(Earlier pragraphs omitted to save space)
So, we should differentiate between those tragic cases, and those who hold a faith-based belief and refuse to convert upon pain of excruciating death, when offered a chance to do so. There are some examples of this with other faiths than Christianity, though not in as large numbers (even some pagan and non-Christian, Skadi), of course, and simply being willing to die for ones beliefs is no proof of the truth of them, as you say. They can’t all be true, obviously. What is compelling in the Christian case, however, are two factors:
- In the case of the early Church, these were men who had known and met Christ, and had witnessed miracles, and witnessed His Resurrection, by their own testimony, or who had received that testimony from first-hand witnesses they felt were reliable. They didn’t simply believe and submit to death rather than convert on faith (which can be admirable in itself), but on the stronger evidence of having been a witness, and then refusing to recant.
- Because it still goes on. The rate of Christian Martyrdom throughout the world still continues, beyond that of any other faith in the world today - throughout the Islamic crescent in the Middle East and Africa, in Algeria, in Egypt, in Pakistan, in Iran, in Somalia, in Saudi Arabia, in the Sudan, in the Orissa region of India, in Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka, and in atheist countries such as the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea. History witnessed the example of Christian Martyrdom (as well as the martyrdom of the wellspring of Christian faith, the Jews) throughout the last century, in the Gulag, in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, in Dachau and Auschwitz and the Nazi-occupied countries, in Mexico under the PRI. Yet it still thrives and grows.
Again, that’s not proof, but it’s pretty good evidence.
Your first few paragraphs and point 2 are very true. However point 2 is irrelivant to this particular discussion as noone who could have known the great great grandchildren Christs eye witnesses is alive. Modern martyrs dying for faith do so because of just that, faith. If a person is raised their whole life within a singular view it can even cease to be faith and to the person become nothing more than knowledge. Ask an evangelical if they believe their religion is right. They don’t believe it, they KNOW it. And while Christianity has a long history of prominent martyrs it has no monopoly.
What I will focus on is your last few paragraphs and point #1.
Firstly, to a person of great faith, a demand of conversion can be even greater than a demand of some physical thing. If the Branch Davidians died to keep the FBI out of their compound, how do you think would have died rather than disown Karesh for traditional Christendom? The very act of demanding conversion can drive a devout person even further, such as the famous “girl who said yes” at Columbine.
While your right that none of these groups had preasure for conversion ill give another example. The thousands of Saxons and other Germanic tribesmen killed under Charlemagne, most notably at Verdun, for refusing to abandon the old Gods for Christianity. The are far from the only example, but certainly a good one.
They do not constitute cult followers but members of a widespread and long established tradition, but they do constitute mass martyrdom outside Christianity for faith.
On point 1, I pose another cult leader. Joseph Smith. Let us assume (as we both do as non LDS) that Smith is a liar or mad. It’s possible some of his inner circle knew of his lies/insanity. Either way you put it together Smith and many of his inner circle lived through persecution before ultimately being killed for their religious affiliation. Then Smiths closest followers lead the Mormons all the way across the Great Plains and Rockies to the unsettled wastes of Utah, In order to carry on. Why do this if Smith is a fraud and his close followers know it?
What’s more, many offshoots of Christianity in America such as JW’s, LDS, 7th Dayers, ect. Have had their fair share of failed prophecy. Yet many smaller or more tight nit religions have shown a great ability to overcome such events. Often a reason to explain something away is given, and the followers mind, programmed to take from these sources, accepts this without much thought rather than face their own failed belief. Further, there is sometimes a “emperor has no clothes effect”, in a tight nit religious community (which early Christianity was) to be accused of herasy or disbelief can be a terrifying prospect. Rather than be shuned by the group a person may lie or even convince themself of things.
Lastly, there is of course the nature of the Gospels and their writing and reliability. That subject has a whole library of books dedicated to it and could be debated for hours. All I will say on the subject is that they are not documents which would hold up in a court room as they involve gross amounts of hearsay and an obvious potential for writer or witness bias as well as possible mistranslations. Christians can’t even agree on what constitutes the Bible, let alone its meaning. While I do consider Catholicism the most accurate to the bible and Christian tradition of the religions various sects the circumstances surrounding her official chosing of the Canon leave great potential for bias or political interference. And sense I do not believe in the Holy Spirit I cannot acccept claims of its guidence or intercession in selection of proper canon as correct.
