Sven

Good point. Is there any cult leader who isn't a combination of liar and lunatic (some more of the former, some more of the latter)?

sensate

Mistaken, Misquoted, or Misunderstood.

JEST2ASK

There are other opinions regarding preachers / men* of god / clergy etc ..

are you stating that you know .. or simply believe ... most (even though I might infer you mean all) religious professionals ... are honest and sane ..
even a lie for the "Greater good" is still a lie ... And a self imposed illusion is still a delusion ...

Some would argue that a claim of being a messiah is itself a sign of an unbalanced mind ...

The Last Temptation of Christ offers (IMO) an interesting view ...

The poll is a little restrictive.. but such is the nature of all polls ..


men* - persons (both genders included - to be PC )

JEST2ASK

:thumbs:

Koyaanisqatsi

Unorthodox Rabbi seditionist "freedom fighter" who was killed by the Romans as an example/warning to all. It backfires, so that for the next sixty or so years (I don't think he was crucified in 30 C.E.) his martyrdom (and name) are used as a rallying cry by his fanatical "terrorist" followers; the insurrection grows and leads to the slaughter in 70 C.E..

Hmmm. Now where else has such a pattern unfolded?

In order to fully destroy the power of this martyred leader (one who did not come to bring peace, but a sword) and the intractable stronghold this monotheist cult (Judaism) has over its members, the Romans disseminate a bastardized Jewish cult legend that turns the martyr for the Jews into a victim of the Jews, thereby attempting to turn son against father (s.o.p., actually for any occupying force).

Analysis of the Jewish cult reveals that the monotheist nature is what so fanatically bonds them together, so the Romans add in carefully restructured paganist/pantheist ideas to the new cult myths (after all, they're all cult myths and the followers ignorant desert slaves) to hopefully pollute the orthodoxy further.

It doesn't work in the area, of course, because it's laughably written tripe, getting every single reference to Jewish prophets completely wrong (I'm referring primarily to Mark now). The Romans discover, however, that their new cult myths take on some holding in outer regions (where tales about Jesus as freedom fighter/martyr are more aggrandized in proportion to the distance away), so the Romans send out their agents (like Paul) to sell the snake-oil and turn "the Jews" into the kind of people that would murder their own savior! Who would side with these barbarous cult members, who would kill their own messiah? We, the Romans, tried to stop it, but they were bloodthirsty barbarians!

The cult grows and becomes so effective in turning Roman citizens into docile sheep that it becomes a whole new political ideology and the dying military empire finds a new way to extend its reach/power base, thus becoming the "Holy" Roman Empire.

The early Roman-concocted, "Christian" cult mythology is nothing more than rampant anti-Judaic demonization; propaganda whose sole purpose was to poison the Jewish cult's hold over its members at the same time it exonerates the Roman occupiers as fair and just leaders.

Beetle

In presenting the "trilemma", C.S. Lewis was arguing that people couldn't really accept the moral teachings of Jesus without accepting the claim that he is god (assuming that Jesus existed and he claimed such a thing). It was a sneaky way of getting people closer to make the leap from what was commonly accepted about Jesus (his moral authority) to the god claim. He basically says "anybody who claims to be god and isn't is either lying or totally insane and couldn't possibly be a good moral teacher (but since we all believe that Jesus was a good moral teacher, you really should accept the god part)."

The weakness of this line of arguing is that it can be used by just about any religion in regards to its founder.

Mohammed: Prophet, Liar or Lunatic? Mohammed said stealing is wrong, but he couldn't be such a great moral teacher unless he was really the true prophet, could he?

David Koresh: Lord, Liar or Lunatic? He said people should be nice to each other, so obviously he must've known the hidden secrets of the book of revelation!

L. Ron Hubbard ... well, maybe it doesn't work in every case, but you get my point.

rexrex4

Great point, your whole post really.
I would have to vote for none of the above although cult leader doesn't enter into my thinking. A 'cult' is sort of in the eye of the beholder.
I think the question is simply dishonest in that it is based on a presupposition that the choices offered cover all bases. They don't!
One is not limited to being a lunatic, liar or being right if not those two. One can be honestly mistaken. In that day and age many things that would sound crazy today would be the norm then.
Yet I find it very interesting that the bible never has Jesus saying three simple words, "I an god".
I know Christians claim he implied it but he didn't say it. And can anyone imagine that anyone, even a miracle worker, actually saying those words out loud in public and not becoming a laughing stock?

bornagainskeptic

Jesus wasn't a 'Lord'. But many of his followers are liars or lunatics...
Yes, I think there really was some guy called something like 'Jesus'. He was probably a combination of 'lunatic' and cult/political leader. My guess is he heard the tales going around about 'messiahs' and, perhaps being a paranoid schizophrenic himself, Jesus started to believe himself to be 'the messiah'. He then got a few fellow rebels together and stirred up some trouble before getting himself crucified. His body is left to rot on the cross, perhaps picked clean by birds (maybe he was taken up into the sky!) Gullible followers then start thinking they see him around everywhere. Many myths and tall tales are told, then around 40 years later someone hits on the bright idea of writing it all down. And before you know it, the 'pernicious superstition' (as Tacitus called it) has lots of followers, keen for their shot at the afterlife.

Howay the Toon

The logic of this argument is that a person who claims to be God but appears otherwise to be truthful and of good character and is not obviously insane must, ipso facto, BE God.

Put like this it seems somewhat less convincing, No.

Diogenes the Cynic

The main (but not the only) problem with the trilemma is that it presumes the Gospels are an accurate record of what Jesus said. The earliest core of sayings does not seem to include any claim of personal divinity by Jesus. I personally don't believe that if there was a HJ that he ever claimed to be God or even the Annointed.

Other problems with the trilemma include assertions which Lewis does not prove to be fact. Why can't a schizophrenic be wise about some things and deluded about others? I've known people with schizophrenia who can have some stunning and fascinating insights into some things and be completely around the bend on others.

C. S. Lewis has to be one of the most overrated apologists of all time. None of his arguments ever hold up to much scrutiny. He'd have been made into mincemeat on a forum like IIDB.