From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Joyce, give it up!
Summary: She'll preach but she never listens or answers
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:17:56 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things

In article <1992Aug26.212236.24748@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com writes:
>
>WAS HE LORD?
>
>I cannot personally conclude that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. The
>only other alternative is that he was the Christ, the Son of God, as
>he claimed.

WRONG, Joyce, WRONG!!!  We refuted these points the last time
you posted it, and you haven't responded.  Instead, you post the
same argument with more quotes.  They prove nothing!

There are other alternatives than the three you gave.  Consider that.

>When I discuss this with most Jewish people, it's interesting how they
>respond. They usually tell me that Jesus was a moral, upright,
>religious leader, a good man, or some kind of prophet. I then share
>with them the claims Jesus made about himself and then the material in
>this chapter on the trilemma (liar, lunatic, or Lord). When I ask if
>they believe Jesus was a liar, there is a sharp "No!" Then I ask, "Do
>you believe he was a lunatic?" The reply is "Of course not." Do you
>believe he is God?" Before I can get a breath in edgewise, there is a
>resounding "Absolutely not." Yet one has only so many choices.

I can think of so many possibilities.  Why can't you?  Maybe Jesus
never said any of that stuff written in the NT and it was falsely
attributed to him.  Maybe he didn't even exist.  Maybe it was distorted
significantly.  Do you have any proof of any of your assertations?

Joyce, do you know what an assertation is?  (Hint: you made one in
assuming there are only three possibilities)

>The issue with these three alternatives is not which is possible,for
>it is obvious that all three are possible. But rather, the question is
>"Which is more probable?" 

I think the most probable is that he was completely misinterpreted.

> Who you decide Jesus Christ is must not be
>an idle intellectual exercise. You cannot put him on the shelf as a
>great moral teacher. That is not a valid option. 

That is another assertion.  Why can't I do so?  You repeat this many
times in both articles but do not support it.  Remember, when you
post here and attempt to use logic, you must follow the rules of
logic.  So far, you are breaking them left and right.  Not surprising;
most of your type do the same.  They never respond to requests for
supporting their arguments either.  

> He is either a liar,
>a lunatic, or Lord and God. 

This does not follow!  You have not shown your set of possibilities
to be all that could exist, therefore the conclusion is invalid.
By the way, you also did not show that liar or lunatic possibilities
were false.  What you did do is quote a bunch of people.  Unfortunately,
that is not "proof," that is opinion. 

>----------------------If anyone is interested where I got this from,
>I'll let you know sometime.------------------------------------------

I would be more interested if you could learn to think for yourself
instead of spouting disproved arguments and refusing to respond
when called on it.

People: I had an e-mail discussion with Joyce.  I asked her to
explain or clarify several points, and she ignored all such requests.
Today she sent me a short note saying that I was "unwilling to open
my mind to clear evidence"!!!!!!  Have you ever heard of projection?
This woman has a bad case of it.

Where do these people come from, and how can we fix our school system
to ensure that future generations have the ability to recognize this
specious logic as trash, instead of mindlessly quoting it without
thinking first?
-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.atheism