11 ms·

His main argument was actually the Lord Liar Lunatic one, where you need to prescribe one of those descriptions to him (He argues).

by fnayr 12y ago

ebiester 12y ago
That argument came from C.S. Lewis, and the primary counter I know is that it assumes "lunatic" is a binary condition -- someone is either delusional or not. We, today, know that this isn't the case. There are people who have truly bizarre beliefs that don't otherwise hinder logical functioning.
- gress 12y ago
  By 'people', I presume you mean all of us.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- xivzgrev 12y ago
  Then wouldn't that person be a liar? All and all Jesus said he was the Lord. So I think it is actually rather tight - he was correct, he was incorrect and aware of it (liar), or he was incorrect and not aware of it (lunatic).
  - fsiefken 12y ago
    That is assuming the rendition and interpretation of his words concerning him being the Lord in the gospels written decades after his death on the cross are correct. Perhaps he was merely a charismatic wisdom teacher. Even so there is a field of study (transpersonal psychology) where mystical experiences are not necessarily seen as deviant and a sign of disease. So the mystical union with the Godhead might not necessarily be lunacy. Perhaps this got understood by the leading intellectuals in the mythological imagery we have concerning Christ and it's meaning for humanity as the platonic Man.
mgkimsal 12y ago
The 4th alliterative option is 'Legend'. Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims.
- nocman 12y ago
  "Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims." I respectfully disagree. I believe that Jesus is exactly who He said he was -- the Great I Am -- God in the flesh. I have staked my life and all of eternity on Him, and I am fully confident of who He is, and of His faithfulness to His promise to me, that all who believe in Him freely receive eternal life.
  - functional_test 12y ago
    Based on what? This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).
    - xerophyte12932 12y ago
      I do not share his Faith, but I understand his views to be a Leap of Faith. While science is nice and all but as humans taking such leaps and trusting other people despite evidence to the contrary, is every day business, is it not? Of course it is rather hard to believe that such a vast majority of people take such Leaps on not just ONE person, but a whole chain of people spanning over 2000 years!! But he must have his personal reasons, and i respect those.
      - nocman 12y ago
        No. My views are not based on any "leap of faith". A "leap of faith" implies that a person is believing in the absence of any evidence -- and that is by no means true of me. Eyewitness testimony is used every day in courts of law. It is one of the most common forms of evidence used to determine the truth about things that happened in the past. I am convinced that the New Testament contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus, the things He said, and the things He did. My faith in Him is based on those accounts. I believe it is God who made sure those accounts were recorded. I was convinced by the evidence given in those accounts. I understand that there are many who have either never read the accounts, or read them and were not convinced by them to believe in Jesus. Again, to anyone who is interested in knowing what Jesus said and did, I would invite you to draw your own conclusions after reading the book of John: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...

His main argument was actually the Lord Liar Lunatic one, where you need to prescribe one of those descriptions to him (He argues).

by fnayr 12y ago

His main argument was actually the Lord Liar Lunatic one, where you need to prescribe one of those descriptions to him (He argues).

ebiester 12y ago

That argument came from C.S. Lewis, and the primary counter I know is that it assumes "lunatic" is a binary condition -- someone is either delusional or not. We, today, know that this isn't the case. There are people who have truly bizarre beliefs that don't otherwise hinder logical functioning.

gress 12y ago
By 'people', I presume you mean all of us.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
xivzgrev 12y ago
Then wouldn't that person be a liar? All and all Jesus said he was the Lord. So I think it is actually rather tight - he was correct, he was incorrect and aware of it (liar), or he was incorrect and not aware of it (lunatic).
- fsiefken 12y ago
  That is assuming the rendition and interpretation of his words concerning him being the Lord in the gospels written decades after his death on the cross are correct. Perhaps he was merely a charismatic wisdom teacher. Even so there is a field of study (transpersonal psychology) where mystical experiences are not necessarily seen as deviant and a sign of disease. So the mystical union with the Godhead might not necessarily be lunacy. Perhaps this got understood by the leading intellectuals in the mythological imagery we have concerning Christ and it's meaning for humanity as the platonic Man.

mgkimsal 12y ago

The 4th alliterative option is 'Legend'. Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims.

nocman 12y ago
"Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims." I respectfully disagree. I believe that Jesus is exactly who He said he was -- the Great I Am -- God in the flesh. I have staked my life and all of eternity on Him, and I am fully confident of who He is, and of His faithfulness to His promise to me, that all who believe in Him freely receive eternal life.
- functional_test 12y ago
  Based on what? This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).
  - xerophyte12932 12y ago
    I do not share his Faith, but I understand his views to be a Leap of Faith. While science is nice and all but as humans taking such leaps and trusting other people despite evidence to the contrary, is every day business, is it not? Of course it is rather hard to believe that such a vast majority of people take such Leaps on not just ONE person, but a whole chain of people spanning over 2000 years!! But he must have his personal reasons, and i respect those.
    - nocman 12y ago
      No. My views are not based on any "leap of faith". A "leap of faith" implies that a person is believing in the absence of any evidence -- and that is by no means true of me. Eyewitness testimony is used every day in courts of law. It is one of the most common forms of evidence used to determine the truth about things that happened in the past. I am convinced that the New Testament contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus, the things He said, and the things He did. My faith in Him is based on those accounts. I believe it is God who made sure those accounts were recorded. I was convinced by the evidence given in those accounts. I understand that there are many who have either never read the accounts, or read them and were not convinced by them to believe in Jesus. Again, to anyone who is interested in knowing what Jesus said and did, I would invite you to draw your own conclusions after reading the book of John: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...