| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > Lewis' Trilemma |
| Posted by: Zach Nov 30 2004, 10:33 AM | ||
C.S. Lewis said, first on his radio show, then in "Mere Christianity," that
Basically, this amounts to the so-called "trilemma": that Jesus was either a Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. Although I realize that there are at least two other possibilities to consider, that Jesus was Legend or simply Mistaken, I want to focus on the first two that Lewis brushes away as "obviously" wrong. That is to say, why couldn't Jesus have been a Liar or a Lunatic? We have ample evidence in modern times of both; people preaching lies to further their own ends, and people preaching sheer lunacy that usually ends up in their and their followers' deaths. There are many notable examples: Liars: http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jim-bakker/, http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/robert-tilton/ Lunatics: http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/marshall-applewhite/, http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/david-koresh/ Both: http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/l-ron-hubbard/, http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/sun-myung-moon/ Each of these men has proclaimed to know the truth about God (Applewhite even claimed to be the Son of God), mustered a following of supporters (sometimes big, sometimes small), produced new or new interpretations of sacred texts (Hubbard takes the cake for this), and have rubbed the authorities the wrong way (Koresh was even killed by the government). So what makes the idea that Jesus was just like one of them so difficult to believe? Maybe in 1940s England, but certainly not after these individuals have made their impressions over the past 60 years. Nowadays, there are plenty of examples of Liars and Lunatics, but I've yet to see one Lord. I guess the answer isn't as obvious as Lewis thought. |
| Posted by: skankboy Nov 30 2004, 10:47 AM |
| Good topic Zach, I've often pondered this concept in the past. I think I can offer another alternative: history has misinterpreted what he meant by being "the son of God". My understanding is that all jews of the time considered themselves "sons of god." The problem arose when this concept intercepted w/the gentile (specifically greek) concept of demi-gods (literal sons' of gods). So he wasn't necessarily a liar, lunatic or lord. He was a somebody who tried to teach and the lesson was misinterpreted... that is, if he existed at all...  |
| Posted by: Zach Nov 30 2004, 11:01 AM |
| There's also the fact that Jesus never directly made the pronouncement that he was the "Son of God," whether that term was meant to be taken literally or not. |
| Posted by: Saulgoode Nov 30 2004, 11:19 AM |
| If one presupposes Jesus existence and that the Bible acurately reflects his words, then I can see that Jesus couldn't have been a great moral teacher and a liar. Perhaps Lewuis meant that. The entire argument is fallacious until we can establish facts rather than assumptions. |
| Posted by: Zach Nov 30 2004, 11:31 AM |
| Very true- certainly Lewis was operating under those presuppositions, and clearly his argument was meant to refute those who accepted the historicity of Jesus but not his divinity. Lewis wanted to answer those who claimed Jesus to be nothing more than a "moral teacher" with an argument that forced them to accept him as divine. But the only way Lewis could convince himself that the only choice to be made is that Jesus was Lord was to brush off the other two possibilities he considered (Liar or Lunatic) as "obviously" wrong. |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Nov 30 2004, 11:32 AM | ||||
Even as a christian I didn't find Lewis to be a very great apologist. His conclusions often seemed to be of the "Well I think it's obvious, so that settles it. Let's move on" variety. |
| Posted by: quicksand Nov 30 2004, 12:36 PM | ||
Boo Hoo. Poor God is behind enemy lines.
What I find most heinous is that CS sets a basic diametric, binary definition of humanity (i.e. we're evil). Christians really hate everything about humanity. This pins that great Christian value of self-hate and self-loathing wonderfully and succinctly. You know, I have never paid much attention to CS Lewis, because frankly I could care less. Although when I read crap like this, it makes me want to continue not to read him, yet I do understand that like Lee Strobel that CS's writings hold considerate weight for our Christian laden society. (sorry for the aside here... really gets my goat...) |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 30 2004, 12:47 PM | ||||
Hey! Tell them to leave your goat alone...it's the sheep they want.  |
| Posted by: Diogenes Nov 30 2004, 01:39 PM |
| Aren't we neglecting the possibility that he was a poached egg? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 30 2004, 02:14 PM |
| Liars: Liars typically aren't willing to be crucified in order to maintain a lie. Most lies are designed to benefit the liar in some regard -- crucifixion doesn't fit the bill there. The two liars you mentioned as examples obviously had personal gain as a motivation. Lunatics: Lunatics typically are all about power, and not sacrifice. Both of the lunatics you mentioned were not about protecting the small people but rather about establishing their own power. Both of the lunatics you mentioned are all about that sort of power and perversion. While I can understand the motivation for wanting to discredit Jesus Christ in this way it simply doesn't make sense for Jesus Christ or any of His followers to have money or power as a goal in a society that persecuted them. If the testimony of the Bible is to be believed, Jesus displayed neither the typical signs of egomania (lunatic) or the typical signs of a liar (motivation of self advancement) -- according to Lewis. |
| Posted by: Koal Nov 30 2004, 02:27 PM |
| I suppose that would be correct MG, if the xtian bible is factual history. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 30 2004, 02:37 PM | ||||
Who said Jesus was willing?
Having people follow you where ever you go is not about power? Having many people from a society that persecuted him follow him is a mental power trip. Was Keiresh (sp?) a lunatic? People from a society that persecuted him followed him too. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 30 2004, 02:42 PM | ||
Doesn't say anything about power. |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Nov 30 2004, 02:45 PM | ||
MG I think you're channeling C.S. here. Upon what authority do you base this claim of yours about lunatics? I can think of several "lunatics" that involved religious delusions and ended in self-inflicted death including Jim Jones (Jonestown) and Marshall Applewhite/Do (Heaven's Gate). However, these claims of Lewis' are putting the cart before the horse. It's all amusing parlor talk until we establish some basics such as 1. Jesus actually existed, 2. The bible contains accurate information about him, and 3. There is not significant information missing that would be necessary to completely understand him. |
| Posted by: skankboy Nov 30 2004, 03:15 PM | ||
Certainly MG, by Lewis' definition, I think you are correct. My problem is more this Lewis definitions than anything else. The "liar, lunatic, lord" argument is flawed because it doesn't not allow for other possiblities (ie, he was misrepresented by the gospels). I'm a little concerned about your "I can understand the motivation for wanting to discredit Jesus Christ in this way" comment. I believe the point of this discussion was to discredit the argument put forth by Lewis, not xtianity as a whole. Much the same as we would point out flaws in Pascal's Wager or the like. Of course, I may be mistaken... |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 30 2004, 03:25 PM | ||
1. Who said Jesus knew he was lying? Maybe the crazy sumbitch actually thought he was the savior? Then again, that would also make him a 2. lunatic. Like every other sad ward of mental hospitals state-wide who think they are Gods, sons of Gods, prophets, etc. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 30 2004, 03:31 PM | ||||
That is precisely the reason why I ended my post with according to Lewis. I'm not an expert on lunatics -- although observing NBBTB has taught me much. 
I have to admit -- and I do mean all cards on the table here people -- that I find the claim that Christ didn't exist or the Bible as being something other than originally written as weird. (They may be legitimate claims, they strike me as odd). I reject Jim Jones. I don't deny he existed. I don't deny the recorded history of what he claimed for himself. I reject Islam. I don't care if the Koran is accurate, literal, or whatever. The existence of Mohammad doesn't mean beans to me. I don't deny that he made the claims he made. It just seems to me that the position that Christ didn't exist or that the Biblical texts we have today are significantly different than what was originally written is a weak position, even on a good day. For heaven's sake, the Bible claims Christ rose from the dead -- why on earth anyone wanting to dispute Christianity would claim that something as outrageous as that is anything other than originally written is beyond me. Such an outrageous claim seems to play into the hands of a skeptic. It seems to me that a skeptic would want to claim the Bible IS as orginally written and that Christ did say all those things and condemn Him as insane based on a reliable written testimony of His words. I suppose people have their reasons, it just strikes me as very, very odd. |
| Posted by: Ian Nov 30 2004, 03:39 PM |
| Some apologists bring up the agonizing death that Jesus put himself through (since it was God sacrificing himself) is enough proof that he was in fact who they think he was .. David Koresh was killed by being burned alive..arguably the worst way to be killed.. John Lennon : "God is a concept by which we measure our pain " |
| Posted by: Koal Nov 30 2004, 03:58 PM | ||
I'm not sure who claim this. Could you provide some names of skeptics who do? Thanks |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 30 2004, 04:05 PM | ||||
Heimdell and AUB make the claim that the gospels were not written by the claimed authors here: http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1550 Rameus also has set out (if I understand him) to prove that Christ literally didn't exist -- or is merely a compilation of earlier pagan myths. Those are just the people at this site. Their positions aren't uncommon, from what I've seen. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 30 2004, 04:16 PM | ||
Other God men that rose from the dead: Attis, Mithras, Dionysus, Osiris, Krishna. I guess these outrageous claims must be true because they are outrageous. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 30 2004, 04:36 PM | ||||
Has anyone here claimed that the texts supporting the claims of those 'godmen' were forgeries or do people feel free to simply not believe them? I've not seen an Osiris Seminar where skeptics vote on what Osiris said or did not say. That is why the whole thing seems odd to me. |
| Posted by: Koal Nov 30 2004, 04:44 PM | ||||
| These are two different postitions MG. You stated:
My question was : who claims that the original documents did'nt claim that Jesus rose from the dead? Then you answered with :
Yes, there are many, including myself, who conclude that the gospels weren't written by the authors traditionally attributed to them. But what does this have to do with claiming that the resurrection story wasn't part of the original? And as far as the historical existence of a man named Jesus, I for one am inclined to believe this man existed, perhaps even put to death by crucifixtion. It's just the myth woven around this character that I don't subscribe to. |
| Posted by: ToHellWithMe Nov 30 2004, 04:45 PM | ||||
EDIT: added the quote above to make it clearer where my conclusion stems from...
I think i'm slowly getting your point here. So you think the sceptic should shrug off the christian god as easily as they shrug off any of those other gods based on the ridiculousness of the claims their religions include instead of bothering to look for evidence denying the authenticity of the text? Still i feel like i didn't get you right at all because it says "Christian" on the left of your text. Cos isn't this like wondering who the hell believes bible at all, regardless of who wrote it, cos it's so ridiculous?! |
| Posted by: Lokmer Nov 30 2004, 04:51 PM | ||||||||
He didn't, eh? "If anyone comes to me, and doesn't hate his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he can't be my disciple." Luke 14:26 Jesus said a lot of things like this - disowned his family in order to make a point to his followers (his family, BTW, thought he was nuts). In John, he lies about going to Jerusalem and then sneaks down there anyway. He traveled in the company of unmarried women who worshiped him (whom Catholic tradition holds were prostitues, though this claim is baseless from the Bible itself). This is CLASSIC cult-leader behavior. Now, most cult leaders also preach truth and goodness - Jim Jones is a perfect example, the man was the architect of the most successful homeless assistance, racial outreach, and employment programs in San Francisco history - he did a great deal of good. He preached love, tolerance, moral rigor, self-sacrifice, and loyalty to the opressed. He came to believe that he was (literally) the second coming of Jesus. He was persecuted by the authorities. And eventually murdered all of his followers and killed himself. So, Lewis' argument on "lunatic" holds no water, because he argues that a lunatic cannot sound rational. His argument on "liar" holds no water, because he argues that a liar cannot or will not preach something that is manifestly good and true. In Jones we have an example of both. AND in Jesus we have examples of exactly the kind of deranged behavior we would expect from any cult leader.
By "Originally Written" I assume you mean "Eyewitness Accounts." But none of the oldest manuscripts that survive claim to be eyewitness accounts. Luke specificaly claims NOT to be an eyewitness account (in fact, Luke's version of the Passion/resurrection/ascention differs radically from Luke to Acts, which gives the lie to the idea that he thought he was writing history in any sense that we understand the word. His work reads like Epic). Matthew is based on Mark and Q, so is obviously not an eyewitness account. John is so radically different from the synoptics that either Mark or John has to be written by an eyewitness, but not both. The resurrection story does not appear in Mark - the claim to original authorship (chapter 21 IIRC) does not appear in the oldest copies of John. But if these claims strike you as odd, you should investigate them.
Before you make this assertion, you really should read up on the best arguments - I had the same opinion as you, and I read up on the arguments because I couldn't believe anyone would claim something so outrageous. But I found that, indeed, the Christians have the weak position, and the "historical Jesus" crowd has an even weaker one (since, if you consistantly apply their criteria, you wind up with no Jesus at all - and they refuse to consistantly apply their own criteria). The only position that holds water in view of the facts are the Jesus agnostic and Jesus myth positions. But don't take my word for it. Read "Gospel Fictions", read articles on N.T. Midrash, read Price's "Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" and "Deconstructing Jesus." Get the info, then reread your bible, and make up your own mind.
The Christian claims are preposterious on the face of them. But a preposterous claim is not necessarily false. If Jesus was God, then such a claim, while perposterous, could be true. As such, it's dishonest to dismiss the claim out of hand. If you want to investigate the claim, you have to take the claim at face value and attempt to determine if it is true. The only way we have to do that is to investigate the texts for what they are claimed to be. If Christianity is true, then Jesus is the one true revelation of God in human form , and the things Jesus said - at least some of them - should be unique and original. In other words, the point of a revelation from God is to communicate something that men couldn't figure out on their own. Your assertion that the Resurrection is outrageous and unique indicates that you buy this premise. The problem is that there is nothing - not a single word or teaching, nor a single deed or miracle, nor indeed the passion or the resurrection, that is not found in the Old Testament, or the mystery religions, or Greek Novels, or the words and deeds of Pythagorous. The entire narrative is demonstrably cut from the same cloth as the story of Hercules - that is, it is an archetypal story that is as old as humanity itself of the son of a God who does mighty things that brings the wrath of the authority down on him. That the God exalts his son to his right hand, giving him new life after death and the authority to judge the deeds of the living. The ancient Greeks really believed in the historical existence of Hercules. The ancient Romans really believed in Romulus and Remus. The ancient Hebrews really believed in Noah and Adam. The ancient Christians really believed that there was a guy called Jesus. Does that make them any more correct than the others? It is distinctly possible that a man named Yeshua went about the Galilean desert as a faith healer in the 1st c. BCE or CE., and that around this person the god-man mythos accreted. It is also possible that he was always a mythical figure that was given historical personage by enthusiastic novitiates into the movement who wrote about him and didn't know that the stories were parables rather than history. Christianity, and the story of Jesus, fails on every point to be unique or to exhibit ANY qualities of divine revelation. No fulfilled prophecies, but many failed ones. No unique or revolutionary teachings. Not even a feature unusual in its cultural mileiu. -Lokmer |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 30 2004, 05:02 PM | ||
Ok, I've read this 3 times and something is not getting through. |
| Posted by: Lokmer Nov 30 2004, 05:03 PM | ||
There are very few people today (in fact, I've not yet heard of more than a handful) who believe Osiris was a historical personage. But the Egyptians certainly believed it at some stage. As far as the Jesus Seminar "voting" on what someone said or did not say, although I agree with you that there is a certain level of intellectual dishonesty that goes on (i.e. almost all the members are Christians in some sense of the word, and they are inconsistant in applying their criteria and wind up with a Jesus that looks suspiciously like what they think he should look like), it bears pointing out that they use the exact same procedure as the textual critics who decide what was originally in the Bible - i.e. the Bible you read is based on a greek manuscript that is reconstructed by committie vote, following certain criteria. -Lokmer |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 30 2004, 05:35 PM | ||||||
I'm a Christian and I believe the Biblical testimony; however, I also admit that the claims are outrageous. I just find it odd that so much time and effort goes into 'debunking' the Bible when anyone else making the same claims isn't 'debunked', but rather merely ignored. I mean, is there an exSantaClausBeliever.net full of people attempting to debunk the authorship of The Night Before Christmas? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 30 2004, 05:37 PM | ||||
You may be right there. I took AUB and Heimdel to be saying that the gospels were basically a cut and paste job from the ground up with additions and subtractions occuring whenever and wherever need dictated. |
| Posted by: Saulgoode Nov 30 2004, 05:38 PM | ||||
First, accept that Jesus was crucified willingly. Pathological liars lie to make themselves grander than they truly are. However, they do not lie about everything. Haven't you ever known anyone that lies about unimportant things for no reason at all? It often does intend to benefit in some manner, but they also never expect to be caught. Furthermore, this kind of liar tends to believe his own deceit. Its often just to make the person seem bigger or more important than is actually true, which would be consistent with the tale of Jesus. Lunatics aren't about anything other than being "crazy". What makes one a lunatic isn't defined by the power she has achieved, but by her disconnect to reality. This could also include grandeur that produces lying. Lunatics can produce very lucid thoughts and ideas, but it doesn't make them true.
I'm not sure people claim there was no Jesus character, just not as depicted in the bible. Whether or not the text is as originally written we will likely never know. Some things may have been added or taken away, but the assuption is that the bible includes what Jesus said and did accurately and fully; something we don't know. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 30 2004, 05:44 PM | ||||||
Ok, I get it now. Reasons: There aren't very many followers of Osiris trying to take over the government that rules me. I don't have to listen to hymns to Osiris as I shop for nails at the hardware store. I don't see billboards with Osiris saves all over town. I don't have to pay for the Osiris channels on cable, I don't have to be worried about my grandkids getting sucked into Osiris study at school, etc. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 30 2004, 06:05 PM | ||||||||
Good point. |
| Posted by: John Doe Nov 30 2004, 06:54 PM | ||
Is it possible he was a believer willing to be crucified to maintain a belief? For example, some muslims are more than willing to be blown up to maintain a belief. Whether what they believe is actually true or not is irrelevent, because they personally believe it is the truth. In that sense, it seems more than likely Jesus was willing to (and did) die to maintain a truth.....that which he personally believed to be true. It seems to me there is a fine line between lying and lunacy...... that line is called faith. |
| Posted by: Zach Nov 30 2004, 08:05 PM | ||
MG-
I find it odd that so many people, who have no problem recognizing the myth of Santa Claus for what it is have so much trouble recognizing the myth of Jesus Christ for what it is. |
| Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 30 2004, 08:59 PM | ||||||||||
They're excellent points actually.  Here's a few more: We don't have people knocking on our doors in order to tell us the good news of Osiris. We don't have people thriving off of the fear and emotions of other people for Osiris' sake. We don't have children trembling in fear at night because they're scared of an imaginary hell that Osiris created. We don't have the Osiris lies being spread any longer because those societies grew out of it, recognized it for what it is, and let it fall to the wayside of history before allowing it to control masses of people to a point of planetary destruction. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Dec 1 2004, 03:47 AM |
| The funny part about that is if someone did come to my door talking about Osiris I'd almost have to invite them in and hear what is up with all of that.... |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 1 2004, 08:13 AM | ||
Yeah, maybe the first time. After about 50 Osiris visits I bet you'd feel differently.  |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Dec 1 2004, 11:54 AM | ||
 |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Dec 1 2004, 12:16 PM | ||
Oh gawd...MG is right, I am a lunatic. I understood what the hell he said here! Run, run away!!!!  |
| Posted by: fortunehooks Dec 1 2004, 12:36 PM | ||||
i agree with you on that one,zach. it's amusing how we can assault the validity of a philosophical position being held by someone else,and ignore the fact that our position is sinking further into the ground as we stand and convey our thoughts. |
| Posted by: Godless Wonder Dec 1 2004, 02:20 PM |
| I figure Jesus, if he existed, was very much like David Koresh. But, there's another aspect of Lewis' argument that seems wrong. In the beginning of Mere Christianity, he goes on and on about how the conscience, how feelings of guilt are and indication of the existence of some sort of diety, and that these feelings about what is right and what is wrong were put there by a deity. Well, first off, this seems a big stretch to conclude that the only way such feelings could arise is if a deity put them there, but even ignoring that, bigger problems crop up. Suppose we grant that a deity put those feelings of guilt into us as a signpost of what sort of actions are right, and what sort are wrong. Even granting such a huge assumption, how can Lewis then get to the point of arguing that the Christian God is this deity, when the Christian God has committed his atrocities in the old testament, but most of all, has his horrific notion of hell? If some deity put these notions of right and wrong in our heads in the form of a conscience, we would not expect this deity to then violate this notion of right and wrong at every turn in the old testament, and as the most notable aspect of what he requires. By this last point, I mean, it is immoral -- goes against our notion of right and wrong, against our conscience, supposedly put into our heads by a deity -- for the Christian God to send people to eternal punsihment for making what amounts to an honest, unavoidable mistake of trusting their own brains and senses instead of trusting some book on nothing but other men's say-so which if it is in fact true, would appear to have been created specifically in order to be as difficult ot believe as possible, and to fool as many people as possible into disbelieving it. In simpler words, Lewis' main clue that any deity exists at all contradicts the very deity for which he ultimately argues. |
| Posted by: Slayer-2004 Dec 2 2004, 05:10 PM |
| even the apologetics of C.S. Lewis are based on circular logic . What a shame . |