouldn't make him unsucessful in
life. Once again, look at David Koresh. He was a horribly deluded person who
actually believed himself to be the reincarnation of Christ, and yet he
managed to win over a group of loyal followers who were willing to die with
him.
>Philip Schaff asks;
>"Is such an intellect - clear as the sky, bracing as the mountain air,
>sharp and penetrating as a sword, thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always
>ready and self-possessed - liable to a radical and most serious delusion
>concerning his own character and mission?"
>C.S.Lewis affirms;
>"The discrepancy between the depth and sanity ...of His moral teaching and
>the rampant megalomania which must lie behind his theological teaching
>unless he is indeed God has never been satisfactorily explained."
I talked a little about this in a previous post to Jim, and in an earlier
post. I'm sure you'll see it, so I won't repeat the details, but what it
boils down to is that, from what I've seen, I would not have a hard time
believing that Jesus had a megalomaniacal side to him.
>The LLL Trilemma *MERELY* points out that options 1) LIAR and 2) LUNATIC
>each have their own internal dilemmas,
I couldn't find any internal dilemmas.
>whereas option 3) LORD has no
>internal dilemma.
Um, except that it is the most unlikely of all (from a strictly logical
perspective, that is).
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.