A Rationalist Challenge for IBelieveIKnow!

[One-eyed Jack]

IBelieveIKnow, you have set yourself up as a rationalist who disbelieves in God.

There is a famous proof of Jesus' divinity, much used by naive Baptists (and of course by Pentacostals). Here's how it goes:

Jesus said all men are brothers. He said that it is a blessing to help the poor. He said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged", and pardoned a woman about to be stoned to death for adultery. He said that mercy was a great virtue: "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy."

Everyone says that Jesus was a great teacher.

Jesus also said that He was the Son of God.

Only a lying madman would say such a thing if it were not the truth.

Jesus may have been either a great teacher or a lying madman, but he cannot have been both. Since He was a great teacher, then He must have spoken the truth...and therefore He must have truly been the Son of God.

How does your rationalism answer this conundrum, IBelieveIKnow?

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed... 1 Corinthians 15:51

----

Good luck with this little nugget. It's really not that hard.

~~ OEJ

[lilith]

Re: A Rationalist Challenge for IBelieveIKnow!

IBelieveIKnow, you have set yourself up as a rationalist who disbelieves in God.

There is a famous proof of Jesus' divinity, much used by naive Baptists (and of course by Pentacostals). Here's how it goes:

Jesus said all men are brothers. He said that it is a blessing to help the poor. He said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged", and pardoned a woman about to be stoned to death for adultery. He said that mercy was a great virtue: "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy."

Everyone says that Jesus was a great teacher.

Jesus also said that He was the Son of God.

Only a lying madman would say such a thing if it were not the truth.

Jesus may have been either a great teacher or a lying madman, but he cannot have been both. Since He was a great teacher, then He must have spoken the truth...and therefore He must have truly been the Son of God.

How does your rationalism answer this conundrum, IBelieveIKnow?

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed... 1 Corinthians 15:51

----

Good luck with this little nugget. It's really not that hard.

~~ OEJ

"Jesus may have been either a great teacher or a lying madman, but he cannot have been both."


Why not? I've had several teachers who could be described as great teachers. They were also completely bonkers.

[IbelieveIknowwhat?]

Re: A Rationalist Challenge for IBelieveIKnow!

I dont recall that Jesus ever really said the he was the son of god.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: A Rationalist Challenge for IBelieveIKnow!

Aw, I wanted to see if IBelieve could figure that out.

Good answer: Vincent van Gogh was a great artist, but a loony. Abraham Lincoln wrote War and Peace but suffered chronic depression. Spinoza was crazy as a bedbug but made important contributions to philosophy anyway. So the argument poses a false dichotomy: there is nothing at all that says a great man cannot also have his nutcake side.

Another solution to the conundrum was put quite well by Bertrand Russell (speaking in another context) when he said, "Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all." The conundrum implicitly assumes that Christ was a real person, but if Christ was a fictional character then it hardly makes a rats-whisker of difference what He said. It's all fiction anyways.

That's why this particular argument is used mostly by Pentacostals and the occasional Methodist -- they're innocent of logic, and about as smart as potatoes.

Of course True Christians know that Jesus was real, and that He was the Son of God, incarnated upon the Earth to save the Chosen and damn everyone else to Hell. In His gentleness and His love He spoke to the people who were reluctant to accept Him:

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Matthew 23:33

Now you just don't get more compassionate than that!

Praise His name!

~~ OEJ

[lilith]

Re: A Rationalist Challenge for IBelieveIKnow!

Aw, I wanted to see if IBelieve could figure that out.

Good answer: Vincent van Gogh was a great artist, but a loony. Abraham Lincoln wrote War and Peace * 1 but suffered chronic depression. Spinoza was crazy as a bedbug but made important contributions to philosophy anyway. So the argument poses a false dichotomy: there is nothing at all that says a great man cannot also have his nutcake side.*2

Another solution to the conundrum was put quite well by Bertrand Russell (speaking in another context) when he said, "Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all." The conundrum implicitly assumes that Christ was a real person, but if Christ was a fictional character then it hardly makes a rats-whisker of difference what He said. It's all fiction anyways.

That's why this particular argument is used mostly by Pentacostals and the occasional Methodist -- they're innocent of logic, and about as smart as potatoes.

Of course True Christians know that Jesus was real, and that He was the Son of God, incarnated upon the Earth to save the Chosen and damn everyone else to Hell. In His gentleness and His love He spoke to the people who were reluctant to accept Him:

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Matthew 23:33

Now you just don't get more compassionate than that!

Praise His name!

~~ OEJ

* 1 I'm sure Abraham Lincoln will be greatly surprised to learn that he wrote War & Peace...as no doubt,will Leo Tolstoy.

* 2 Or WOMAN!

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: A Rationalist Challenge for IBelieveIKnow!

Wait, did I write Lincoln?! I meant Stendhal. I don't know why I wrote Lincoln. Maybe because Lincoln's leadership was crucial in resolving the Spanish-American War. Or was it the War of Spanish Succession?

Now I am all confused.

I'm going to put on Tolstoy's Requiem for Organ and Massed Serfs and relax. My head is all a-whirl.

~~ OEJ