Lord Liar or Lunatic

Gaunt · Post by **Gaunt** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:52 pm

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?

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:40 am

Amadeus wrote:
As for the flood, they have found fish fossils in the middle of the destert.

That is true - last January I travelled throught he White Desert in Egypt and found fossils of sea creatures.

The fact thet 20 million years ago the whole Sahara Basin was a sea may have had something to do with it. The White Desert itself is so named because of the calcite rock formations which look remarkably like the bottom of the ocean.

The Sahara was definitely flooded - no doubt about it - about 30 million years before man first stubbed his toe on a rock.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:17 am

GreenLight311 wrote:If Christians don't look for their own evidence to show Christianity holds Truth, who will? It's laughable to think that most of those other archaeologists would even care to truly search for evidence that supports the Bible.

Umm, any decent archaeologist will collect ALL evidence, from aerial surveys to microscopic pollen grains. Whether that evidence supports or refutes the bible is a secondary consideration at best.
An analogy to a Christian archaeologist truly searching for evidence that supports the bible would be a lawyer, pleading his case, using only the evidence that supports his case, and ignoring the rest.
An analogy to an archaeologist (or any scientist for that matter) is a detective who has no answer beforehand and needs all the evidence to form the best possible hypothesis to fit the facts.

GreenLight311 wrote:But there are also the Jews in Israel in an archaeological war with the Palestinians trying to show who was in the land first, and they have found a lot of evidence.

Yes, there are those who try to subvert archaeology to suit their political, ideological, or religious agendas. It is a despicable practice, regardless of whose side one may be on, and has no relationship to objective scientific inquiry. So far the evidence points to the conclusion that Israelis and Palestinians share a common ancestry.

Here's an article that I think you might like from Christianity Today Magazine.

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:15 am

Umm, any decent archaeologist will collect ALL evidence, from aerial surveys to microscopic pollen grains.

This has no baring on this discussion.

An analogy to a Christian archaeologist truly searching for evidence that supports the bible would be a lawyer, pleading his case, using only the evidence that supports his case, and ignoring the rest.

A Lawyer that knows his client is innocent can do a lot of things and get away with it, including "ignoring the rest". All he has to prove is that there is no way his client is guilty. Similarly, all a Christian archaeologist must do, while knowing God, is to confirm His existence archaeologically.

An analogy to an archaeologist (or any scientist for that matter) is a detective who has no answer beforehand and needs all the evidence to form the best possible hypothesis to fit the facts.

And how do detectives know where to find these clues, and clues for what? They don't just walk around searching... they have a premise to go off of and they search around that premise. Your analogy works for a detective ONLY if the detective was not hired for anything, and is searching for clues to nothing.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:01 pm

GreenLight311 wrote:
An analogy to a Christian archaeologist truly searching for evidence that supports the bible would be a lawyer, pleading his case, using only the evidence that supports his case, and ignoring the rest.
A Lawyer that knows his client is innocent can do a lot of things and get away with it, including "ignoring the rest". All he has to prove is that there is no way his client is guilty. Similarly, all a Christian archaeologist must do, while knowing God, is to confirm His existence archaeologically.

I think the point here is that the purpose of lawyering is not to get at the truth, but to maintain a certain level of representation, something that many of us accuse religions of doing. There is certainly a history of Christians denying or even hiding scientific evidence in favor of some religious idea or another. There is no way of knowing whether or not the client even exists, let alone knowing how to adjudicate the proceedings.

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:12 pm

There is no way of knowing whether or not the client even exists

How do you know? Please take me through the process and explain to me how you are positive that there is no way of knowing. Because I claim to know, and I claim that all Christians know.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:02 pm

Q to greenlight311:

Ever hear of hermaphrodites?

A: Yes I have; but if humans cannot truly be seperated into "male and female" then why don't they have hermaphrodite bathrooms? Or hermaphrodite showers and changing rooms at a public gym? Why, when you're filling out government forms that ask if you are a male or a female, isn't there an "other" option?

I just love your reasoning abilities.
Tell me, do all hermaphrodites belong to the same sex?
If so, which is it? If not, how is their sex determined?

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:16 pm

If not, how is their sex determined?

Their sex is determined by how they choose to live their lives, I would suppose.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:22 pm

GreenLight311 wrote:If Christians don't look for their own evidence to show Christianity holds Truth, who will? It's laughable to think that most of those other archaeologists would even care to truly search for evidence that supports the Bible.
I wrote:Umm, any decent archaeologist will collect ALL evidence, from aerial surveys to microscopic pollen grains.
GreenLight311 wrote:This has no baring on this discussion.

On the contrary, this is the heart of the matter. If one is willing to ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with their preconceived ideas, they can
'prove' just about anything. For example, based on my personal experience of the world I could 'prove' that the earth is flat just by ignoring the evidence from satellite photos, etc. but this doen't make it so.
You must be truly ignorant of archaeological methods if you think that secular archaeologists are willing to ignore any evidence that they can possibly find. I find it interesting that you suggest that a 'Christian archaeologist' (as though there even is such a thing) can and should be selective in the evidence that they consider, and in the next statement suggest that other archaeologists do the same thing! Maybe you think that secular archaeology is a tool of the devil, or that archaeologists earn their degrees so that they can join the vast conspiracy to discredit the bible.
A 'Christian archaeologist', as the name implies, certainly has an agenda, in your own words "to confirm His existence archaeologically". A secular archaeologist is under no such constraint, and is free to examine ALL the evidence that is available before making any conclusions. The 'Christian archaeologist' already has his conclusions before he even begins. He needn't bother going to all that trouble really.
Even if you do believe that archaeologists are biased (which is only your opinion, you haven't demonstrated it to be fact), or if you don't agree with their conclusions (based upon your personal beliefs) this still doesn't support your statement that "Archaeology consistently and strongly confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible".The archaeologists themselves disagree with you.

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:28 pm

No no no

I am simply saying that a non-Christian archaeologist will NEVER consider the Truth in Christianity based on their archaeological finds. They believe that it is nonsense, and when/if they find evidence supporting the Christian view, there's no doubt that they will begin to explain it in some other way. Their views are biased and we cannot rely on their interpretations of evidence.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:53 pm

GreenLight

Thank you for your opinion. How many of these archaeologists do you know personally? If you can ever provide evidence for these claims please let me know.
You have failed to support your claim that "Archaeology consistently and strongly confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible", but you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you disagree with archaeological findings that you disagree with, based upon your belief that these findings are incorrect because you disagree with them, and the archaeologists who found them are disagreeable because they disagree with you.
They still don't "consistently and strongly confirm the historical accuracy of the bible", and they say as much.