Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:36:22 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?

>To Jesus, who men and women believed him to be was of fundamental
>importance. To say what Jesus said and to claim what he claimed about
>himself, one couldn't conclude he was just a good moral man or
>prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual,and Jesus never
>intended it to be.

Tough.  I have "free will" and will interpret the bible any damn
way I want!

>Then Lewis adds: "You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him
>and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord
>and God. But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about
>His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He
>did not intend to."

Like I said - what do I care what HE intended?  _I_ choose to think
of him as a person with _some_ good ideas, although the more I think
the less I like it.

>F.J.A. Hort, who spent twenty-eight years in a critical study of the
>New Testament text, writes: "His words were so completely parts and
>utterances of Himself, that they had no meaning as abstract statements
>of truth uttered by Him as a Divine oracle or prophet. Take away
>Himself as the primary (though not the ultimate) subject of every
>statement and they all fall to pieces."

WHY do they all "fall to pieces"???  The golden rule is the golden
rule whether or not it was inspired divinely.  It stands on its own.

If someone were to run up to you in a panic, scream "FIRE!", and breeze
past you would you stop to consider how reliable this source is?  What
their inspiration was?  Whether or not they were divine?

Sensible advice is sensible advice.  Period.

>WAS HE A LIAR?
>
>If, when Jesus made his claims, he knew that he was not God, then he
>was lying and deliberately deceiving his followers. But if he was a
>liar, then he was also a hypocrite because he told others to be
>honest, whatever the cost, while he himself taught and lived a
>colossal lie. More than that, he was a demon, because he told others
>to trust him for their eternal destiny. If he couldn't back up his
>claims and knew it, then he was unspeakably evil. Last, he would also
>be a fool because it was his claims to being God that led to his
>crucifixion.

You're assuming that people today don't lie, or don't lie willingly.
Take, for example, a part of the Jesuit Oath:  (from memory)

...if we are among Jews, we will claim to be Jews.  If we are among
Saracens, we will claim to be Saracens, if we are among...IF CLAIMING
TO BE SO WILL HELP THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Basically, they're violating one of the 10 commandments in order to
further their aims, and they are doing so willingly!

>Many will say that Jesus was a good moral teacher. Let's be realistic.
>How could he be a great moral teacher and knowingly mislead people at
>the most important point of his teaching -- his own identity?

Take a look at Jim Bakker, or Peter Popov.  They preached "good" while
being hypocrites and making a mint off of simple minded folks.  Maybe
Jesus was raking in the contributions on the side!  Ever consider that?
And that kind of graft would SURELY be edited out by those of his
successors who realized what a great money-leeching thing religion
really is, especially one that caters to the poor by preaching of a
paradise after death if one grovels this life.  Great for keeping the
peons in line!

>You would have to conclude logically that he was a deliberate liar.
>This view of Jesus, however, doesn't coincide with what we know either
>of him or the results of his life and teachings. Wherever Jesus has
>been proclaimed, lives have been changed for the good, nations have
>changed for the better, thieves are made honest, alcoholics are cured,
>hateful individuals become channels of love, unjust persons become
>just.

I _personally_ suspect he was a well-intentioned person whose sayings
and thoughts have been corrupted over the years to mean what those in
the power heirarchy WANTED them to mean.

>Historian Philip Schaff says: "This testimony, if not true, must be
>downright blasphemy or madness. The former hypothesis cannot stand a
>moment before the moral purity and dignity of Jesus, revealed in his
>every word and work, and acknowledged by universal consent.

This is logically assume A.  B follows from A.  Since B is true,
A must be true.  You're conclusion is based on the assumption that
Jesus is divine.  This doesn't follow.

>Self-deception in a matter so momentous, and with an intellect in all
>respects so clear and so sound, is equally out of the question.

You've obviously never read about true schizophrenics.  They have
_ELABORATE_ defense mechanisms to prevent reality from tearing down
their world view. And many are highly intelligent.  It's possible that
Jesus was schizophrenic - truly believing he was "god" and unable to
face reality.

>How
>could he be an enthusiast or a madman who never lost the even balance
>of his mind, who sailed serenely over all the troubles and
>persecutions, as the sun above the clouds, who always returned the
>wisest answer to tempting questions, who calmly and deliberately
>predicted his death on the cross, his resurrection on the third day,
>the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the founding of  his Church, the
>destruction of Jerusalem -- predictions which have been literally
>fulfilled?

All fulfilled in a book which was written after the fact, by others.
Based on that evidence, Jeanne Dixon is genuine, and so is every other
psychic-babble claptrapper.  They ALL have made predictions after the
fact.

>A character so original, so complete, so uniformly
>consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human
>greatness, can be neither a fraud nor a fiction. The poet, as has been
>well said, would in this case be greater than the hero. It would take
>more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus."

All well within the talents of a skilled storyteller!  I myself am in the
process of writing a novel which has what my proof-readers have called
the "perfect man".  Yet I'm not claiming he's god.


>Elsewhere Schaff gives convincing argument against Christ being a
>liar: "How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could
>an impostor -- that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man -- have
>invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the
>purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect
>air of truth and reality?

Have you ever talked with a pathological liar?  They maintain
elaborate facades, in many ways similar to schizophrenics.  Don't
tell me you've never heard of con artists.  They sometimes spend YEARS
pretending to be another person in order to score on a mark.  Somehow
I suspect that persistence existed back then as well.

>Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as
>Jesus died could not have been a liar. What other alternatives are there?

1)  He was a schizo.
2)  He was a con artist (and one of the greatest, judging by the results).
3)  He was a pathological liar.
4)  He truly thought he could make a difference, and by claiming to be
    what he was not felt it could happen.





David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own.          | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
============================================================================
Email:  dh4j@cmu.edu            Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

Democracy is based on the theory that the people know what they want...and
they deserve to get it - GOOD AND HARD!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism