Evolution...

[BigPapaVol]

I assume you place similar credibility on all the other religions throughout world history where people have knowingly given up their life for their spiritual beliefs? Do you not find similar stories of martyrdom from other faiths just as compelling?

you fail to understand the difference. Those first martyrs, like Peter, witnessed the truth and died for it. They would not have, en masse, died for something they knew to be a lie.

It's a very unique set of circumstances in religious history.

If Peter were threatened with death, but stuck to his guns about the resurrection, then I'm surmising he knew what he was talking about.

At least one of those guys would have cracked if they knew the story they were telling was untrue.

Find me more martyrs like those, and I'll listen.

 

[rjd970]

you fail to understand the difference. Those first martyrs, like Peter, witnessed the truth and died for it. They would not have, en masse, died for something they knew to be a lie.

It's a very unique set of circumstances in religious history.

If Peter were threatened with death, but stuck to his guns about the resurrection, then I'm surmising he knew what he was talking about.

At least one of those guys would have cracked if they knew the story they were telling was untrue.

Find me more martyrs like those, and I'll listen.

I don't understand the difference. I'm not disputing whether or not they thought what they witnessed was true, I'm quite certain they did.

But it doesn't mean that it was true, or even evidence as such. Many people have died for what they thought to be true about what they witnessed. By your analogy, all the people that willingly committed suicide in the heaven's gate cult, or even died defending the compount in Waco, TX , or Mormons who were killed and persecuted before leaving for Utah, actually have credibility because they didn't crack before they died or suffered. I'm sure they believed just as much as Peter did about their messiah, but it doesn't in the least make it true.

I understand your position, but I'm not sure how it can be the cornerstone of your reasons for believing given it is similar to any number of other instances of religious persecution throughout history. I just don't see how it is a separating qualifier. Something along the lines of "disprove the resurrection" I thought would have been more significant to your faith. Maybe I am wrong, and I am not intending to offend.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I don't understand the difference. I'm not disputing whether or not they thought what they witnessed was true, I'm quite certain they did.

All those other martyrs died for something that could not be validated / invalidated. The first Christian martyrs had actually seen the evidence. They died for something they had actually put their hands on.

The fact that they had concrete knowledge (which none of the others have had) and still proclaimed the resurrection the truth is an enormous issue for me. In other words, they knew for sure that the story was either true or untrue. Nobody else has known that. No martyrs have willingly died for something they knew to be untrue. You're arguing that Peter did if Christ's resurrection didn't happen. That's tough for me to believe.

Again, no other martyrs meet that criterion.

You say it's too simple. In an esoteric debate about blind faith, what more would you want than something simple and concrete. We could talk forever about things like morality and complexities of nature, etc, but that's a dead end.

Peter's death is very profound for me.

 

[JZVOL]

Great stuff BPV. I would also like to add if Jesus died and his body was on earth the Jews and Romans would never have allowed the dead body to go "missing".

All they would have had to do to stop what would eventually become the largest religion in the world is parade the body for all to see.

Where did his body go?

 

[rjd970]

All those other martyrs died for something that could not be validated / invalidated. The first Christian martyrs had actually seen the evidence. They died for something they had actually put their hands on.


Peter's death is very profound for me.

I still think that is like me saying Joseph Smith and his followers death is very profound to me because he talked to angels, held gold plates, showed them to his believers, and talked with God. His believers have first-hand witness of this, as given by an affidavit in front of every book of mormon. They were killed for this. Try to validate/invalidate this to a true believing mormon. Yet, your explaination is somehow different.

 

[KingNick865]

Great stuff BPV. I would also like to add if Jesus died and his body was on earth the Jews and Romans would never have allowed the dead body to go "missing".

All they would have had to do to stop what would eventually become the largest religion in the world is parade the body for all to see.

Where did his body go?

One of the many mysteries of our time.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I still think that is like me saying Joseph Smith and his followers death is very profound to me because he talked to angels, held gold plates, showed them to his believers, and talked with God. His believers have first-hand witness of this, as given by an affidavit in front of every book of mormon. They were killed for this. Try to validate/invalidate this to a true believing mormon. Yet, your explaination is somehow different.

They only have first hand witness of trinkets that were indicators of that which they ultimately believe.

It's different than the men who would have died for a story that they were totally making up themselves. You can't come up with a scenario that makes it plausible that all of Jesus' contemporaries would have been martyred for making up this story.

It's dramatically different, IMO. There is no other with a story like Peter's or John's or James', etc.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I still think that is like me saying Joseph Smith and his followers death is very profound to me because he talked to angels, held gold plates, showed them to his believers, and talked with God. His believers have first-hand witness of this, as given by an affidavit in front of every book of mormon. They were killed for this. Try to validate/invalidate this to a true believing mormon. Yet, your explaination is somehow different.

how were they conclusively shown something that could absolutely refute the story they were being sold?

Peter absolutely knew if he was lying. That's the difference. People aren't martyrs over what they know to be a lie. Those people are homicide victims.

 

[joevol320]

I still think that is like me saying Joseph Smith and his followers death is very profound to me because he talked to angels, held gold plates, showed them to his believers, and talked with God. His believers have first-hand witness of this, as given by an affidavit in front of every book of mormon. They were killed for this. Try to validate/invalidate this to a true believing mormon. Yet, your explaination is somehow different.

did you know the original book of mormon thought blacks were considered 2/3 human. but that was changed. your comparison doesn't fly.

 

[rjd970]

did you know the original book of mormon thought blacks were considered 2/3 human. but that was changed. your comparison doesn't fly.

What does this have to do with people dying for what they believe in?

The fact is that angel's, Christ, and God supposedly appeard to Smith and at least two of his followers, all of which suffered maryters death's, and his followers died and risked death. Would these men have died if if was all a lie? JS and his disciples really would have willingly gone to the slaughter if they thought it was a lie?


BPV:

All I am doing is using your justification....in fact, here is your post, with a few insertions:

All those other mormons died for something that could not be validated / invalidated. The first Mormon martyrs had actually seen the evidence. They died for something they had actually put their hands on.

The fact that they had concrete knowledge (which none of the others have had) and still proclaimed the revelation of the one true church to be the truth is an enormous issue for me. In other words, they knew for sure that the story was either true or untrue. Nobody else has known that. No martyrs have willingly died for something they knew to be untrue. You're arguing that Joseph Smith did if his revelation through Christ didn't happen. That's tough for me to believe.

Again, no other martyrs meet that criterion.

You say it's too simple. In an esoteric debate about blind faith, what more would you want than something simple and concrete. We could talk forever about things like morality and complexities of nature, etc, but that's a dead end.

Joseph's Smith death is very profound for me.

It should be manifestly clear that nothing about Mormon beliefs have been misrepresented here. Yet, I somehow think you would be unconvinced by this explanation.

 

[BigPapaVol]

What does this have to do with people dying for what they believe in?

The fact is that angel's, Christ, and God supposedly appeard to Smith and at least two of his followers, all of which suffered maryters death's, and his followers died and risked death. Would these men have died if if was all a lie? JS and his disciples really would have willingly gone to the slaughter if they thought it was a lie?




BPV:

All I am doing is using your justification....in fact, here is your post, with a few insertions:



It should be manifestly clear that nothing about Mormon beliefs have been misrepresented here. Yet, I somehow think you would be unconvinced by this explanation.

Nothing about Joseph Smith's death was as a martyr. He was essentially lynched as were his compatriots. That difference alone is enormous. The Mormons alone call him a martyr. He wasn't. While he might have been jailed for his beliefs, he wasn't intended to die.

The early Christians were absolutely killed by the authorities for their beliefs.

 

[kptvol]

I just find it narcissistic to believe that a God created this entire universe and everything in it....only to create one relatively small galaxy...on the far edge of which resides an obscure star sytem....which contains 9 planets...of which one is capable of supporting life some of the time...on some of its surface, specifically with us in mind. The alternative is much more interesting in my opinion.

I don't think the Bible ever says that life is exclusive to Earth. For a man so interested in science, you've made very many leaps in logic in this thread.

 

[jackaro]

Science also contains faith... faith that as a scientist you will come to a rational conclusion. If, as a scientist, you don't have that faith then chances are lower that you will find what you are looking for. Rational thinking at its finest.

This is wrong. Science is based on creating experiments in order to prove a theory. If a theory cannot be proven by measurable and credible experiments, scientists do not cling to it as a matter of faith. They still call it a theory, just an unproven one. Take String Theory for example. It has been proven mathematically, but not experimentally, and is a topic of great contention in scientific communities. This is why it is called String Theory.

 

[jackaro]

Simple logic and math. 0+0=0 If you start with nothing how can you produce something from it? The Big Bang Theory along with other theories don't account for this problem at least the way I understand it.

Look I don't claim to know all the answers, for as much circumstantial evidence some can show against, others can show the same for.

My reaction to your post that alluded to you being condescending was speaking to the way you discredit God while referencing science to do so. Science is just as flawed my friend and in no way can discredit religion any more than religion can discredit science.

No scientist has ever stated that the universe was created out of nothing. My understanding of the Big Bang Theory is that matter was created out of energy. Matter and energy are related in Einsteins equation E=MC^2. The atomic bomb is an example of matter being turned into energy. The Big Bang, in theory, was energy being turned into matter. I do not know where this energy came from, nor can I (or any scientist) explain why the Big Bang happened. But it is certainly not a matter of 0+0=0.

 

[rjd970]

Nothing about Joseph Smith's death was as a martyr. He was essentially lynched as were his compatriots.That difference alone is enormous. The Mormons alone call him a martyr. He wasn't. While he might have been jailed for his beliefs, he wasn't intended to die.

The early Christians were absolutely killed by the authorities for their beliefs.

Your splitting hairs. If he denounced his faith, went home, and lived a quite life nobody would have given him a second thought. The principle commonality here is that he died, as did his followers, truly believing what they were professing, and they were killed because of those beliefs. The method and circumstances surrounding the death is far from "enormous".

mar·tyr - noun -

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

3. a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering: a martyr to severe headaches.

4. a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.

...in case you're getting confused.

Your argument about Peter, early christians, being persecuted and martyred etc...is weak. Every religion has such stories.

If that is how you want to justify it, that is your prerogative, but it is not compelling in the least. If this is the main issue that it would take to get you to question your faith, specifically your Christian faith, then the fact that you are refusing to look at the one clear example I have provided tells me there is nothing that would get you to fundamentally question why you believe what you do.

 

[tvolsfan]

no one wants to say "I don't know" so they created religion instead. Most humans have a hard time with concepts they can't explain so there must be some rationalization.

As opposed to some scientists not believing in God simply because they don't understand how there could be a God?

 

[rjd970]

I don't think the Bible ever says that life is exclusive to Earth. For a man so interested in science, you've made very many leaps in logic in this thread.

Yeah but the Bible only seems to care about what happened here, that is the point. It would be nice for you to point out those leaps in logic I have made.

Here is the basic Biblical narrative written by Edmund Standing (B.A. Theology & Religious Studies and an MA in Critical & Cultural Theory)

There is an indescribably powerful and intelligent being called God who is in existence prior to the dawn of time. For whatever reason, he decides to create the universe and pays particular attention to planet Earth. Having created the universe, Earth and all the species on it (through 'creating' the Big Bang and 'guiding' evolution in the Williams style of interpretation), he decides to focus all his attention on a collection of tribal groupings in the Middle East, in particular the Israelites who are his 'chosen people' and who he obsesses over, while apparently ignoring the rest of the world's population. He lays down numerous often primitive and arbitrary moral and ceremonial laws, then gets involved in inner tribal politics and land disputes, inciting acts of brutality, war crimes, genocide, and rape along the way.

Fast forward to the Middle East under Roman occupation and God decides it's time to put in an appearance. By mystical means he comes to earth in human form, being born of a virgin. He becomes incarnate as a Jewish male and wanders around what is today Israel-Palestine, imparting pithy social commentary (but never giving any systematic explanation of how such ideas might be made politically useful), engaging in faith healing (removing 'demons' from people), magic tricks (such as walking on water and raising a dead man), and ranting on and on about sin, eternal punishment for the majority of the world's population, and the impending end of the world. He gets himself crucified, in order that he can sacrifice himself to himself for our good. A few days later he walks out of his tomb and wanders round with some of his followers (noticeably not bothering to make himself known to anyone but those who already believed in him), before 'ascending' into 'Heaven', to wait for the time when he will return to raise every human who has ever lived in bodily form for judgement, then cast most of us into a pit of fire and take a select few into his 'kingdom' for eternity where they will live happily ever after.

Of course people on here will inevitably argue that their faith can't be related in such simplistic terms. But can anybody point out anything factually wrong with this?

 

[kptvol]

I can point out that if there were a God you'd be unable to fully comprehend him or his actions and he'd probably not care to explain most of them to you. To think otherwise is pretty arrogant.

 

[rjd970]

I can point out that if there were a God you'd be unable to fully comprehend him or his actions and he'd probably not care to explain most of them to you. To think otherwise is pretty arrogant.

It is no less arrogant for you to think that he has explained them to you?

 

[volinbham]

Of course people on here will inevitably argue that their faith can't be related in such simplistic terms. But can anybody point out anything factually wrong with this?

Since the existence of God is an act of faith rather than empirically based - all of what the author wrote is factually wrong and cynical as hell.

 

[volinbham]

It is no less arrogant for you to think that he has explained them to you?

I don't see where he made that claim - in fact he inferred otherwise.

 

[rjd970]

Since the existence of God is an act of faith rather than empirically based - all of what the author wrote is factually wrong and cynical as hell.

Cynical or not, there simply is no disputing that this narrative underpins the Bible, the Church creeds, liturgies, and centuries of theological speculation. Again, show me where anything is factually wrong. This is Christianity in two paragraphs. When somebody claims Jesus to be their savior, they are making a tacit claim about the way the world is and will be. And good reasons are rare for believing this.

And you are actually right. I can argue for days and days about the historicity of the Bible, having science and faith go hand in hand, scientific explanations for this or that miracle, justifications of the sort BPV has provided....because there is no good reason to believe the Bible, Qu'ran, or any story written in these religious texts, and there is no reason to believe they were divinely inspired words.

Instead, I always hear "Well all those people wouldn't have died for nothing", "Why would the roman soldiers just let somebody take the body", "All those people witnessed Jesus performing miracles", "You can't prove this didn't happen"...etc....these all sound like attempts at reasonable justification that everyday conversation should lead us to believe that it is perfectly logical to believe [insert religious belief] is an accurage view of reality. In this very thread I have heard attempts at empirical justifications, because people want good reasons. But as you have said...and I think you are 100% accurate...it's ultimately a statement of faith. Let them be brave enough to admit it. And when they do, let them admit that Evolutionary Theory is in a completely different scientific universe than Creationism and it's cheap suit Intelligent Design.

 

[rjd970]

I don't see where he made that claim - in fact he inferred otherwise.

Are you telling me Christians don't believe God has revealed himself to them, at the very least, in part? Seriously, because this is a first for me.

 

[rjd970]

Since the existence of God is an act of faith rather than empirically based - all of what the author wrote is factually wrong and cynical as hell.

If you don't have the stomach for cynicism (no matter how true it actually is), how about I just quote the Nicene Creed (from the same article):

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen

There you have it. This is the basics of all must believe in order to be Christian, at a minimum. This is the 'faith of the church', which Christians see is 'responsible' for proclaiming and defending. We see the story of a creator God who 'speaks' through the Israelite 'prophets', who places important and accurate information about the future in the 'Scriptures' (i.e. the Old Testament), a God who 'comes down' from and 'ascends' to what can only be an actual place called 'Heaven', who is born of a virgin mother, who was crucified 'for our sake', who rose from the dead, who is to return one day from 'Heaven' in order that he can 'raise' dead bodies back to life for 'judgement', and who will take believers into an eternal 'kingdom'.

Again, I can find nothing that Standing has misrepresented here.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Your splitting hairs. If he denounced his faith, went home, and lived a quite life nobody would have given him a second thought. The principle commonality here is that he died, as did his followers, truly believing what they were professing, and they were killed because of those beliefs. The method and circumstances surrounding the death is far from "enormous".



...in case you're getting confused.

Your argument about Peter, early christians, being persecuted and martyred etc...is weak. Every religion has such stories.

If that is how you want to justify it, that is your perogative, but it is not compelling in the least. If this is the main issue that it would take to get you to question your faith, specifically your Christian faith, then the fact that you are refusing to look at the one clear example I have provided tells me there is nothing that would get you to fundamentally question why you believe what you do.

He didn't willingly do anything. Do your homework. It's your prerogative to continually misspell prerogative, as well, but it's not helping your argument much, especially when you revert to semantics.