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?

[Corvus]

Not acceptable by whom, Gaunt? I have seen some atheists/agnostics write here that Jesus had some good ideas, and even admonishing Christians for not following his precepts, or doing so only when it suits them.

[Gaunt]

Sorry, I should have clarified that. I meant not acceptable by those using the aforementioned argument as a means of converting others.

[Corvus]

Now that I have seen the argument in use, I feel I can comment. This is just a guess but I believe this is a result of the method of looking at things which a more fundamentalist belief in the bible coaches. Since to disagree with one part of the bible often amounts to an assault on the foundations of the rest, this often gives rise to a yes or no, true or false, black and white perspective on things. We have seen this in the case of Creationism versus Evolution where evolution is perceived as an attack against God because it comes into direct conflict with a part of the Bible's territory; the existence of a specific kind of creator. This manner of thinking, I am guessing, manifests itself in the trilemma, which, as you can see, gives a fairly polarised example of things, which fails to take into account other possible perceptions of Jesus. To reject his divinity while accepting his messages probably seems, to a certain kind of Christian, like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I hope that makes sense.

[Amadeus]

The only reply that I have is that Budda would not be exempt from that same argument, except in my belief, Budda was probably self-delusioned.

[chrispalasz]

8)

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?

I've never heard the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic argument either. Intersting! I don't think it's a very good argument... but I'll tackle it anyway.

Here's the reason:

When we take Buddha and his teachings... we can say that he was a moral teacher because he taught some of the same things Jesus taught (to spread peace and harmony and love). Since some of what Buddha taught was also what Jesus taught, and Jesus was perfectly moral, then we can conclude that SOME of what Buddha taught was moral. The parts of Buddha's teachings that conflict with Jesus' are blesphemous, so we cannot accept them. Everything is compared and contrasted with Jesus' teachings, which are held to be truth.

So it seems this argument is mostly useful when presenting it to people that say they're Christians but that do not hold the entire Bible and Jesus' teachings to be true.

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?

I've met people that choose their beliefs because that's what they want to believe. Christians choose to be Christians because the Truth is known to us, and we rejoice in that.

We do not choose the truth in the Bible because we want it... that's against Christian teachings. How could humans be so evil and sinful, yet want to choose Christianity? Humans, by our sinful nature, want to choose what is sinful. God is the one that first chooses us - and we accept His love and truth with satisfaction because we are able to see it through the Holy Spirit. Jesus redeems us with His Grace through blood and sacrifice. The Holy Spirit reconciles us through faith. The Father knows us and speaks to us through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

[bernee51]

I've never heard the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic argument either. Intersting! I don't think it's a very good argument... but I'll tackle it anyway.

For some reason, I'm not exactly sure why, I find that reassuring GL

When we take Buddha and his teachings... we can say that he was a moral teacher because he taught some of the same things Jesus taught (to spread peace and harmony and love).

In the interests of accuracy...
The Christ taught much of what Buddha is repute to have taught some 500 years earlier.

Since some of what Buddha taught was also what Jesus taught, and Jesus was perfectly moral,...

Jesus was perfectly moral?

The parts of Buddha's teachings that conflict with Jesus' are blesphemous, so we cannot accept them. Everything is compared and contrasted with Jesus' teachings, which are held to be truth.

what do you consider as blasphemous of the Buddha's teachings?

So it seems this argument is mostly useful when presenting it to people that say they're Christians but that do not hold the entire Bible and Jesus' teachings to be true.
It is patently not all "true".

You are no doubt aware of and have been shown the contradictions and absurdities contained within your book of myth. I do not know, and perhaps never will, on what basis you claim it to be entire truth.

You are claiming the bible to be inerrant, infallible. It is clearly not.

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?

This, naturally, begs the question...on what basis have you decided that ll of the alleged teachings of Jesus are in fact 'true'.

I've met people that choose their beliefs because that's what they want to believe. Christians choose to be Christians because the Truth is known to us, and we rejoice in that.

begs the same question.

[bernee51]

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

Josh McDowell (a much quoted apologist) in More Than A Carpenter offered three choices: "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord." But what about another possibility: Legend.

If this is tha case it would rather naive to take his supposed teachings at face valiue.

There is a very well presented analysis of the resurrection story here. A very brief sample...

"A legend begins with a basic story (true or false) that grows into something more embellished and exaggerated as the years pass. When we look at the documents of the resurrection of Jesus, we see that the earliest accounts are very simple, later retellings are more complex, and the latest tales are fantastic. In other words, they look exactly like a legend.

The documents that contain a resurrection story[30] are usually dated like this:

Writer Date Resurrection passage
Paul: 50-55 (I Cor. 15:3-8}
Mark: 70 (Mark 16)
Matthew: 80 (Matthew 28}
Luke: 85 (Luke 24)
Gospel of Peter: 85-90 (Fragment)
John: 95 (John 20-21)

This is the general dating agreed upon by most scholars, including the Westar Institute. Some conservative scholars prefer to date them earlier, and others have moved some of them later, but this would not change the order of the writing, which is more important than the actual dates when considering legendary growth. Shifting the dates changes the shape but not the fact of the growth curve.

I made a list of things I consider "extraordinary" (natural and supernatural) in the stories between the crucifixion and ascension of Jesus: earthquakes, angel(s), rolling stone, dead bodies crawling from Jerusalem graves ("Halloween"), Jesus appearing out of thin air ("Now you see him") and disappearing ("Now you don't"), the "fish story" miracle, Peter's noncanonical "extravaganza" exit from the tomb (see below), a giant Jesus with head in the clouds, a talking cross, and a bodily ascension into heaven. Perhaps others would choose a slightly different list, but I'm certain it would include most of the same.

Then I counted the number of extraordinary events that appear in each account:

Writer Extraordinary events
Paul: 0
Mark: 1
Matthew: 4
Luke: 5
Peter: 6
John: 8+"

The full analysis, esopecially when compared to other commentaries on stories generally accepted as legends, clearly (IMHO) demonstrates the real truth of the Jesus story.

I must confess - I sometimes find it rather depressing that it is still the case that many will belittle and deny as blashphemous the legends and beliefs of others yet persist calling their own self deceptions the truth.

[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. The teachings of Paul have many examples. Women may not speak or teach in the church; diviorce is forbidden; single people should remain single, unless lust burns too hot in their loins, then they should marry rather than sin; is the foot washing an integral part of communion?

Is baptism for infants or age of consent?

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".

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

[Amadeus]

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