* This is a component of the Christian apologist argument called "Lord/Liar/Lunatic", which is ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin. The argument is usually preceded by an argument about a historical Jesus or the veracity of biblical accounts, but then goes on to argue that with the various claims attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, he must be lying, crazy or an actual deity. This is generally a response to those who view Jesus as a good teacher but not a divine one. However, a lot of his ideas about morality work. Other speakers of morality don't always live up to what they say in their own lives, casting doubt on the "liar or a lunatic" part actually negating anything. However, the "Lord of All" part, if valid, negates a popular tenet of believing there are many "right" ways to Heaven. Also, to have him ''not'' measure up to those claims negates the Bible's claims about salvation through grace. Three counter-arguments to the debate are: 1)That Jesus' claims to divinity were the product of overzealous followers after his death. 2)That religious belief in oneself isn't necessarily (or even likely) proof of clinical insanity -- especially not in the social context of that particular age of history. Or 3)that the Jesus of Literature/TheBible is a fictional character, whose divinity within the story makes him a great moral example regardless of real life divinity. A counter-counter-argument is that if this is the case, then the entire Bible becomes sketchy as a moral authority. Then on whose authority is morality defined? It's worth noting that modern doubts that the historical Jesus claimed to be God (History Channel historians' and theologians' preferred view) doesn't necessarily stop all modern theologians from defending the gospels writers' position.

to:

* This is a component of the Christian apologist argument called "Lord/Liar/Lunatic", popularised by C. S. Lewis, which is ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin. The argument is usually preceded by an argument about a historical Jesus or the veracity of biblical accounts, but then goes on to argue that with the various claims attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, he must be lying, crazy or an actual deity. This is generally a response to those who view Jesus as a good teacher but not a divine one. However, a lot of his ideas about morality work. Other speakers of morality don't always live up to what they say in their own lives, casting doubt on the "liar or a lunatic" part actually negating anything. However, the "Lord of All" part, if valid, negates a popular tenet of believing there are many "right" ways to Heaven. Also, to have him ''not'' measure up to those claims negates the Bible's claims about salvation through grace. Three counter-arguments to the debate are: 1)That Jesus' claims to divinity were the product of overzealous followers after his death. 2)That religious belief in oneself isn't necessarily (or even likely) proof of clinical insanity -- especially not in the social context of that particular age of history. Or 3)that the Jesus of Literature/TheBible is a fictional character, whose divinity within the story makes him a great moral example regardless of real life divinity. A counter-counter-argument is that if this is the case, then the entire Bible becomes sketchy as a moral authority. Then on whose authority is morality defined? It's worth noting that modern doubts that the historical Jesus claimed to be God (History Channel historians' and theologians' preferred view) doesn't necessarily stop all modern theologians from defending the gospels writers' position.

30th Aug '12 9:01:06 AM Discar

Send Discar a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 20 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 32 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 35 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 38 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 43 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 46 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:

to:

22nd Jul '12 2:34:49 PM FELH2

Send FELH2 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Namespace.

Changed line(s) 12,15 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 21,23 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 32 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 38 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 43 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 51 (click to see context) from:

* This is a component of the Christian apologist argument called "Lord/Liar/Lunatic", which is ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin. The argument is usually preceded by an argument about a historical Jesus or the veracity of biblical accounts, but then goes on to argue that with the various claims attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, he must be lying, crazy or an actual deity. This is generally a response to those who view Jesus as a good teacher but not a divine one. However, a lot of his ideas about morality work. Other speakers of morality don't always live up to what they say in their own lives, casting doubt on the "liar or a lunatic" part actually negating anything. However, the "Lord of All" part, if valid, negates a popular tenet of believing there are many "right" ways to Heaven. Also, to have him ''not'' measure up to those claims negates the Bible's claims about salvation through grace. Three counter-arguments to the debate are: 1)That Jesus' claims to divinity were the product of overzealous followers after his death. 2)That religious belief in oneself isn't necessarily (or even likely) proof of clinical insanity -- especially not in the social context of that particular age of history. Or 3)that the Jesus of TheBible is a fictional character, whose divinity within the story makes him a great moral example regardless of real life divinity. A counter-counter-argument is that if this is the case, then the entire Bible becomes sketchy as a moral authority. Then on whose authority is morality defined? It's worth noting that modern doubts that the historical Jesus claimed to be God (History Channel historians' and theologians' preferred view) doesn't necessarily stop all modern theologians from defending the gospels writers' position.

to:

7th Jul '12 2:41:20 PM desdendelle

Send desdendelle a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Namespace, desu.

Changed line(s) 44,45 (click to see context) from:

to:

This list shows the last 10 events of 52. Show all.

new edits

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy