Stupid Apologetic Arguements.

[Dan]

Also, the general issue with "liar" is "people wouldn't die for a lie!" which is manifestly untrue.  People die for false causes all the time.

In fairness, the claim is a little more sophisticated than that: it's that people wouldn't die for a lie that they knew to be a lie. Even the least perceptive apologists understand that while (e.g.) Islam is in their eyes a lie, many people believe in it and give their lives for it.

Where the argument has more traction is in the case of the apostles. If Jesus were not the Messiah, many of the other claims associated with him would have to have been invented by his closest followers. Similarly, if Jesus had never existed it's the apostles who would have invented him. In each case, the apostles and the other early Christians would have known that the story was partly or wholly false. And, the argument goes, many of those same early Christians were martyred.

Of course, it isn't true. The apostles in the gospels are no more real than Jesus, and the martyrdom stories for them and for the early leaders of the church are also false, at least during the time when the movement was getting started.

[Atheissimo]

'Nothing God does could possibly make sense to humans because he exists outside time, so he's not bound by Earthly logic or the constraints of nature.'

Basically a re-hash of 'God works in mysterious ways, now shut up and drink the kool-aid'. Most amusing when combined with politics. Humans cannot know the mind of God except what he thinks about gays and gun control, in this case we have extensive knowledge of God's mind.

[Kain]

"Yeah, ok, maybe the Big Bang is a plausible theory. But who's to say God didn't just set it in motion in the first place?"
--Me, high school.

Oh god, that feeling.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

Lord Liar Or Lunatic brought to us by CS Lewis.  Since Jesus was a "great moral teacher" and claimed to be the son of god, he's either the Lord, a Liar, or a Lunatic.  If he was a liar or lunatic, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher, so by default he has to be lord.  So many false premises, many of which are covered in the wikipedia article.  There's a lot of assumptions (does the Bible paint an accurate description of Jesus?) and misses out a forth option "Legend".  Ultimately, it's a more clever way of saying "are you calling god a liar?".

Apart from all the other flaws in the argument, I also have to wonder why being a lunatic would automatically preclude someone from being a great moral teacher.

[Yaezakura]

Lord Liar Or Lunatic brought to us by CS Lewis.  Since Jesus was a "great moral teacher" and claimed to be the son of god, he's either the Lord, a Liar, or a Lunatic.  If he was a liar or lunatic, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher, so by default he has to be lord.  So many false premises, many of which are covered in the wikipedia article.  There's a lot of assumptions (does the Bible paint an accurate description of Jesus?) and misses out a forth option "Legend".  Ultimately, it's a more clever way of saying "are you calling god a liar?".

Apart from all the other flaws in the argument, I also have to wonder why being a lunatic would automatically preclude someone from being a great moral teacher.

No kidding. Even someone batshit insane can have moments of clarity, or be perfectly normal outside the confines of their insanity. Batman is the perfect example. He's insane as could be, but still does good in the world and punishes the wicked who prey on the innocent.

[Meshakhad]

I actually do believe that G-d caused the Big Bang. I arrived at this conclusion not as a lazy answer, but an attempt to merge science and religion into a cohesive whole. My theory assumes that G-d started the universe and set it in motion, only intervening later when He wished to contact man. So no intelligent design or anything. G-d didn't need to intervene more than once in order to create the world. He just set it up so that everything would unfold exactly as He intended.

Yes, according to my theory, the entire universe is a giant Xanatos Gambit by G-d.

[Eniliad]

I don't mean to be insulting, but I was raised Christian and I don't recall any passages where it says you can't say God's name. In fact, from my readings of scripture, he seems to rather enjoy it.

[Osama bin Bambi]

I don't mean to be insulting, but I was raised Christian and I don't recall any passages where it says you can't say God's name. In fact, from my readings of scripture, he seems to rather enjoy it.

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm#Writing

[Eniliad]

Ohhhhh. That... makes a lot of sense, actually. Sorry!

[N. De Plume]

Lord Liar Or Lunatic brought to us by CS Lewis.  Since Jesus was a "great moral teacher" and claimed to be the son of god, he's either the Lord, a Liar, or a Lunatic.  If he was a liar or lunatic, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher, so by default he has to be lord.  So many false premises, many of which are covered in the wikipedia article.  There's a lot of assumptions (does the Bible paint an accurate description of Jesus?) and misses out a forth option "Legend".  Ultimately, it's a more clever way of saying "are you calling god a liar?".

Apart from all the other flaws in the argument, I also have to wonder why being a lunatic would automatically preclude someone from being a great moral teacher.

I wonder why we are supposed to take it as a given that the premise that he was a great moral teacher is true.

[e13]

'Nothing God does could possibly make sense to humans because he exists outside time, so he's not bound by Earthly logic or the constraints of nature.'

Basically a re-hash of 'God works in mysterious ways, now shut up and drink the kool-aid'. Most amusing when combined with politics. Humans cannot know the mind of God except what he thinks about gays and gun control, in this case we have extensive knowledge of God's mind.

This about sums up my thoughts and my persona "apolegetics."

I personally find comfort and like the idea of a great creator. The possibility of something grander than the amazing universe we currently reside in excites my mind. So I have no problem going with the idea of a "God/Being/EarthMother/Whatever is so mysterious, one can not possibly understand their ways."

But that's the rub. A being that powerful would be incomprehensible by my tiny brain. So, I'm not about to go and claim my thoughts on the creator are spot on, like religion does. I will not claim death is part of God's plan or any other such nonsense. I like the ideas, but once I begin to apply them as truths, as dogma, the whole house of cards is going to fall.

Lord Liar Or Lunatic brought to us by CS Lewis.  Since Jesus was a "great moral teacher" and claimed to be the son of god, he's either the Lord, a Liar, or a Lunatic.  If he was a liar or lunatic, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher, so by default he has to be lord.  So many false premises, many of which are covered in the wikipedia article.  There's a lot of assumptions (does the Bible paint an accurate description of Jesus?) and misses out a forth option "Legend".  Ultimately, it's a more clever way of saying "are you calling god a liar?".

Apart from all the other flaws in the argument, I also have to wonder why being a lunatic would automatically preclude someone from being a great moral teacher.

I wonder why we are supposed to take it as a given that the premise that he was a great moral teacher is true.

Well, that's assuming you believe the bible to be an accurate record of a man named Jesus' deeds and words, and also believed said deeds and words to be great and moral. I like most of the words myself.

[rageaholic]

I actually do believe that G-d caused the Big Bang. I arrived at this conclusion not as a lazy answer, but an attempt to merge science and religion into a cohesive whole. My theory assumes that G-d started the universe and set it in motion, only intervening later when He wished to contact man. So no intelligent design or anything. G-d didn't need to intervene more than once in order to create the world. He just set it up so that everything would unfold exactly as He intended.

Yes, according to my theory, the entire universe is a giant Xanatos Gambit by G-d.

That's something I go back and forth on myself.  Ultimately, it comes down to believing that something can come from nothing or if it was always there.  The arguement could work both for and against God.  If people can believe that God always existed, I don't see why they can't believe the universe always existed. 

 
Despite my rantings on religion, I lean toward the God theory.  A god or superior being may have made the universe or help set it into motion.  I'm just extremely skeptical by the extreme claims made by religion and holy texts.   

[TheL]

Lord Liar Or Lunatic brought to us by CS Lewis.  Since Jesus was a "great moral teacher" and claimed to be the son of god, he's either the Lord, a Liar, or a Lunatic.  If he was a liar or lunatic, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher, so by default he has to be lord.  So many false premises, many of which are covered in the wikipedia article.  There's a lot of assumptions (does the Bible paint an accurate description of Jesus?) and misses out a forth option "Legend".  Ultimately, it's a more clever way of saying "are you calling god a liar?".

Apart from all the other flaws in the argument, I also have to wonder why being a lunatic would automatically preclude someone from being a great moral teacher.

I wonder why we are supposed to take it as a given that the premise that he was a great moral teacher is true.

We're not.  But the idea behind the LLL false-trilemma is basically that neither a liar nor a lunatic is ever worth listening to on matters of morality.  Because they find the generally-accepted-as-a-good-thing idea of "Don't be a dick" running through Jesus's teachings...well.

[N. De Plume]

Lord Liar Or Lunatic brought to us by CS Lewis.  Since Jesus was a "great moral teacher" and claimed to be the son of god, he's either the Lord, a Liar, or a Lunatic.  If he was a liar or lunatic, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher, so by default he has to be lord.  So many false premises, many of which are covered in the wikipedia article.  There's a lot of assumptions (does the Bible paint an accurate description of Jesus?) and misses out a forth option "Legend".  Ultimately, it's a more clever way of saying "are you calling god a liar?".

Apart from all the other flaws in the argument, I also have to wonder why being a lunatic would automatically preclude someone from being a great moral teacher.

I wonder why we are supposed to take it as a given that the premise that he was a great moral teacher is true.

We're not.  But the idea behind the LLL false-trilemma is basically that neither a liar nor a lunatic is ever worth listening to on matters of morality.  Because they find the generally-accepted-as-a-good-thing idea of "Don't be a dick" running through Jesus's teachings...well.

If we are not supposed to take it as a given, then either I misunderstand the argument or the summary there was incomplete. Or both. Because I am reading it as, “He can’t be a liar or lunatic because he is a great moral teacher,” without any support for him being a great moral teacher.

[DNAunion]

I actually do believe that G-d caused the Big Bang. I arrived at this conclusion not as a lazy answer, but an attempt to merge science and religion into a cohesive whole.

Please explain what is scientific about a being existing, thinking, and acting in the complete absence of time, energy, matter, and space.

And how does assuming into existence something far more extraordinary than the "singularity" needed for the big bang logically explain anything?  It just replaces one mystery with an every bigger mystery, going in the wrong direction.