What is the difference between believing...?

[cornbread_r2]

To be honest I am not a scholar with such resources. I am going off of my personal search (for the truth) which led me to watch many shows on the subject from an historical point of view. Such as PBS, the History channel, etc. They would interview scholars and historians and they always unanimously conseeded this point. Even the non believers.

There it is for what it’s worth.

I appreciate your candor.

Whenever I read about an alleged historical consensus, my first question is: Why do those historians think that? Sometimes it’s just because they’re going along with what has been presented as “the consensus”.

No one to my knowledge ever went to thier death for claiming to be abducted, even after given a chance to recant.

In my opinion this is a strawman.

I reckon until we start threatening abductees with their lives for not recanting we’ll never know how many would go to their deaths for their beliefs. (One important piece of information missing in all of this is how many Christians did recant their beliefs rather than die and what penalties (social, economic, etc.) they might have suffered for recanting. Without that data, we only have part of the story.)

I also agree that the two examples aren’t quite analogous for a couple of reasons. Christian martyrs also believed that they would enjoy an exalted place in Heaven for all of eternity by their deaths – a belief so strong that some martyrs actually volunteered to die. UFO abductees have no such promise. Christian martyrs may have also been more afraid of eternal punishment for denying Jesus than they were of a physical death. Again, the worst that befalls UFO abductees for recanting is that they might lose their seat in the bass boat and a spot on the History Channel.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Looks like Linux has too much time on his hands. Some really strange threads lately.

Linus2nd

 

[Michael19682]

In Jesus we have something positively identified.

 

[Starrsmother]

I agree with the person who posted that it’s a question of faith. Some UFO’s may be real alien space ships though most seem to have more “earthly” explanations. I don’t think that anyone has ever said that it’s a sin to believe there are aliens out there. It’s certainly possible that God created more than one “rock” inhabited by advanced life of some type. If so, I would contend that this PROVES that there’s a God. I mean, how many accidental “Big-Bangs” could there be?

If you truly believed in the person who thinks that they have seen a UFO or really believe that you’ve seen one yourself, then believe in UFO’s. I don’t think that the presence or absence of alien space ships proves or disproves anything. If you believe the bible is truly the inspired word of God, then you do. If not, then you don’t—and probably nobody can convince you otherwise. Considering that the bible has been around in written form and before that verbal testimony for thousands of years and that much recorded in the New Testament was confirmed by secular writers of the day such as Josephus, I believe it.

 

[1AugustSon7]

What is the difference between believing events described in the bible according to hearsay alone and believing in UFO Abductions according to secondhand experience?

Why accept one and reject the other if the criteria for belief is merely hearsay?

You might question the credibility of the witnesses. Also you have to examine the content of the messages. The Gospel message is just that: good news. UFO abductions are not “good news”.

I don’t believe all - or even most - people who report UFO or paranormal activity are lying. Sometimes - though I think it rarer than not - they may be sick or suffering and consequently actually seeing strange things. There could be environmental factors at play here (something seriously wrong with their water or local air). But more often these experiences are, in my opinion, spiritual - though not of the good sort.

Believing something actually happened is not the same as believing it was a good thing or that it is something that ought to be “believed in”. The good news of Christ is worthy of belief and Christ Himself proves worthy to be believed in by the works that follow His messengers/apostles. Miracles attest to His divinity (especially His ressurection from the dead). The power of the Holy Spirit - the power of God - accompanies the proclamation of Christ and the preaching of the Church. We all receive “grace upon grace”. It’s really the power of God that sustains and attests to the truth of the Gospel and Christ’s Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is the difference between believing events described in the bible according to hearsay alone and believing in UFO Abductions according to secondhand experience?

Why accept one and reject the other if the criteria for belief is merely hearsay?

Typically, people are unwilling to die for a belief that they know is untrue. Since most of the Apostles and almost all of the Bishops of Rome and other important cities were martyred until the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, we have reason to believe that THEY believed the message of Christianity to be true.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I like this lawyer… there must be something strange afoot here, then!

 

[cornbread_r2]

Typically, people are unwilling to die for a belief that they know is untrue. Since most of the Apostles and almost all of the Bishops of Rome and other important cities were martyred until the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, we have reason to believe that THEY believed the message of Christianity to be true.

Again, how many of the stories of those martyrs come down to us solely from Christian sources sometimes many years after the alleged events?

How do we know that those martyrs died strictly because of their religious beliefs and not because they: 1) refused to support the official state religion or, 2) taught that there was only one god and that that god was not the emperor or, 3) aggressively proselytized the slave and peasant classes thereby threatening the entire social order or, 4) any number of reasons that had nothing in particular to do with their belief that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead?

 

[Steveabrous]

Again, how many of the stories of those martyrs come down to us solely from Christian sources sometimes many years after the alleged events?

How do we know that those martyrs died strictly because of their religious beliefs and not because they: 1) refused to support the official state religion or, 2) taught that there was only one god and that that god was not the emperor or, 3) aggressively proselytized the slave and peasant classes thereby threatening the entire social order or, 4) any number of reasons that had nothing in particular to do with their belief that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead?

Do you not see that these alternative reasons you give are in fact dying for your faith? The question is why would they do those things knowing they would be killed if caught unless they truely believed.

Here is a quote from Tacitus were he descibes how Nero blamed Christians for the fire of Rome and executed many. Why? because they were Christians and an easy target to blame for the burning of Rome.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed. " (Annals 15:44, 115 A.D.)

earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, how many of the stories of those martyrs come down to us solely from Christian sources sometimes many years after the alleged events?

How do we know that those martyrs died strictly because of their religious beliefs and not because they: 1) refused to support the official state religion or, 2) taught that there was only one god and that that god was not the emperor or, 3) aggressively proselytized the slave and peasant classes thereby threatening the entire social order or, 4) any number of reasons that had nothing in particular to do with their belief that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead?

The Jews were monotheists, but they weren’t thrown into the coliseum with lions.

But are you saying that Christians believed that Jesus was God and Caesar wasn’t? Pretty strong stuff if he had merely died on a cross and been buried with finality. But he rose, and that made all the difference.

Remember, all they had to do was to acknowledge Caesar as Lord…but they recognized one Lord, Jesus Christ, and refused to offer sacrifices to Caesar.

 

[Aloysium]

Again, how many of the stories of those martyrs come down to us solely from Christian sources sometimes many years after the alleged events?

How do we know that those martyrs died strictly because of their religious beliefs and not because they: 1) refused to support the official state religion or, 2) taught that there was only one god and that that god was not the emperor or, 3) aggressively proselytized the slave and peasant classes thereby threatening the entire social order or, 4) any number of reasons that had nothing in particular to do with their belief that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead?

Matt 13:4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Technically wouldn’t some one be believing an interpretation of an event in the bible? I say this because there are some stories that some interpret as literal and others as metaphors.

 

[Linux]

Matt 13:4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up.

Isn’t that like using the bible to prove the bible?

 

[cornbread_r2]

The Jews were monotheists, but they weren’t thrown into the coliseum with lions.

The Jews were officially exempt from emperor worship (source). They also didn’t proselytize.

But are you saying that Christians believed that Jesus was God and Caesar wasn’t? Pretty strong stuff if he had merely died on a cross and been buried with finality. But he rose, and that made all the difference.

Remember, all they had to do was to acknowledge Caesar as Lord…but they recognized one Lord, Jesus Christ, and refused to offer sacrifices to Caesar.

I don’t deny that belief that Jesus is God is a religious belief. My point is that the Romans apparently didn’t persecute people just for believing in different gods than they did (e.g. the Jews). The Christians were persecuted, among other reasons, because they refused to support the official state religion – which included paying a tax – and not because they believed Jesus was God, worked miracles and rose from the dead.

 

[jimmy]

You have to remember that Christianity, and religion in general, is a question of faith. There is always the question ‘do I believe it?’. It will always remain faith. You can always doubt the credibility of the witness. The reason to hear them out lies in faith and hope.

The difference between alien abduction stories and the stories of the bible is in the purpose and the ends. Religion seeks to answer the questions of existence, death, and how we should live our lives. It attempts to answer the meaning of life. Alien abduction stories don’t really answer any questions about our lives. Ultimately they are irrelevant to each and everyone of us (unless we are abducted ourselves).

 

[Aloysium]

Isn’t that like using the bible to prove the bible?

The quoted post was a clear example of what that parable teaches.
The Bible doesn’t need proof; understanding is what is required.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Because they can offer reduced sentences, lesser charges, etc. in exchange for their testimony against defendants?

Because they are the only ones who are part of the culture and there to witness the events.

Calling for “non-Christian” sources to verify the martyrdom of the apostles is like asking for suburban housewives to testify against street level drug dealers.

I’m not following that line of reasoning at all, but one doesn’t have to be part of a culture to accurately witness and record events.

Moreover, your implication that “Christian” sources are unreliable is frankly insulting.

I’m guessing that you wouldn’t accept at face value the uncorroborated account of Muslims on the subject of the first Crusade, or the uncorroborated account of Protestants on the subject of the Thirty Years War, so why would you expect anyone else to accept at face value the church’s uncorroborated account on the subject of the Apostle’s martyrdoms?

IMO, reliability must be earned, not assumed. I’ll leave it to you to investigate how the Roman Martyrology changed over the centuries as the excesses of Catholic hagiography were exposed and corrected.

The tradition of apostles’ martyrdom goes back at least to the beginning of the third century. In his third commentary on Genesis, Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254) writes that the apostles divided up the work of evangelizing the world between them—Peter, for example, took Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, and at “the last came to Rome, and was crucified head-downwards; for he requested that he might suffer thus.” According to Origen, other apostles went elsewhere; Thomas was assigned Parthia (today’s India), and John was given “Asia.”

Scholars debate as to where Origen picked up his information—some argue that he drew from the roughly contemporary Acts of Thomas, an apocryphal book relating Thomas’ adventures as a missionary in India. That book states that Jesus’ original 11 disciples “divided the countries among them, in order that each one of them might preach in the region which fell to him and in the place to which his Lord sent him.”

But there are other sources to consider as well. Eusebius (ca 260-341) wrote perhaps the most complete history of the apostles, though he merely quoted other bishops for his authority. Acts 12: 2 tells us, for example, that Herod Agrippa had James, the brother of John, executed. To this, Eusebius adds the story told by the bishop Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 215)—Origen’s mentor—that “the person who led James to the judgment-seat was moved when he saw him bear witness, and confessed that he himself was also a Christian.”

Or take the death of Philip, which bishop Polycrates of Ephesus (130-196)—again via Eusebius—wrote that Philip “has fallen asleep in Hierapolis, [as have] also his two daughters who grew old in virginity.” It’s debatable whether Polycrates actually meant Philip was martyred, since he also mentions that the apostle John “has fallen asleep at Ephesus.” (Tradition has it that John died peacefully in his old age, after being returned from his exile in the island of Patmos.)

All of which supports my point – and more: The information we have for the Apostles’ martyrdoms comes from sources with a vested interest – sometimes centuries after the alleged events – and is itself based on other sources which are often unnamed, unvetted and/or conflict with still other church sources. I’m sure you’ll disagree, but that doesn’t inspire confidence in me.

Are these sources reliable? Can Christians stand on the testimony of these early church fathers to make the case for these martyrdoms? We can, if we accept that in the first couple centuries of the church, much of the Christian story was passed on by word-of-mouth, and bishops of the church would guard these stories zealously—especially with heretical sects threatening the church.

You apparently have a lot more faith in the oral transmission of data than I have.

 

[cornbread_r2]

The quoted post was a clear example of what that parable teaches.
The Bible doesn’t need proof; understanding is what is required.

IIRC, the Apostles’ deaths aren’t addressed in the bible.

 

[Linux]

The quoted post was a clear example of what that parable teaches.
The Bible doesn’t need proof; understanding is what is required.

The bible doesn’t need proof?..Well if Christianity is correct thank God you happened to end up being a christian, because its that kind of thinking that leads people into Cults and deceptive organizations.

 

[Aloysium]

The bible doesn’t need proof?..Well if Christianity is correct thank God you happened to end up being a christian, because its that kind of thinking that leads people into Cults and deceptive organizations.

Interesting.

Let’s start with the idea of cults. The key part about them is not their particular belief system, but the nature of their social organization and what it does to the person. Taking the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as an example, it may now be another Hindu sect, but a bit over forty years ago many young people were drawn to it searching for a sense of community and psychological wholeness. Some (many?) found quite the opposite. This is in spite of the fact that its religious teachings are far closer to Truth than anything one finds in secular society. It is not ideas or thinking that leads one into cults, the motivations are strictly psychological.

Personally speaking, I may have “end(ed) up being a Christian”, but much of it was screaming and kicking. I do “thank God”; this would be for all the graces He has bestowed on me. Actually, what led me to focus predominantly on Catholicism was a situation not that long ago, when I was sitting with a dying friend. Gazing at nothing visible, she asked me, “What is a soul?” I am reputed among my friends to know about such things, and my words most definitely would have met the expectation. But I knew, in the face of the concrete reality, the unfathomable mystery of this soul before me, that the response was, frankly put, totally inadequate. The truth of this being, this heart, this wonder that brings me to tears, like a flame, turns ideas into smoke. Where do I find anything that points to this reality? In Christ.

It is not so much a matter Christianity being correct or incorrect, as it is the degree to which it describes, explains and deepens our relationship with God. I would say that all ideas, even delusions have some meaning, that is they reveal some aspect of Reality. The key word here is “reveal”. For me the Bible, as one way in which the Church communicates God’s revelation, is coherent, consistent and speaks to what truly matters. The more I read, contemplate, pray and participate in the mass, the closer I feel to God. The proof is in the pudding as they say.