Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 13, 2015 at 9:06 pm)professor Wrote: However, there is a big difference between dying (or dying in the process of being a murderer- in the case of Islam) in the belief that action will (by itself) will warrant Paradise, verses being willing to die rather than reject one's belief.
The issue in either case is that if the belief is wrong, you wasted your life (and potentially that of others) on something with less value than a stick of gum.
Or worse yet, sacrificed your life helping to oppress others.
(January 13, 2015 at 9:06 pm)professor Wrote: However, there is a big difference between dying (or dying in the process of being a murderer- in the case of Islam) in the belief that action will (by itself) will warrant Paradise, verses being willing to die rather than reject one's belief.
The issue in either case is that if the belief is wrong, you wasted your life (and potentially that of others) on something with less value than a stick of gum.
In one of my post, I listed some people who were considered martyrs in each of their religion. Many of the Hindu martyrs would meet the Professor's requirements for dying rather than rejecting their faith.
As others have pointed out extremely well (Esquilax especially), there is a difference between lying and saying something believed to be true, but ultimately false. The latter, rather than the former, is what people die for.
Let's be clear what the reaction in C1 Mediterranean countries would have been to the claims of Xianity. The Early Xians told the religious authorities (the ones with stones) that the Temple and the Priesthood were no longer important. They told the religious zealots (the ones with pointy sticks who thought Torah observance would bring God's Kingdom to reality) that it was no longer relevant.
They told the people of Israel that as far as membership of God's people was concerned, they were nothing special now, and 'pagans' and 'sinners' were just as welcome. They challenged the whole millennia old basis of national, ethnic and religious identity of C1 Israel.
They went to Greek towns, who believed that their town had gods who had the power to bless or curse the town, and said “You need to ignore them”. Along with the businesses relying on god worship. They challenged the whole Greek religious edifice, something for which the Greeks had forced Socrates himself to commit suicide.
Finally, by claiming Jesus as King (Christ) they were issuing a direct challenge to Roman rule. The Romans had a distinct way of dealing with this.
This wasn't C21 England, where someone inventing the FSM is seen as a funny guy. C1 Israel was more like a mixture of Iran and IS. People coming up with new ways of doing religion ended up getting theological dialogue from groups of large bald headed men with baseball bats.
As others have pointed out extremely well (Esquilax especially), there is a difference between lying and saying something believed to be true, but ultimately false. The latter, rather than the former, is what people die for.
Let's be clear what the reaction in C1 Mediterranean countries would have been to the claims of Xianity. The Early Xians told the religious authorities (the ones with stones) that the Temple and the Priesthood were no longer important. They told the religious zealots (the ones with pointy sticks who thought Torah observance would bring God's Kingdom to reality) that it was no longer relevant.
They told the people of Israel that as far as membership of God's people was concerned, they were nothing special now, and 'pagans' and 'sinners' were just as welcome. They challenged the whole millennia old basis of national, ethnic and religious identity of C1 Israel.
They went to Greek towns, who believed that their town had gods who had the power to bless or curse the town, and said “You need to ignore them”. Along with the businesses relying on god worship. They challenged the whole Greek religious edifice, something for which the Greeks had forced Socrates himself to commit suicide.
Finally, by claiming Jesus as King (Christ) they were issuing a direct challenge to Roman rule. The Romans had a distinct way of dealing with this.
This wasn't C21 England, where someone inventing the FSM is seen as a funny guy. C1 Israel was more like a mixture of Iran and IS. People coming up with new ways of doing religion ended up getting theological dialogue from groups of large bald headed men with baseball bats.
All very true.
And all very irrelevant.
People have died rather than recant their religious beliefs for centuries, in all cultures with all religions. Dying for what one fervently believes to be true is not limited to any one belief system. Muslim extremists are even volunteering to do it these days.
Societies in which people regularly face the choice between conversion and death tend to be pretty nasty, extreme societies. 1st century Rome was no exception. Nazi Germany, North Korea, Stalinist Russia - all are very recent examples of lots and lots of people dying for their faith, some voluntarily, others not so much.
If people only died for one religious faith, there might be some weight to the argument. But people die for all sorts of stupid shit, including fantasies made up by some crazy cult leader.
In fact, most religions weren't very popular when they were new. Lots of people died to establish new religions. Lots of people died trying to establish new religions. So all we've established is that, even in places where it's suicide to do so, there are always people willing to shout their beliefs from the rooftops. Whether those beliefs have any relation to truth is another matter entirely.
Davka, you made my point much better than I did. Someone on another thread made the statement that, "No one dies for a lie." Their point, as I understand it, is that their religion must be true because some of their members have died rather than give up their faith. Yet, other faiths have martyrs also. Dying for a cause doesn't make that cause true.
Can I invite you to look again at my first sentence: “As others have pointed out extremely well (Esquilax especially), there is a difference between lying and saying something believed to be true, but ultimately false. The latter, rather than the former, is what people die for.”
I am not claiming that a willingness to suffer for a belief makes that belief true.
However people don't put themselves in for a load of suffering for a belief they know to be false. Therefore if a large group of people are prepared to undergo a load of pain, it is reasonable to assume they believe what they're saying to be true, even if it isn't in reality.
There is an important question to be answered about how the Early Church came to being with the beliefs it had. Certain types of answer can be effectively ruled out (such as the disciples never believed it in the first place), given the unlikelihood of people volunteering to get beaten up for no good reason.
Put it another way. If Peter had got the disciples together after Jesus crucifixion, and suggested continuing the movement by claiming they had seen Jesus resurrected, the first question from everyone would have been- Why on earth would we want to do that? Why would we want our lives to be much shorter and very painful...for something everyone knows is nonsense?
It has all the attractions of starting up a local church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Saudi Arabia.
January 27, 2015 at 5:47 pm (This post was last modified: January 27, 2015 at 5:47 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(January 27, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: If Peter had got the disciples together after Jesus crucifixion, and suggested continuing the movement by claiming they had seen Jesus resurrected, the first question from everyone would have been- Why on earth would we want to do that? Why would we want our lives to be much shorter and very painful...for something everyone knows is nonsense?
I know right..especially when you can just write in it later, without consulting any of those "disciples"......
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
January 28, 2015 at 2:17 am (This post was last modified: January 28, 2015 at 2:20 am by robvalue.)
People can and do die while protecting a known lie. This is referenced on the video I posted in this thread.
You are also making the assumption that the events described in the bible actually happened and the characters were real people. This is the problem with using a source to prove itself.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(January 28, 2015 at 2:17 am)robvalue Wrote: You are also making the assumption that the events described in the bible actually happened and the characters were real people. This is the problem with using a source to prove itself.
No, I'm using the Bible as serious historians use any historical document, taking into account all the possibilities of bias and propaganda, error, politics...
And I'm extremely happy to the point of insistence that we use all historical sources available to help us examine the N.T. hypothesis.
Quote:People can and do die while protecting a known lie. This is referenced on the video I posted in this thread.
Sometimes atheist material makes me think. But, with apologies, this video is weak*. The situations are irrelevant to the point about the disciples being made, and the presenters reformulation registers that; this is because the situations given add overwhelming motivations not applicable to the circumstances of the disciples.
The point remains this: anyone preaching the things I outlined in post #34 was going to have a needlessly painful and much shortened life.
An illustration might help. The dark humour of this passage is often missed because it is so dark. Paul has been asked to provide a C.V. by the Corinthians to make him sound like a hero. In an inversion of the cursus honorum- boasting popular in the Roman world, he comes up with this ; please read it carefully so you get the point.
Would you put up with that lot if you didn't believe it?
Although Paul is taking the p*** out of the Corinthians request, the point is clear. Christian “heroes” wear as badges their weakness, suffering and shame, and likely death.
This is what the disciples signed up to. And they knew exactly what they were getting into. And you don't do that for a lie.
*FTR, it would have been helpful to present the argument, rather than ask people to sit through a 14 minute video...
