A Question for Atheist or Anyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Still, I don't think seeking to convert atheists to Christianity will benefit anything. I'm very happy as I am. I've read and understand the possible consequences for being a non-believer if it turns out that a god exists. I simply don't care. I care about what happens now. In this life. This is where I'm at. :)

---

For whatever reason, I don't think it was up to me either. This whole notion that we get to pick who we believe in, may not be true either. I believe some are picked to believe and others are not. When someone is not picked to believe then it don't matter, they won't believe. I don't even try to convert someone to Christianity, cause most think I'm crazy to believe. They tell me I can say god bless you to someone to be polite, but if I mention anything but an Easter bunny for Easter, they'll call the insane asylum on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I never said that my faith was based on the same kind of evidence as the apostles.

---

I was just making a point for the purpose of answering the OT. Do the deaths of the apostles make me wonder if they were telling the truth? Not any more than I would wonder about any human being who chooses to die for religious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I was just making a point for the purpose of answering the OT. Do the deaths of the apostles make me wonder if they were telling the truth? Not any more than I would wonder about any human being who chooses to die for religious reasons.

---

I also wonder why someone would kill me due to my own religious beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I also wonder why someone would kill me due to my own religious beliefs.

---

Because people are nuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I also wonder why someone would kill me due to my own religious beliefs.

---

That's a better question. People shouldn't kill people as a reaction to religious beliefs. People also shouldn't tell other people that they're evil and will burn in hell simply because they have different beliefs or none at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowsCool

For whatever reason, I don't think it was up to me either. This whole notion that we get to pick who we believe in, may not be true either. I believe some are picked to believe and others are not. When someone is not picked to believe then it don't matter, they won't believe. I don't even try to convert someone to Christianity, cause most think I'm crazy to believe. They tell me I can say god bless you to someone to be polite, but if I mention anything but an Easter bunny for Easter, they'll call the insane asylum on me.

---

People are picked to believe? Why does god make non-believers, in that case? Does he want his "children" set against each other? And what of free will? I was always told we had to choose to have faith (told by churches I attended). I don't care what people think about Easter. It has its roots in many religions and rituals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

People are picked to believe? Why does god make non-believers, in that case? Does he want his "children" set against each other? And what of free will? I was always told we had to choose to have faith (told by churches I attended). I don't care what people think about Easter. It has its roots in many religions and rituals.

---

Well you must try and understand that the Bible does not clearly talk about everything under the sun. Much of salvation is cloaked in mystery. For instance, the word "elect", what does that mean? The "One's" the Father gave me, what does that mean? Jesus saying, I know the "One" who will betray me, and better it is that he never be born. What does that mean? Yet it also mentions, "if one cry's out for mercy", so I believe we call that a paradox. Something that can be both and the same. You must understand, the Bible was not written for most people to understand. It was actually written for two reasons. One to speak of salvation for the "chosen". And two, as a testimony against the rest of the world cloaked in darkness. THE BIBLE WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN FOR DISBELIEF. The gospel is actually supposed to sound "foolish" to the rest of the world. And it certainly has accomplished its mission; as hard as that may sound. It was written for "certain" people to hear and respond to the "Word" and be brought to God. A Mystery because a man is not supposed to know everything about God otherwise we'd be God.

I know that's a long winded answer but it's late and that's the best way I could explain it at this hour. And I'm perfectly sane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowsCool

Basically I would like to get into the frame of mind of an atheists and his point of view. Is that so bad? I'm not looking to put anyone down. Like you said, people read into things that are not there. I also said or anyone. But specifically, I find it fascinating that someone may go to their deaths believing a hollow lie. First account eyewitnesses I'm talking about. You would think they'd give up the ghost and say, yeah, game up, I'll live.

---

People will not only go to their deaths for a hollow lie, they will also kill for a hollow lie.

I don't know how many of the original apostles were actually martyred, but dying or killing for one's beliefs does not provide any good evidence for that belief. I find a religion suspect that sanctifies martyrdom and a religion disgusting that claims God was on its side after slaughtering its enemies. That goes for atheism as well, by the way, which I consider to be a religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

People will not only go to their deaths for a hollow lie, they will also kill for a hollow lie.

I don't know how many of the original apostles were actually martyred, but dying or killing for one's beliefs does not provide any good evidence for that belief. I find a religion suspect that sanctifies martyrdom and a religion disgusting that claims God was on its side after slaughtering its enemies. That goes for atheism as well, by the way, which I consider to be a religion.

---

Okay, let me ask you a logical question, okay?

What if you saw me walking on water (play along) and you saw me calm the storms, and you saw me come back to life, and you saw me cure the blind, and raised the dead. Now you were apprehended about this a few years later and told to denounce your silly religion or I will behead you, or stone you or hang you upside down and crucify you, or you can live. Which would you choose? Let's not get other circumstances to confuse the issue. There are always exceptions to everything, but that don't make it a valid point to use. And who sanctifies martyrdom? The Bible does not once do such a thing. Maybe the Catholic Church did, but that's different. Apples (Bible) Oranges (Catholic Church) don't confuse the two.

And from all reports, 11 were martyred.

This whole notion that God somehow is begging sinners to come to Him is ludicrous. God may desire fallen man to come to Him, but God knows who will and who won't. He leaves a way out for someone not choosen to cry out for mercy, and that's about it. THIS DOCTRINE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HARD TO TAKE AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE REJECTED BY THE WORLD. That's its very purpose. To be rejected by the world, just as God's Son was!

And one other thing. Jesus "choose" the twelve apostles, not the other way around. He also "choose" the "one" who would betray Him. That means He knew beforehand that He would be betrayed by this man. Yet "Judas" in reality had a choice. Free will to give in to his greed of money or choose God. So it was his fault. This was done to "fulfill" the gospel. That's it in a nutshell.

Let me get off this before they scream out "heresy"

Goodnight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowsCool

What I want to know is, in your opinion, why would certain apostles of Christ go to their deaths, when they had a choice to denounce him? If what they purportedly witnessed (some first hand) or fabricated, then why would they willingly go to their deaths for a made-up story?

From all accounts I have read, some just had to denounce Christ and they would be spared death. Why would a sane person (supposing they were) die willingly for nothing?

---

Well there are a number of problems with the question. First of all, if one were to doubt the historicity of the gospels, then stories of martyrdom themselves would be under question.

I don't really get the point of the question, I doubt many people are all that sceptical about the faith of the authors of the gospels. The thing is that they could have quite sincerely believed what they wrote without having written down what had actually happened. As has been pointed out by Charles, they could have believed what they were writing was true in a metaphorical sense, rather than an accurate account of the life of Jesus. History as we understand it as an impartial account of the pass was not a fully developed genre during the period. Historical narratives from the period often combined mythology with hearsay and other such accounts. I think it's not always accurate to look at the Bible as a historical account, because the authors did not think they were writing an impartial history.

Well, threatening someone with physical violence or death in order to make them agree with you is just terrorism, the belief or idea that they're making you renounce (be it religious, political or moral) is consequential. I admire people who die rather than allowing themselves to be forcefully converted. I like to think I'd die before allowing someone to physically force me to agree with them, but that's easy to say when you're not the one being tortured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Well there are a number of problems with the question. First of all, if one were to doubt the historicity of the gospels, then stories of martyrdom themselves would be under question.

I don't really get the point of the question, I doubt many people are all that sceptical about the faith of the authors of the gospels. The thing is that they could have quite sincerely believed what they wrote without having written down what had actually happened. As has been pointed out by Charles, they could have believed what they were writing was true in a metaphorical sense, rather than an accurate account of the life of Jesus. History as we understand it as an impartial account of the pass was not a fully developed genre during the period. Historical narratives from the period often combined mythology with hearsay and other such accounts. I think it's not always accurate to look at the Bible as a historical account, because the authors did not think they were writing an impartial history.

---

My question was pretty basic. Why die for a lie? I think everyone else is trying to make more of the question than it is. I think they all followed Jesus, no? So unless accounts are false, they died for him.

Ohhh, those apostles. *shrug* Who knows, it was two thousand years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowsCool

Okay, let me ask you a logical question, okay?

What if you saw me walking on water (play along) and you saw me calm the storms, and you saw me come back to life, and you saw me cure the blind, and raised the dead. Now you were apprehended about this a few years later and told to denounce your silly religion or I will behead you, or stone you or hang you upside down and crucify you, or you can live. Which would you choose? Let's not get other circumstances to confuse the issue. There are always exceptions to everything, but that don't make it a valid point to use. And who sanctifies martyrdom? The Bible does not once do such a thing. Maybe the Catholic Church did, but that's different. Apples (Bible) Oranges (Catholic Church) don't confuse the two.

And from all reports, 11 were martyred.

---

Too many discussions on these forums get sidetracked as soon as someone says the word "logic". I don't want to sidetrack this. My position on logic is that anyone can use logic to justify anything. Start with different assumptions, accept different facts and anyone can correctly derive anything.

Regarding the choice between death and denying my beliefs, I would take a third option--I would do my best to not let them catch me in the first place to put me to that stupid test. In fact, those morons wouldn't even know what I believed in. Why give them something to use against me or my family or community?

If I were cornered, my first concern would be to protect and not betray any others who were subject to getting caught as well and that would include using physical force or telling my captors any lies whatsoever. And I would try to escape. At least that is what I hope I would do.

I suspect your use of martyrdom as a justification for faith is based on the fact that Jesus was killed by Pilate and there is some bizarre value in imitating this death. I don't see how dying for some belief or killing others for some belief in any way justifies that belief. The only justification for a belief that I would accept is how the believers live their lives (and by believers I include atheists). For example, if they want me to give their belief a second glance they best not be fighting within their families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowsCool

My question was pretty basic. Why die for a lie? I think everyone else is trying to make more of the question than it is. I think they all followed Jesus, no? So unless accounts are false, they died for him.

---

I don't get what you don't understand, my post fully answers that question. You're presenting a false dichotomy: either the gospels are absolutely true or absolutely false. I'm telling you this is a problematic assumption because what the apostles might of thought was the important "truth" of the gospels was not their historical accuracy or the objective detailing of events. Likewise, believing what one writes is not the same as demonstrating the veracity of what one writes.

I'll return to what I said in my post, I don't think many people doubt the sincerity of faith of the apostles, and I don't see what the point of such a debate is. Doubting the likelihood of the events as described in the gospels is not the same as thinking that early Christians were pathological liars, which is what you're trying to reduce it to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowsCool

Because people are nuts

---

No kidding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Well there are a number of problems with the question. First of all, if one were to doubt the historicity of the gospels, then stories of martyrdom themselves would be under question.

I don't really get the point of the question, I doubt many people are all that sceptical about the faith of the authors of the gospels. The thing is that they could have quite sincerely believed what they wrote without having written down what had actually happened. As has been pointed out by Charles, they could have believed what they were writing was true in a metaphorical sense, rather than an accurate account of the life of Jesus. History as we understand it as an impartial account of the pass was not a fully developed genre during the period. Historical narratives from the period often combined mythology with hearsay and other such accounts. I think it's not always accurate to look at the Bible as a historical account, because the authors did not think they were writing an impartial history.

---

I agree. They knew they were pushing legend.