The Trilemma

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Since I'm cooking up canned apologetics, here's a dish that is the most involved recipe. 

What do you get when you start with a preconceived notion, throw it in a pot, toss in two caricatured alternatives presented in a false trilemma, mix in some strawmanning, sprinkle a dash of argument from incredulity, flavor with cherry picked Bible verses and stir over a roaring fire of confirmation bias?

Liar, Lunatic or Lord? 

You have the perfect recipe for the Trilemma, C.S. Lewis' classic argument for the divinity of Jesus. Enjoy the video of his argument presented in his words with the Mel Gibson BDSM gay-porn flick in the background.





The argument is simple: Jesus said he was God. 

Sort of. 

Well, he did say that his will was inferior to God's ("Not my will but thy will be done"). And he did say he didn't have the knowledge of God ("No man knows the day, no not even the Son, but the Father only"). And he did speak to God in 2nd person and about him in 3rd, as did the booming voice from the sky when speaking to him ("This is my son, hear ye him"). And he did say that his morality was inferior to God's ("Why do you call me good? There is no one good but God.") 

But see, all that is when Jesus is fully human. He's also fully divine, which is when he's forgiving sins. The Trinity is the way of having it both ways, which works to smooth out the rough spots of the story. 

Anyway, I digress. If Jesus is going around forgiving sins, that means he's either a "demon" as Josh McDowell put it, he's insane along the lines of claiming to "be a poached egg" as C.S. Lewis puts it or he's The Lord.

Now, we all know that anyone claiming to be God must be a demon right? No possibility that (just to spitball here) that Jesus was picked as Messiah of the week, at first saw an opportunity for his own gain, then his idealistic side kicked in and he thought he could reform an austere religion and make it more gentle and loving for the people, right?





I wonder if Josh McDowell would call Miguel a "demon"?

The other possibility, at least the only one we allow for, is that Jesus was crazy. And we all know that crazy people never get a religious following or get taken seriously as religious leaders, right? 

And if Jesus was crazy, how could he have had the sanity to stand in front of a fig tree when figs were out of season and then curse the tree for not bearing fruit? If Jesus was crazy, how could he have been wise enough to use bloody metaphors in his sermon on the mount about cutting your hands off or plucking your own eyes out of they offend you, metaphors taken tragically too literally on occasion. And if Jesus were not completely grounded, how could he give such advice as "love your enemies" and "do good to those who hate you" while condemning any who don't believe in him to eternal Hell?

Clearly, anyone who reads the Gospel accounts must come to the conclusion that Jesus is not crazy nor is he lying but that he must be Lord. After all, why would we not get a complete and clear picture from such credible sources as religious texts?

And if you heathen trash aren't blown away yet, just buckle up for the grand finale...

[Drich]

Since I'm cooking up canned apologetics, here's a dish that is the most involved recipe. 

What do you get when you start with a preconceived notion, throw it in a pot, toss in two caricatured alternatives presented in a false trilemma, mix in some strawmanning, sprinkle a dash of argument from incredulity, flavor with cherry picked Bible verses and stir over a roaring fire of confirmation bias?

Liar, Lunatic or Lord? 

You have the perfect recipe for the Trilemma, C.S. Lewis' classic argument for the divinity of Jesus. Enjoy the video of his argument presented in his words with the Mel Gibson BDSM gay-porn flick in the background.





The argument is simple: Jesus said he was God. 

Sort of. 

Well, he did say that his will was inferior to God's ("Not my will but thy will be done"). And he did say he didn't have the knowledge of God ("No man knows the day, no not even the Son, but the Father only"). And he did speak to God in 2nd person and about him in 3rd, as did the booming voice from the sky when speaking to him ("This is my son, hear ye him"). And he did say that his morality was inferior to God's ("Why do you call me good? There is no one good but God.") 

But see, all that is when Jesus is fully human. He's also fully divine, which is when he's forgiving sins. The Trinity is the way of having it both ways, which works to smooth out the rough spots of the story. 

Anyway, I digress. If Jesus is going around forgiving sins, that means he's either a "demon" as Josh McDowell put it, he's insane along the lines of claiming to "be a poached egg" as C.S. Lewis puts it or he's The Lord.

Now, we all know that anyone claiming to be God must be a demon right? No possibility that (just to spitball here) that Jesus was picked as Messiah of the week, at first saw an opportunity for his own gain, then his idealistic side kicked in and he thought he could reform an austere religion and make it more gentle and loving for the people, right?





I wonder if Josh McDowell would call Miguel a "demon"?

The other possibility, at least the only one we allow for, is that Jesus was crazy. And we all know that crazy people never get a religious following or get taken seriously as religious leaders, right? 

And if Jesus was crazy, how could he have had the sanity to stand in front of a fig tree when figs were out of season and then curse the tree for not bearing fruit? If Jesus was crazy, how could he have been wise enough to use bloody metaphors in his sermon on the mount about cutting your hands off or plucking your own eyes out of they offend you, metaphors taken tragically too literally on occasion. And if Jesus were not completely grounded, how could he give such advice as "love your enemies" and "do good to those who hate you" while condemning any who don't believe in him to eternal Hell?

Clearly, anyone who reads the Gospel accounts must come to the conclusion that Jesus is not crazy nor is he lying but that he must be Lord. After all, why would we not get a complete and clear picture from such credible sources as religious texts?

And if you heathen trash aren't blown away yet, just buckle up for the grand finale...

john 10 seems to say something to the contary, here the Jewspick up stonestostone christ for claiming he is the Son of God.
25 Jesus answered, “I told you already, but you did not believe. I do miracles in my Father’s name. These miracles show who I am. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice. I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give my sheep eternal life. They will never die, and no one can take them out of my hand. 29 My Father is the one who gave them to me, and he is greater than all.[c] No one can steal my sheep out of his hand. 30 The Father and I are one.”
31 Again the Jews there picked up stones to kill Jesus. 32 But he said to them, “The many wonderful things you have seen me do are from the Father. Which of these good things are you killing me for?”
33 They answered, “We are not killing you for any good thing you did. But you say things that insult God. You are only a man, but you say you are the same as God! That is why we are trying to kill you!”


And again in mat 16:
3 Jesus went to the area of Caesarea Philippi. He said to his followers, “Who do people say I am[b]?”

14 They answered, “Some people say you are John the Baptizer. Others say you are Elijah. And some say you are Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 Then Jesus said to his followers, “And who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus answered, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah. No one taught you that. My Father in heaven showed you who I am. 18 So I tell you, you are Peter.[c] And I will build my church on this rock. The power of death[d] will not be able to defeat my church. 19 I will give you the keys to God’s kingdom. When you speak judgment here on earth, that judgment will be God’s judgment. When you promise forgiveness here on earth, that forgiveness will be God’s forgiveness.”[e]
20 Then Jesus warned his followers not to tell anyone he was the Messiah.

Peters says you are the son of the living God and Jesus confirms but warns not to tell anyone

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I thought a ‘trilemma’ was that thing Poseidon carried about with him.

Boru

[Drich]

actually it was the mcguffin of the last Pirates of the caribbean movie

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

actually it was the mcguffin of the last Pirates of the caribbean movie

I don’t watch those. I haven’t watched a Johnny Depp film since he stiffed me on that heroin deal in Prague.

Boru

---

[T0 Th3 M4X]

So what's the point?

You can't invalidate a belief system by a construct of one person who happens to be in that belief system. Equally, you can't validate atheism, Hinduism, Islam, or any other religion by invalidating the said argument. None of them are dependent on those three being the only possibilities.

[The Grand Nudger]

Every single persons own view of their [insert religion here] -is- dependent on their version being valid and/or true.  Invalidating that invalidates that [insert religion here].

Now, the religious are fond of considering themselves a contiguous bloc for purposes of hilariously inept ad pops..but, ofc, everyone (the religious included) know that's not true.  Still, I don't know how many versions of the tooth fairy one is supposed to have to knock down until we're forced to wonder if it might be the whole tooth fairy bit, that's the problem..with all the various tooth fairy religions.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Every single persons own view of their [insert religion here] -is- dependent on their version being valid and/or true.  Invalidating that invalidates that [insert religion here].

Now, the religious are fond of considering themselves a contiguous bloc for purposes of hilariously inept ad pops..but, ofc, everyone (the religious included) know that's not true.  Still, I don't know how many versions of the tooth fairy one is supposed to have to knock down until we're forced to wonder if it might be the whole tooth fairy bit, that's the problem..with all the various tooth fairy religions.

No.

If you invalidate one persons construct. that's the extent of it.

If one person bakes a bad cake, it doesn't mean all cakes are bad, all bakers are inept, and that baking should be disregarded as an applicable method for preparing food.  It just means one person baked a bad cake.  If they continually make bad cakes, we can possibly assert that they are a horrible baker, and if it continues, then we know to never eat their cakes.  But that single baker could just be an outlier within the realm of baking cakes.

[The Grand Nudger]

What do you think you're arguing with?

I'm asking you how many bakeries products we have to sample..and find to be shit, before we start wondering whether or not this "cake" thing is shit?

[unsapien]

Every single persons own view of their [insert religion here] -is- dependent on their version being valid and/or true.  Invalidating that invalidates that [insert religion here].

Now, the religious are fond of considering themselves a contiguous bloc for purposes of hilariously inept ad pops..but, ofc, everyone (the religious included) know that's not true.  Still, I don't know how many versions of the tooth fairy one is supposed to have to knock down until we're forced to wonder if it might be the whole tooth fairy bit, that's the problem..with all the various tooth fairy religions.

No.

If you invalidate one persons construct. that's the extent of it.

If one person bakes a bad cake, it doesn't mean all cakes are bad, all bakers are inept, and that baking should be disregarded as an applicable method for preparing food.  It just means one person baked a bad cake.  If they continually make bad cakes, we can possibly assert that they are a horrible baker, and if it continues, then we know to never eat their cakes.  But that single baker could just be an outlier within the realm of baking cakes.

True, but what if that particular baker had an accredited certificate of baking from an organization that prided itself on having certified tens of thousands of bakers, would you not then call into question the rigor of their teaching standards?