 |
| In it for the cash! |
Religion was invented when the first con artist met the first fool. ~ Mark Twain
Assume what Ray Comfort says is true on his blog:
"Few people know that Jesus had a donor-based ministry. It costs money to feed and lodge 13 itinerant preachers. Many people knew that, and gladly supported the cause."
If Jesus' ministry was "money based," then it is possible that Jesus was a swindler, and con artist.
Now, let us consider CS Lewis' argument:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." (Lewis, C.S,.Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, "The Shocking Alternative.")
C.S. Lewis' argument is often recast as:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." (Lewis, C.S,.Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, "The Shocking Alternative.")
C.S. Lewis' argument is often recast as:
P1. Either, Jesus was a Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord, (or sometimes as "Mad, or Bad, or God")
P2. Jesus was obviously not a Lunatic and not a liar.
C. Therefore, Jesus was Lord
C.S. Lewis thinks that P2 is obviously true. Is this the case? P2 is not obviously true, and Ray Comfort has provided us, indirectly, with a plausible motive and reason why P2 is not obviously true, thereby proving that C.S. Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord " argument is not sound, and therefore fails.
Let us reconsider P1. CS Lewis' main premise in his argument, "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" leaves out the disjunct that Jesus might have been a swindler and a con artist. As pointed out above, If Jesus' ministry was "money based," then it is possible that Jesus was a swindler, and con artist. Thus, in the case of P1 we can add "or a swindler and con artist".
Either Jesus was a liar, or a lunatic,or a swindler and con artist, or a lord,
C. Therefore, Jesus was Lord
C.S. Lewis thinks that P2 is obviously true. Is this the case? P2 is not obviously true, and Ray Comfort has provided us, indirectly, with a plausible motive and reason why P2 is not obviously true, thereby proving that C.S. Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord " argument is not sound, and therefore fails.
Let us reconsider P1. CS Lewis' main premise in his argument, "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" leaves out the disjunct that Jesus might have been a swindler and a con artist. As pointed out above, If Jesus' ministry was "money based," then it is possible that Jesus was a swindler, and con artist. Thus, in the case of P1 we can add "or a swindler and con artist".
Therefore, P1 ought to read:
:Either Jesus was a liar, or a lunatic,or a swindler and con artist, or a lord,
As Ray Comfort points out, the gospels claim that Judas was the treasurer. We know that if you have a treasurer, you must also have a treasury. In this case, the treasury consisted of silver. Now, we know from modern day evangelists, that they often times use the poor, starving, and oppressed to get "donations" that they then use on/for themselves. Now here, in the bible, we have an EYEWITNESS account that Jesus was doing the same thing!! Jesus had been given some expensive oil that he was going to use on his.feet, and from what Judas said, we can infer that such donations were supposed to be used to feed, clothe, and house the disciples and the poor. Judas, our eyewitness, points out that this very expensive oil, that was DONATED, ought to have been sold, and the money used to FEED THE POOR. (John 12:4-6 )We can infer from this that Judas felt deceived by Jesus, and called him out on it. Judas was a whistleblower. Again, like in modern times, the whistleblower is often attacked, and made into a scapegoat by those who have committed the indiscretions. Note, that according to the gospels, Judas was attacked after he called out Jesus for using the expensive oil on himself, instead of selling it and using the money to feed the poor. Lastly, the gospels have Judas exclaim "I have betrayed innocent blood" (Matt 27:4) and then he killed himself, as if he was guilt ridden. However, given what we know about what happens when a person blows the whistle, that is, how the company belittles them, lies on them, and so forth--another possible alternative we can infer is that the other disciples began to lie and spread bad rumors against Judas, and that the disillusioned Judas committed suicide because he was duped by Jesus, and everything he believed in was a sham, and turned out to be false.
Whether my explanation is correct or not, is not the point. The fact of the matter is, it is a PLAUSIBLE, AND VIABLE explanation, given our EYEWITNESS account, according to the gospel, and what we experience with many modern day evangelicals, and church leaders in general, where they misappropriate funds for their own selfish use. Note, I gave a plausible explanation already for the EYEWITNESS accounts against Judas.
CS Lewis' P1 in his argument, "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord" leaves out the disjunct that Jesus might have been a swindler and a con artist. Furthermore, P2 is not obviously true, thereby proving that C.S. Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord " argument is not sound, and therefore fails.
As a side note, Judas' calling out of Jesus calls into question Jesus' character, and points out another inconsistency in the bible. Part of the Bible paints Jesus as being totally selfless, and only concerned with the plight of the poor. But here we have Jesus selfishly using oil that as Judas points out, ought to have been sold, and the money used to feed the poor. Jesus' reply to Judas is very telling. Jesus said:
"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have ME." ( Matt 26:11)
This shows his egotistical side. (A common characteristic of many of the charismatic swindlers and con artist types of our day.) This would further support the disjunct that Jesus was a swindler and a con artist. If Jesus was a swindler and a con artist, then he was also a liar. If Jesus was a liar, then he was also a swindler and a con artist. At the same time as both of these disjuncts, he might also have been a lunatic! Of course, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible.
Addendum: Someone who read this post recently asked me what the difference was between a liar and swindler. Here is my explanation of those differences:
A person can lie just for the heck of it, and not for money or power or anything else, except for the sake of lying. A swindler and con artist MAY tell a lie, or may not. Sometimes they deceive by other methods. Either way, a swindler is doing it to gain something to gain something such as money or power, as opposed to just a liar, because there are liars who lie for the heck of it and not to gain money or power. There are some swindlers who swindle just for the heck of it–i.e. they get a rush out of lying, and/or conning and swindling people--At any rate, it still involves the act of deceiving for money and/or power, for as the definition of swindle is to deceive, cheat or defraud of money or property. A con artist is just another synonym for a swindler. Now, with reference to Jesus, he could have been a liar just for the heck of it--without any other ulterior motive. On the other hand, since as Ray Comfort pointed out, his ministry was “donation based,” it provides us with the possibility that Jesus was a swindler /con artist, as his motive may have been “donations.”
Therefore, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible that Jesus might have been a liar, and/or a swindler/con artist.
Addendum: Someone who read this post recently asked me what the difference was between a liar and swindler. Here is my explanation of those differences:
A person can lie just for the heck of it, and not for money or power or anything else, except for the sake of lying. A swindler and con artist MAY tell a lie, or may not. Sometimes they deceive by other methods. Either way, a swindler is doing it to gain something to gain something such as money or power, as opposed to just a liar, because there are liars who lie for the heck of it and not to gain money or power. There are some swindlers who swindle just for the heck of it–i.e. they get a rush out of lying, and/or conning and swindling people--At any rate, it still involves the act of deceiving for money and/or power, for as the definition of swindle is to deceive, cheat or defraud of money or property. A con artist is just another synonym for a swindler. Now, with reference to Jesus, he could have been a liar just for the heck of it--without any other ulterior motive. On the other hand, since as Ray Comfort pointed out, his ministry was “donation based,” it provides us with the possibility that Jesus was a swindler /con artist, as his motive may have been “donations.”
Therefore, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible that Jesus might have been a liar, and/or a swindler/con artist.
17 comments:
I really like you blog!. Keep the posts coming!
Thank you. I appreciate the feedback..:)
I think Lewis' argument remains unaltered in the sense that Jesus is either deserving of our collective worship (Lord) or our collective disdain (liar, lunatic, swindler, con). He leaves us no other choices.
To Anonymous,
C.S. Lewis, stated that: "Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend." It is not obvious! The swindler and con artist disjunct provides an additional motive for Jesus being a fiend, and therefore adds to the likelihood of Jesus deserving of our collective disdain.
Well, Lewis, who should have known better, failed to mention a far more likely possibility--what we know of Jesus has been filtered through the pious wishes of his followers, through multiple sources, etc. Maybe he's largely a literary fiction.
A fourth 'L' is legend. He was an honest man, he said lots of wise things, then he died. Then decades later his story was embroidered and added to. Supernatural elements were added, and perhaps even a few quotes were mis-attributed to him that were actually from other people.
Another point missed is that there are religious leaders from other faiths who aren't necessarily worthy of our disdain, but who nevertheless believe themselves to be in an exulted position in the eyes of their God. Do we dismiss all of them as lunatics, or just wrong on this particular belief? For example, the Dalai Lama. Do all non-Catholics believe that the Pope is a lunatic?
Saying that the fact that Jesus may have been a 'swindler and con artist' causes C.S Lewis' argument to be fallacious is absurd, particularly because that would come under C.S Lewis' reasoning as 'liar'. It would not change his reasoning. You are free to call Jesus liar, but do not argue that C.S Lewis' reasoning is wrong, because it is not.
Anyway, the very idea that Jesus was a swindler and con aritst is absurd. You would not call a man who managed to get money off people to feed himselves and his friends a swindler anymore than you would call Jesus a swindler. When you take into consideration that Jesus would have used this money to further his mission, it becomes blatantly obvious that he wasn't a con artist. Of course, you could argue that he wasn't poor, that he was hoarding money and all that other crap, but in reality, the evidence doesn't point in that direction at all! You atheists pride yourselves on being intellectuals when in reality, you will believe in any bunch of crap so long as it disproves religion and the supernatural.
In conclusion, C.S Lewis' argument still stands and yours does not. Your post is incredibly foolish. By the way, if you don't believe in an afterlife, why don't you go off and live your life instead of wasting your time bashing religion? In the end, you're going to die and your self-conciousness is going to dissolve into nothingness, so what's the point of trying to convince people that you're right? Fool.
@ Anonymous
Actually, your comprehension and logic skills are lacking. I did not argue that CS Lewis' argument was fallacious. In fact, I assumed that the argument was valid and sound, and merely added another disjunct which happens to be more plausible than the disjunct that CS Lewis would like to be the case. That disjunct is as I stated above, Jesus was a swindler and con artist.
So let me restate my conclusion and perhaps this time you will understand how it goes.
Therefore, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible.
As Buddha would say:"A fool who recognises his own ignorance is thereby in fact a wise man, but a
fool who considers himself wise -- that is what one really calls a fool."
I hope you are the type of fool who recognizes his own ignorance, and is wise to that extent.
Ignorance certainly is bliss. You speak much about that which you know nothing. You have the whole bible at you displosal and you conclude from one verse that Jesus is a swindler. Judas killed himself because of his immense regret after selling out his friend, teacher and Lord for 30 pieces of silver. He did that because he thought Christ had come to save them all from Roman oppression rather than to die for our sins and when it appeared that wasn't happening he let him self be convinced by the spiritual leaders of that time to turn Christ in for questioning.
Secondly, the oil was not "given" to Christ, it belonged to the woman who poured it out onto his feet. She did that out of appreciation, love and worship. She was overwhelmed at Christ's love for her when she had only been judged and criticised by so many others.
Thirdly, to call someone a swindler when their purpose was to die for the sins of humanity is ludicrous. If he were only tying to accumulate wealth and power for himself, well, he sure had an odd way of enjoying all that wealth didn't he. I mean, dying and all.
Lastly, I'm sorry for you. You are so full of hate for Christians. True christians spend their lives loving other people, helping the poor, feeding the hungry, conforting people in times of need and on and on. Please tell me what all of the benevolant athiest organizations are doing to help mankind in need in the world.
Your ignorant to that because your bias leads to you earnestly seek flaws, errors and criticisms and that you do out of ignornace not truth and knowledge; clearly seen in your misinterpretation of the Bible passages you quote.
I hope you are the type of fool who recognizes his own ignorance and is wise to that extent.
@ Anonymous
Jesus could have been just another unsuccessful con man. This is why the Jews--his own people--turned him in in the first place. They knew he was a fraud, and they knew who his real father was--most likely a Roman soldier named Panthera.
He had 3 yrs to build a "following" which was not at all large. In fact, John the Baptist had a much larger following, and fulfilled more of the Messianic Prophecies than Jesus did. The bible was written with a bias by Jesus' followers. Since Judas was disillusioned with Jesus' failure to keep his promises, and ignoring the poor, he was scapegoated by Jesus' followers. What I said in my post was a plausible explanation--which it is. It is also supported by scripture, and human nature.
This is ridiculous! A Swindler and con artist would be classified as 'Liar'. Lewis already had all the bases covered. You, my friend simply don't want to admit that you're ultimately accountable to a higher power. End of story.
@ Anonymous,
For your sake, I have made it even more clear, so that you and others like yourself will see the difference.
A person can lie just for the heck of it, and not for money or power or anything else, except for the sake of lying. A swindler and con artist MAY tell a lie, or may not. Sometimes they deceive by other methods. Either way, a swindler is doing it to gain something to gain something such as money or power, as opposed to just a liar, because there are liars who lie for the heck of it and not to gain money or power. There are some swindlers who swindle just for the heck of it–i.e. they get a rush out of lying, and/or conning and swindling people--At any rate, it still involves the act of deceiving for money and/or power, for as the definition of swindle is to deceive, cheat or defraud of money or property. A con artist is just another synonym for a swindler. Now, with reference to Jesus, he could have been a liar just for the heck of it--without any other ulterior motive. On the other hand, since as Ray Comfort pointed out, his ministry was “donation based,” it provides us with the possibility that Jesus was a swindler /con artist, as his motive may have been “donations.”
Therefore, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible that Jesus might have been a liar, and/or a swindler/con artist.
There is no doubt Ray Comfort is a nut case. He was instrumental in causing me to loose my faith. I watched one of his evangelistic open air meetings. He said every body is a liar and lust after pretty woman. Therefore they are breaking the ten commandments. OK. So. I used to think it was the love of God that drew me to him. Even animals respond to love.
No Ray Comfort should change is name to Ray Discomfort. At least he opened my eyes to how absurd the gospel is. My faith unravelled like a ball of string after 40 years as a born again baptised Christian. Ray Comfort does as much as Dawkins and co. do for Atheism. He should be thrilled to know. He keeps scoring own goals. Banana man keep it up.
Swindler and liar are equivalents though. The real dilemma is Liar, Lunatic, Lord, Lied On, or Legendary.
That is, if he isn't a Liar or a Lunatic saying "I am God" when he isn't, and he isn't Lord (i.e. really God) then he is either Lied On (that is, he didn't claim to be God and the gospel writers made it up, lied on him) or he's legendary (a wholly mythical or fictional character).
--rey
@ rey
Ahh...I like that. Thanks.
Jesus chose his disciples, He knew Judas was a thief from the get go. So why did He put him in charge of the "treasury"? Seems odd to us huh? Jesus also knew Judas was "dipping in" to the treasury as john 12:6 clearly states Judas didn't say those things because Judas cared about the poor, Judas cared about the money bag and what it's contents could do for Judas.
Jesus said treasures laid up on earth will be plundered by thieves and where your treasure is there your heart will be also.
what better example than to prove we cant serve two masters, money or God and we know Judas' end Judas knew full well how he found himself in this predicament.
Maligning somebody with false characteristics and claiming viability and plausibility sounds a lot like a tactic employed by a friendly little serpent in the Garden of Eden. Funny how we tend to act what we believe? Belief may be a misspelling of "by life" don't you think?
@OybloodyVey
We are not maligning Jesus with a false characteristic, for Jesus himself said to use the oil on HIMSELF as opposed to selling it and using the money to feed the poor. Now, as the story goes, Judas complained and said the money should be used to feed the poor. Now we know the gospels were written many years later, and it appears, using your logic, that it is Judas whose character was maligned by the followers of Jesus and the writers of the gospels because Judas demonstrated that their leader was not as "holy" as they thought he was. So, "ad hocly" they turned Judas into a thief to justify the actions of their leader--thereby falsely maligning the good character of Judas.
Wouldn't it be odd for someone to be in the presence of god, and to choose money over that god? How absurd! It would suggest that Judas would have to be a mad man or he realized he was not in the presence of a god.
We are told the motive of Judas in the actual passage. He was concerned with the poor, and Jesus was not.
Post a Comment