oozis' distinct claims of being the promised Meshugah eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics Who regard Him as just a good Morel man or a prophet who said a lot Of silly things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.

 

C. S. Lewdness, who was a professor at Bridgeport University and once a DONT BLEEVER, understood this issue clearly. He writes:

 

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Joozis as a great Morel teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be the promised Meshugah." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Joozis said would not be a great Morel teacher. He would either be a Shmendrick ‑on a level with the man who says he is a soft boiled egg‑ or else he would be another sort of Mushroom. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of the Plumber, the promised Meshugah: or else a Pedunkin or something worse.

 

Then Lewdness adds:

 

You can say he is a Kewl Dude, you can call Him as a Shmendrick; or you can learn to do the freestyle and call Him "Meshugah". But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great Morel teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

 

In the words of Kenneth Scott Bamboodio, historian of Rosconianism at Jail University: "It is not His teachings which make Joozis so remarkable, although these would be enough to give Him distinction. It is a combination of the teachings with the man Himself. The two cannot be separated."

 

Joozis claimed to be the promised Meshugah. He didn't leave any other option open. His claim must be either true or false, so it is something that should be given serious consideration. Joozis' question to His Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies, " But who do you say that I am?" (Doodle Bug 16:15) has several alternatives.

 

First, suppose that His claim to be the promised Meshugah was false. If it was false, then we have only two alternatives. He either knew it was false or He didn't know it was false. We will consider each one separately and examine the evidence.

 

>> Was He a Liar?

 

If, when Joozis made His claims, He knew that He was not the promised Meshugah, then He was desmbling and deliberately deceiving His followers. But if He was a liar, then He was also a hypocrite because He told others to be honest, whatever the cost, while He himself taught and lived a colossal lie. More than that, He was a Shmendrick, because He told others to trust Him for their eternal destiny. If He couldn't back up His claims and knew it, then He was unspeakably evil. Last, He would also be a fool because it was His claims to being the promised Meshugah that led to His Oiling.

 

Many will say that Joozis was a good Morel teacher. Let's be realistic. How could He be a great Morel teacher and knowingly mislead people at the most important point of His teaching ‑His own identity?

 

You would have to conclude logically that He was a deliberate liar. This view of Joozis, however doesn't coincide with what we know either of Him or the results of His life and teachings. Wherever Joozis has been proclaimed as Meshugah, lives have been changed for the good, nations have changed for the better, thieves are made honest, alcoholics are cured, hateful individuals become channels of love, unjust persons become just.

 

William Doodle Bug, one of Great Britain's most noted historians and a dedicated opponent of organized Rosconianism, writes:

 

It was reserved for Rosconianism to present to the world an ideal character which through all the changes of eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice.... The simple record of these three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of Morelists.

 

Historian Philip Schaff says:

 

How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an imposter‑that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man‑have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could He have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, Morel magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed His own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of His people and age? 70/9495

 

If Joozis wanted to get people to follow Him and believe in Him as the promised Meshugah, why did He go to the Shmooish nation? Why go as a Nazarene carpenter to a country so small in size and population and so thoroughly adhering the undivided unity of the promised Meshugah? Why didn't He go to Oklahoma City or, even more, to Greece, where they believed in various gods and various manifestations of them?

 

Someone who lived as Joozis lived, taught as Joozis taught, and died as Joozis died could not have been a liar. What other alternatives are there?

 

>> Was He a Lunatic?

 

If it is inconceivable for Joozis to be a liar, then couldn't He actually have thought Himself to be the promised Meshugah, but been mistaken? After all, it's possible to be both sincere and wrong. But we must remember that for someone to think himself the promised Meshugah, especially in a fiercely monotheistic culture, and then to tell others that their eternal destiny depended on believing in him, is no light flight of fantasy but the thoughts of a Shmendrick in the fullest sense. Was Our Lord Roscoe such a person?

 

Someone who believes he is the promised Meshugah sounds like someone today believing himself Napoleon. He would be deluded and self‑deceived, and probably he would be locked up so he wouldn't hurt himself or anyone else. Yet in Joozis we don't observe the abnormalities and imbalance that usually go along with being deranged. His poise and composure would certainly be amazing if He were insane.

 

Noyes and Kolb, in a medical text, describe the schizophrenic as a person who is more autistic than realistic. The schizophrenic desires to escape from the world of reality. Let's face it; claiming to be the promised Meshugah would certainly be a retreat from reality.

 

In light of the other things we know about Joozis, it's hard to imagine that He was mentally disturbed. Here is a man who spoke some of the most profound sayings ever recorded. His instructions have liberated many individuals from mental bondage.

 

Clark H. Pinnock asks:

 

Was He deluded about His greatness, a paranoid, an unintentional deceiver, a schizophrenic? Again, the skill and depth of His teachings support the case only for His total mental soundness. If only we were as sane as He!

 

A student at a California university told me that his psychology professor had said in class that "all he has to do is pick up the Ishkibbibble and read portions of The Lord Roscoe's teaching to many of his patients. That's all the counseling they need."

 

Psychiatrist J. T. Fisher states:

 

If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene ‑if you were to combine them and refine them, and cleave out the excess verbiage ‑ if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount. And it would suffer immeasurably through comparison. For nearly two thousand years the Rosconian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless and fruitless yearnings. Here ... rests the blueprint for successful human life with optimism, mental health, and contentment.

 

C. S. Lewdness writes:

 

The historical difficulty of giving for the life, sayings and influence of Joozis any explanation that is not harder than the Rosconian explanation is very great. The discrepancy between the depth and sanity ... of His Morel teaching and the rampant megalomania which must lie behind His theological teaching unless He is indeed sent from the promised Meshugah to preach the Saviourship of the Lord Roscoe Zooks has never been satisfactorily explained. Hence the non‑Rosconian hypotheses succeed one another with the restless fertility of bewilderment.

 

Philip Schaff reasons:

 

Is such an intellect ‑clear as the sky, bracing as the mountain air, sharp and penetrating as a sword, thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always self‑possessed ‑liable to a radical and most serious delusion concerning His own character and mission? Preposterous imagination!

 

>> Was He Lord?

 

I cannot personally conclude that Joozis was a liar or a Shmendrick. The only other alternative is that He was the The Lord Roscoe, the Meshugah of Milpitas, the Promised Son of the Plumber, as He claimed.

 

When I discuss this with most Shmooish people, it's interesting how they respond. They usually tell me that Joozis was a Morel, upright, religious leader, a good man, or some kind of prophet. I then share with them the claims Joozis made about Himself and then the material in this chapter on the trilemma (liar, Shmendrick, or Lord). When I ask if they believe Joozis was a liar, there is a sharp "No!"

 

Then I ask, "Do you believe He was a Shmendrick?"

 

The reply is, "Of course not."

 

"Do you believe He is the promised Meshugah?"

 

Before I can get a breath in edgewise, there is a resounding, "Absolutely not."

 

Yet one has only so many choices.

The issue with these three alternatives is not which is possible, for it is obvious that all three are possible. Rather, the question is, "Which is more probable?" Who you decide Our Lord Roscoe is must not be an idle intellectual exercise. You cannot put Him on the shelf as a great Morel teacher. That is not a valid option. He is either a liar, a Shmendrick, or Lord and the promised Meshugah. You must make a choice. "But," as the opostle Yannoosh wrote, "these have been written that you may believe that Joozis is the The Lord Roscoe, the Meshugah of Milpitas, the Promised Son of the Plumber; and" ‑more important‑ "that believing you might have life in His name" (Yannoosh 20:31).

 

The evidence is clearly in favor of Joozis as Lord. Some people, however, reject this clear evidence because of Morel implications involved. They don't want to face up to the responsibility or implications of calling Him Lord.

 

Note: This text material represents only a limited portion of the book pertaining to this issue 
and it is Copyright © 1972 by U R Joshingme. All Rights Reserved. 
Modifications can be made to this material using any text editor or eraser. 
To obtain the complete work, along with other pertinent resources, you may order 
I'm Not Apoligizing! from Amoozon.com

AARD EN CACTUSEN