Our topic at the Vancouver discussion group on Sunday 5-22-10 is “Who is Jesus, Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?”  All info is here:
http://www.meetup.com/Vancouver-Science-Religion-Discussion-Group/calendar/12123179/

We’ll have presentations from an atheist (secular humanist), Christian, and Muslim viewpoint.  I’ll be representing a secular humanist viewpoint.  Here’s something to whet your appetite:

Keep in mind, other religions may ask a similar question

Could a Muslim say this?

“Who was Muhammad: liar, lunatic, or prophet of God?”

Or a Mormon:

“Who was Joseph Smith: liar, lunatic, or prophet of God?”

This is the so called “trilemma” invented by chief apologist of the 2oth century, C.S. Lewis. Tired old apologist argument that has been shot down many, may times.

You’ve picked up on the central flaw of the argument.

L. Ron Hubbard? Same questions could apply.

You missed the most likely one (as did CS Lewis)... “Legend”  like Paul Bunyan.

KurtJ - 22 June 2010 01:12 AM

You missed the most likely one (as did CS Lewis)... “Legend”  like Paul Bunyan.

No- I got it.  That was similar to my answer.

Mike from Oz - 24 May 2010 08:25 PM

This is the so called “trilemma” invented by chief apologist of the 2oth century, C.S. Lewis. Tired old apologist argument that has been shot down many, may times.

Make it a quad.

Jesus was a Humanist philosopher teaching the species the new rules around the urbanization of the Med. His story was told the same way such peoples recount things today - with hyperbole- the marketing of his day.

I was going to poin out that you missed ‘legend’ , but others have pointed out this omission. As for Joseph Smith, he was a liar and a con man, as was L Ron Hubbard.

I believe the poll should have included: Sincere, but misguided.

I believe there a several examples of “prophets” who were sincere and did not proselytize for gain. Thus it would not be fair to call them liars or charlatans.

People can hallucinate without being ‘lunatics.’  In fact, i think this used to be the norm.

Socrates was already outside the norm as a frequent hallucinator in his own day, but is a good example, along with the prophets of old.

fwiw, the ancient hebrew word “nabim”, often translated as ‘prophet’, referred to all such ‘visionaries’, the vast majority of whom (by about 400 b.c.) were regarded as crazy, but a few of whom were regarded as visionaries… and there wasn’t a bright shining line between… [according to julian jaynes, princeton psychohistorian].

so, i agree with w4u:  socrates, again, is another example of one who not only ‘did not proslytize for gain,’ but refused to even teach for money.  In my opinion, this made him more susceptible to corruption, because i suspect he got money (thought it’s not known either way) from wealthy athenians who approved of his anti-democratic message.  But i still think he contributed a lot.

I also find it interesting that in old “primitive” societies, the “shaman” or “spirit talker” often used hallucigenics to induce the “visions”.  Kind of a free will lunacy….

But the point, many great thinkers used hallucigenics (mind expanding drugs), and what does “mind expanding” mean in context other than self induced lunacy?

I had a neighbor who spoke “in tongue”.  She did in fact demonstrate it and I was amazed at the smooth flow and cadence of the sounds she uttered for about 3 minutes. It was completely incomprehensible and she herself admitted she did not know the meaning of the words, but she was convinced that she was communicating something to someone, rather than uttering random grunts and clicks.

If Jesus actually existed and some of the claims of his teachings are in fact valid, I would place him in the category of “egocentric philosopher”. Which is too bad, because the scriptural accounts of his life contain so many inaccuracies which tend to obscure a great deal of his philosophically valid messages.

egocentric?

isaac - 29 April 2011 10:17 PM

egocentric?

Well, yes, obviously he believed he was the son of god, I would call that egocentric (being generous). As long as his wisdom had/has validity I would not call him a lunatic, much as I would not call Socrates or even John Nash a lunatic.

On the other hand, anyone who thinks that he has the “god given” right to kill those who do not believe like he does, is definitely a lunatic.

I don’t know the word ‘egocentric’ very well, and i don’t know jesus very well;; but you might be right.

isaac - 30 April 2011 11:25 AM

I don’t know the word ‘egocentric’ very well, and i don’t know jesus very well;; but you might be right.

e·go·cen·tric (g-sntrk, g-)

3. Philosophy
a. Viewed or perceived from one’s own mind as a center.
b. Taking one’s own self as the starting point in a philosophical system.

As evidenced by the scriptural words “only trough me…....”

see also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olE06nSACjs

If he even said that.  The gospel of john seems especially suspect to me.

but thanks.  that helped.