Would You Die For A Lie?

[Mirdath]

You make some great points. Though, I sense a slight hostility coming from you. I am probably way off base, the internet makes it so hard to understand a persons emotions. No body language makes the internet a terrible communication medium in that respect.

I’m hostile to bad philosophy, nothing more

I am not trying to say Christian martyrs are better than Muslim martyrs, I am trying to say that the Apostles died for different reasons altogether.

Thing is, they aren’t really all that different. The apostles did not witness the resurrection firsthand, only its results; and Muhammad did not rise from the dead, but Sumayyah was effectively an apostle of his.

I find it interesting that you think the Apostles mistook some guy for Jesus and all because of this we have Christianity? I do not think I ever heard that one before. That is what you meant, right?

No – I was kidding!

The Apostles are our examples and they died because they saw the resurrected Christ. What better example is there than that to live by?

For a Christian, not many. However, they weren’t being used as examples here, but as linchpins for a philosophical argument. Considering one betrayed Jesus, one denied him, one doubted him, and all of them ran like bats out of hell when the chips came down, I don’t think that’s a very good idea.

I ask of your condolences for my stupidity!

You are forgiven, and I ask the same for my snarkiness

 

[tGette]

I am sorry I did not make a reply earlier. There are so many threads on here and this one was on a different page. I guess I should check my subscribed threads more often instead. You have been enjoyable to discuss with and it has only be a hand full of posts. Thank you!!!

I’m hostile to bad philosophy, nothing more

It has to be really bad for me to get hostile about it! I love the minds of non-believers because some of their philosophies are such thought provoking…well…philosophies! lol! Honestly…it is the theological philosophies of dissented Christians that bug me more than atheistic/agnostic/non-believer philosophy. I sometimes feel like the non-believers capture more use of logic! I think it is also because I know they genuinely disbelief (without an ingrained hate-filled agenda) and a lot are simply trying to understand and make sense of this world; probably because I have been there and kind of sympathize with them and enjoy putting myself back at that mindset!

Thing is, they aren’t really all that different. The apostles did not witness the resurrection firsthand, only its results; and Muhammad did not rise from the dead, but Sumayyah was effectively an apostle of his.

Fair enough, but they witnessed the resurrected Christ and then they experienced and live the miracle of Pentecost.
Using your reasoning, I could say the same thing about Charles Manson and his “apostles”. They were willing to die for him.

My argument is WHAT they were willing to die for, the ideology, etc., and not simply because they were willing to die.

No – I was kidding!

So…wait…do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?
Or…do you believe that the entire story is all made up?
More precisely…and you can PM if you wish…what exactly are you beliefs beyond the scope of being “agnostic”???
Thanks!

For a Christian, not many. However, they weren’t being used as examples here, but as linchpins for a philosophical argument. Considering one betrayed Jesus, one denied him, one doubted him, and all of them ran like bats out of hell when the chips came down, I don’t think that’s a very good idea.

I think any good Christian would do well to look to the lives of past Christians to gain hope and insight on how to live a Christ-like life. Ultimately we (as Christians) should look to Christ to see how to live a Christ-like life, but when we look to disciples and apostles of the past who made their lives about Christ it is inspirational. It gives the believer hope that someone before them has done it and that it is not in vain.

They give the believer even more hope especially because of their downfalls and imperfections. It is a healthy reminder that living a faith life is not going to be done impeccably.

You are forgiven, and I ask the same for my snarkiness

You are forgiven based solely on your use of the word snarky!

I appreciate these discussions…I like your point-of-views! Hopefully I will hear (or read, I guess) from you soon!

Peace!

 

[Mirdath]

Fair enough, but they witnessed the resurrected Christ and then they experienced and live the miracle of Pentecost.
Using your reasoning, I could say the same thing about Charles Manson and his “apostles”. They were willing to die for him.

My argument is WHAT they were willing to die for, the ideology, etc., and not simply because they were willing to die.

Well… yes. Exactly. Jim Jones too, and Osama bin Laden, and Shoko Asahara; and (sometimes debatably) on the other side, Siddhartha Gautama, St Charles Lwanga, and Ann Lee. Just because organizations are established through the pure charisma of one central person does not make them Good Things. They’re all cults – some are benign, some are not.

However, the nature of cults isn’t really what we’re talking about – this is about the reliability of witnesses. The apostles, as I have shown, really weren’t all that reliable, what with a quarter of them committing some sin against their leader and the rest just being cowards (at least until they were completely cornered themselves).

The apostles claimed to have witnessed extraordinary happenings and were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming that. That’s really not unusual – so have people of all faiths all down the ages. Nor is the ideology: other people said ‘be nice, mmkay?’ before and since Jesus, and got in trouble for it. What they were preaching doesn’t make a difference to this, since it’s predicated entirely on witnesses to miracles. The sum total of Jesus’ teachings could have been ‘blood for the blood god!’ and nothing would change with regard to the OP’s argument.

The only thing making Christianity remarkable in the slightest is that the apostles recorded the resurrection (resurrections being a dime a dozen, resurrections given historical context rather less so). However, the apostles were not direct witnesses but circumstantial witnesses, and ones whose fallibility is at least as much a matter of record

So…wait…do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?
Or…do you believe that the entire story is all made up?
More precisely…and you can PM if you wish…what exactly are you beliefs beyond the scope of being “agnostic”???
Thanks!

I wasn’t there, so I can’t say one way or another. I think an actual resurrection from actual death is about the least likely explanation there is (yes, I would rate the apostles getting taken in by a good-looking conman higher – con men are reproducible phenomena). The most reasonable explanation to me is that the events recorded in the gospels did not happen exactly as they were set down, but that the cult surrounding Jesus spiraled out of control after his death (or even perhaps before, who can say?) and he ended up a deity in the late stages when he was merely a precocious rabbi early on.

Getting more specific about what I mean by ‘agnostic’, I do not believe in a deity; if such a being exists it is outside my ability to comprehend even its existence. I find that the Gods of most religions are too human to be truly divine; a true God in my view is more Spinozan than anything else – but, since a God would be completely beyond the scope of my mind to know I’m left waiting for it to call me. Which so far leaves me with (besides a lot of spare time) the options of 1) no God, 2) uncaring God, 3) the highest power in the universe is not what I would call God but what one religion or another might, and happens also to be a total schween who doesn’t return calls.

I think any good Christian would do well to look to the lives of past Christians to gain hope and insight on how to live a Christ-like life. Ultimately we (as Christians) should look to Christ to see how to live a Christ-like life, but when we look to disciples and apostles of the past who made their lives about Christ it is inspirational. It gives the believer hope that someone before them has done it and that it is not in vain.

They give the believer even more hope especially because of their downfalls and imperfections. It is a healthy reminder that living a faith life is not going to be done impeccably.

They are good examples to varying degrees, but they are not good foundations for philosophizing. That’s why the OP’s argument is a house built on sand: it relies on the veracity and dependability of those who have shown themselves time and again to be all too human.

You are forgiven based solely on your use of the word snarky!

I appreciate these discussions…I like your point-of-views! Hopefully I will hear (or read, I guess) from you soon!

Peace!

Thanks, and you too

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Great post.

I would add that the apostles did not kill innocent people for the truth.

 

[Mirdath]

Great post.

I would add that the apostles did not kill innocent people for the truth.

Peter was about to in Gethsemane, or have you forgotten Malchus’ ear?

 

[tGette]

Well… yes. Exactly. Jim Jones too, and Osama bin Laden, and Shoko Asahara; and (sometimes debatably) on the other side, Siddhartha Gautama, St Charles Lwanga, and Ann Lee. Just because organizations are established through the pure charisma of one central person does not make them Good Things. They’re all cults – some are benign, some are not.

However, the nature of cults isn’t really what we’re talking about – this is about the reliability of witnesses. The apostles, as I have shown, really weren’t all that reliable, what with a quarter of them committing some sin against their leader and the rest just being cowards (at least until they were completely cornered themselves).

Just because of their faults, does not make unreliable. Put yourself in their shoes…do you think you would have been perfect? I would be scared if a cohort of soldiers came after me too.

The apostles claimed to have witnessed extraordinary happenings and were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming that. That’s really not unusual – so have people of all faiths all down the ages. Nor is the ideology: other people said ‘be nice, mmkay?’ before and since Jesus, and got in trouble for it. What they were preaching doesn’t make a difference to this, since it’s predicated entirely on witnesses to miracles. The sum total of Jesus’ teachings could have been ‘blood for the blood god!’ and nothing would change with regard to the OP’s argument.

The only thing making Christianity remarkable in the slightest is that the apostles recorded the resurrection (resurrections being a dime a dozen, resurrections given historical context rather less so). However, the apostles were not direct witnesses but circumstantial witnesses, and ones whose fallibility is at least as much a matter of record

Fallibility is one thing, but the miracles that occurred were enough for them to believe. (It’s late…that’s all I got…ok! )

I wasn’t there, so I can’t say one way or another. I think an actual resurrection from actual death is about the least likely explanation there is (yes, I would rate the apostles getting taken in by a good-looking conman higher – con men are reproducible phenomena). The most reasonable explanation to me is that the events recorded in the gospels did not happen exactly as they were set down, but that the cult surrounding Jesus spiraled out of control after his death (or even perhaps before, who can say?) and he ended up a deity in the late stages when he was merely a precocious rabbi early on.

Let me first ask this. Do you believe in the historicity of Jesus? It seems you alluded to the answer, but I just wanted to hear for sure.

That was a pretty impressive con-man.
When you said you joke earlier about them seeing some guy they thought was Jesus I pictured this scenario where some random guy is bombarded by strangers and they claim he is the Messiah. The guy is all confused and loves the idea so he just simply plays along. (That thought was fun!)

Getting more specific about what I mean by ‘agnostic’, I do not believe in a deity; if such a being exists it is outside my ability to comprehend even its existence. I find that the Gods of most religions are too human to be truly divine; a true God in my view is more Spinozan than anything else – but, since a God would be completely beyond the scope of my mind to know I’m left waiting for it to call me. Which so far leaves me with (besides a lot of spare time) the options of 1) no God, 2) uncaring God, 3) the highest power in the universe is not what I would call God but what one religion or another might, and happens also to be a total schween who doesn’t return calls.

I am sure you have heard this before but I will say it.
I have gone through what you speak of. I respect it 110%. This world is full of uncertainty to just “know” with certainty everything and/or anything. I went through a true form of atheism and then realizing that there is indeed a God. I just did not know the nature of that God. I knew for certain that God was beyond my grasp and way beyond my comprehension, but life is too amazing for me to disbelieve in a higher power at work in this magnificent world.

Your confusions/questions/concerns, etc. are all understandable!

Here is the kicker. I never knew what this meant until I experienced it, but I know God, just like I know my mother (actually better now). I have a relationship with God and it is amazing! My journal is now flood with tiny miracles and instances of answer prayer and Divine Providence that it is actually scary, especially how much my life has changed.

I know that sounds so weird for someone who has not experienced it, heck it sounds weird to believers who have not experienced it. For some reason I have been so blessed for God to have come into my life in such a profound way.

The one thing I have to always remember is that this is not the way things have always been for me and that people genuinely have a hard time believing. I would not believe if it were not for what God has done to me, with me, and in me.

They are good examples to varying degrees, but they are not good foundations for philosophizing. That’s why the OP’s argument is a house built on sand: it relies on the veracity and dependability of those who have shown themselves time and again to be all too human.

I get you, you are one of the few who actually STICK to the original post! I like that!

The reality is…is that we are all human and all we are ever going to have is the veracity and dependability of human beings. Does this make hope for finding truth or God, etc. impossible…I do not believe so. Again, I completely sympathize and undersand how others do not come to that conclusion.

Thanks, and you too

 

[Mirdath]

Just because of their faults, does not make unreliable. Put yourself in their shoes…do you think you would have been perfect? I would be scared if a cohort of soldiers came after me too.

I’d have needed new underwear! And this is why I say basing your philosophy on human qualities is inadvisable

It is interesting that they found courage at last though – but not when it was Jesus’ life on the line, when their own lives were coming down to an unpleasant finish. How perfectly human is that! In the end, we really are all about #1.

Fallibility is one thing, but the miracles that occurred were enough for them to believe. (It’s late…that’s all I got…ok! )

The miracles they believed occurred, let’s be a little rigorous in spite of the hour (I’m about to turn in too). Since neither of us witnessed them, we cannot say for certain whether their word is as good as it’s often supposed to be – only that we believe it is or doubt it, respectively.

Let me first ask this. Do you believe in the historicity of Jesus? It seems you alluded to the answer, but I just wanted to hear for sure.

I have no reason to doubt that there was an itinerant preacher named Yeshua who lived in Judea in the early years of Augustus Caesar’s reign, who had a small but dedicated following, and who was eventually sentenced to death after what was by all accounts an amazingly successful, if brief, career. After that – precious little idea

That was a pretty impressive con-man.

Part of the job description there. Mediocre conmen don’t succeed.

When you said you joke earlier about them seeing some guy they thought was Jesus I pictured this scenario where some random guy is bombarded by strangers and they claim he is the Messiah. The guy is all confused and loves the idea so he just simply plays along. (That thought was fun!)

If you haven’t, go see Life of Brian

I know that sounds so weird for someone who has not experienced it, heck it sounds weird to believers who have not experienced it. For some reason I have been so blessed for God to have come into my life in such a profound way.

The one thing I have to always remember is that this is not the way things have always been for me and that people genuinely have a hard time believing. I would not believe if it were not for what God has done to me, with me, and in me.

Extremely weird, yes – but good for you! If religion is where it’s at for you, I could hope for no better fate for a fellow human being than to get religion, no matter what I may think about it.

It is often regarded as heretical to take this sort of position (due primarily, I think, to a too-hidebound reading of a couple lines in the catechism), but I have a great appreciation and respect for an honest fideist – someone who says ‘I believe’ and leaves it at that. Faith does not need to use logic as a crutch, and only demeans itself by doing so. All these proofs of gods and gospels serve only to flatter the ego of the putative believer; if this person of ‘faith’ truly had Faith, he or she would not need to try to prove it – especially through such mental masturbation as philosophical proofs.

Kierkegaard was right! If you would believe, jump!

 

[tGette]

I’d have needed new underwear! And this is why I say basing your philosophy on human qualities is inadvisable

It is interesting that they found courage at last though – but not when it was Jesus’ life on the line, when their own lives were coming down to an unpleasant finish. How perfectly human is that! In the end, we really are all about #1.

Well, yeah, we are human beings. This is where the hope comes from, the fact that they eventually did muster up courage. Peter was crucified upside down!

The miracles they believed occurred, let’s be a little rigorous in spite of the hour (I’m about to turn in too). Since neither of us witnessed them, we cannot say for certain whether their word is as good as it’s often supposed to be – only that we believe it is or doubt it, respectively.

So then do you have a hard time believing that George Washington existed? No one can intrinsically prove that he existed or most historical figures. Unless of course there is video footage.

Does one need faith to accept that Augustus Caesar existed, or [add name here]???

I have no reason to doubt that there was an itinerant preacher named Yeshua who lived in Judea in the early years of Augustus Caesar’s reign, who had a small but dedicated following, and who was eventually sentenced to death after what was by all accounts an amazingly successful, if brief, career. After that – precious little idea

So you believe Jesus the Christ was a real man who was sentenced to death and crucified.

How about…more specifically, what do you deny about Jesus? I guess giving Him (please get used to my capitalizing and please pick on me when I forget!) the title Christ is probably not one you accept, right?

Do you doubt the specifics of stories about Him? I am assuming (I know that is a bad thing to do) that you do not accept the Bible as necessarily historical accounts nor accurate accounts of the life of Jesus, especially with other gospels and books not included in the Bible. (I guess I am presupposing a thought of yours, that since their our other written stories about Jesus it is hard to believe which ones are accurate and true, if any.)

Am I off way base?

Part of the job description there. Mediocre conmen don’t succeed.

Touche

If you haven’t, go see Life of Brian

I will try to remember that! Thank you!

Extremely weird, yes – but good for you! If religion is where it’s at for you, I could hope for no better fate for a fellow human being than to get religion, no matter what I may think about it.

I am weird…so it kind of is just fitting!

I love where I am at in my faith because I can understand that people do not believe and I do not become the type who tries to shove the hoagie of the Gospel down someones throat without letting them chew it first.

Religion is where it is at for me! I am so glad you use the word “religion”. I have qualms with Christians who claim they are not religious they are “in a relationship”. Though I understand the relationship part of Christianity, they just need to humbly accept the fact that Christianity is a religion and if you believe, regardless of your relationship with God, you are RELIGIOUS! I think people like to play with semantics enjoy the novelty of saying “I am not religious…” (Thanks for letting me vent!) Now let me pull that beam out of my eye…ERRRRRRRRR…there we go!

 

[tGette]

(CONTINUED>>>)

It is often regarded as heretical to take this sort of position (due primarily, I think, to a too-hidebound reading of a couple lines in the catechism), but I have a great appreciation and respect for an honest fideist – someone who says ‘I believe’ and leaves it at that. Faith does not need to use logic as a crutch, and only demeans itself by doing so. All these proofs of gods and gospels serve only to flatter the ego of the putative believer; if this person of ‘faith’ truly had Faith, he or she would not need to try to prove it – especially through such mental masturbation as philosophical proofs.

Please, if you do not mind, explain differently what you mean about the heretical thing.

You are so right that faith does not require logic. I forget the Saint but the quote goes something like: “Do not seek understanding so that you might believe. Believe, so that you might receive understanding.”.

Though…it is funny…now that I do believe I find logic in my faith/religion that I never could before. Again, what is helpful for me is that I realize even though a lot of things now intellectually convince me I can never expect to intellectually cause someone to have faith. It simply is not possible! This kind of using logic works amongst believers themselves, but to a non-believer (I am sure there are exceptions), like you said, “All these proofs of gods and gospels serve only to flatter the ego of the putative believer; if this person of ‘faith’ truly had Faith, he or she would not need to try to prove it – especially through such mental masturbation as philosophical proofs.****” (very well said!!!).

I guess in a sense this gets confusing, because there is a point a believer wants to share their faith, especially me because of the joy it has brought into my life as I was pulled from 12 years of depression. I just think certain “approaches” and ways of evangelizing need to be considered. My favorite way of evangelizing is summed up in the quote by Saint Francis of Assisi: "Preach the Gospel always, when necessary, use words!"

I am not against a philosophical means of explaining and defending faith. Philosophy and Theology definitely go hand in hand. It is just certain philosophies that get to me. Again, this is not going to stir well with the nob-believer as convincing. Basically, it is only natural for the believer to search for ways of understanding and explain their faith more completely.

Kierkegaard was right! If you would believe, jump!

I guess I should read that book, but I didn’t need to to make the leap! It is weird, because I was given faith (again sounds weird to a non-believer, namely you). Before I “believed” my friend would eventually come to the conclusion in our discussions that it boils down to faith. My mind got tired trying to understand that. But now that I have faith I understand. It is confusing.

This is the main reason I am Catholic because God’s mercy is more logical and reasonable as it extends to more than just making sure you get in your “I live for Jesus” quote before death. If God is a just judge, which He is, He is going to understand that a human’s puny ability to comprehend truth and to find it in this world is difficult and that if an individual could not come to the conclusion, through all the religions in the world, that Christianity is true then He will judge according to that. (Oh how so many Christians will rebuke me for saying that!)

You’re fun to talk to. Or type to, whatever!
It is refreshing to find a non-believer who is not angry at me for believing for what I believe. (Now if I could find a believer who is not mad at non-believers for what they believe! Again…pulling out yet another beam from my eye…I can’t believe I can still see!)

Warning: I am not sure all that I typed already…lol…and I wanted to make sure that at any time I made a statement about individual groups, I recognize that I was over-generalizing. Thanks! Peace!

 

[ralphinal]

Peter was about to in Gethsemane, or have you forgotten Malchus’ ear?

Good point, although Jesus corrected him for his actions, and with what he said, called into question the use of violence at all.

I know that Muhammed did the same, right?

 

[Mirdath]

Well, yeah, we are human beings. This is where the hope comes from, the fact that they eventually did muster up courage. Peter was crucified upside down!

But was it the courage of a pillar of faith or the courage of a cornered rat? Who can say?

So then do you have a hard time believing that George Washington existed? No one can intrinsically prove that he existed or most historical figures. Unless of course there is video footage.

Washington’s existence is thoroughly documented (and even video can be faked). Jesus’ is not so much, being limited to four nearly identical primary sources.

Does it take a kind of faith? Sort of, if you want to think that way. Not much more faith than it takes to believe that there’s actually someone else who’s about to read these words once I click what I trust is the ‘post reply’ button. You can’t disprove solipsism: what we all have is a ‘trust of convenience’ that other people exist, that the world exists, and that history is more or less as recorded.

How about…more specifically, what do you deny about Jesus? I guess giving Him (please get used to my capitalizing and please pick on me when I forget!) the title Christ is probably not one you accept, right?

No, he was indeed a Christ – he was chosen and anointed. I don’t think either of those was done by God, however, and let’s not forget that you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting half a dozen messiahs back then. Specifically, I deny Jesus’ divinity and that the miracles he is said to have worked were necessarily supernatural occurrences, if they happened at all. I like my truths to be reproducible in vitro; miracles cannot be, by definition.

I will try to remember that! Thank you!

You’ll either think it’s incredibly blasphemous or funny, pointed, and oddly touching

Please, if you do not mind, explain differently what you mean about the heretical thing.

It’s in the Catechism 1.1.1.III.36: Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. This is taught as dogma, and fideism – the attitude that the human mind alone is not, of its own ability, able to comprehend the majesty of the divine – being diametrically opposed, would be heresy.

But it’s not quite that simple! A lot of people, it seems, don’t keep reading, because the very next sentence is: Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. And since Catholicism is a revealed religion, reason is merely the ground in which the seeds of knowledge of the divine – knowledge gained by faith – are sown.

So reason does not approach God, according to dogma; it’s just a prerequisite. Unfortunately (and much as I love the scholastics and the whole intellectual tradition!), the Catholic Church also has a longstanding love affair with trying to prove points (Sts Anselm and Aquinas being two of the most famous offenders). However, note what the dogma above said: God can be known with certainty. That doesn’t mean proven logically, as Reason is only one way of attaining knowledge.

So in the end, having a slightly fideistic outlook is not particularly anathema – but a lot of people think it is. It is also, for my money, the most intellectually honest approach to the question from the believer’s side.

I am also very fond of that quote from St Francis More people would do well to take it to heart, not just in matters of religion either.

Peace be with you also

ralphinal:

Good point, although Jesus corrected him for his actions, and with what he said, called into question the use of violence at all.

I know that Muhammed did the same, right?

Moot point. The objective niceness of truth is not under discussion, only the actions of believers in its defense and spreading lending credence to different contenders for the position.

 

[cyberwolf001]

This sort of makes me think of goal post moving.

It use to be only Christians would die for there faith. Therefore Christianity is true.

Now that it’s finally clear non-Christians would die for there faith (I do not mean suicide bombers) it is now been moved to the conditions of the OP.

When we start hearing about Martyrs that saw the founders or Gods of there respective faiths and died I suppose it will be explained away as demons, corrupted manuscripts, delusions or some such.

 

[meedo]

Hello,

what i understand from the OP is that because the apostles saw jesus after his resurection and had a personal meetimng with him , their willing to death is more sincere and tells more about the truthfulness of christianity and thus truthefulness of the miracle of teh resurection.

Well, people die for things they believe are worth dying for . And it is actually more telling that a person dies in belief of somthing he strongly believes in but did not see rather than having to see it to believe and then die for it. I think this is even mentioned somewhere in the bible .

Isnt there somewhere in Christianity about in praise of the quality of believing without seeing?

peoplw where willing to die more determingly for even non religious reasons at all.

thanks

 

[ralphinal]

Originally Posted by ralphinal
Good point, although Jesus corrected him for his actions, and with what he said, called into question the use of violence at all.

I know that Muhammed did the same, right?

Posted by Mirdath
Moot point. The objective niceness of truth is not under discussion, only the actions of believers in its defense and spreading lending credence to different contenders for the position.

True, however, the understanding of how the two groups were called to respond to violence may give us understanding into how they behave in general.

 

[Mirdath]

True, however, the understanding of how the two groups were called to respond to violence may give us understanding into how they behave in general.

It may, yes – but that’s not what we’re talking about here

 

[ralphinal]

It may, yes – but that’s not what we’re talking about here

Agreed, although the inverse of the question may be a better one: are you willing to kill for a lie.

Overall, the question is flawed as Muslims do not accept it to be a lie.

 

[Mirdath]

Agreed, although the inverse of the question may be a better one: are you willing to kill for a lie.

The only Christians fit to think about asking that question are the Quakers. All the rest of you – glass houses. And entirely too many Christians, Catholic and not, seem not to have learned the lessons of the past in that respect and claim they are willing to do just that. Some are one Deus Vult! shy of being the next Paul Hill.

Overall, the question is flawed as Muslims do not accept it to be a lie.

It’s the wrong question but I wouldn’t say it’s flawed for that reason. The OP was trying to put other faiths down by raising up Christianity, not realizing that Christianity is just one boat in the harbor, not particularly special as regards martyrs, and all the rest went up with the tide too. In the end that question is an exercise in futility, not to mention (as meedo schooled you all on) contrary to the words of Jesus himself

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It’s the wrong question but I wouldn’t say it’s flawed for that reason. The OP was trying to put other faiths down by raising up Christianity, not realizing that Christianity is just one boat in the harbor, not particularly special as regards martyrs, and all the rest went up with the tide too. In the end that question is an exercise in futility, not to mention (as meedo schooled you all on) contrary to the words of Jesus himself

Jesus clearly taught that the truth would bring division.

However, Jesus taught that the truth would dominate because it was the truth, while Muhammed taught that his dogma would dominate by force. Truth was not a necessary requirement for Islam, only submission.

 

[tGette]

But was it the courage of a pillar of faith or the courage of a cornered rat? Who can say?

I guess there will be a side of speculation here. The ultimate point here is that they did find the courage, regardless of why. Courage is not inevitable.

Washington’s existence is thoroughly documented (and even video can be faked). Jesus’ is not so much, being limited to four nearly identical primary sources.

Does it take a kind of faith? Sort of, if you want to think that way. Not much more faith than it takes to believe that there’s actually someone else who’s about to read these words once I click what I trust is the ‘post reply’ button. You can’t disprove solipsism: what we all have is a ‘trust of convenience’ that other people exist, that the world exists, and that history is more or less as recorded.

I believe, therefore I am!
My philosophy is: I believe, because I am able to believe. I trust the world exists because it makes me believe so by tangible evidence.

I do not want to get into a heavy philosophical debate, but could we say:
I believe in Jesus, therefore He is! ???
Again…that could apply to any statement (I believe in unicorns, etc.) and is way beyond the scope of this thread and definitely WAY off topic.

So let us not digress.

No, he was indeed a Christ – he was chosen and anointed. I don’t think either of those was done by God, however, and let’s not forget that you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting half a dozen messiahs back then. Specifically, I deny Jesus’ divinity and that the miracles he is said to have worked were necessarily supernatural occurrences, if they happened at all. I like my truths to be reproducible in vitro; miracles cannot be, by definition.

I mean no offense by this, but you cannot believe that Jesus was chosen by God because you are uncertain of the reality of God.

Well yeah, miracles cannot be because they are . . . miracles.

It’s in the Catechism 1.1.1.III.36: Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. This is taught as dogma, and fideism – the attitude that the human mind alone is not, of its own ability, able to comprehend the majesty of the divine – being diametrically opposed, would be heresy.

But it’s not quite that simple! A lot of people, it seems, don’t keep reading, because the very next sentence is: Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. And since Catholicism is a revealed religion, reason is merely the ground in which the seeds of knowledge of the divine – knowledge gained by faith – are sown.

So reason does not approach God, according to dogma; it’s just a prerequisite. Unfortunately (and much as I love the scholastics and the whole intellectual tradition!), the Catholic Church also has a longstanding love affair with trying to prove points (Sts Anselm and Aquinas being two of the most famous offenders). However, note what the dogma above said: God can be known with certainty. That doesn’t mean proven logically, as Reason is only one way of attaining knowledge.

So in the end, having a slightly fideistic outlook is not particularly anathema – but a lot of people think it is. It is also, for my money, the most intellectually honest approach to the question from the believer’s side.

Hmm…I wanted to say a lot of things here and then I kept changing my mind. As I read it, I disagreed with you. As I re-read it I agreed with you. As I read it again, I agreed more with you.

Also…we are derailing this thread a lot enough as it is.

I want to take this last quote and reword it and see if we are in the same mind frame. I feel like we are, but I am honestly impressed with your knowledge of the different faiths. Not because I feel inferior or out done, but because most non-believers do not take the time of day to even consider the teachings. I respect your seeming thirst for knowledge.

I think I might start a thread sometime based on this late quote. Not sure though.

I am also very fond of that quote from St Francis More people would do well to take it to heart, not just in matters of religion either.

I am using this only because I want my post to have something to do with the thread topic. I guess the beginning did, but I want to end with it too.

The early disciples of Jesus could not contain themselves enough to live by this quote of Saint Francis. The message was so urgent for them that they HAD to preach!

Again, I want to let this thread stay to its topic. Though I have greatly enjoyed discussing things with you. I will have to think of something to start a thread so we can continue, if you were up to it. And if so, any thoughts on a topic?

 

[Mirdath]

I mean no offense by this, but you cannot believe that Jesus was chosen by God because you are uncertain of the reality of God.

I think you might have missed a sentence in there – I said anointed and chosen, but probably not by God

Hmm…I wanted to say a lot of things here and then I kept changing my mind. As I read it, I disagreed with you. As I re-read it I agreed with you. As I read it again, I agreed more with you.

:curtsey: (wow, we just got a whole pack of new emoticons… coooool!)

I want to take this last quote and reword it and see if we are in the same mind frame. I feel like we are, but I am honestly impressed with your knowledge of the different faiths. Not because I feel inferior or out done, but because most non-believers do not take the time of day to even consider the teachings. I respect your seeming thirst for knowledge.

More of us do than you might think! Unfortunately there’s a good deal of bad blood on all sides of the debate (some of it justified, some not) and people just aren’t very good at dropping grudges, so you end up with holy vendettas instead of civil discussion a lot of the time.

It looks worse than it is, from both sides.

I think I might start a thread sometime based on this late quote. Not sure though.

It’d be interesting, and I don’t think it’s been covered to the depth it deserves. I’ve tried putting the idea forward in some of the ‘proof of the month’ threads that come and go, but it usually gets ignored or handwaved aside.

The early disciples of Jesus could not contain themselves enough to live by this quote of Saint Francis. The message was so urgent for them that they HAD to preach!

This is true, and Christianity would likely not have survived if not for their preaching and proselytizing. That’s hardly the first thing that was done differently when Christianity was a young cult just branching off from Judaism – they were a bunch of commies too

What was appropriate for the situation early Christianity faced became much less appropriate later on. By St Francis’ day, they had the option of laissez-faire proselytizing: it wasn’t a daily struggle to keep the faith alive. In the old days, yeah, they needed to get the word out. By now, the word done been out.

Again, I want to let this thread stay to its topic. Though I have greatly enjoyed discussing things with you. I will have to think of something to start a thread so we can continue, if you were up to it. And if so, any thoughts on a topic?

We can do one on fideism and reason over in Philosophy or something?