Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nobody Dies for a Lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Do you admit that your initial statement of the argument was incorrect?
    After all the exchanges, I have no idea what "initial statement" you're referring to, so I cannot answer this.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    People will most definitely die for a lie if they don't know it is a lie and believe it to be true.
    Agreed. IF the original apostles were martyred, this is what I believe is the most likely scenario.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    But if they do know it is a lie (especially if they made the lie themselves) then they won't die for it if they can help it.
    You know, I'd have to give this a "probably." The human psyche is an amazing thing. Would a person die for something they think is untrue, but the results of it they believe are honorable and good for humanity? I think that is possible. The Christian message is a powerful one: love one another, do not return hate for hate, etc. I find those messages compelling. Would I give my life for them? Part of me hopes the answer to that question is yes, even if I did not believe the originator of the message was "actually god."

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    The apostles had an easy out. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, they could have just went back to their old lives and nothing would have happened to them. They would actually know if Jesus had risen from the dead or not since they were eye witnesses. Not only that but if Jesus had not risen, there were hundreds of other around who would know he didn't rise and would have prevented the church from starting.
    Again, I think what is being overlooked here is the perspective of history. So what we have is this:

    1) Jesus lives/preaches/dies
    2) Sect he gives rise to continues on, developing followers and and a very Charismatic leader (Paul)
    3) Saul writes letters to the various communities, from which we get a sense of what is happening in some of these communities - about 1.5- 2 decades later
    4) Some authors eventually write down Acts and the four gospels - decades after the events they report

    By the time we get to #4, three decades (at least) of theological evolution have occurred, and with it the inevitable historical evolution. No one was present at the birth of Jesus, yet the story is recounted in detail, but not in all gospels. The theological evolution is obvious when one compares the synoptics (with Mark being the youngest) and John, which is the oldest of the gospels and shows significant theological evolution (it is also the gospel with the greatest emphasis on miracles).

    So what we have in the writings of the Christian community is an accurate historical record of what the community (or writer) - at the time of writing - believed. That is what we know. How much of it reflected what "actually happened" is another question. We are, in essence, looking at the life of Jesus through the lens of the 2nd-generation church.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      You know, I'd have to give this a "probably." The human psyche is an amazing thing. Would a person die for something they think is untrue, but the results of it they believe are honorable and good for humanity? I think that is possible. The Christian message is a powerful one: love one another, do not return hate for hate, etc. I find those messages compelling. Would I give my life for them? Part of me hopes the answer to that question is yes, even if I did not believe the originator of the message was "actually god."
      I thought about starting another thread for this, but it seems right in line with the intent of this one.

      Can anyone think of any examples of this? As in, somebody dying for an ideology that either they knew or believed to be false? I'm going to guess not, which is why this thread exists.

      But it's a weird thing to consider. What would be some examples of this? Would we even consider the person that would do this mentally sound? (that's not a great way to phrase it but I can't think of anything better atm)
      I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        After all the exchanges, I have no idea what "initial statement" you're referring to, so I cannot answer this.
        It's in the freaking title of the thread! "Nobody dies for a lie"



        Agreed. IF the original apostles were martyred, this is what I believe is the most likely scenario.
        That is all I was saying. That they would not willingly give up their lives for something they knew was a lie.


        You know, I'd have to give this a "probably." The human psyche is an amazing thing. Would a person die for something they think is untrue, but the results of it they believe are honorable and good for humanity? I think that is possible. The Christian message is a powerful one: love one another, do not return hate for hate, etc. I find those messages compelling. Would I give my life for them? Part of me hopes the answer to that question is yes, even if I did not believe the originator of the message was "actually god."
        Except the lie wasn't the teachings of Christ, the lie would be that he rose from the dead. They could have easily gone on and started a religion based on Jesus' teachings without making up a lie about him coming back from the dead and being God. In fact they already had a religion that taught most of it: Judaism. No need to make up a new religion. Jesus just reinterpreted some of what Judaism already taught. His biggest "change" was saying he was the Son of God and that he could forgive sins and grant eternal life. If he couldn't then the apostles would know it.

        Again, I think what is being overlooked here is the perspective of history. So what we have is this:

        1) Jesus lives/preaches/dies
        2) Sect he gives rise to continues on, developing followers and and a very Charismatic leader (Paul)
        3) Saul writes letters to the various communities, from which we get a sense of what is happening in some of these communities - about 1.5- 2 decades later
        4) Some authors eventually write down Acts and the four gospels - decades after the events they report

        By the time we get to #4, three decades (at least) of theological evolution have occurred, and with it the inevitable historical evolution. No one was present at the birth of Jesus, yet the story is recounted in detail, but not in all gospels. The theological evolution is obvious when one compares the synoptics (with Mark being the youngest) and John, which is the oldest of the gospels and shows significant theological evolution (it is also the gospel with the greatest emphasis on miracles).

        So what we have in the writings of the Christian community is an accurate historical record of what the community (or writer) - at the time of writing - believed. That is what we know. How much of it reflected what "actually happened" is another question. We are, in essence, looking at the life of Jesus through the lens of the 2nd-generation church.
        Great opinion. Now prove it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
          I thought about starting another thread for this, but it seems right in line with the intent of this one.

          Can anyone think of any examples of this? As in, somebody dying for an ideology that either they knew or believed to be false? I'm going to guess not, which is why this thread exists.

          But it's a weird thing to consider. What would be some examples of this? Would we even consider the person that would do this mentally sound? (that's not a great way to phrase it but I can't think of anything better atm)
          OK, so it matters what "ideology" means to you. If the ideology is "love one another," "love conquers hate," then yes - there are a lot of people who have died for ideologies (i.e., buddhists who died to protest the treatment of buddhists in the vietnam era, and the young man who burned himself because he believed global warming is a human tragedy). People die for ideologies they believe in all the time.

          If the "ideology" is "Jesus is the son of god," then there have been people dying for this ideology since the beginning of Christianity. The only ones that are in question are the original witnesses. So the question we have to ask ourselves is 1) did they actually die - and do we have an adequate historical record to support that claim, and 2) did they die for the general Christian message of a loving god and love conquering hate, or did they die for the specific message "Jesus was god," and do we have adequate historical information to support THAT claim.

          As for "mentally sound," that is a subjective assessment. Life is programmed to survive, so a willingness (or desire) to die is an aberration. When that willingness is aligned with something we consider "noble," the person is usually considered sound of mind (i.e., a mother giving up her life for a child, the martyr giving up their life for a god). When it is not aligned with something we consider noble or true or important, we instantly question their soundness of mind (e.g., the person immolating themselves to highlight global warming).

          We're on shaky ground either way....
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            It's in the freaking title of the thread! "Nobody dies for a lie"
            Thanks for the clarification. So yes, I think the original statement is sloppy. I chose that title because that is how it is usually articulated. I would phrase it as "nobody of sound mind would die for a known lie."

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            That is all I was saying. That they would not willingly give up their lives for something they knew was a lie.
            In general - agreed.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Except the lie wasn't the teachings of Christ, the lie would be that he rose from the dead.
            That is a supposition. I do not know that there is documentation that the claim they were executed for was "Jesus rose from the dead." Indeed, our evidence that the original apostle were executed at all is a bit sketchy, IIRC.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            They could have easily gone on and started a religion based on Jesus' teachings without making up a lie about him coming back from the dead and being God. In fact they already had a religion that taught most of it: Judaism.
            Judaism of that era was extremely rules-based - and continued to be for a significant period thereafter. It was one of the themes of Jesus' teachings, at least as it is recorded by the early church.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            No need to make up a new religion. Jesus just reinterpreted some of what Judaism already taught. His biggest "change" was saying he was the Son of God and that he could forgive sins and grant eternal life. If he couldn't then the apostles would know it.
            First, the early communities were NOT a "new religion." They were a fringe sect within Judaism. Then the entire discussion of which parts of the Judaic law needed to be adhered to and which parts could be jettisoned began. All of that is in Paul's letters. That this became a new, separate, religion is an evolutionary process.

            Second, how would they "know" that he could not "forgive sins" and "grant eternal life?"

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Great opinion. Now prove it.
            As far as I know, #1-#4 are matters of historical record. Indeed, if you do not agree that one of those is untrue, I would be interested in knowing which one(s). As far as I know, these are basic beliefs of Christianity. What differs is that I question the conclusions that Christians draw from these observations. Most Christians assume the gospels are an accurate historical record of the life of Jesus. I see no basis for making that assumption. There IS a basis for making the assumption that this is an accurate record of the beliefs of the author/community at the time of their writing. To suggest otherwise seems a bit odd (i.e., the people didn't believe this at the time of their writing?).
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-18-2018, 01:59 PM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Yes. And the fact that there is a Church confirms it.
              Documented, where? The NT ends with the ascension, but that isn't written about until decades later, yet there is nothing recorded about the whereabouts or the doings of the disciples in those decades. That should tell you something. It was just a story, a fiction, that ended with the ascension, at which point the fiction of the disciples ended as well.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Documented, where? The NT ends with the ascension, but that isn't written about until decades later, yet there is nothing recorded about the whereabouts or the doings of the disciples in those decades. That should tell you something. It was just a story, a fiction, that ended with the ascension, at which point the fiction of the disciples ended as well.
                What do you mean by "the fiction of the disciples ended?"
                I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Actually, it is a reasoned conclusion based on experience and evidence; coupled with observations about the circumstances under which the biblical record was written.
                  The way you present your arguments, you could see a genuine miracle performed in front of your own two eyes, and you would still insist that the supernatural was the least "plausible" explanation for what you had witnessed. The standard that all natural possibilities must be conclusively disproved before a supernatural explanation can be entertained is neither reasonable nor rational, especially when the evidence naturally lends itself to a supernatural explanation.

                  But then part of the problem is the false dichotomy that is often drawn between "natural" and "supernatural" with many skeptics insisting that the latter violates natural laws which isn't the case at all. We often use the term "supernatural" to describe a natural event that we can't explain or don't understand, or which has peculiarly exact timing. So to insist that the supernatural is inherently implausible is a category error.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                    What do you mean by "the fiction of the disciples ended?"
                    What I mean is that, in my opinion, the biblical story is a fiction, and because it is fiction you never hear about the desciples again after the narrative ends with the ascension. Why? Because they were not real, they were fictional characters.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Thanks for the clarification. So yes, I think the original statement is sloppy. I chose that title because that is how it is usually articulated. I would phrase it as "nobody of sound mind would die for a known lie."



                      In general - agreed.



                      That is a supposition. I do not know that there is documentation that the claim they were executed for was "Jesus rose from the dead." Indeed, our evidence that the original apostle were executed at all is a bit sketchy, IIRC.



                      Judaism of that era was extremely rules-based - and continued to be for a significant period thereafter. It was one of the themes of Jesus' teachings, at least as it is recorded by the early church.
                      It was all rolled up into one. "being Christian" - If once they found out that they were not getting away with their lie and Christians including themselves were being hunted down and killed by the hundreds, why would any sane person continue lying when they could just drop the whole charade?




                      Second, how would they "know" that he could not "forgive sins" and "grant eternal life?"
                      They would know he was a fraud when he did not rise from the dead, when he didn't heal people, when he didn't actually raise people from the dead or do miracles.


                      As far as I know, #1-#4 are matters of historical record. Indeed, if you do not agree that one of those is untrue, I would be interested in knowing which one(s). As far as I know, these are basic beliefs of Christianity. What differs is that I question the conclusions that Christians draw from these observations. Most Christians assume the gospels are an accurate historical record of the life of Jesus. I see no basis for making that assumption. There IS a basis for making the assumption that this is an accurate record of the beliefs of the author/community at the time of their writing. To suggest otherwise seems a bit odd (i.e., the people didn't believe this at the time of their writing?).
                      you have not proved anything. You are simply trying to shift the burden to me to prove you are wrong. I have no burden here. I didn't make the claim, you did. Provide some actual evidence instead of conjecture and goal post shifting.
                      Last edited by Sparko; 04-18-2018, 02:27 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Documented, where? The NT ends with the ascension, but that isn't written about until decades later, yet there is nothing recorded about the whereabouts or the doings of the disciples in those decades. That should tell you something. It was just a story, a fiction, that ended with the ascension, at which point the fiction of the disciples ended as well.
                        Paul. Acts. Josephus. Tacitus.

                        If it were simply a story, and none of the people actually existed, how did the church start and grow?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          I am not talking about the evolution of different groups (though it is clear that actually DID happen, and some groups were "isolated" from the Pauline sects for exactly that reason). I am talking about the evolution of the theology as the early church communities themselves struggled with the inevitable question raised by the claims about Jesus: How can a man be a god as well? How can a man talk about his "father," the spirit that was to be sent, be a god himself, and preserve a monotheism? The list goes on.
                          Looks like we're talking about different ideas here.
                          I am not concerned, since I do not believe a god exists to do that for me. But you are correct that I am not going to accept a supernatural claim without adequate evidence for its reality. Given the number of charlatans out there, the possibility of it being a hoax will need to be clearly eliminated.
                          I think you're vastly over-inflating the number of charlatans out there, and refusing to consider the possibility that those who are out there might be aping something real.
                          OK, so two things here. First, I think the absence of an underlying reality (i.e., an actual god) is why religions tend to fragment over time rather than converge.
                          I see that I somehow got your position backwards. I apologize. I'd say that religions tend to fragment over time because humans. Countries tend to fragment over time too, absent force (often of arms) holding them together.
                          When a belief is based on something real, we tend to see the opposite behavior: belief tends to converge.
                          Got some examples?
                          That being said, there are some common themes to many religions (e.g., the flood story, the creation myth, the sacrificial lamb, the god-mating-with-woman or virgin birth theme, etc.). These common themes, though the specific stories tend to vary widely, are rooted in the common experience of "being human on planet earth."
                          The flood, yes - though it seems an odd story to be so widespread; a creation story, yes; the sacrificial lamb, not so much; with the last category, you're verging on Christ-myth.

                          If it was my goal to convince, I might be concerned. As it is...
                          Then why even bother asserting your innocence? I don't want to see you as someone who plays fast and loose with definitions, but I keep seeing you do it.
                          Assuming this is true (and I cannot make that case either way), this proves...?
                          It doesn't prove anything; it shows that one is not like the others, so it is perhaps not legitimate to lump it in with all the rest.
                          That is merely the beginning of the picture, OBP. The story continues until you have the "big three" polytheisms, and then the emergence of monotheism. And that is a very "western" path. The east saw a completely different religious evolution.
                          Christianity is not a "western" religion; western civilization is built on it, not the other way around. I also contest the assertion that monotheism emerged from anything; it is built, AFAICS, on speculation, mostly done by those who have rejected it.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                            Then what happened to the disciples for the next 40 years after the death and supposed resurrection, when the NT was actually written?
                            After you've read the gospels then start with the book of Acts and continue reading. The history of the early Christian church is quite well documented.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              The way you present your arguments, you could see a genuine miracle performed in front of your own two eyes, and you would still insist that the supernatural was the least "plausible" explanation for what you had witnessed.
                              It is possible. It depends on whether or not there was any possible naturalistic explanation for the event.

                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              The standard that all natural possibilities must be conclusively disproved before a supernatural explanation can be entertained is neither reasonable nor rational, especially when the evidence naturally lends itself to a supernatural explanation.
                              It's "neither reasonable nor rational" if you've already decided the "supernatural" is as likely (or close to as likely) as the "natural." Experience tells me that a) naturalistic explanations regularly displace supernatural ones, and never the reverse, b) supernatural claims are regularly (always) shown to be frauds, hoaxes, or misunderstandings, c) most claims to "supernatural" are little more than claims for the unlikely (misunderstandings of probability) and, d) I have zero personal experience of the supernatural. Based on those observations, it is reasonable/rational to demand clear and unambiguous evidence for a supernatural occurrence before accepting it as such.

                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              But then part of the problem is the false dichotomy that is often drawn between "natural" and "supernatural" with many skeptics insisting that the latter violates natural laws which isn't the case at all. We often use the term "supernatural" to describe a natural event that we can't explain or don't understand, or which has peculiarly exact timing. So to insist that the supernatural is inherently implausible is a category error.
                              So Merriam Webster offers two primary definitions: 1) of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil; 2) departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.

                              That is the definition I use. How else do you propose to define the term?
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                It was all rolled up into one. "being Christian" - If once they found out that they were not getting away with their lie and Christians including themselves were being hunted down and killed by the hundreds, why would any sane person continue lying when they could just drop the whole charade?
                                There are any number of possibilities. 1) They found value in the ideology, enabled by the Jesus myth; 2) they had actually come to believe their own stories to be true (the science of memory tells us this happens a LOT); 3) they had come to identify with their roles within the community; 4) the history of why they died and THAT they died, which is supported by fragments, is inaccurate.

                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                They would know he was a fraud when he did not rise from the dead, when he didn't heal people, when he didn't actually raise people from the dead or do miracles.
                                Sparko - we have stories from all over the world of "faith healings," and a huge population of people who believe them - some of them who were actually there. We have precious little evidence of actual healings, and a huge swath of frauds and charlatans. You folks have locked into one possibility: it was all true. I have not dismissed all of the other possibilities because I do not have your "Christian myopia."

                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                you have not proved anything. You are simply trying to shift the burden to me to prove you are wrong. I have no burden here. I didn't make the claim, you did. Provide some actual evidence instead of conjecture and goal post shifting.
                                I'm not trying to "prove" anything, Sparko. I can't. Neither can you. We have fragmentary history, written well after the events they purport, by authors unknown (with the possible exception of Paul's letters). You accept one interpretation as "the truth." You are free to do so. I look at it in the light of modern discoveries about memory, human psychology, historical methodology, and conclude, "we cannot know it is true." When I look at it in light of all other religions, as well as what natural science has taught us, I conclude, "it's most likely not true."

                                You have to come to your own conclusions. You clearly have - but how you got to them (at least what you've shared) I do not find compelling. ergo, I don't have those views.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,506 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X