Who do you think Jesus was

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

And Jakkass we have shown you the examples you want, but you've dismissed then because and only because you have assumed your premise and are making a silly circular argument.

Not at all. The examples you've given don't fulfil the criteria. That's the only reason.

It would be better if one could be honest and just admit that there really isn't any case that fulfils it.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

It would be better if one could be honest and just admit that there really isn't any case that fulfils it.

Where's the clear and unambiguous account of a direct witness of the death and subsequent return to life of Jesus Christ, a witness who was subsequently executed in the service of their belief that this actually happened, a witness who had also been offered the chance to recant, and who had refused, indicating a clear preference for execution?

Not to let it drop, since it's the premise upon which this entire debate rests.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. The examples you've given don't fulfil the criteria. That's the only reason.

It would be better if one could be honest and just admit that there really isn't any case that fulfils it.

We did: Joseph Smith.
The only reason you've given to dismiss this example is your insist he really did believe because it is unlikely that he didn't.
Which is assuming your premise.
Which is a circular argument.

But then you've moved the goalposts so many times on what case would fulfil your criteria the only example you'd accept is the apostles themselves.

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. The examples you've given don't fulfil the criteria. That's the only reason.

It would be better if one could be honest and just admit that there really isn't any case that fulfils it.

OK, Jakkass, fine. You want an example of someone dying for something they knew wasn't true, here you go. Let's take this argument outside the sphere of religion for a moment.

On 23rd October 1947, Lieutenant Paul Hideo Katayama of the Imperial Japanese Navy was executed by firing squad by the Australian Army. He had been charged with war crimes, specifically that he had executed Allied airmen whose plane had been shot down. They were taken prisoner alive from the aircraft wreckage but were subsequently executed.
A subsequent investigation found that Katayama was scapegoated by members of the Japanese military senior command to protect those involved who included a member of the royal family. Katayama who was a language officer had no part in the execution.
In prison Katayama wrote a letter to his priest where his mood is sanguine to say the very least:

"Dear Rev. Young:
I am sorry that I could not have my funeral service conducted by you, so I asked Mr. Sato to do it. Mr. TAKAHAI, a member of church, will also be executed. We are very calm and have a great hope to see our Lord face to face. We are very happy that we can die as "Christians."
I wish you every success and happiness in His name.
Yours sincerely
Paul Hideo Katayama"


Don Ball, one of the Australian MPs who was part of the firing squad said that he refused a blindfold and said: "I am not afraid to die."

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. The examples you've given don't fulfil the criteria. That's the only reason.

It would be better if one could be honest and just admit that there really isn't any case that fulfils it.

The don't fit your criteria, that is the point. You are defining and re-defining your criteria to ensure that they never fit.

You are saying you are rationally looking at this topic and then doing everything you can to define the criteria to ensure only your outcome. Jim Jones, my very first example, fits the criteria but you them simply changed the criteria to exclude Jones because he committed suicide, which apparently doesn't count because its not what the apostles did, despite it fitting your original criteria of a person dying for something they knew to be a lie. Then you were given Smith, and you changed the criteria again saying perhaps despite making it all up maybe he genuinely believed in what he was doing. You were then given examples of the noble lie, and changed the criteria again saying that it makes no sense for the apostles to believe that the lie of witnessing Jesus was a noble lie.

Everyone but you seems to be able to see you doing this. If this is the "rational" basis for your faith no wonder you believe this nonsense. :rolleyes:

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

[...] here you go.

Great example but I'm wondering if Jakkass will try to wiggle out by pointing out that Katayama was a sailor but some of the apostles were fishermen.

King Mob

Wicknight wrote: »

Everyone but you seems to be able to see you doing this. If this is the "rational" basis for your faith no wonder you believe this nonsense. :rolleyes:

Actually I think this could be the perfect example of what we're getting at.
Jakkass is using bad logic and deceptive tactics, which is akin to lying.
So he either is doing in full knowledge but doing so to help spread his belief, or is doing so unwittingly because his believe is preventing from seeing the flaws in his argument.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Great example but I'm wondering if Jakkass will try to wiggle out by pointing out that Katayama was a sailor but some of the apostles were fishermen.

Exactly the type of nonsense I'm talking about above.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Actually I think this could be the perfect example of what we're getting at.
Jakkass is using bad logic and deceptive tactics, which is akin to lying.
So he either is doing in full knowledge but doing so to help spread his belief, or is doing so unwittingly because his believe is preventing from seeing the flaws in his argument.

There is nothing dishonest about asking you to provide an example of someone dying for a lie that they conjured up that they themselves did not believe in. If you can't do it, just be honest and say you can't instead of slinging accusations around.

If we are willing to say that there aren't any such cases, or at least that these aren't apparent we can move on.

Claiming dishonesty is absurd. I've simply asked a question throughout this thread. All the answers that were provided weren't clearly cases of people dying for something a lie that they conjured up that they themselves did not believe in.

Claiming that my request is a dishonest request just because you don't like it is really dishonest actually. It would make you think twice about posting in this forum if all you can expect to get in response is excuse making.

Typical nonsense. If you can't do it be honest and say you can't and we can move on with the discussion rather than engaging in pretence that you've already done so.

Edit: I'm going to take a while to look into oldrnwisr's post. If true, I thank him and render the possibility to be possible but extremely unlikely.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing dishonest about asking you to provide an example of someone dying for a lie that they conjured up that they themselves did not believe in. If you can't do it, just be honest and say you can't instead of slinging accusations around.

If we are willing to say that there aren't any such cases, or at least that these aren't apparent we can move on.

Claiming dishonesty is absurd. I've simply asked a question throughout this thread. All the answers that were provided weren't clearly cases of people dying for something a lie that they conjured up that they themselves did not believe in.

Typical nonsense. If you can't do it be honest and say you can't and we can move on with the discussion rather than engaging in pretence that you've already done so.

Jakkass, now you definitely are being dishonest, these are silly delaying tactics while you dodge around our points.

We have provided you examples over and over again.
All you've done to counter these examples is simply say they don't count or use circular logic and assume your premise or move your goalposts.
We've called you out on this.
But rather than actually address that, or supply good reason to dismiss the examples we've provided (especially waiting for you to explain away Joseph Smith) you're now ignoring that and pretending that we haven't given you any examples.

So Jakkass if you really want the discussion to continue, please explain specifically why Joseph Smith is not an example of what you're looking for.

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: I'm going to take a while to look into oldrnwisr's post. If true, I thank him and render the possibility to be possible but extremely unlikely.

Here you go, Jakkass, these should save you the trouble of research and move this along:

Narrative of the incident

http://www.tadmitsui.com/index.php/memories-and-stories/476-lieutenenat-paul-katayama-executed-for-war-crime-he-didnt-commit.html


Entry in defence counsel resume, Donald Campbell QC

http://www.sclqld.org.au/schp/exhibitions/campbell/Campbell_01.htm


Australian War Memorial Record

http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/MSS0743


Trial notes from the Australian International Law Journal

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7247/is_16/ai_n56163643/pg_29/

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Jakkass, now you definitely are being dishonest, these are silly delaying tactics while you dodge around our points.

Such an accusation is simply nonsense. All I have done is simply request an example of such a case. oldrnwisr has given considerably food for thought. To claim that such a request isn't acceptable is ridiculous, it's a pretty good exercise. I'm simply not going to accept nonsense like that.

King Mob wrote: »

We have provided you examples over and over again.All you've done to counter these examples is simply say they don't count or use circular logic and assume your premise or move your goalposts.
We've called you out on this.

Nonsense. None of them except perhaps for oldrnwisr's fit the criteria. I've demonstrated this time and time again. Again, I'm simply not going to accept this nonsense.

King Mob wrote: »

But rather than actually address that, or supply good reason to dismiss the examples we've provided (especially waiting for you to explain away Joseph Smith) you're now ignoring that and pretending that we haven't given you any examples.

So Jakkass if you really want the discussion to continue, please explain specifically why Joseph Smith is not an example of what you're looking for.

There is no good reason to suggest that Joseph Smith didn't believe what he said he did. That's the problem. Unless the clarity that is required is present then it is a no-go due to the degree of uncertainty surrounding that claim.

It's the closest example that you've provided, but it is simply doesn't satisfy the criteria in full.

Unless you leave this kind of crap aside King Mob I honestly don't see the point of continuing this. I've been clear about my objectives so far and as I've said, your excuses are just that excuses with no substance.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's not be dishonest here.

King Mob wrote: »

Jakkass, now you definitely are being dishonest

Guys, could we stop slinging accusations of dishonesty around? It doesn't lead to forum happiness.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Guys, could we stop slinging accusations of dishonesty around? It doesn't lead to forum happiness.

Indeed it doesn't

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no good reason to suggest that Joseph Smith didn't believe what he said he did. That's the problem. Unless the clarity that is required is present then it is a no-go due to the degree of uncertainty surrounding that claim.

It's the closest example that you've provided, but it is simply doesn't satisfy the criteria in full.

And again you are assuming that he must have believed because you've assumed your premise.
If the above is not true then what are you basing the assumption that he must of believed on exactly?

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

And again you are assuming that he must have believed because you've assumed your premise.
If the above is not true then what are you basing the assumption that he must of believed on exactly?

Not any more than your assumption that he didn't surely?

The reasonable conclusion is that there isn't enough to tell us absolutely as to whether or not he did or didn't. This is largely the reason why it is ineffectual as an example.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

Not any more than your assumption that he didn't surely?

The reasonable conclusion is that there isn't enough to tell us absolutely as to whether or not he did or didn't. This is largely the reason why it is ineffectual as an example.

But that's assuming that it's in a vacuum, but it's not.
But continuing this assumption, then how is it different to the example Oldwinsr provided yet you seem to believe? You accepted that since there's a chance that person died for something that's a lie,it's possible.
And since you've agreed that you've no evidence that he truly believed, there's a chance that Joseph Smith similarly didn't believe, thus it is just as much an example as oldwinsr's, despite your previous insistence.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing dishonest about asking you to provide an example of someone dying for a lie that they conjured up that they themselves did not believe in. If you can't do it, just be honest and say you can't instead of slinging accusations around.

Can you explain how you think we can actually tell if they believed in it or not if not through their actions?

Smith hid everything he did through elaborate excuses and trickery. The best you can come up with is that he believed God was telling him to do this, which is some what ridiculous.

Jim Jones got people to spy on people coming to his church and then pretended to have the Holy Spirit reveal their illnesses to him. Again you say how do we know that Jones didn't believe that what he was doing was real?

Jakkass wrote: »

Claiming dishonesty is absurd. I've simply asked a question throughout this thread. All the answers that were provided weren't clearly cases of people dying for something a lie that they conjured up that they themselves did not believe in.

Only because you seem to except nothing but the person actually saying "Yup everything was a lie, you can now kill me"

Which defeats the whole point, since if they admitted it was a lie they wouldn't have been killed or died in the first place.

Remember we are trying to find examples that closely mirror the apostles. If the apostles had admitted it was a lie you claim they would have been spared.

You seem to only want examples where the person admitted verbally that it was a lie, yet still died, yet you want these to contrast against something where that isn't the case.

I'm not going to go as far as saying dishonesty, but you are certainly being disingenuous when presented with cases that are exactly as you initially requested.

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

Guys, could we stop slinging accusations of dishonesty around? It doesn't lead to forum happiness.

+1. I don't think getting mired in claims of dishonesty is going to further the overall argument.

However, for the record, I would like to point out that the current question surrounds someone dying for a lie. The thing is though, this all got started with Robin's question:

robindch wrote: »

Are we able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the authors were utterly reliable, utterly honest people who would not -- as was standard at the time -- make up speeches, events and entire panoramas in order to cast a particular light on the story?

to which Jakkass' response was:

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't know this, but it is incredibly unlikely that they would, or indeed even go out into the depths of the Roman Empire to risk their lives were it not true. This leads into an argument about the veracity of the Resurrection. One would have to ask what gain there would be in concocting such a story.

So your original proposition, Jakkass, hinges on two factors: material gain and bodily risk. However, bodily risk is not the same as death and in so narrowing the focus of your argument, you have, as others have pointed out, moved the goalposts which can be viewed as dishonest. Secondly, if you're asking what is to be gained from concocting such a story just look at Joseph Smith. Before being charged with treason Smith was mayor of Nauvoo with a 5000 strong militia at his disposal. Is power an insufficient measure of gain for the purposes of your argument?

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Before being charged with treason Smith was mayor of Nauvoo with a 5000 strong militia at his disposal.

A militia that Smith was happy to use for his own ends. To the extent that the federal government was compelled to send a large military force to Utah with explicit orders to invade if Smith failed to stick to whatever agreement had been reached concerning his use of his violent, marauding militamen.

All documented in Jon Krakauer's excellent book, Under the Banner of Heaven:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven