The Case for Christ

[Moral Orel]

Why not just expand the argument's conceptual capacity by focusing on a person's willingness to experience social suffering in association with belief in Jesus rather than the possibility that he/she might specifically die for it.

Heck, I don't know many people who would be even willing to get on stage in front of a crowd to spout something deemed to be ludicrous by a majority of the audience, let alone people who would be willing to face imprisonment for any length of time--among other social or legal penalties--for asserting what they know is a mere small probability (and not even a lie).

I know I wouldn't. It seems to me that evangelicals have defined the "belief intensity" argument way too narrowly. Or in other words, I don't think the threat of death itself has to play as the "litmus test" for one's authenticity of belief, even though it just so happens to be the most serious and final situation one can find oneself in if one continues to hold faith in the face of antagonism.


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Because with death you don't have those pesky positive benefits of being an evangelical to counterbalance the negative costs.

Let's say you're Paul, back in the day, preaching to the masses. Sure, the law don't like you, a lot of Jews don't like you, and those are consequences of preaching. But new Christians like you. They like you a lot. So much that they not only give you their adoration, but they give you things! Free stuff! Look at the letter Paul wrote about that runaway slave. He says that he has the authority to demand he give him over, but chooses not to use it. If you're part of the leadership of a religion, you get a lot of nice things that can't be ignored. You wouldn't chose to die for it if it was all a lie, though, because at that point you'd stop getting free stuff.

I know Paul is supposed to be off topic for the thread, but he made the best example of someone "suffering socially" for their beliefs.

ETA Just wanted to add, masochism is a thing too (no reason to think it's a new thing either).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why not just expand the argument's conceptual capacity by focusing on a person's willingness to experience social suffering in association with belief in Jesus rather than the possibility that he/she might specifically die for it.

Half of all Muslims - the female half - experience great social suffering, and yet they do not recant their faith. In fact, their faith is stronger than yours because they are maintaining even more insane beliefs. So if they have great faith despite great suffering, it follows that their insane beliefs are more likely to be true than yours. Right?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am really baffled that people think Paul is relevant to the "why die for a lie?" argument.

First of all, how do you know that he actually died? It appears to just be tradition. There's no actual case for it.

Second, his "suffering" is almost entirely fictional. Most of his suffering was just a sickness that he liked to complain about. That's not persecution - it's just life 2000 years ago. He got the "forty less one" five times from the Jews, not from the Romans. As far as I know the Romans merely put him under house arrest but allowed him to continue writing to his churches. If Rome really was trying to stamp out Christianity and if they actually imprisoned Paul, why would they continue to allow him to rebuke and direct the churches? Wouldn't they intercept his letters or modify them to their own satisfaction? To say that they allowed Paul to do that is to claim that the greatest military power of all time was utterly inept at holding prisoners. So the more you think early Christianity was persecuted, the more insane your claims actually are.

Third, Paul did not see the earthly resurrected body of Jesus. He saw the eternally glorified Jesus who still is the same now as he was then. So Paul could've existed today and it would have made no difference. So Paul was not a witness to the resurrection, and that is not up for debate. Anyone insisting that Paul must be included in the "why die for a lie?" argument must accept the testimony of any suicide bomber who claimed to have had some divine experience before death. But then Islam is true and we are all doomed. You reject Islam because you were not there to see some pedophile flying around on a magic carpet. Yet you accept that Jesus rose from the grave based on essentially nothing.

Fourth, the main point that apologists love to drive home is that group hallucinations are impossible. Often they like to say something like, "If there was only one witness to the resurrection, we'd say he was hallucinating. If there were a few witnesses who were not together and saw different things, we'd say they were hallucinating. But eleven people in one room seeing the same thing cannot be a hallucination." I find this to be reasonable, but Paul saw something that his companions didn't see and so that is a hallucination! Hello! Whenever the same person argues what I quoted above and then also cites Paul as being in the same category as the disciples, they are either lying or incompetent.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Half of all Muslims - the female half - experience great social suffering, and yet they do not recant their faith. In fact, their faith is stronger than yours because they are maintaining even more insane beliefs. So if they have great faith despite great suffering, it follows that their insane beliefs are more likely to be true than yours. Right?

I guess since I have met two former Muslim women from the Middle East who came to the U.S., one for asylum because she became a Christian, and the other because---well, she came to the U.S. for life improvement but also became Christian along the way, and who both introduced me to various aspects of how women are marginalized and mistreated in Muslim countries, I have a hard time processing the "truth" of your statement, NV.

I guess sometimes our understanding of things in the world can be contextualized not by what we know, but by who we know.

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am really baffled that people think Paul is relevant to the "why die for a lie?" argument.

First of all, how do you know that he actually died? It appears to just be tradition. There's no actual case for it.

Second, his "suffering" is almost entirely fictional. Most of his suffering was just a sickness that he liked to complain about. That's not persecution - it's just life 2000 years ago. He got the "forty less one" five times from the Jews, not from the Romans. As far as I know the Romans merely put him under house arrest but allowed him to continue writing to his churches. If Rome really was trying to stamp out Christianity and if they actually imprisoned Paul, why would they continue to allow him to rebuke and direct the churches? Wouldn't they intercept his letters or modify them to their own satisfaction? To say that they allowed Paul to do that is to claim that the greatest military power of all time was utterly inept at holding prisoners. So the more you think early Christianity was persecuted, the more insane your claims actually are.

Third, Paul did not see the earthly resurrected body of Jesus. He saw the eternally glorified Jesus who still is the same now as he was then. So Paul could've existed today and it would have made no difference. So Paul was not a witness to the resurrection, and that is not up for debate. Anyone insisting that Paul must be included in the "why die for a lie?" argument must accept the testimony of any suicide bomber who claimed to have had some divine experience before death. But then Islam is true and we are all doomed. You reject Islam because you were not there to see some pedophile flying around on a magic carpet. Yet you accept that Jesus rose from the grave based on essentially nothing.

Fourth, the main point that apologists love to drive home is that group hallucinations are impossible. Often they like to say something like, "If there was only one witness to the resurrection, we'd say he was hallucinating. If there were a few witnesses who were not together and saw different things, we'd say they were hallucinating. But eleven people in one room seeing the same thing cannot be a hallucination." I find this to be reasonable, but Paul saw something that his companions didn't see and so that is a hallucination! Hello! Whenever the same person argues what I quoted above and then also cites Paul as being in the same category as the disciples, they are either lying or incompetent.

I've always thought Paul was relevant to the "Why suffer anything at all for a lie...or even a small probability?" argument.

I find this whole "Why die for a lie" argument to be not only tiresome, but also too constrictive of the overall historical, social, and psychological considerations we evaluate as they may pertain to the validity of the Christian witness to Christ, whether in the 1st century or even in later centuries.

However, as I'm sure others have noticed, I also don't expect a lot of this to turn anyone's thinking if God Himself isn't helping him/her to consider the evidence.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I guess since I have met two former Muslim woman from the Middle East who came to the U.S., one for asylum because she became a Christian, and the other because---well, she came to the U.S., and who both introduced me to various aspects of how women are marginalized and mistreated in Muslim countries, I have a hard time processing the "truth" of your statement, NV.

I guess sometimes our understanding of things in the world can be contextualized not by what we know, but by who we know.

2PhiloVoid

NV: Half of all Muslims - the female half - experience great social suffering

2PV: women are marginalized and mistreated in Muslim countries

2PV: I have a hard time processing the "truth" of your statement, NV

What?!

You literally just agreed with me 100% and then astonishingly acted as though you contradicted me and cannot see my point.

I can only assume that you think I was making a sweeping "for all" statement about Muslim women having strong faith and that you're trying to provide a counter-example. But... wait... that would have 2PV essentially just urinating all over the principle of charity. Is that what it takes for you to grasp the upper hand?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

NV: Half of all Muslims - the female half - experience great social suffering

2PV: women are marginalized and mistreated in Muslim countries

2PV: I have a hard time processing the "truth" of your statement, NV

What?!

You literally just agreed with me 100% and then astonishingly acted as though you contradicted me and cannot see my point.

I can only assume that you think I was making a sweeping "for all" statement about Muslim women having strong faith and that you're trying to provide a counter-example. But... wait... that would have 2PV essentially just urinating all over the principle of charity. Is that what it takes for you to grasp the upper hand?

...I'm referring to the coherence of all statements in you're entire post #22, not just the tiny portion you've conveniently selected in the effort to dry to denigrate my point.

I tried to merely make a suggestion about the parameters of context pertaining to a certain argument, and I also offered some direct social insight in response to another of your comments, and neither the suggestion or the offered insight are denigrating to you directly. But, you see fit not to consider any of this, but rather to make sure that you slam my suggestion to the ground.

I guess since you don't really care about all that, I don't expect you to handle what I say with fairness.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Half of all Muslims - the female half - experience great social suffering, and yet they do not recant their faith. In fact, their faith is stronger than yours because they are maintaining even more insane beliefs. So if they have great faith despite great suffering, it follows that their insane beliefs are more likely to be true than yours. Right?

One further point.

Since the argument about religious belief is often contextualized by the demographic and cultural position one finds one's self--or in which one is born, enmeshed, and perhaps even trapped within--it then becomes a very tenuous statement to say that Muslim women retain their faith even in the face of great suffering.

You can't speak for all Muslim women; and the fact that you may see them in their own countries espousing their beliefs can simply be a fact of their proximity and acculturation.

You don't get to have it both ways. You can't say that, on one hand, people merely believe because they are born into and associated with a particular culture, but on the other hand then say that these same, identical people 'continue' to believe, even under great hardship. To do so is to beg the question. Which is it? Are these Muslim women continuing to believe because that is what they were RAISED to believe, or do they believe because they really believe it to be true? Is it both? OR, should we bring in an additional consideration: are they just agreeing with the status quo cultural belief because they are basically 'trapped' within their respective societies?

Since to find out, we'd actually have to interview each women who can literally be placed into a 'safe zone' so she can say what she really feels--and this is in many cases nearly impossible to do--then it doesn't seem like your position in post #22 (such as it is overall) is a very coherent one, nor a practical one. Is it?

In the meantime, I think I'll still take seriously the testimonies of the two former Muslim women I've known...who have changed their beliefs and are now Christian; and then I might think upon how all this kind of social enmeshment contextualizes the life and world in which even the first Christian disciples--of all kinds--must have found themselves.

Here's a book you might want to consider:

Cruel and Usual Punishment: The terrifying global implications of Islamic Law - By Nonie Darwish (who, indirectly, I guess counts as a 'third source' after the two ladies I mentioned above. And there are others....)

2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

...I'm referring to the coherence of all statements in you're entire post #22, not just the tiny portion you've conveniently selected in the effort to dry to denigrate my point.

You've aggravated me with this statement. Let me quote my unedited post in its entirety:

Half of all Muslims - the female half - experience great social suffering, and yet they do not recant their faith. In fact, their faith is stronger than yours because they are maintaining even more insane beliefs. So if they have great faith despite great suffering, it follows that their insane beliefs are more likely to be true than yours. Right?

You did not address my claim that their beliefs are insane.

You might have addressed my rhetorical question about Muslim women having strong faith, and I responded accordingly. But I was sure that you were addressing the plight of Muslim women, and the bizarre thing was that you said the same thing as me and then concluded that you disagree.

And there's nothing else that I said. Now here you say that I'm quote-mining a "tiny portion [I've] conveniently selected in the effort to dry to denigrate [your] point."

Bollocks, good sir. Pure bollocks. I see no good reason to read the rest of what you've said here because when someone screws up as badly as you did here, it's either because they didn't read what they're responding to, they didn't understand what they're responding to, or they're being dishonest. I know it's not the second possibility here with you, so it's got to be either the first or the last but either possibility means I'm wasting my time with you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because with death you don't have those pesky positive benefits of being an evangelical to counterbalance the negative costs.

Let's say you're Paul, back in the day, preaching to the masses. Sure, the law don't like you, a lot of Jews don't like you, and those are consequences of preaching. But new Christians like you. They like you a lot. So much that they not only give you their adoration, but they give you things! Free stuff! Look at the letter Paul wrote about that runaway slave. He says that he has the authority to demand he give him over, but chooses not to use it. If you're part of the leadership of a religion, you get a lot of nice things that can't be ignored. You wouldn't chose to die for it if it was all a lie, though, because at that point you'd stop getting free stuff.

I know Paul is supposed to be off topic for the thread, but he made the best example of someone "suffering socially" for their beliefs.

ETA Just wanted to add, masochism is a thing too (no reason to think it's a new thing either).

I appreciate your comments, Nicholas, but did they really like Paul that much? I was under the impression that he was often 'written off' by various persons within more than one congregation. Some fellow Christians did shared some things with him, but predominantly, Paul seems to have eschewed taking advantage of the 'stuff' he could have gotten from fellow Christians. And, Paul was willing to experience various hardships over a long period of time for his beliefs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You've aggravated me with this statement. Let me quote my unedited post in its entirety:

Half of all Muslims - the female half - experience great social suffering, and yet they do not recant their faith. In fact, their faith is stronger than yours because they are maintaining even more insane beliefs. So if they have great faith despite great suffering, it follows that their insane beliefs are more likely to be true than yours. Right?

You did not address my claim that their beliefs are insane.

You might have addressed my rhetorical question about Muslim women having strong faith, and I responded accordingly. But I was sure that you were addressing the plight of Muslim women, and the bizarre thing was that you said the same thing as me and then concluded that you disagree.

And there's nothing else that I said. Now here you say that I'm quote-mining a "tiny portion [I've] conveniently selected in the effort to dry to denigrate [your] point."

Bollocks, good sir. Pure bollocks. I see no good reason to read the rest of what you've said here because when someone screws up as badly as you did here, it's either because they didn't read what they're responding to, they didn't understand what they're responding to, or they're being dishonest. I know it's not the second possibility here with you, so it's got to be either the first or the last but either possibility means I'm wasting my time with you.

Well....boo hoo!

 

[Moral Orel]

I appreciate your comments, Nicholas, but did they really like Paul that much? I was under the impression that he was often 'written off' by various persons within more than one congregation. Some fellow Christians did shared some things with him, but predominantly, Paul seems to have eschewed taking advantage of the 'stuff' he could have gotten from fellow Christians. And, Paul was willing to experience various hardships over a long period of time for his beliefs.

You haven't dismissed any of the benefits I listed. Downplayed, maybe, but the point still stands. The question is why do they have to die for a lie, why isn't it enough to suffer for a lie. He got free stuff, at least sometimes. He got adoration, at least sometimes. Maybe he liked suffering; maybe he had a victim complex. So it is entirely plausible (not proved) as the reasons for him preaching in the face of any other suffering up to but not including death. It is implausible that he would die for a lie because he wouldn't get any benefits.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You haven't dismissed any of the benefits I listed. Downplayed, maybe, but the point still stands. The question is why do they have to die for a lie, why isn't it enough to suffer for a lie.

I'm not sure I understand the point your making here; it seems your saying something that I completely agree with, as I tried to state to NV earlier on this same thread. (edit: I take this back, now that I've read it over again. I don't think Paul died for a lie, or suffered for anything he knew to be a lie. I think he was convinced that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, and he was willing to suffer for it.)

He got free stuff, at least sometimes.

yeah. But, for his personality and religious mindset, I'm not convinced that Paul would have been very drawn by potential materialism. Didn't he say at one point to the Phillippian church that he despised what he could have gained in the world and considered in all to basically be "crap"? (I could be wrong; maybe Paul was a gold-loving, narcissstically driven punk for all I know......but..............................)

He got adoration, at least sometimes.

I'm not sure he wished to be adored, what with all his talk about pointing to Jesus.....

Maybe he liked suffering; maybe he had a victim complex.

maybe. But, that is a big maybe.

So it is entirely plausible (not proved) as the reasons for him preaching in the face of any other suffering up to but not including death. It is implausible that he would die for a lie because he wouldn't get any benefits.

I think we need to decide which specific values were really driving Paul to 'continue' in the face of adversity. I'm guessing...based on the New Testament, he was driven because he valued Jesus Christ above all else.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I think we need to decide which specific values were really driving Paul to 'continue' in the face of adversity. I'm guessing...based on the New Testament, he was driven because he valued Jesus Christ above all else.

Even if you're correct, he died for what he believed to be true (Jesus Christ was a god), which doesn't necessitate that it was true.

I've always thought the "why die for a lie" was the laziest of apologetics. It's an open ended question where the person asking is assuming an answer and not accepting that the actual answer could be a hundred different reasons. And trying to assign reasonability to any given answer is pointless, because without reliable first hand knowledge, all answers could be equally reasonable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Even if you're correct, he died for what he believed to be true (Jesus Christ was a god), which doesn't necessitate that it was true.

Sure. But, part of my previous set of comments above was also directed to the fact that I think the argument can become MORE relevant if we widen the scope to the kinds of suffering that are relevant to testing a persons faith, as well as lowering the kind of belief level being tested. As to the other specific points of how all this bears upon Paul and as to whether the objects of his belief were real are instead a matter that each one of us will have to decide for ourselves.

I've always thought the "why die for a lie" was the laziest of apologetics. It's an open ended question where the person asking is assuming an answer and not accepting that the actual answer could be a hundred different reasons. And trying to assign reasonability to any given answer is pointless, because without reliable first hand knowledge, all answers could be equally reasonable.

Which is why I'm suggesting the argument be expanded to "why suffer anything of social consequence at all for something we think has only a slight probability of being true...let alone a lie." Again, I don't think 'death itself' has to be the litmus test.

But, I also believe God has to play a part in catalyzing each individuals ability to believe the Gospel message. No God interaction, No Bible relevance. Know God, Know Bible relevance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

NV: Half of all Muslims - the female half - experience great social suffering

2PV: women are marginalized and mistreated in Muslim countries

2PV: I have a hard time processing the "truth" of your statement, NV

What?!

You literally just agreed with me 100% and then astonishingly acted as though you contradicted me and cannot see my point.

I can only assume that you think I was making a sweeping "for all" statement about Muslim women having strong faith and that you're trying to provide a counter-example. But... wait... that would have 2PV essentially just urinating all over the principle of charity. Is that what it takes for you to grasp the upper hand?

No, I would actually just spill a bit of hot candle wax over the principle of charity.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think we need to decide which specific values were really driving Paul to 'continue' in the face of adversity. I'm guessing...based on the New Testament, he was driven because he valued Jesus Christ above all else.

You're making an inductive argument. The "why die for a lie" is a deductive argument. You're trying to turn the deductive argument into an inductive argument and I'm showing you how all that doubt can creep in where the people making the argument don't want any.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're making an inductive argument. The "why die for a lie" is a deductive argument. You're trying to turn the deductive argument into an inductive argument and I'm showing you how all that doubt can creep in where the people making the argument don't want any.

I don't care which type of argument it is; my point is that the "die for a lie" argument should be replaced. Besides, people doubt even WITH deductive arguments. Belief is never solely a matter of induction or deduction anyway, which is what makes my argument just a little bit different.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't care which type of argument it is; my point is that the "die for a lie" argument should be replaced.

Because you agree it is a bad argument otherwise?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because you agree it is a bad argument otherwise?

It is a weak argument, because we would have to INDUCTIVELY establish first that many many many many Christians did indeed die FOR their faith. And that can't be done. We do know that some Christians died for their faith; we can be more confident that many many many Christians have at least suffered socially in some way for their faith. It makes for the substance of an improved argument.