Refuting the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" Argument

Some Christians seek to convince non-believers in the divinity of Jesus Christ that either Christ was mad, a liar, or an actual god. Mr. Stolyarov refutes this argument here.

References:
"The Deeds of the Divine Augustus" - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/14resgestae.html

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II
Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com
Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html
Author, Implied Consent, A Play on the Sanctity of Human Life: http://rationalargumentator.com/impliedconsent.html
Author, A Rational Cosmology: http://rationalargumentator.com/rc.html
Author, The Best Self-Help is Free: http://rationalargumentator.com/selfhelpfree.html
Author, The Progress of Liberty Blog: http://progressofliberty.today.com/

Attribution for Visuals Used:
Note: All the visuals which receive attribution were published under a GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons License, and so may be legitimately reproduced provided that the source and creator are credited. Any content having these licenses is hereby reproduced under the same licenses as the originals.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C.s.lewis.JPG by Arthur Strong
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sieve.jpg by Donovan Govan
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue-Augustus.jpg by Andreas Wahra
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martorana_RogerII2008.jpg by Matthias Süßen

Category:

Education

Tags:

• jesus
• christ
• lewis
• god
• divine
• argument
• atheism
• atheist
• religion
• christian
• mere
• christianity
• philosophy
• augustus
• octavian
• rome
• tiberius
• empreror
• liar
• lunatic
• mad
• alexander
• non
• sequitur
• ideas
• mistake

[jacsoliman]

lol ... your other two alternatives fall under the category of "liar".

[GStolyarovII]

@jacsoliman No, being honestly mistaken about oneself does not make one a liar. Furthermore, in ancient times, there were numerous figures who both (i) deliberately portrayed themselves as gods and (ii) genuinely believed themselves to be gods. Alexander the Great is a good example.

[deanojacks]

@GStolyarovII

Though 'being honestly mistaken' does not make oneself a liar, the person still is a liar (if not actively, but passively) because he thinks he is telling the truth.

The two alternatives you mentioned are already covered in C.S.Lewis's argument.

[GStolyarovII]

@deanojacks No, a liar is by definition someone who knows he is deliberately misrepresenting the truth. Ignorance of one’s error is not the same as dishonesty.

[deanojacks]

@GStolyarovII

It probably is inappropriate to call someone a liar because he sincerely believes he is telling the truth, however that person is still telling the lie. In that case, if we do not want to say that such person is not a liar, we still have to say that what he is saying is not the truth. We are just playing with words here.

I think C.S.Lewis's categorization of liar, lunatic or lord is solid. It just probably needed a bit more explanation.

[GStolyarovII]

@deanojacks If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then the very fact that Jesus was not the son of god would make him a liar. But if “not being the son of God” equals “being a liar” – then it is important not to attach to the word “liar” the typical negative connotations, or else Lewis’s argument is misleading and psychologically manipulative. Everyone is ignorant and in error about some matters; error, unlike dishonesty, is not a vice.

[Akatam0t0ma]

6th possibility: He may have no even existed in the first place.

[1n354a]

Or another possibility is that he was just a normal preacher/teacher/prophet who had fans and who died. Then his fans (who really really loved him) decided to write about him in a manner not exactly in line with who he really was. Over the years, Jesus became taller, stronger, faster, more powerful, and a beast in bed. In the end, the Bible describes a person who in reality never actually existed but in the minds of the believers.

[deanojacks]

@GStolyarovII

I think that C.S.Lewis is considering the word 'liar' in his argument not much as someone who is dishonest, but someone who is not telling the truth.

[Fray2221]

The real problem with Lewis' argument is that it discounts the possibility that Jesus could both have been mad, and have been a great moral teacher. Anyone who thinks that he's God is at least a little bit nuts, but there is no reason why mentally ill people should not be capable of incredible moral insight. Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Ghandi, etc were all at least a little bit crazy.

[whoopiman]

Here's another possibility, and it even begins with an 'L'. LEGEND.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Another possibility is that what we think Jesus said & meant, as described in the Bible, isn't what Jesus actually said & meant.

That brings the total up to at least 6 possibilities, of which Lewis only noted 3.

A final thing to notice is that the divisions aren't sharp - those categories can have a lot of overlap.

[sideways586]

@MisterFrosty Your claim has an assumption--that Pliny/Seneca knew what went on in Judea while Christ was alive. How do you know they had knowledge of local events in the Roman backwater territory of Judea?

Its possible they didnt write about him only because they didn't know about him. Jesus caused a stir among jews, but the Romans controlling the area would not have cared about jewish religion or preachers. They were only concerned with maintaining Roman control.

[Lukyo1984]

Option 4 is a form of lunacy being mistaken about EVERY aspect of His. Option 5 is a form of lying as He is a Jew and can't make the claim of being God unless He actually was God.