Lord Liar or Lunatic

[Gaunt]

In the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic trilemma, it is argued that Jesus, since he claimed to be the son of god, could only have either been telling the truth (and was the son of god), been lying (and thus could not have been a good moral teacher), or been stark raving mad (and, thus, while also being a poor moral teacher, should have been locked away).

Siddhartha Gautama claimed that he was able to break free from the cycle of reincarnation without the use of gods or asceticism, which was a fairly large claim on its own. Yet most people consider his teachings to be good morally. So, to my question. Why is it acceptable to view Buddha as a good moral teacher without accepting his claims about reincarnation, but not acceptable to hold Jesus as a good moral teacher without buying into his claims?

[chrispalasz]

bernee51: The reason he only offers those 3 choices is because the "legend choice" has been deemed irrational by even the most atheistic (while still posessing rationality) Biblical scholars. It is simply a bad argument.

2nd: I don't understand why you feel you need to respond to my posts with those comments. We have clearly demonstrated to each other that we will not come to an agreement. You have arguments that the Bible is not accurate... I have many counterarguments that it is 100% accurate and the infallible Word of God. Please, can we just agree to disagree? I'll share a response from my worldview perspective. You are welcome to share a response from yours. Please remember to attack the issue of the Christian Worldview with your statements.

But on the other regarding the question you inquired about:
Buddha's teachings on reincarnation and Nirvana conflict with the teachings of Jesus. I'm sure there are more, but that's enough for me.

BeHereNow:

We do not choose the truth in the Bible because we want it... that's against Christian teachings.

That is exactly what all Christians do. That is why there are various denominations. Disagreement about what the "Truth" of the bible is.

There are various denominations because there are many people professing to be Christians that are not and because there are many people leading others astray with false teachings. This is all predicted in the Bible and it is all explained. We know the truth of these denominations, as well as which ones are correct and which ones are not, by comparing their claims with the Word of God (The Bible).

The teachings of Paul have many examples. Women may not speak or teach in the church;

The verses regarding men and women need to be read together in a large context in order not to warp the true meaning of them. Women may not teach over a man. This is true. A woman cannot be the authority teacher. A woman is able to teach only if there is a man (husband, pastor or boss) that is allowing them to teach as a way of serving them. Men and women are equal, but they also have different roles. Both are hard roles to fill.

divorce is forbidden; single people should remain single, unless lust burns too hot in their loins, then they should marry rather than sin;

Divorce is wrong just like any other sin. A married couple should never divorce. They may separate, but but they may not divorce and may only be come back to each other (not somebody different) if they choose.

Why don't you quote these verses so you don't end up being so misleading with them? Or at least cite the passage. Much of this stuff Paul wrote, not as God's law, but as his recommendation. And he states that before he says it.

is the foot washing an integral part of communion?

No. It is not, and this is not controversial. I don't know why you added it. I don't know any churches that use the foot washing. It seems that they understand the theological and symbolic reasons for Jesus doing this but that you may not.

Is baptism for infants or age of consent?

Baptism is for age of consent. There is no place in the Bible that indicates that baptism of infants. Baptism is symbolic and is a personal choice that a person makes in declaring that they will follow and serve the Lord Jesus Christ from that point on, not affraid to say so. That is the entire point. An infant cannot do this.

On and on it goes. And that is just the NT. Christ never taught to throw away the OT but that is exactly what many Christians do when looking for the "Truth".

You're right. On and on it goes... but like I said, that was expected even by Jesus Himself. Christ never taught to throw away the OT, and maybe some Christians do so wrongfully. The OT is an integral part of Christianity and it explains much. "Christians" that throw out the OT when looking for the "truth", in fact, are not Christians at all.

Finding two Christians who agree on every jot and tittle is a nearly impossible task

Some things are not important knowledge to being a Christian... but we still have beliefs regarding them. This doesn't matter at all. This statement applies to ANY person... not JUST Christianity.

Finding two __Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics, Secular Humanists__ who agree on every jot and tittle is a nearly impossible task

If you have questions on what Christians believe or why there is conflict - you should research the answers... not make such uninformed speculations. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[bernee51]

I bet you can find the same amount of arguments in any religions.
Take Shiite and Suni Muslims for example.

That may be true...but it is begging the question.

How can a 'divinely inspired' nmesage be open to such interpretation and dissent within the christian community.

[Corvus]

In this case (with Muslims), the argument is made because Muslims do use part of the Bible as scripture, and they claim Jesus was a prophet. Also, the Qu'uran mentions Jesus as a prophet.

What does someone have to compare the teachings of Jesus with if they hold some to be true but not all? How does somebody know that part of it is truth and not another part? If you say that something Jesus says is true and something else He says is NOT true... what is your reasoning? Simply because you that's what you want to believe? Or are you comparing His teachings with the teachings of another, and eliminating the conflicting teachings, as Christians do?

Are those the only options? I will play devil's advocate - which strikes me as a rather inappropriate term if I am defending a type of Christian. I think the difference between fundamental or literal Christians and liberal Christians is that one perceives the bible as a testament in the colloquial sense of the word as something that serves as evidence or proof (the gold medal was a testament to his ability as an athlete) while the other sees it as a testimony. If we were detectives, we would compare all accounts and see which details add up. We would read into the accounts the bias and character of the individuals who write them and find if they are making a false claim. We might also look at forensic evidence, but since that is pretty scarce, seeing as Jesus only caused a disturbance in some Hebrew backwater, and no traces of his miracles remain, except, perhaps, the highly controversial shroud of Turin, things are rather difficult for the person who does not believe that the accounts are infallible and infused with the inspiration of the holy spirit. But still these documents are, at least to them, the best revelation of the nature of God and the only record of his divine new covenant and his message for mankind. Recurring messages and events can be seen, and one can assume most of what is in the accounts is true, so why be pedantic about certain details? No policeman or detective will throw away an eyewitness account as soon as he sees a detail that doesn't add up, or something that simply isn't true, so I wonder why the same should not apply to what I will henceforth refer to as "sceptical Christians" or even Muslims. One shouldn't have to leave their critical faculties locked away when approaching any document.

[bernee51]

The reason he only offers those 3 choices is because the "legend choice" has been deemed irrational by even the most atheistic (while still posessing rationality) Biblical scholars. It is simply a bad argument.

the only reason old mate Josh didn't mention legend is because it did not fit in with his theories. It is clearly not the case that the 'legend choice' is irrational given quality and scope of the arguments towards a legend view.

2nd: You have arguments that the Bible is not accurate... I have many counterarguments that it is 100% accurate and the infallible Word of God.

Actually I have not provided arguments rather I have provided examples of the inconsistencies and absurdities in the bible. You claim, without any evidence, that it is 100% accurate and the word of god.

Please remember to attack the issue of the Christian Worldview with your statements.

OK - was Jesus moral?

Luke 14.16 ....If anyone comes to Me, and does not [1] hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

An example of family values?

Matt.10:34 says, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Do you agree that the world needs yet another sword?

Romans 13:1-2...For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Lucky the revolutionaries in colonial USofA didn't follow this one isn't it. Or the Northern Alliance against the Taliban.

[bernee51]

A woman is able to teach only if there is a man (husband, pastor or boss) that is allowing them to teach as a way of serving them. Men and women are equal,..

So a woman can teach if there is a man allowing them...and men and women are equal.
Hmmmm. Interesting.

[chrispalasz]

There is a reason why distinguised non-Christian Bible scholars don't make the argument that Jesus the man never existed: Because it's obvious to them that He was.

There is a good reason why non-Christian Bible scholars don't point out the following passages in Bible scripture: Because they are Bible scholars. They read the Bible and study it... and while they are missing the Truth and the Big Picture, they do understand the context of what was written.

bernee51 wrote:

OK - was Jesus moral?

Luke 14.16 ....If anyone comes to Me, and does not [1] hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

An example of family values?

Matt.10:34 says, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Do you agree that the world needs yet another sword?

Romans 13:1-2...For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Lucky the revolutionaries in colonial USofA didn't follow this one isn't it. Or the Northern Alliance against the Taliban.

These examples are void of any valued argument that anyone would want to try to make out of them. It's not even necessary to respond and explain. All I have to say is: Go to these verses and read them in context to see the answers. It's always a good idea to read something before quoting it.

These examples are like...
Taking a newspaper and cutting out letters of the alphabet and then pasting them together to make profane words... then telling everyone that the newspaper uses profane words.

It simply doesn't work, and it needs no outside explanation.
I presuppose that somebody might say: "Hah! You're not responding because you don't HAVE the answers!"

And to that I will say: Read the passages... in context.

[BeHereNow]

I bet you can find the same amount of arguments in any religions.
Take Shiite and Suni Muslims for example.

Agreed.
The question then becomes are these other religions also so vocal in saying they do not “interpret”, but merely follow the written word. And again the answer is probably “yes, they do”. So we could generalize and say that all followers of the book claim to have the One True understanding of God and his written word. Of course there are many individual exceptions. Is it possible for all of them to have the "one True" understanding when they disagree?

Why don't you quote these verses so you don't end up being so misleading with them?

Here are a few:

Women and men who divorce and remarry are committing adultery (Mark 10:11-12)
[11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
[12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Women must learn in silence, and can not teach men. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Men and women should get married so that they do not sin in fornication. It is better if they do not marry, but since it is difficult to remain unmarried and not fornicate, better they should take a spouse. (1 Cor. 7:8-9)
[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

It is acceptable for a believer to be married to an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12-13)
[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

Unmarried women are more spiritual than married women. (1 Cor. 7:34)
[34] There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

It is better to remain single than to get married. (1 Cor 7:37-38)
[37] Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
[38] So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

It is bad for men to have long hair, but good for women. (1 Cor. 11:14-15)
[14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
[15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Women may not speak publicly in churches. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The verses regarding men and women need to be read together in a large context in order not to warp the true meaning of them.

You need to show me where in the bible it says this, because I’ve never read it. By the way, I don’t disagree this. I believe the whole bible needs to be read that way. My problem is most conservative Christians (we used to call them fundamentalists) claim to take the bible literally, but then start saying, “Oh, it doesn’t mean that. You have to see the bigger picture.” But when an evolutionist says they same thing, they claim “foul!”.

Quote:
is the foot washing an integral part of communion?

No. It is not, and this is not controversial. I don't know why you added it. I don't know any churches that use the foot washing. It seems that they understand the theological and symbolic reasons for Jesus doing this but that you may not.

You should visit a Church of the Brethren. One of my pastors explained that this is why he was Church of the Brethren. He believed everything in the bible, then he would quote John 13:14. And of course this was not just his personal belief, but the church as well. So some things in the bible are “symbolic” (?). Again, you need to show me where in the bible it says this, and more importantly, which verses are symbolic (and not literal).

John 13:[14] If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

Baptism is for age of consent. There is no place in the Bible that indicates that baptism of infants. Baptism is symbolic and is a personal choice that a person makes in declaring that they will follow and serve the Lord Jesus Christ from that point on, not affraid to say so. That is the entire point. An infant cannot do this.

As you are probably aware, many Christians disagree with you. They would say that baptism is a rebirth, the washing away of their sinful side. And that if they are not reborn they will not go to heaven. So least those infants die before they are “born again”, their parents stand in for them and declare they will live a Christian life.

If you have questions on what Christians believe or why there is conflict - you should research the answers... not make such uninformed speculations. I would be happy to answer any questions.

I have done this. I made no uninformed speculations. I have probably done more research that you yourself have done (not about your particular brand of Christianity, but about Christianity in general). I have regularly attended may protestant churches, occasionally attended Catholic mass, spent many hours listening to “independent” ministers (Bob Larson, John Ankerberg come to mind) I found your “statement of faith” and am looking forward to reading it in more detail.

We are all free to hold whatever spiritual beliefs we may. I need to get on my soapbox when someone says there is only one correct way to read the bible, and that is to take every passage literally so as not to corrupt it, and then they start explaining why certain passages need to be read in a larger context. It can’t be had both ways. I believe everything written in the bible is true from a biblical perspective. I believe that no individual accepts all passages literally (with a very few exceptions, and you are not an exception).They (WE, I) accept(s) what our inner voice tells us is correct, then seek justification for our beliefs.

Unfortunatly I have to go to work. There are other posts I am looking forward to answering.

[bernee51]

And to that I will say: Read the passages... in context.

Even in context they don't look too good

Did this fall between the cracks...

GreenLight311 wrote:

2nd: You have arguments that the Bible is not accurate... I have many counterarguments that it is 100% accurate and the infallible Word of God.

Bernee answered:

Actually I have not provided arguments rather I have provided examples of the inconsistencies and absurdities in the bible. You claim, without any evidence, that it is 100% accurate and the word of god.

I'm still unaware of any evidence supporting the 100% accuracy of the bible and that it is the word of god.

Care to share GL?

[Amadeus]

Something makes me wonder if you will ever consider any evidence that is put before you. Why are you in this forum? Of COURSE you will not believe in Christ, because you don't believe in God in the first place. Baby steps, my friend. You should go to a philosophical argument for/against the existence of God before tackling Christ.

[chrispalasz]

I have done this. I made no uninformed speculations. I have probably done more research that you yourself have done (not about your particular brand of Christianity, but about Christianity in general). I have regularly attended may protestant churches, occasionally attended Catholic mass, spent many hours listening to “independent” ministers (Bob Larson, John Ankerberg come to mind) I found your “statement of faith” and am looking forward to reading it in more detail.

You're probably right. I am not doubting your intelligence. I hope you don't think I'm doing this. And you very well may be more researched than myself, but I have highlighted your problem in bold, dark blue letters.

Your scope of research is too broad, and you are assuming falsly. There are no "brands" of Christianity. Using different criteria, you can seperate people into many categories.

Some examples are:

There are men, and there are women.
There are people that believe in God, and there are people that don't.

Your area of research is too vague. There are not:
Christians (1), and Christians (2), and Christians (3)... and Christians (n+1), and non-Christians.

There are Christians, and there are non-Christians. Only two types. There are no brands. Your research in studying Christianity is too vague and too broad because there are so many people being mislead by others who proclaim to be Christians but are not (They do not hold the faith, they do not know Jesus Christ).

Every "christianity" that humans establish is flawed.
The only true Christianity was established by God. There is only one, just as there is only one God. God's church, as explained in the Bible, consists not of a group of people that congregate in a building every Sunday, but within each person that contains the Holy Spirit of God. The Jewish temple made of stone was raized, and the Temple of God was raised inside of human beings that accept the sacrifice made by Jesus. Thus, each building or denomination will hold many people... some Christians and some only claiming to believe. But Christianity is within those that have the Holy Spirit. The Bible says we will recognize Christians by how they act and what they do! It says they will proclaim Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior and that they will do good works! The Bible ALSO says what people who are NOT Christians act like, and it says that Christians should not have fellowship with these people or follow their example.

This book is one that explains who Christians are, and is short. Galatians 2:15-21; Galatians 3)

(1 John) This book is short and explains how we know who Christians are.

This post (on another thread) covers the part about Christians having fellowship only with other Christians. It also has passages that explain who not to have fellowship with.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =8090#8090

You need to show me where in the bible it says this, because I’ve never read it.

I don't understand what would give you the idea that:

1) This wouldn't be the case for Christians
2) The Bible would need to say these words

These two items will need to be addressed before I can continue. Apart from that, with everything the Bible does say... if humanity needs the Bible to say everything in short, simple sentences in order for those things to be understood, then we have indeed reduced ourselves to a very sad and poor level of understanding. To the contrary, God has said in the Bible that no matter how He says things, some people will understand and some won't, regardless of claims.

If God made everything regarding Himself and His plan crystal clear so that first graders could read the words... some would understand and still some would not.

If God took some sort of enormous and majestic form and stood in the most public areas of the world and demonstrated that He was God using objective evidence... indeed, some would understand and accept Him, yet others would not.

Isaiah 6:8-13

It does not matter how God presents Himself - except to say that He is currently doing it with perfection. Those who hate Him and reject Him would do so no matter what.

I am very excited to see that you are researching. I have also attended many churches and investigated many beliefs. Because I was raised Catholic... after I became a Christian (I am not Catholic) I did a lot of research on Catholic dogma. It's very interesting.

These are all repetitive questions that I have previously addressed. Feel free to take a look:

The Bible is reliable:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =8167#8167

It does have evidence supporting it:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =8328#8328

Jesus does proclaim to be God in the Bible:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =7742#7742

The Bible is amazingly accurate and all passages and contexts fit together and can be reconciled from any misinterpretations or misunderstandings that arise. An example is given here by reconciling the resurrection from misinterpretations and acclaimed contradictions. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =8323#8323