Hello,
I thought i would put my 2 cents in. These are all claims made by in which these people are Christians. But none of these Christians are following what the bible says. Yes you will disagree about anything in the bible. But these statements have nothing to do with Christianity and what its all about. Its just foolish people like this who take it to the extreme. They are confusing suicide bombing with another religion. I thought that’s what this post is all about “Christianity” Why is Christianity based on other peoples behavior. It’s not like that and i think you have common sense to know that an individual does not make a religion. Like the saying not all Muslims are terrorists but terrorists are Muslims. So you can say that not every single Muslim is going to do a suicide bomb based on the radicals behaviors. To sum it all up, these people really have nothing to do with Christianity itself but have a lot to do with how they act and perceive things in life. I think if your going to argue religion look at it as a whole and not just individuals and their actions.
The comic highlights the argument from Christians, “If Jesus didn’t exist, then why would people die for him?” The comic demonstrates that people are gullible and easily swayed when introduced to something they want to believe.
The comic used examples that we giggle at and shake our heads to asking the rhetoric, what were they thinking?
I will agree that not all Muslims are terrorists, I know a few and enjoy their company. But we cannot dismiss that the Koran and the Bible call for martyrdom. It is put on a pedestal and viewed as a testament of just how devout an individual is.
Back to the comic, the question posed in the first block is common throughout debate and discussion with Christians. The following blocks present examples of people doing stupid things because they believe whole-heartedly in the truth and authenticity of it.
The challenge “How do you explain Christian martyrs?” and the question “Why would anyone be willing to suffer or die for a claim if it is wasn’t true?” was forcefully met with the examples. To non-theists, in general, martyrdom is just a sad side-effect of an ill-fated dogma enforced with threats of torture and promises of paradise.
Where in the bible does it say one has to martyr to be accepted into paradise?
I think when you see articles and claims like this you aren’t being fair to the ones who dont follow such things like suicide bombings or suicide for the purpose of acceptance in paradise.
I know you are knowledgeable of the bible. But i also believe you take everything out of context and believe what you want to believe. I respect your approach for an argument, But i truly believe you are being extreme when it comes to christianity. You cannot put christianity and Islam in the same category. For one Islam is full of killing and doing jihad in order to be welcomed in paradise. This is something the islamic faith lacks to see. I can go all day about the differences between these two religions. The scipures vs the hadiths and quran are completely different. The people who did this to themselves as a justification for their faith are obviously crazy and extreme and that they do not understand the words given to them. Dont get me wrong the stuff you post is interesting but i do have to disagree with you on somethings.
Notice I did not say that the Bible states one has to be a martyr to be accepted into paradise. I said it was the result of dogma.
I don’t think I take things out of context. I think the Bible itself is out of context when used in our present society. The Bible was for a specific time and a specific people. I poke fun at it as modern Christianity uses it.
As for the Christianity and Islam being in the same category, historically they’re both guilty of the same things. Yes, they are different, but they have the same overall message.
The comic indicates what might be a flaw in the thinking of some Christians–that such devotion demonstrates the inherent truth of the claims themselves. However, it also indicates what might be a flaw in the thinking of some atheists–that Christians believe that martyrdom demonstrates the truth of Christianity. Of course it doesn’t. What it DOES demonstrate, though, is that the first-generation Christians weren’t lying.
So far as I can tell, the historical investigation into Christian origins–or really, the historical investigation into any matter of dispute–revolves around four basic questions, each built off the previous one. First, did the witnesses exist? That is, were the Apostles actual, living individuals in the first century? Second, did the witness report what they are alleged to have reported? That is, did the Apostles really report that Jesus a) existed and b) was resurrected? Third, did the witnesses believe their own report? That is, were the Apostles telling the truth as far as they knew? Fourth, were the witnesses in a position to know the truth of their claims? That is, did the Apostles have sufficient justification to claim what they did about Jesus?
Nearly all defenses of, or attacks on, the historicity of the resurrection accounts (or the overarching Jesus narrative) can be classified as potential answers to one of those four questions. In this particular case, the faulty logic comes from misclassifying the question that the Christian is attempting to answer. The faulty logic is sometimes on the part of the Christian, believing that since they weren’t *lying*, the claims they made must have been factual. The faulty logic is sometimes on the part of the atheist, believing that the Christian is arguing for the Apostles’ *competence* as witnesses when, in fact, he is only arguing for the Apostles’ *honesty*.
Of course, it’s all moot if the answer to the first question is, as some atheists propose, something like, “No. The Apostles were simply symbolic of the Zodiac signs, a reframing of the ancient sun-god mythos into a kind of Hellenistic-Jewish Messiah narrative. Those who claim to have known them were outright lying themselves, or were lied about by people who came still later.” But that’s a whole ‘nother debate.
As for the idea that martyrdom itself is “just a sad side-effect of an ill-fated dogma enforced with threats of torture and promises of paradise,” I’m not sure that’s the case at all. What I’m saying is that, while some martyrdom may be linked to the carrot-and-stick principle, not all of it is, whatever the faith of the martyr in question. Socrates was martyred, not because he expected paradise or thought he would face Hell if he lived, but because of devotion to principles.
Eep, I’m longwinded. Sorry ’bout that. The comic and ensuing discussion provided a lot of food for thought, though.
Of course it doesn’t. I never suggested that martyrdom demonstrates the accuracy of the beliefs–only that it demonstrates the sincerity of the believer. In a case where a person isn’t in a position to accurately and objectively judge the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims in question, that doesn’t prove anything. A person’s sincere beliefs are just that, and nothing more. If I believe the Hale-Bopp comet houses a spaceship, no matter how sincerely I believe it, it’s not true. However, believing it so strongly as to die for the cause–a belief which supersedes self-preservation in the psyche–is proof that I did, in fact, believe it.
That’s the crux of the matter: a person willing to die for something he believes has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he actually believes it. The question to which that demonstration invariably leads is, “Was that person in a position to know?” In other words, the person, or the group of people, was being honest, sure, but would they have actually known?
Let’s bring this back to the question of the Jesus narrative. The first-generation followers have demonstrated the sincerity of their beliefs beyond reasonable doubt. The question to which the investigator is invariably led is, “Okay, so their beliefs were sincere, but were they justified? Were the Apostles in a position to know whether Jesus had, in fact, risen from the dead?”
In other words, demonstrating the sincerity of a person’s beliefs opens up the door to a discussion over whether those beliefs are or were justified. It doesn’t–and shouldn’t be used to–justify those beliefs in and of itself. Christians who use martyrdom as a testimony of the truth of Christianity are silly.
“It doesn’t–and shouldn’t be used to–justify those beliefs in and of itself. Christians who use martyrdom as a testimony of the truth of Christianity are silly.”
That was the whole point of the comic. In my experience of discussion with Christians, this is an all-too-common argument. It is a silly argument and doesn’t belong in debate.
And I apologize for the misinterpretation of what I thought you meant. I see your point. Even I am guilty of jumping to conclusions.
I’ve heard objections from atheists before that the Apostles were probably just lying (granted, it’s a rare objection, but it does happen). At that point, the martyrdom argument has merit. They might have been mistaken, or deceived, or crazy, or even fictional characters, but they weren’t lying. So it IS a valid argument to make–just not for the purpose that some Christians use it for.
Why Christian martyrs? Isn’t it the dogma that Jesus martyred himself to save Jews and Gentiles alike from the need to martyr themselves? What!!??? Didn’t he do it right? Are you going to show Jesus what he did wrong? Probably not, but by trying, those Christian martyrs take their Lord’s name in vain and commit that unforgivable blaspheme of the Holy Ghost. They ignore the meaning of their own dogma. That being that the Christian doesn’t need to martyr himself since it has already been done. The God of Life has no need of martyrs. God is the God of the Living, not the dead. That is always forgotten, it seems. Those pushing and conditioning the young and old in the fallacy of habitation of heaven and hell AFTER death and teach the dogma of a purposeful death as the ultimate sacrifice is magick of the blackest sort. And such fallacious ideas of heaven and hell is taught from pulpits. Who da’ thunk it.
Funny, these are exactly the examples I used in a recent debate with a fundie who advanced the same argument. Of course, they had no effect on him.
Hello,
I thought i would put my 2 cents in. These are all claims made by in which these people are Christians. But none of these Christians are following what the bible says. Yes you will disagree about anything in the bible. But these statements have nothing to do with Christianity and what its all about. Its just foolish people like this who take it to the extreme. They are confusing suicide bombing with another religion. I thought that’s what this post is all about “Christianity” Why is Christianity based on other peoples behavior. It’s not like that and i think you have common sense to know that an individual does not make a religion. Like the saying not all Muslims are terrorists but terrorists are Muslims. So you can say that not every single Muslim is going to do a suicide bomb based on the radicals behaviors. To sum it all up, these people really have nothing to do with Christianity itself but have a lot to do with how they act and perceive things in life. I think if your going to argue religion look at it as a whole and not just individuals and their actions.
Thanks
The comic highlights the argument from Christians, “If Jesus didn’t exist, then why would people die for him?” The comic demonstrates that people are gullible and easily swayed when introduced to something they want to believe.
The comic used examples that we giggle at and shake our heads to asking the rhetoric, what were they thinking?
I will agree that not all Muslims are terrorists, I know a few and enjoy their company. But we cannot dismiss that the Koran and the Bible call for martyrdom. It is put on a pedestal and viewed as a testament of just how devout an individual is.
Back to the comic, the question posed in the first block is common throughout debate and discussion with Christians. The following blocks present examples of people doing stupid things because they believe whole-heartedly in the truth and authenticity of it.
The challenge “How do you explain Christian martyrs?” and the question “Why would anyone be willing to suffer or die for a claim if it is wasn’t true?” was forcefully met with the examples. To non-theists, in general, martyrdom is just a sad side-effect of an ill-fated dogma enforced with threats of torture and promises of paradise.
Where in the bible does it say one has to martyr to be accepted into paradise?
I think when you see articles and claims like this you aren’t being fair to the ones who dont follow such things like suicide bombings or suicide for the purpose of acceptance in paradise.
I know you are knowledgeable of the bible. But i also believe you take everything out of context and believe what you want to believe. I respect your approach for an argument, But i truly believe you are being extreme when it comes to christianity. You cannot put christianity and Islam in the same category. For one Islam is full of killing and doing jihad in order to be welcomed in paradise. This is something the islamic faith lacks to see. I can go all day about the differences between these two religions. The scipures vs the hadiths and quran are completely different. The people who did this to themselves as a justification for their faith are obviously crazy and extreme and that they do not understand the words given to them. Dont get me wrong the stuff you post is interesting but i do have to disagree with you on somethings.
Thanks
I like reading your opinions. =)
Notice I did not say that the Bible states one has to be a martyr to be accepted into paradise. I said it was the result of dogma.
I don’t think I take things out of context. I think the Bible itself is out of context when used in our present society. The Bible was for a specific time and a specific people. I poke fun at it as modern Christianity uses it.
As for the Christianity and Islam being in the same category, historically they’re both guilty of the same things. Yes, they are different, but they have the same overall message.
The comic indicates what might be a flaw in the thinking of some Christians–that such devotion demonstrates the inherent truth of the claims themselves. However, it also indicates what might be a flaw in the thinking of some atheists–that Christians believe that martyrdom demonstrates the truth of Christianity. Of course it doesn’t. What it DOES demonstrate, though, is that the first-generation Christians weren’t lying.
So far as I can tell, the historical investigation into Christian origins–or really, the historical investigation into any matter of dispute–revolves around four basic questions, each built off the previous one. First, did the witnesses exist? That is, were the Apostles actual, living individuals in the first century? Second, did the witness report what they are alleged to have reported? That is, did the Apostles really report that Jesus a) existed and b) was resurrected? Third, did the witnesses believe their own report? That is, were the Apostles telling the truth as far as they knew? Fourth, were the witnesses in a position to know the truth of their claims? That is, did the Apostles have sufficient justification to claim what they did about Jesus?
Nearly all defenses of, or attacks on, the historicity of the resurrection accounts (or the overarching Jesus narrative) can be classified as potential answers to one of those four questions. In this particular case, the faulty logic comes from misclassifying the question that the Christian is attempting to answer. The faulty logic is sometimes on the part of the Christian, believing that since they weren’t *lying*, the claims they made must have been factual. The faulty logic is sometimes on the part of the atheist, believing that the Christian is arguing for the Apostles’ *competence* as witnesses when, in fact, he is only arguing for the Apostles’ *honesty*.
Of course, it’s all moot if the answer to the first question is, as some atheists propose, something like, “No. The Apostles were simply symbolic of the Zodiac signs, a reframing of the ancient sun-god mythos into a kind of Hellenistic-Jewish Messiah narrative. Those who claim to have known them were outright lying themselves, or were lied about by people who came still later.” But that’s a whole ‘nother debate.
As for the idea that martyrdom itself is “just a sad side-effect of an ill-fated dogma enforced with threats of torture and promises of paradise,” I’m not sure that’s the case at all. What I’m saying is that, while some martyrdom may be linked to the carrot-and-stick principle, not all of it is, whatever the faith of the martyr in question. Socrates was martyred, not because he expected paradise or thought he would face Hell if he lived, but because of devotion to principles.
Eep, I’m longwinded. Sorry ’bout that. The comic and ensuing discussion provided a lot of food for thought, though.
Devotion to principles or beliefs does not make them correct, as demonstrated in the comic.
Of course it doesn’t. I never suggested that martyrdom demonstrates the accuracy of the beliefs–only that it demonstrates the sincerity of the believer. In a case where a person isn’t in a position to accurately and objectively judge the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims in question, that doesn’t prove anything. A person’s sincere beliefs are just that, and nothing more. If I believe the Hale-Bopp comet houses a spaceship, no matter how sincerely I believe it, it’s not true. However, believing it so strongly as to die for the cause–a belief which supersedes self-preservation in the psyche–is proof that I did, in fact, believe it.
That’s the crux of the matter: a person willing to die for something he believes has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he actually believes it. The question to which that demonstration invariably leads is, “Was that person in a position to know?” In other words, the person, or the group of people, was being honest, sure, but would they have actually known?
Let’s bring this back to the question of the Jesus narrative. The first-generation followers have demonstrated the sincerity of their beliefs beyond reasonable doubt. The question to which the investigator is invariably led is, “Okay, so their beliefs were sincere, but were they justified? Were the Apostles in a position to know whether Jesus had, in fact, risen from the dead?”
In other words, demonstrating the sincerity of a person’s beliefs opens up the door to a discussion over whether those beliefs are or were justified. It doesn’t–and shouldn’t be used to–justify those beliefs in and of itself. Christians who use martyrdom as a testimony of the truth of Christianity are silly.
“It doesn’t–and shouldn’t be used to–justify those beliefs in and of itself. Christians who use martyrdom as a testimony of the truth of Christianity are silly.”
That was the whole point of the comic. In my experience of discussion with Christians, this is an all-too-common argument. It is a silly argument and doesn’t belong in debate.
And I apologize for the misinterpretation of what I thought you meant. I see your point. Even I am guilty of jumping to conclusions.
No problem.
I’ve heard objections from atheists before that the Apostles were probably just lying (granted, it’s a rare objection, but it does happen). At that point, the martyrdom argument has merit. They might have been mistaken, or deceived, or crazy, or even fictional characters, but they weren’t lying. So it IS a valid argument to make–just not for the purpose that some Christians use it for.
Why Christian martyrs? Isn’t it the dogma that Jesus martyred himself to save Jews and Gentiles alike from the need to martyr themselves? What!!??? Didn’t he do it right? Are you going to show Jesus what he did wrong? Probably not, but by trying, those Christian martyrs take their Lord’s name in vain and commit that unforgivable blaspheme of the Holy Ghost. They ignore the meaning of their own dogma. That being that the Christian doesn’t need to martyr himself since it has already been done. The God of Life has no need of martyrs. God is the God of the Living, not the dead. That is always forgotten, it seems. Those pushing and conditioning the young and old in the fallacy of habitation of heaven and hell AFTER death and teach the dogma of a purposeful death as the ultimate sacrifice is magick of the blackest sort. And such fallacious ideas of heaven and hell is taught from pulpits. Who da’ thunk it.