Lord,Liar or Lunatic

sin_is_fun · Post by **sin_is_fun** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:01 pm

This is one question often asked by believers. "Either Jesus is lord,or liar or lunatic.Which view do you support?"

This question appears downright straight forward.It gives only 3 options.But the question is actually not straight forward and innocent as it appears.

The common man will hesitate a lot to say Jesus was a liar or lunatic..So then only the third alternative remains.

But I consider this question to be wrong.Why?

1.It doesnt include the other options.That is "Jesus never said those words"/"jesus never existed"/"He was misquoted"

Now these option changes the question to "Were the gospel writers liars,lunatics or true historians"?

There is no justification in asking the lord liar or lunatic question about jesus.Had he written a book we can ask that question.But he never wrote any book.What we have is "Reports on his words".So we have to question the genuineess of that report first before questioning the truthfulness of the speaker's words.

So the question should be "Were Matthew,mark,luke and john liars,true historians or lunatics?"

On further inspection we should still refine this question.Because this question implies that

1.Matthew,mark,luke and John existed
2.They wrote the supposed portions of Bible.
3.we have them exactly as they reported.

Bible passed on as oral traditions for some time.45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D.

So now the question becomes

1.The people who heard bible,memorized it and passed it to others did so without any change in its text for many years.Yes or no?

The theory of chinese whispers comes to my mind.When 20 people are in a room and we say a sentence to one person and if he passes it to others secretly, the statement that emerges from the last person will be totally different from the initial statement.They will be totally different.

when one sentence changes like this what about a whole book?

So the "Liar,lord or lunatic" is a wrong question according to me.

What do you all think?

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:02 pm

Tilia wrote:I am very prepared to justify all my comments, but not before ground rules are established.

OK. What do you need?

sin_is_fun · Post by **sin_is_fun** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:01 am

This article talks about who has the burden of proof.Thought it might help this debate

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness ... /prove.htm

Tilia · Post by **Tilia** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:04 am

quote="Lotan"

Tilia wrote:I am very prepared to justify all my comments, but not before ground rules are established.

OK. What do you need?

Your rationale, your reasoning, for what is acceptable evidence, and what is not.

Tilia · Post by **Tilia** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:21 am

sin_is_fun wrote:This article talks about who has the burden of proof.Thought it might help this debate

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness ... /prove.htm

It is useless to look for formal proof that Christianity is right or wrong; and indeed I think it is wrong to even seek to prove Christianity in that way. The charge given to the church is to preach the gospel, and to live it, as evidence of its truth; those who are to believe it will do so, and those who are not, will not.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:09 pm

Tilia wrote:But if those people go to heaven as a result of their faith, who will care if they believe that the earth is flat? What does it avail a man to believe that the world is round, but lose his soul?

There's no evidence to support the existence of heaven or souls, sorry.

It is useless to look for formal proof that Christianity is right or wrong; and indeed I think it is wrong to even seek to prove Christianity in that way. The charge given to the church is to preach the gospel, and to live it, as evidence of its truth; those who are to believe it will do so, and those who are not, will not.

Up until those adherents start trying to force their beliefs on others, that's fine. When they try to get laws passed, bully people, or worse yet, kill the infidels to silence ideas that they don't believe in, and let's face it, Christianity has a horrible track record in this regard, that's where people need to put their foot down.

Lies, no matter how strongly believed, are still lies. Spreading lies is wrong, period.

Tilia · Post by **Tilia** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:43 pm

Cephus wrote:
Tilia wrote:But if those people go to heaven as a result of their faith, who will care if they believe that the earth is flat? What does it avail a man to believe that the world is round, but lose his soul?

There's no evidence to support the existence of heaven or souls,
There is evidence in the Bible. Some may not consider it good evidence, and others may consider it very good evidence, but dislike that evidence enough to claim mendaciously that it is not good evidence, but evidence it undoubtedly is.

It is useless to look for formal proof that Christianity is right or wrong; and indeed I think it is wrong to even seek to prove Christianity in that way. The charge given to the church is to preach the gospel, and to live it, as evidence of its truth; those who are to believe it will do so, and those who are not, will not.

Up until those adherents start trying to force their beliefs on others, that's fine.
Anyone who tries to force their beliefs on others does not accept the teaching of Jesus, who specifically told his disciples to walk away from those who did not accept their gospel.

'"If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them."' (Luke 9:5 NIV)

Christians do not stay where they are not wanted. Any religion that practises enforced enrolment is not Christian, and if it claims to be, it is anti-Christian. The authentic Christian response is quite the reverse, i.e. to be extremely careful about who is accepted as being Christian.

When they try to get laws passed, bully people, or worse yet, kill the infidels to silence ideas that they don't believe in, and let's face it, Christianity has a horrible track record in this regard, that's where people need to put their foot down.
I agree entirely, but of course this is not Christianity. It is actually the very reverse of Christianity, a false, toothless version of it to displace real Christianity, which threatens evil men and their pursuits. It is this unwitting testimony of false Christians that is powerful evidence that Christianity is indeed the truth.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:10 pm

There is evidence in the Bible. Some may not consider it good evidence, and others may consider it very good evidence, but dislike that evidence enough to claim mendaciously that it is not good evidence, but evidence it undoubtedly is.

Evidence supports itself. While many Christians claim evidence, very few show such evidence. A book written thousands of years ago by superstitious men represents no evidence of heaven or God whatsoever. Just superstition and tradition. There are many books around the world in different cultures, even older and wiser than the Bible, why consider this one special?

Tilia · Post by **Tilia** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:56 pm

trencacloscas wrote:
There is evidence in the Bible. Some may not consider it good evidence, and others may consider it very good evidence, but dislike that evidence enough to claim mendaciously that it is not good evidence, but evidence it undoubtedly is.

Evidence supports itself.
I don't know what you mean by that.

While many Christians claim evidence, very few show such evidence.
I don't know what you mean by that, either.

A book written thousands of years ago by superstitious men represents no evidence of heaven or God whatsoever.
How is it known that they were superstitious?

Just superstition and tradition.
What evidence is there that the Bible authors were committing to record a pre-existent tradition? If they were, does it have any bearing on the truth of that record?

There are many books around the world in different cultures, even older and wiser than the Bible, why consider this one special?
How is it known that other books are wiser? The Bible has been a best-seller since before the invention of printing, despite opposition from religious and political agencies. How can that be explained?

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:36 pm

Tilia wrote:There is evidence in the Bible. Some may not consider it good evidence, and others may consider it very good evidence, but dislike that evidence enough to claim mendaciously that it is not good evidence, but evidence it undoubtedly is.

The 'evidence' in the Bible is about as convincing as the 'evidence' in the Qu'ran or the 'evidence' in the Vedas. They are just claims that are not supported by objective proof, or in many case, that fly in the face of objective proof. In fact, it's really no more objectively convincing than using H.P. Lovecraft to prove that Cthulhu exists.

Anyone who tries to force their beliefs on others does not accept the teaching of Jesus, who specifically told his disciples to walk away from those who did not accept their gospel.

Good, let's tell all the people who are pushing for a gay-marriage ban that they're not Christian. Let's tell the people who want to put creationism and the ten commandments into school classrooms that they're not Christian. That should cut down on the poll numbers quite a bit, don't you think?

Tilia · Post by **Tilia** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:13 pm

Cephus wrote:
Tilia wrote:There is evidence in the Bible. Some may not consider it good evidence, and others may consider it very good evidence, but dislike that evidence enough to claim mendaciously that it is not good evidence, but evidence it undoubtedly is.

The 'evidence' in the Bible is about as convincing as the 'evidence' in the Qu'ran or the 'evidence' in the Vedas.
That seems pretty conclusive then! Very many millions believe in those. The Qur'an of course holds to the existence of heaven and souls, being a crude re-write, after the facts, of the Bible (imv, of course). The Vedas reflect belief in the immortal soul (atman), as do the Upanishads, as do religions of many regions and eras from the earliest, to those of ancient Egypt, to the ancestor-worship of modern Japan. Lack of belief in an after-life is very modern, as far as I can see, and, as is commonly reputed, there are no atheists in a sinking ship.

They are just claims that are not supported by objective proof, or in many case, that fly in the face of objective proof.
Where is the objective proof that what you write is true? And does the majority of humanity care about 'objective proof' anyway?

Anyone who tries to force their beliefs on others does not accept the teaching of Jesus, who specifically told his disciples to walk away from those who did not accept their gospel.

Good, let's tell all the people who are pushing for a gay-marriage ban that they're not Christian.
Is that 'pushing' by democratic means, for democratic rights? Are Christians or any other group to be denied those means and rights?

Let's tell the people who want to put creationism and the ten commandments into school classrooms that they're not Christian.

Christians tell them that, though very few want to listen, and even fewer to their reasons. But again, if one has democracy, one has to put up with people one does not agree with, and produce convincing arguments to persuade voters that they are wrong, and not whinge about them.

Incidentally, if one is truly opposed to these views, one will not refer to people as 'creationists' to exclude evolutionary creationists. Those who believe in a literal early Genesis (however inconsistently) should be referred to as 'young-earth creationists' (YECs) or 'six-day creationists'. Appropriate descriptions of those keen to push the Decalogue are 'Judaisers' and 'legalists'. One could use a good Pauline word and just call them 'dogs', and they could hardly complain, but it is probably inadvisable to do so, in public anyway.