Has any christian apologist ever used this argument?

[Pauliesonne]

Has anybody here ever heard an apologist use the argument that anybody living in the enviroment the gospels were written in, must have been mad to risk their lives like that?

[slingblade]

No, I haven't, but I do like your sigs. :)

[Katana]

No, I haven't, but I do like your sigs. :)

Ditto.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I've heard it, and I don't like your sigs. Wonder if there's some causal link there.... :p

[Dragonrock]

I never heard of you and I dislike Marquis de Carabas.

I wonder if that means anything?

[Tacita]

I have heard it lots of times, if I understand you correctly - they posit that the Gospels must be true, otherwise why would anyone risk dying for writing or preaching them?

[triadboy]

I agree with Tacita - I've heard there would be no martyrs if it wasn't true.

[Pauliesonne]

1. Is it a strawman approach?

2. How do skeptic's like yourselves argue back with them?

[Marquis de Carabas]

1. No.
2. Tell them that Jim Jones was right, too.

[Kopji]

Has anybody here ever heard an apologist use the argument that anybody living in the enviroment the gospels were written in, must have been mad to risk their lives like that?

What environment was that?
40ad? 100ad? 200ad? Israel? Rome? Galatia? Greece?

This seems a bit convoluted in any case. Why not just argue that early Christians had enough faith to face down lions while smiling and singing.


Other Christians were condemned to death in large groups. They entered the arena to face wild lions singing hymns of praise in the name of the Father, the Son, and In-the-Hole-He-Goes. The Romans went to the coliseum to watch the Christians die for the fun of it. But, as Mel Brooks says, "The meek shall inherit the earth." http://www.verbivore.com/arcblpr.htm

[Tacita]

I usually bring up the religious nuts who set themselves on fire for their beliefs. Of course these days you've also got your suicide bombers.

[PenguinWarrior]

1. Is it a strawman approach?

2. How do skeptic's like yourselves argue back with them?

Is what a strawman approach, the argument that the gospels must be true or people wouldn't die for them, or skeptics saying Christian apologists have said this? The first wouldn't be a strawman approach, but it would be a pretty stupid argument, the second would be if it were untrue, as it's a pretty stupid argument and an easily countered one.

You'd argue back by pointing out all the other people who have died for religious beliefs that contradict the gospels. That's it really, I think that one statement basically demolishes the whole line of argument.

[Beerina]

Has anybody here ever heard an apologist use the argument that anybody living in the enviroment the gospels were written in, must have been mad to risk their lives like that?

People are dying for Islam right now, literally as we speak. Islam is theologically inconsistend with Christianity. By your suggestion, Islam must be true as well.

However, they can't both be true. Therefore one premise must be wrong, and that is that people willing to be martyred for something indicates it must be true. What it really means is they believe it is true, with enough certainty to suffer their martyrdom. But that is not an argument to the actual veracity of certain writings.

[Ossai]

Pauliesonne
1. Is it a strawman approach?

2. How do skeptic's like yourselves argue back with them?
1. No, it is an appeal to popularity. (with a slight twist of appeal to consequence)
2. Point out the myriad other martyrs for all the other religions. Or, if I don’t really have the time for a good argument, I just point out all the Christians that followed the 20th century’s most famous Christian, Adolf Hitler.

Ossai

[KingMerv00]

Has anybody here ever heard an apologist use the argument that anybody living in the enviroment the gospels were written in, must have been mad to risk their lives like that?

Maybe they were mad?

[Katana]

Has anybody here ever heard an apologist use the argument that anybody living in the enviroment the gospels were written in, must have been mad to risk their lives like that?

People are dying for Islam right now, literally as we speak. Islam is theologically inconsistend with Christianity. By your suggestion, Islam must be true as well.
Not sure I'm following you. What suggestion do you think was made in Pauliesonne's question?

I also didn't see how, from that question, you made the connections between Islam and Christianity. Could you explain further?

Thx.

[Bikewer]

Bart Ehrman points out that there was essentially no persecution of early Christians. They were treated (as was commonly the case) as "just another religion" for quite some time.

The scribes that copied, edited, and distributed the earliest writings were in no danger, and they were essentially anonymous anyway.

The speculation is that Christians only became the subject of persecutions when they became sufficiently organized to refuse to participate in the normal practice of offering tributes and sacrifices to "The Gods" at the appointed times.
IE- a crop-threatening drought might call for sacrifices to the Gods. If Christians refused to participate, the drought was their fault...
Seems a reasonable supposition.

Another factor is the wide variety of "Gospels" that were floating around in the first couple of centuries of Christianity; 120+ according to Ehrman, and all wildly divergent as to content. A persecutor would have a hard time figuring out which "Christian" group to persecute.

[Wheezebucket]

Not sure I'm following you. What suggestion do you think was made in Pauliesonne's question?

I also didn't see how, from that question, you made the connections between Islam and Christianity. Could you explain further?

Thx.

I think maybe what Beerina meant there was that the Christian argument of "It must be true because people died for it" doesn't work, because the same can be said of Islam right now, and other religions all over in the past. It was just an example of why it's such a bad argument for a Christian to make.

She said it a lot better than that, and I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.

[Katana]

I think maybe what Beerina meant there was that the Christian argument of "It must be true because people died for it" doesn't work, because the same can be said of Islam right now, and other religions all over in the past. It was just an example of why it's such a bad argument for a Christian to make.

She said it a lot better than that, and I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.
That helped. Thank you.:)

If your interpretation is correct, I will say that I agree with Beerina.

[senorpogo]

Has anybody here ever heard an apologist use the argument that anybody living in the enviroment the gospels were written in, must have been mad to risk their lives like that?

I got that one in Catholic school. If the apostles didn't believe that Jesus was the son of God, if they hadn't seen his miracles, if they didn't believe the word, why would they die as martyrs for the cause?

[Ryokan]

Has anybody here ever heard an apologist use the argument that anybody living in the enviroment the gospels were written in, must have been mad to risk their lives like that?


Actually, I heard it just a few days ago.

[LawnOven]

That is one of the worst arguements I've ever heard. It's like an intelectually dishonest distraction. No one with half a brain could use that rediculous arguement and expect it to work on any thinking person over the age of 12.

[stamenflicker]

1. No.
2. Tell them that Jim Jones was right, too.

But Jim Jones was disclosed as a fraud immediately after the deaths. What if for the century following Jim Jones, people were still drinking cool-aid in his name?

[stamenflicker]

I think maybe what Beerina meant there was that the Christian argument of "It must be true because people died for it" doesn't work, because the same can be said of Islam right now, and other religions all over in the past.

Islam however has people, not dying for their beliefs, but killing for them. I don't think its a fair comparison, whether or not I agree with the argument.

[stamenflicker]

The speculation is that Christians only became the subject of persecutions when they became sufficiently organized to refuse to participate in the normal practice of offering tributes and sacrifices to "The Gods" at the appointed times.

But that isn't really the case. Christians became victims of persecution before the Romans even knew what to call them-- at the hands of the Jewish authorities, who began by kicking them out of synagogues (before even the crucifixion of Jesus), but later reverted to killing them.

[Marquis de Carabas]

But Jim Jones was disclosed as a fraud immediately after the deaths. What if for the century following Jim Jones, people were still drinking cool-aid in his name?
Then that would certainly prove him right. :rolleyes:

What if Jesus had killed off all of his followers and lived in an age with rapid global dissemination of news and information?

[KingMerv00]

But Jim Jones was disclosed as a fraud immediately after the deaths. What if for the century following Jim Jones, people were still drinking cool-aid in his name?

What if the followers of Jesus burnt witches at the stake and enslaved Native Americans in the name of God centuries after his death? Clearly the mark of the one true god.

[KingMerv00]

Islam however has people, not dying for their beliefs, but killing for them. I don't think its a fair comparison, whether or not I agree with the argument.

Are you suggesting that you can strap powerful explosives to your chest, set them off, and survive? Perhaps you missed the "suicide" part of "suicide bomber".


Edit: Christians never systematically killed for their beliefs?

[Beerina]

Maybe they were mad?

And when you think about it, that's exactly what it was. Since the Bible is not true, therefore they were mad. The appeal to incredulity (mad? no way!) thus fails.

[KingMerv00]

And when you think about it, that's exactly what it was. Since the Bible is not true, therefore they were mad. The appeal to incredulity (mad? no way!) thus fails.

Have you ever heard the "lunatic, liar, or lord" trichotomy? Believers think that since Jesus "obviously" wasn't insane or a con man, he had to be the son of a burning bush.

Personally, I think Jesus was crazy AND was a fraud. Like David Koresh with a better personality.

[stamenflicker]

What if the followers of Jesus burnt witches at the stake and enslaved Native Americans in the name of God centuries after his death? Clearly the mark of the one true god.

Or what if greedy men burned witches at the stake in order to claim the property left to them by their dead husbands, then blamed it on religion? Or what if instead of enslaving native Americans, we just butcher them and call it national progress? Clearly the mark of the one true idiotic species.

[stamenflicker]

Are you suggesting that you can strap powerful explosives to your chest, set them off, and survive? Perhaps you missed the "suicide" part of "suicide bomber".

I am suggesting that watching your defenseless kid get impaled and your unarmed wife fed to lions while you wait to be dropped in a vat of hot oil is quite a bit different than deciding to run off killing things in the name of your bloody god. Especially, if to avoid the torture all you have to do is bow to some cheap dime-store statue.

Maybe you just missed the "bomber" part of suicide bomber. Those people who are "dying" for Islam aren't so much seeking their own death as they are killing others. Which is exactly why we see IED's coming into play as the sophistication level of the militants increases.

Maybe you just missed the obvious?

Edit: Christians never systematically killed for their beliefs?

Is this relevant to the discussion?

[KingMerv00]

Or what if greedy men burned witches at the stake in order to claim the property left to them by their dead husbands, then blamed it on religion? Or what if instead of enslaving native Americans, we just butcher them and call it national progress? Clearly the mark of the one true idiotic species.

I am suggesting that watching your defenseless kid get impaled and your unarmed wife fed to lions while you wait to be dropped in a vat of hot oil is quite a bit different than deciding to run off killing things in the name of your bloody god. Especially, if to avoid the torture all you have to do is bow to some cheap dime-store statue.

Maybe you just missed the "bomber" part of suicide bomber. Those people who are "dying" for Islam aren't so much seeking their own death as they are killing others. Which is exactly why we see IED's coming into play as the sophistication level of the militants increases.

Maybe you just missed the obvious?


I think you are arguing against yourself.

The general flow of the thread has been something like this:

1) Is there any logic in the claim that the apostles must have been telling the truth because they would not have risked their lives for something ill-conceived or fraudulent?

2) No. The apostles may have been mad like Jim Jones. Merely risking your life or dying for a flawed theology does not make it true.

3) Stamenflicker: Jones was shown to be incorrect (somehow) after his death. No one follows him now, therefore he was wrong. (This implies that the longevity of a religion in a hostile environment gives that religion legitimacy).

4) Stamenflicker: Muslims kill for their religion. They don't just die for it. (This implies that killing for your religion makes it wrong while sacrificing and dying for it makes it right.)

5) Kingmerv00 and others: The fact that Christians were supposedly persecuted does not make Christianity true.

6) Kingmerv00 and others: Christians did die for their religion at times, no doubt, but they also tortured and killed for it too. (Witch burnings, native americans etc.)

Look at #3. Islam has survived in a hostile environment yet it is false. Why?

Look at #4. Christians have killed in the name of Christianity and yet it is true. Why?


Edit: w00t! 2,000 posts.

[rgann]

I have heard this line of thinking while briefing attending Liberty University (Falwell U) in a philosophy class, well it was similar to a philosophy class, it had all the properties of one, minus logic and reasoning, but I may have been asking a lot. Several of the arguments above spring to mind as why this tact is reaching, Assuming that because a person is willing to die for their beliefs their beliefs must be true, are we certain that the person actually was killed for their belief? Are we certain that the belief attributed to them now is actually what they believed? Are we certain that the authorities killed these martyrs for their beliefs only? Looking at the sources of the narrative also for me questions the validity of the stories, clearly there is motive for embellishment and aggrandizing these stories.

Rick

[stamenflicker]

I think you are arguing against yourself.

The general flow of the thread has been something like this:

1) Is there any logic in the claim that the apostles must have been telling the truth because they would not have risked their lives for something ill-conceived or fraudulent?

2) No. The apostles may have been mad like Jim Jones. Merely risking your life or dying for a flawed theology does not make it true.

3) Stamenflicker: Jones was shown to be incorrect (somehow) after his death. No one follows him now, therefore he was wrong. (This implies that the longevity of a religion in a hostile environment gives that religion legitimacy).

4) Stamenflicker: Muslims kill for their religion. They don't just die for it. (This implies that killing for your religion makes it wrong while sacrificing and dying for it makes it right.)

5) Kingmerv00 and others: The fact that Christians were supposedly persecuted does not make Christianity true.

6) Kingmerv00 and others: Christians did die for their religion at times, no doubt, but they also tortured and killed for it too. (Witch burnings, native americans etc.)

Look at #3. Islam has survived in a hostile environment yet it is false. Why?

Look at #4. Christians have killed in the name of Christianity and yet it is true. Why?


Edit: w00t! 2,000 posts.

Actually, I said that "whether or not I agree with the argument..." meaning I don't think the argument of Christian martyrs carries enough weight to be convincing.

That said, my posts are here to merely point out that you don't really have a fair comparison from which to draw, and that Jim Jones or muslim faith is on its very best footing, only haphazardly relating to to the persecution of the early church.

Rather than acknowledge the inherent weakness of these kinds of comparisons, you've tried to take us someplace else. Again, it's not a convincing comparison for the reasons I mention.