Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Who do you think Jesus was

Options
1…7891012

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Why would people willingly go to their deaths for something they knew was a lie?
    I've answer this question a couple of times myself and Wickie has too.

    There are lots of reasons why somebody might do it -- politics (Wickie's Joseph Smith), suicidal tendencies (Japanese kamikaze's after the war was lost, but not over), protection (the example I gave), ideology, lunacy (Jim Jones).

    There's nothing weird about people doing this; people do mad and suicidal things all the time and even if the gospel said (which it does not) that all the apostles got themselves killed in the service of their religion (whether knowing it to be false or not), I'm sure that a careful study of nutters down though the ages would produce plenty more examples of whatever it is that they are believed, or believed not, to have done.

    Unfortunately -- for obvious reasons -- it's not possible to ask dead people if they died for an idea which they knew was false. Perhaps we could ask our friends in the paranormal to get in touch with a few candidates on The Other Side? :)


  • Options
    #333
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    And it's not the point that Jakkass is trying to make. His question is, and has been for pages: Why would people willingly go to their deaths for something they knew was a lie?

    Robin has already detailed a list of reasons why this may be the case but I would just like to offer one more, cognitive dissonance management. The persistence of groups whose prophecies have failed to pass is a well studied phenomenon in sociology and psychology. In particular the following paper by Lorne Dawson details the psychological aspects of why someone would continue to proselytise and evangelise even when presented with something which refutes their beliefs.

    When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists (Link below)

    edit: It has just occurred to me from reading another thread that Robin has already presented here one of the most plausible arguments as to why someone would die for a lie. The Noble Lie presents a solid reason why the apostles would die for a lie. The teaching of Jesus of forgiveness and loving one another, running counter to traditional religious ideals as it did was a powerful message. It is possible that the apostles believed in the benefit of the message to the point that they died for it and not the truth of the resurrection.
    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    There have also been numerous other responses which have dealt with the veracity of the accounts, the manner of the deaths of the apostles, etc., which are all perfectly fair arguments once we get past this point.

    In the larger scale, I don't think Jakkass has a case; the only reason I'm defending him is that no-one seems to be arguing against what he's actually saying.

    I beg to differ. The veracity of biblical accounts and early christian literature is key to several components of Jakkass' argument. First of all, though, I want to present Jakkass' argument again for the benefit of anyone who doesn't want to read through 23 pages of posts.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIfhy0ug7kM


    There are a number of components to this argument which Jakkass has categorically failed to demonstrate but particularly:

    1. There is no basis for saying that the apostles had to have known that it was a lie. They could have just as easily believed it to be true.

    2. There is no evidence to suggest how the apostles died and therefore no basis for making any claim for martyrdom.


  • Options
    #334
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    robindch wrote: »
    I've answer this question a couple of times myself and Wickie has too.

    There are lots of reasons why somebody might do it -- politics (Wickie's Joseph Smith), suicidal tendencies (Japanese kamikaze's after the war was lost, but not over), protection (the example I gave), ideology, lunacy (Jim Jones).

    But Robin, all of those (except Smith) seem to be examples of people dying for something they did believe in. Kamikaze pilots could die any way they chose, but they chose a way that they found "honourable", and one that revenues their enemies. Ideology is belief by its nature, ditto lunacy.

    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Robin has already detailed a list of reasons why this may be the case but I would just like to offer one more, cognitive dissonance management. The persistence of groups whose prophecies have failed to pass is a well studied phenomenon in sociology and psychology. In particular the following paper by Lorne Dawson details the psychological aspects of why someone would continue to proselytise and evangelise even when presented with something which refutes their beliefs.

    When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists (Link below)

    That's much more like it:) As far as I can see, this is the best response to Jakkass' question so far. But it's still a case of someone dying for something they do believe in (in spite of evidence to the contrary).
    edit: It has just occurred to me from reading another thread that Robin has already presented here one of the most plausible arguments as to why someone would die for a lie. The Noble Lie presents a solid reason why the apostles would die for a lie. The teaching of Jesus of forgiveness and loving one another, running counter to traditional religious ideals as it did was a powerful message. It is possible that the apostles believed in the benefit of the message to the point that they died for it and not the truth of the resurrection.

    For the truth of the message, then?
    I beg to differ. The veracity of biblical accounts and early christian literature is key to several components of Jakkass' argument. First of all, though, I want to present Jakkass' argument again for the benefit of anyone who doesn't want to read through 23 pages of posts.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIfhy0ug7kM


    There are a number of components to this argument which Jakkass has categorically failed to demonstrate but particularly:

    1. There is no basis for saying that the apostles had to have known that it was a lie. They could have just as easily believed it to be true.

    2. There is no evidence to suggest how the apostles died and therefore no basis for making any claim for martyrdom.

    The reason I've been frustrated with this thread so far is its failure to get as far as this argument. It's gotten totally stuck on the question of whether people would willingly die for something they didn't believe in. Once we get there, I agree, Jakkass doesn't have a case. But all I want (possibly futilely) is to get away from this pointless argument.


  • Options
    #335
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    That's much more like it:) As far as I can see, this is the best response to Jakkass' question so far. But it's still a case of someone dying for something they do believe in (in spite of evidence to the contrary).

    No one has ever suggested though that the apostles (or anyone) would die for absolutely no reason.

    The argument is that they wouldn't die for something they themselves knew wasn't true.

    Now, due to in many ways Jakkass' stubborness, we are getting bogged down in debating whether or not someone who makes something up like Jim Jones or Joseph Smith, knows they made that thing up and thus knows it isn't true.

    To be honest this is some what beside the point since the key point of the argument is not the "knows it isn't true" but the "made it all up" bit.

    If Jakkass is happy to accept that people can and often do make stuff up, come to believe their own lies, and then are prepared to die for them, I really don't have a problem with that.

    I suspect though that Jakkass thinks he is holding some sort of trump card that he things if he can just get us to conclude that at the time of their deaths the apostles believed in what they claimed this proves it must have happened.


  • Options
    #336
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    That's much more like it:) As far as I can see, this is the best response to Jakkass' question so far. But it's still a case of someone dying for something they do believe in (in spite of evidence to the contrary).

    We are definitely going round in circles now. Yes, it maybe a case of someone dying for something they do believe in. So what? Where is the evidence to suggest that the apostles were any different? Jakkass hasn't provided any proof for the claim that the apostles would have to have known it was a lie. Without that it's useless to ask whether someone would die for a lie or not?

    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    For the truth of the message, then?

    I wouldn't use the word truth. As I said in my last post, it is for the benefit of the message that the lie was propagated. Telling people that they should turn the other cheek or love one another is not a proposition for which truth is relevant. However, I suggest that the apostles could have believed that the improvement in societal wellbeing that the adoption of the message would bring was reason enough to preach it. The addition of the mythical elements of the Jesus story are simply the method used by the apostles to get people to listen to the core message.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    The reason I've been frustrated with this thread so far is its failure to get as far as this argument. It's gotten totally stuck on the question of whether people would willingly die for something they didn't believe in. Once we get there, I agree, Jakkass doesn't have a case. But all I want (possibly futilely) is to get away from this pointless argument.

    Because as it's been pointed out before the statement is probably true and false, and varying degrees of true and false for different interpretations of the statement.

    The major caveats here being:

    1) People who obviously have access to the truth of a lie have have willingly died for that lie. You can argue all you want that the only reason they could have done that is that they now believe the lie themselves, but you could equally argue that this is good evidence that people willingly die for lies.

    The argument seems to have come down to "They must have believed it because they died for it, and people don't die for things they don't believe in ... THEREFORE PEOPLE DON'T WILLINGLY DIE FOR THINGS THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN" - a circular and useless piece of reasoning.

    2) It's plainly obvious that may people have died for causes they don't believe in, they perpetuate a lie knowingly for personal gain, get caught because the lie itself offended or troubled other people and died because of that lie. You seem to not want to include these people because somehow it breaks the "died willingly" clause, but I think it would be entirely reasonable to claim that Joseph Smith died because of (or for) his beliefs (which he knew to be a lie), and quibbling that this somehow not "willingly" seems a trifle pedantic.


  • Options
    #338
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    We are definitely going round in circles now. Yes, it maybe a case of someone dying for something they do believe in. So what? Where is the evidence to suggest that the apostles were any different? Jakkass hasn't provided any proof for the claim that the apostles would have to have known it was a lie. Without that it's useless to ask whether someone would die for a lie or not?

    I'm ruling out the possibility that the disciples died for a lie that they conjured up and that they knew full well was a lie.

    I am not arguing any more than this for now, and I haven't. I'm pretty confident that nothing actually satisfies these criteria because human beings don't seem to die for a lie that they themselves did not believe in.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    I wouldn't use the word truth. As I said in my last post, it is for the benefit of the message that the lie was propagated. Telling people that they should turn the other cheek or love one another is not a proposition for which truth is relevant. However, I suggest that the apostles could have believed that the improvement in societal wellbeing that the adoption of the message would bring was reason enough to preach it. The addition of the mythical elements of the Jesus story are simply the method used by the apostles to get people to listen to the core message.

    The "lie" if we are agreed that it is actually a lie has no benefit without the Resurrection. Even Paul writes this himself in 1 Corinthians 15. The Resurrection is key to Christian morality. Without it we are still as we were. It is only because of the fact that we have been born again in Christ that we can live distinctively for Christ. It is claimed by Christians that one doesn't do good works out of ones own impetus or effort, but as a result of being transformed by the Resurrection we live for Him. Not out of fear of hell or judgement because Christ according to Christians paid for this, but out of love. (Ephesians 2:8-10).

    If we leave out the Resurrection there is no message to be had. It is central to it.


  • Options
    #339
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm ruling out the possibility that the disciples died for a lie that they conjured up and that they knew full well was a lie.

    I am not arguing any more than this for now, and I haven't. I'm pretty confident that nothing actually satisfies these criteria because human beings don't seem to die for a lie that they themselves did not believe in.

    I'm well aware of what you're trying to argue, Jakkass. This tired apologetic claim is that if the resurrection were not true then the apostles would have known that and that they wouldn't have martyred themselves for something which was obviously false. This argument only exists because Christians realise that they don't have enough evidence to tackle the veracity of the resurrection head on and instead resort to these crazy conditional arguments.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The "lie" if we are agreed that it is actually a lie has no benefit without the Resurrection. Even Paul writes this himself in 1 Corinthians 15. The Resurrection is key to Christian morality. Without it we are still as we were. It is only because of the fact that we have been born again in Christ that we can live distinctively for Christ. It is claimed by Christians that one doesn't do good works out of ones own impetus or effort, but as a result of being transformed by the Resurrection we live for Him. Not out of fear of hell or judgement because Christ according to Christians paid for this, but out of love. (Ephesians 2:8-10).

    If we leave out the Resurrection there is no message to be had. It is central to it.

    First off, I should point out that the "lie" which I referred to is the resurrection so your opening sentence doesn't make any sense. Secondly, what I suggested in my last post is that the resurrection is not in fact the message but rather a mechanism used to give weight to the message. As I have said, I think it is possible that the apostles preached the message of Jesus (love one another, turn the other cheek etc.) and simply used the resurrection idea (which was not an uncommon mythological theme at the time) to give that message authenticity. Kinda like: "Jesus said love one another so you should because he rose from the dead so he has to be telling the truth." Basically, one big appeal to authority.


  • Options
    #340
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    I'm well aware of what you're trying to argue, Jakkass. This tired apologetic claim is that if the resurrection were not true then the apostles would have known that and that they wouldn't have martyred themselves for something which was obviously false. This argument only exists because Christians realise that they don't have enough evidence to tackle the veracity of the resurrection head on and instead resort to these crazy conditional arguments.

    Again, not what I'm arguing. I'm leaving delusion wide open as a possibility for now. I'm nowhere near to doing what Lee Strobel attempts to do in that video. I've taken the very limited approach of asking would people die for what they themselves knew was false. I've seen no evidence to support this.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    First off, I should point out that the "lie" which I referred to is the resurrection so your opening sentence doesn't make any sense. Secondly, what I suggested in my last post is that the resurrection is not in fact the message but rather a mechanism used to give weight to the message. As I have said, I think it is possible that the apostles preached the message of Jesus (love one another, turn the other cheek etc.) and simply used the resurrection idea (which was not an uncommon mythological theme at the time) to give that message authenticity. Kinda like: "Jesus said love one another so you should because he rose from the dead so he has to be telling the truth." Basically, one big appeal to authority.

    Christianity, or "the lie" as you are claiming isn't just about a good moral message. Even if it was, the moral arguments that Jesus and the Apostles present are so tied into the Resurrection that if one tried to sever them it would no longer make feasible sense. The Resurrection and the ethics of Christianity are forced together, they make little sense apart. So to claim that the disciples just did it to put a good moral message into padding simply doesn't make any good sense. Christianity says that God preordered our good deeds in advance. We can't be genuinely good by our own efforts. (Ephesians 2:1-10). That changes everything.

    The "lie" if it was a lie wouldn't be one where the morality of Christianity is separable from the Resurrection as a miracle because the morality of Christianity is tangled right up in the Resurrection.

    If I wanted to write a lie about being good by ones own effort, I wouldn't have written the Gospel as being an effective way of doing this because the Gospel doesn't teach this. It teaches that God makes us good by His grace and by His favour. The only way we can be good according to Christianity is if we accept Jesus' death and allow our old lives to die with Him and accept Jesus resurrection and become born again with Him. This is central to Christian ethics.

    According to Christianity if we are truly born again by Jesus' resurrection we will naturally begin to lead Christian lives by God's impact in our hearts rather than human effort. This is why we believe Jeremiah said that the laws of the New Covenant would be written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

    Even if we accept that Christianity is a lie, it is clear there is some form of a misunderstanding as to what the lie claimed to do.


  • Options
    #341
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Again, not what I'm arguing. I'm leaving delusion wide open as a possibility for now. I'm nowhere near to doing what Lee Strobel attempts to do in that video. I've taken the very limited approach of asking would people die for what they themselves knew was false. I've seen no evidence to support this.

    Ok, so in your view you've ruled out the possibility of someone dying for something they knew was false. This leaves you with (at least) two possibilities as you mentioned before delusion or truth. So as I have asked before, what evidence do you have to tip the balance in one direction or the other? Secondly, leaving aside the examples that I and other posters have offered in relation to the dying for a lie idea, you are still making an assumption (an unfounded one IMO) that the truth of the proposition is a consideration for these people. You seem to have concluded that these people would have cared whether what they believed was true or not. I don't think so. I have quite a few friends who are (nominally) Catholic who have told me that they don't care whether it's true or not. They believe because it gives them peace or comfort. My point is that we have no evidence of the motivations of the apostles and so you cannot rule out the possibility of dying for a cause they knew to be false because you cannnot prove that the truth of their beliefs was an important consideration to them.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Christianity, or "the lie" as you are claiming isn't just about a good moral message. Even if it was, the moral arguments that Jesus and the Apostles present are so tied into the Resurrection that if one tried to sever them it would no longer make feasible sense. The Resurrection and the ethics of Christianity are forced together, they make little sense apart. So to claim that the disciples just did it to put a good moral message into padding simply doesn't make any good sense. Christianity says that God preordered our good deeds in advance. We can't be genuinely good by our own efforts. (Ephesians 2:1-10). That changes everything.

    The "lie" if it was a lie wouldn't be one where the morality of Christianity is separable from the Resurrection as a miracle because the morality of Christianity is tangled right up in the Resurrection.

    If I wanted to write a lie about being good by ones own effort, I wouldn't have written the Gospel as being an effective way of doing this because the Gospel doesn't teach this. It teaches that God makes us good by His grace and by His favour. The only way we can be good according to Christianity is if we accept Jesus' death and allow our old lives to die with Him and accept Jesus resurrection and become born again with Him. This is central to Christian ethics.

    According to Christianity if we are truly born again by Jesus' resurrection we will naturally begin to lead Christian lives by God's impact in our hearts rather than human effort. This is why we believe Jeremiah said that the laws of the New Covenant would be written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

    Even if we accept that Christianity is a lie, it is clear there is some form of a misunderstanding as to what the lie claimed to do.

    I was just suggesting an alternate explanation for the apostles preaching something that they themselves had fabricated. However, given the amount of argument that we have gone through, introducing philosophical musings at this juncture may not be the best idea so let's park that for the moment.

    I get it that the resurrection is the foundation of christian mythology. I just don't see how any of the above gets you any closer to showing that it isn't just a myth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Jakkass, your assertion that people dying for beliefs they know are false is unlikely remains totally unsupported.
    So before you start on any other points maybe you should actually address this one, seeing as how it's the only thing you've given to support your dismissals.


  • Options
    #343
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm ruling out the possibility that the disciples died for a lie that they conjured up and that they knew full well was a lie.
    It's probably easiest to rule it out by noticing that the bible does not claim that they were murdered for their beliefs.

    How come you seem to think that they were?


  • Options
    #344
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Mob wrote: »
    Jakkass, your assertion that people dying for beliefs they know are false is unlikely remains totally unsupported.
    So before you start on any other points maybe you should actually address this one, seeing as how it's the only thing you've given to support your dismissals.

    If you'd like to provide me with an example of how I am wrong I'm all ears, I personally haven't seen any. It is really as simple as this. I'm willing to accept I'm wrong the second you can demonstrate this adequately.
    robindch wrote: »
    It's probably easiest to rule it out by noticing that the bible does not claim that they were murdered for their beliefs.

    How come you seem to think that they were?
    Both secular and ecclesiastical history.

    I presented the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus in the Temple a few pages ago from Josephus.


  • Options
    #345
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If you'd like to provide me with an example of how I am wrong I'm all ears, I personally haven't seen any. It is really as simple as this. I'm willing to accept I'm wrong the second you can demonstrate this adequately.
    Two things:
    1. That's really not how this works. You've made the claim, you have to supply the support. Asking someone to prove you wrong, is not support.
    2. We have provided you with examples, all of which you dismissed because you assert that they would be unlikely to die for a lie, aka, your unproven, unsupported premise.

    This is circular reasoning and a dishonest way to argue.


  • Options
    #346
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    You're making the positive claim in this case. That people have died for a lie that they themselves believe in. According to your own logic, it would be for the one making the positive claim to substantiate this rather than the one who believes that such a thing hasn't taken place. The burden is on me to look into everything you provide and see if it is a reasonable example of this as the one making the negative claim.

    This of course is according to the logic that is presented in respect to positive and negative arguments. If you want to scrap it here, then lets do it but otherwise lets be consistent.


  • Options
    #347
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You're making the positive claim in this case. That people have died for a lie that they themselves believe in. According to your own logic, it would be for the one making the positive claim to substantiate this rather than the one who believes that such a thing hasn't taken place. The burden is on me to look into everything you provide and see if it is a reasonable example of this as the one making the negative claim.

    This of course is according to the logic that is presented in respect to positive and negative arguments. If you want to scrap it here, then lets do it but otherwise lets be consistent.

    Wow, I don't think I've ever seen you resort to such obvious avoidance tactics before...


  • Options
    #348
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You're making the positive claim in this case. That people have died for a lie that they themselves believe in. According to your own logic, it would be for the one making the positive claim to substantiate this rather than the one who believes that such a thing hasn't taken place. The burden is on me to look into everything you provide and see if it is a reasonable example of this as the one making the negative claim.

    This of course is according to the logic that is presented in respect to positive and negative arguments. If you want to scrap it here, then lets do it but otherwise lets be consistent.
    And we've have supported it with examples which you've dismissed because you're assuming your unsupported assertion.

    Person 1 "I claim it is possible for A to happen."
    Person 2 "A is unlikely to happen"
    Person 1 <gives numerous examples of A happening>
    Person 2 "those cannot be examples of A happening because A is unlikely to happen."
    Person 1 "how do you know A is unlikely to happen?"
    Person 2 "because you cannot supply examples of A happening"

    Circular logic that should be beneath you.


  • Options
    #349
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Both secular and ecclesiastical history.
    Where?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I presented the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus in the Temple a few pages ago from Josephus.
    Josephus says that James was a lawbreaker and he was killed for it. Nothing about dying gloriously in the service of his religion and nothing about whether James recanted, or wished to recant (or not).

    And that's ignoring the widespread suspicion that Josephus' text (the 'testamentum flavium') has been edited elsewhere and subsequently by people with pro-christian sympathies, leading one to wonder if other pieces of pro-christian propaganda have been inserted.

    Is there anything that can form a basis for your argument -- namely a clear and unambiguous account of a direct witness being executed in the service of their religious beliefs, a witness who had been offered the chance to recant, and who had refused, preferring death instead?

    Your argument makes no sense at all unless you can provide such an account.


  • Options
    #350
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    That people have died for a lie that they themselves believe in.
    Not according to what you've quoted.


  • Options
    #351
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If we leave out the Resurrection there is no message to be had. It is central to it.

    I wonder is there anything at all we agree on J!

    Look, you claim you're dealing with a supernatural all powerful deity, who are you to say what his message is or isn't without a resurrection.

    In fact, I think the opposite is true, the Jesus story makes just as much sense with him coming to earth, preaching and dying for mankind's salvation without the resurrection. More so even, the resurrection seems to cheapen the whole sacrifice aspect of the story, a bit of tacky theatrics at the end of the tale - I honestly think the story makes more sense without it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Wow, I don't think I've ever seen you resort to such obvious avoidance tactics before...

    You guys use it all the time:

    I don't believe in God - negative claim
    I believe in God - positive claim

    According to you guys because I'm making the positive claim the burden is on me to make the argument.

    This time it's:

    I don't think that people could die for a lie that they themselves didn't believe in - negative claim.

    I think that people could die for a lie that they themselves didn't believe in - positive claim.

    Are you going to be consistent and follow by what logic you ordinarily use, or are you going to claim that this is avoidance tactics and renounce its use in full on this forum. The irony is delicious! :pac:


  • Options
    #353
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Are you going to be consistent [...]
    Is there anything that can form a basis for your argument -- namely a 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?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The irony is delicious!
    The silence is deafening!


  • Options
    #354
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You guys use it all the time:

    I don't believe in God - negative claim
    I believe in God - positive claim

    According to you guys because I'm making the positive claim the burden is on me to make the argument.

    This time it's:

    I don't think that people could die for a lie that they themselves didn't believe in - negative claim.

    I think that people could die for a lie that they themselves didn't believe in - positive claim.

    Are you going to be consistent and follow by what logic you ordinarily use, or are you going to claim that this is avoidance tactics and renounce its use in full on this forum. The irony is delicious! :pac:

    I honestly think you're genuinely confused here - I don't know where you got this idea from.

    In general as statement can be disproved using a counter-example - just one counter-example proves (or shows) the statement false. For example.

    "All swans are white"

    It doesn't matter how many white swans we find, it doesn't prove the statement - it may improve your confidence in it. However finding just one black swan proves the statement false.

    All statements can be phrased as positive or negative, that's irrelevant.

    All swans are white - so called "positive claim"
    There are no non-white swans - exactly the same thing now a so called "negative claim"

    So no Jakkass, there's no difference between negative and positive claims, we're normally interested in claims which are falsifiable, and you falsify a claim by producing a single piece of evidence which disproves it.


  • Options
    #355
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pH wrote: »
    I wonder is there anything at all we agree on J!

    In respect to Christianity, probably little to nothing. In respect to other more secular arenas in life, I'd be surprised if we didn't on at least something.
    pH wrote: »
    Look, you claim you're dealing with a supernatural all powerful deity, who are you to say what his message is or isn't without a resurrection.

    Based on looking at the New Testament in particular it is obvious that the Resurrection is essential. Looking to the Old Testament it is obvious that mankind needs a Saviour.
    pH wrote: »
    In fact, I think the opposite is true, the Jesus story makes just as much sense with him coming to earth, preaching and dying for mankind's salvation without the resurrection. More so even, the resurrection seems to cheapen the whole sacrifice aspect of the story, a bit of tacky theatrics at the end of the tale - I honestly think the story makes more sense without it.

    Then I would question whether or not you understand what the Christian concept of ethical behaviour is as given in the New Testament.


  • Options
    #356
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pH wrote: »
    So no Jakkass, there's no difference between negative and positive claims, we're normally interested in claims which are falsifiable, and you falsify a claim by producing a single piece of evidence which disproves it.

    Cutting to what's relevant in your post. I'm very interested as I have mentioned to King Mob if someone can actually show if there has been a case where someone has died for a lie they clearly knew was false.

    I simply haven't heard or encountered anything of the sort. I will the second when something that reasonably fits the definition is presented change my mind on that.


  • Options
    #357
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've taken the very limited approach of asking would people die for what they themselves knew was false. I've seen no evidence to support this.

    THat is only because every example given so far you have concluded that the person must have believed it because they died for it.

    You have not established that Jim Jones, David Koresh nor Joseph Smith did not know they had been lying. You simply supposed that as an (unlikely) possibility.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Christianity, or "the lie" as you are claiming isn't just about a good moral message. Even if it was, the moral arguments that Jesus and the Apostles present are so tied into the Resurrection that if one tried to sever them it would no longer make feasible sense.

    Christianity may have needed the resurrection, but it does not need the witness of the apostles. The apostles could have made up the claims of witnessing Jesus in order to support the resurrection, something they themselves could have believed in before any claims to witnessing the resurrected Jesus.

    The way it could go is something like this. Jesus is executed and the followers are devastated. One or a number of them conclude that Jesus can't have died, he was the Son of God, it must have been part of his plan. He must have risen from the dead. This may or may not have come on the coat tails of a missing body.

    The others say you have no proof of this and, to convince them, they lie and say that they saw him. They have already concluded he must of been resurrected, so to them they are not lying about the resurrection, merely lying about witnessing him.

    Since the faith of others now depended upon the lies they had made up it is not in anyway implausible that they died for them.

    We obviously can't prove this since all we have is the lie, if it is a lie, but this is not in any way as implausible as you suggest, nor are the apostles witnessing Jesus necessary for the resurrection. No one claimed to witnesses the actual resurrection.


  • Options
    #358
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Then I would question whether or not you understand what the Christian concept of ethical behaviour is as given in the New Testament.

    Just a point.

    The New Testament wouldn't have been written when the apostles made up that lie.

    Therefore appealing to the message in the New Testament, which would have come afterwards and saying that the apostle's behavior would have been inconsistent with it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The New Testament, particularly Paul's preachings, would have been shaped by the lie of the apostles.

    Now I think my concept in the post above is a better fit than the idea that what the others are saying, but it should still be pointed out that there is no point appealing to works written after the events as to what the events should have been like.


  • Options
    #359
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The way it could go is something like this. Jesus is executed and the followers are devastated. One or a number of them conclude that Jesus can't have died, he was the Son of God, it must have been part of his plan. He must have risen from the dead. This may or may not have come on the coat tails of a missing body.

    The others say you have no proof of this and, to convince them, they lie and say that they saw him. They have already concluded he must of been resurrected, so to them they are not lying about the resurrection, merely lying about witnessing him.

    Since the faith of others now depended upon the lies they had made up it is not in anyway implausible that they died for them.

    Exactly, thanks Wicknight. This is what Lorne Dawson refers to as "denial of failure" in the paper I posted. The apostles having been converted by Jesus' teachings could have fabricated the myth of the resurrection as a means to rationalise the death of their teacher. Dawson says (about prophetic cults):

    "To some extent all of the groups that survived the disconfirmation
    of their prophecies did so because they were able to promptly provide
    their followers with a sufficiently plausible reinterpretation of events."


  • Options
    #360
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Cutting to what's relevant in your post. I'm very interested as I have mentioned to King Mob if someone can actually show if there has been a case where someone has died for a lie they clearly knew was false.

    I simply haven't heard or encountered anything of the sort. I will the second when something that reasonably fits the definition is presented change my mind on that.
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You guys use it all the time:

    I don't believe in God - negative claim
    I believe in God - positive claim

    According to you guys because I'm making the positive claim the burden is on me to make the argument.

    This time it's:

    I don't think that people could die for a lie that they themselves didn't believe in - negative claim.

    I think that people could die for a lie that they themselves didn't believe in - positive claim.

    Are you going to be consistent and follow by what logic you ordinarily use, or are you going to claim that this is avoidance tactics and renounce its use in full on this forum. The irony is delicious! :pac:

    Except to get to the bottom of what's actually going on here we need to take a step back. This all stems from your (positive) claim that the apostles died for what they believed in which must have been true otherwise why would they die for it?
    You know this.
    But you are clearly dancing around the issue / stalling for time at this point. I have no intention of joining you in this merry dance any longer. I'll leave it to the other, more patient, posters to chase you around in circles.


Advertisement