Why be good?

[Aroura]

What is the point of this line of questioning, Randy?  That people can be compelled to lie when threatened?

Do you have the first idea how insulting this line you're taking really is?

Okay.

The answer is yes. I am not going to stick by my guns, even if it is my truth, if the only outcome is my family getting hurt.

If I can judge that the threat is real, I have no pride hangup in allowing a person to think they've won so long as my family or my person is safe.

Okay. Parkers Tan is offiline, but I think we can agree that he would respond about the same as you.

So, let's recap: Parkers, Steel and CD have all had personal experiences and witnessed things they they know to be true. CD even says that Kitty was an eyewitness and will vouch for him. Each of you three has written - briefly - of your experience. 

I never denied any of your accounts. I asked if you would stand by what you wrote. All three of you said yes. I asked if you would testify under oath under penalty of perjury. All three of you said yes. I asked if you would stand by what you wrote under any threat - even prison or death. All three of you said yes.

If I had asked, all three of you (plus Kitty) would have said that what you wrote is an accurate account of what you saw with your own eyes and experienced personally.

You even have other members of the forum attacking me on your behalf because they are convinced of your reputation; they do not doubt your testimony because they believe you to be honest men. So, they believe what you wrote to be true on the basis of your character, your general reliability.

And I suspect that if you could, you would have decked me for even callilng any of this into question. Agreed?

So, all in all, I think it would be reasonable for me to conclude that what each of you wrote is true - at least more likely than not.

Here's the thing: 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reported what they saw and experienced just as you did.

They endured threats, torture, imprisonment and death rather than deny what they knew to be true. 

Maybe they would have been just as insulted if someone had denied that what they said or wrote was true.

And the Early Church Fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Papias vouched for their character.

It's reasonable for us to conclude that what the gospels tell us about Jesus is true - at least it is more likely than not.

That's what the historical reliability of the gospels tells us - that the authors were generally reliable in reporting what they saw and experienced.

Actually, you phrased that really really weird, and Steel Curtain (though saying YES), if you read his response, he meant NO, he would LIE under threat of death.  And then CD agreed that people will lie under threat.  So......you used that as some kind of point, but you completely misquoted and misused what they said to make your point.

So perhaps, according to your example, those people lied when under threat of death.....just as CD and Steel Curtain said they would (not what you said they said).

Also their accounts (assuming they were real and the authors), don't match each other in many, many places.  How do you account for that?  And why do those contradictions not make you question those accounts?