The trilemma that is Obama

1. 59

   A.Villarasaposted 10 years ago

   Jesus Christ, in claiming that He is the Son of God, was  called  a blasphemer by his contemporaries( subsequently paid for it with His life) ,  and  speculated by certain hubbers  as  insane (paranoid schizophrenic)  and a liar( pathological).  The writer/philosopher  and Christian defender C.S. Lewis in discussing what he termed as the "trilemma" (in contrast  to dilemma) that was Jesus Christ , i.e. insane, liar,  or Son of God , followed the rational/logical argument  that Jesus was neither insane nor lying when he made his claim to divinity.
   
   Obama, in claiming to be a "transformational" president,  is being called by his antagonists as lazy( to which Obama pleaded guilty during an interview with Barbara Walters), clueless/incompetent ("I did not know until I read it on the papers that these things were being done by the IRS"), corrupt (Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Obama care, etc, etc, etc)
   
   It is much easier to believe,  given the evidence,  that Jesus is indeed what he claimed to be, than to believe, given the evidence,  that Obama is  indeed what he  is claiming to be.
   
   Transformational president? .....
   Really?  Given the evidence, I think Obama is instead, a Malformational president

   replyreport
2. 64

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   Since you are referring to your beloved Jesus. Both Jesus and Obama were/are puppets during their time of glory! If I daresay glory. For what Jesus brought to humanity he shouldn't have been conceived!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      @Max:
      
      You have quite an interesting, but nonetheless skewed take on Jesus and his role/importance in human history.... and saying he should not have been conceived? WOW, so please elucidate us why you think so?

      replyreport
3. 78

   Mighty Momposted 10 years ago

   Am I understanding your comparison correctly?
   The Jesus trilemma was that he was either insane, a liar, or the Son of God.
   By deduction, according to CS Lewis, Jesus was neither insane nor a liar, ergo his
   claim to be the Son of God is TRUE.
   
   Your parallel argument for (or rather against) Obama's trilemma is that he IS lazy and incompetent and corrupt, therefore his claims to be a transformational president are FALSE.
   
   Why not go for an apples to apples comparison? Your examples "proving" Obama to
   be lazy, incompetent and corrupt could just as well be applied to "prove" he is insane and a liar.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Well, we know he's lazy and a liar.
      The insanity aspect hasn't been lent to study yet.
      Guess he could hold out on that for a while in case he has to plead it in Court.......it's one card he hasn't deliberately played yet.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Consider George Bush. Liar? Yes he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to 9/11. Incompetent? Yes, I believe he screwed your economy. Corrupt? Invaded Iraq so that American oil companies could take their oil and defence contractors could make obscene amounts of money.
         
         I'm not an American but from this side of the pond Obama's sins pale in comparison to George Dubya's.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            George W. Bush, I would agree fits the descritption that you just enumerated....but he was not insane/hubristic enough to create or encourage a culture and environment of governmental abuse of power against American organization and citizens. Therein lies the rub my friend.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Did Dubya not create the Dept of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act? Aren't both of these controversial in terms of erosion of citizen's rights?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  @Disappearinghead:
                  
                  No not really. The Dept. of Homeland Security was created in response to the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001; the Patriot act was debated extensively in both the Congress and Senate, and was passed as the law of the land . So to equate those two with Obama's governmental abuse of power ( using the IRS to target ordinary citizen etc)  is totally missing the mark.

                  replyreport
   2. 56

      Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Let's use apples then.
      
      Nixon and Obama.  Both men are/were smart but had self-imposed challenges to overcome.  Many question the integrity of both of these men.  Both tried to obstruct justice by claiming executive privilege.  Nixon used the IRS to hurt enemeies.  Obama might have used the IRS to hurt enemies.  Nixon hated the press.  Obama's people don't trust the press and listen to them. 
      
      Comparisons can be made in policy too.  Nixon said he had a plan to win Vietnam, an insurgence followed by withdrawal.  Obama said he had a plan to win in Afghanistan, an insurgence followed by withdrawal.  Comparisons could continue, but work calls.
      
      Obama is the new Nixon.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      @Mighty Mom:
      CS Lewis' trilemma did not apply to Jesus... the dilemma i.e. liar and  crazy having been proved to be false premises, (that only narcissists on hubpages continues to insinuate) by historical facts and perspectives. The question of his Divinity still rankles those who are won't to place their belief on anything not materially/physically  perceived.... but that is another topic for debate,
      
      What may not be debatable, based on what comes up by way of further revelation of  Obama's  overarching governmental malfeasance, is his trilemma. Benghazi proved beyond a reasonable doubt  his capacity for mendacity. Day by day we are seeing more and more evidence of  governmental abuse of power via the IRS targeting entities that are not to his liking, and the DOJ targeting media entities and individuals who are not doing his bidding. Presidential abuse of power (the Nixonian complicity) can only lead to the unraveling of that  presidency, and for Obama to encourage and set up that particular environment/culture in his presidency is truly an act onf insanity ( or hubris or both).....given the historical facts of the Nixon presidency,.
      
      His claim to being a transformational presidency is being ravaged at its core by these revelations... thus my contention that his is a Malformational presidency....despite Time magazine's contention/evaluation  that Obama is one of the 100 most inflential figures in History, along with Jesus, Muhammad, Einstein, Isaac Newton, Edison and other honorific historical personalities.

      replyreport
4. 81

   Wayne Brownposted 10 years ago

   Well, if we look at it on the basis of Time's contentions....Adolf Hitler would certainly be on that list.  That does not mean that Hitler did anything good in his process of "influence".  I do have to agree, based on the Hitler perspective as well as that of Obama, "influence can be good or bad.  In the case of these two...it is bad, very, very bad and it continues while a "wide-eyed" Press looks on in awe and attempts to explain it all away as simply the steps necessary to transform a nation into a Utopian State.  As one of more influential Marxist once put it, "Tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth."  Clinton practiced just that in his claim...."I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"  America will not fall to transformation on the basis of the strength of Obama's influence. On the contrary, it will fall on the basis of the weakness of those in position to oppose that influence and sustain the nation.  We cannot be so inept as to not swear in Hilary Clinton and then expect that we can effectively assign accountability and uphold it. ~WB

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      @Wayne:
      
      My mistake...it was not Time magazine, but Life magazine, in a special edition called "The 100 people who changed the world" who gave Barrack Obama that honor, together with the other that I mentioned above. You're right, Adolf Hitler was in the list.

      replyreport