Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

[bhsmte]

No. I have yet to see a person willing to die for a lie he himself has made up.

You are confused. People may martyr themselves for a lie not made up by themselves but people never choose to martyr for a lie made up oby themselves.

You tell a lie, then you jump off a building to kill yourself to confirm that the lie is a truth. This will never happen, especially when 10 out of 12 people tell the same lie by killing themselves in the proving that the lie is a truth. This never happens.

Or would you show me an example of how a person using martyrdom to back up his own lies?

In a nutshell, a sane person will never kill himself in order to tell a lie made up by himself.

Humans are capable of manufacturing a reality, that suits their needs and has little to do with well evidenced reality. This is basic human psychology and we see countless examples of the same. You see, if someone has a strong personal psychological need to believe anything, they can do the psychological gymnastics, to convince themselves it is true, so they dont believe it is a lie.

 

[Hawkins]

Humans are capable of manufacturing a reality, that suits their needs and has little to do with well evidenced reality. This is basic human psychology and we see countless examples of the same. You see, if someone has a strong personal psychological need to believe anything, they can do the psychological gymnastics, to convince themselves it is true, so they dont believe it is a lie.

Would you provide an example?

Do you have an example where 10 out of 12 martyred themselves for the same lie they manifested together?

 

[bhsmte]

Would you provide an example?

Do you have an example where 10 out of 12 martyred themselves for the same lie they manifested together?

You are not following me. A martyr does not believe there cause is a lie, if they personally believe it. People gravitate towards beliefs that meet their psychological needs.

 

[Chriliman]

You are not following me. A martyr does not believe there cause is a lie, if they personally believe it. People gravitate towards beliefs that meet their psychological needs.

Do you believe truth can meet a person's psychological needs?

Also, do you think it could be a lie for a martyr to die because they believe it's better to die than to return violence with violence in order to save their own life?

 

[Chriliman]

Fine, let's go on. So God didn't know mankind would be tempted and would fall. Do you accept that the serpent was Satan? So God didn't know that Satan would tempt Eve. God innocently was misled by the seeming innocence of Satan?

Did God know Satan was evil and was CAPABLE of corrupting people? If he did, why didn't he destroy Satan?

Or are you saying God didn't know that?

One more thing. All the bad things that happened and God did nothing. The baby that drowns in a pail of water and the boy I saw in the video who was slowly burnt to death and he was screaming the name of Jesus. Are you also saying that God didn't know he was being tortured and so God didn't rescue him?

Sorry, I'm not sure...still searching for answers to these questions myself. Let me know if you figure it out before I do

 

[StTruth]

Sorry, I'm not sure...still searching for answers to these questions myself. Let me know if you figure it out before I do

I have figured it out. God has got to be EITHER weak and loving OR omnipotent and evil. There is no other way. You can search till you're blue in the face and you won't get an answer that differs from what I've just said.

I speak the truth for I am the one and only...

St Truth

 

[Chriliman]

I have figured it out. God has got to be EITHER weak and loving OR omnipotent and evil. There is no other way. You can search till you're blue in the face and you won't get an answer that differs from what I've just said.

I speak the truth for I am the one and only...

St Truth

Somehow I knew you'd respond saying you've already figured it out, lol.

I think 'weak' is the wrong term. I'd rephrase it as 'God is either limited only by his will to do good and to love or omnipotent and evil'

 

[StTruth]

Somehow I knew you'd respond saying you've already figured it out, lol.

I think 'weak' is the wrong term. I'd rephrase it as 'God is either limited only by his will to do good and to love or omnipotent and evil'

If his ability to do good is limited by his will, his will is bad and he is evil. You can't get round it by rephrasing the sentence.

St Truth

 

[Chriliman]

If his ability to do good is limited by his will, his will is bad and he is evil. You can't get round it by rephrasing the sentence.

St Truth

No because it's a contradiction to say God's will to only do what is good must mean he is evil. Please comprehend that!

 

[StTruth]

No because it's a contradiction to say God's will to only do what is good must mean he is evil. Please comprehend that!

No, I didn't say that. Don't be confused. First, we are talking about why God fails to pull a baby out of a pail of water and is content to see him drown. I said he could either be omnipotent and evil OR loving and weak. You wrote this:

"I think 'weak' is the wrong term. I'd rephrase it as 'God is either limited only by his will to do good and to love or omnipotent and evil'"

The statement is ambiguous and since it must reply to what I said earlier (or it would have been irrelevant), I took it to mean that you are saying that God's ability to do good is limited by his will. If his will limits his ability to do good and therefore he doesn't save the drowning baby, then his will must be evil and he is evil.

If in fact your statement (quoted above) doesn't mean what I assumed it meant, what did you mean by that statement and how does it refute my conclusion that God can only be Almighty and evil OR weak and loving?

I remain,

St Truth

 

[bhsmte]

Do you believe truth can meet a person's psychological needs?

Also, do you think it could be a lie for a martyr to die because they believe it's better to die than to return violence with violence in order to save their own life?

A martyr is simply someone willing to die for a belief, period. Obviously, they feel strongly about their belief and we have seen martyrs for a variety of beliefs, which all can't be true.

Truth can typically be demonstrated, independently of ones beliefs. Some folks, really need certain things to be true, because it brings comfort and their psyche will work overtime, to convince themselves these comforting beliefs are true. Other folks, seek comfort in independently confirming their beliefs, by seeking objective evidence.

Neither one is right or wrong. If one or the other is a better fit for a person and allows them to live a better life and be a better person, go for it.

 

[Hawkins]

You are not following me. A martyr does not believe there cause is a lie, if they personally believe it. People gravitate towards beliefs that meet their psychological needs.

You don't following me. I am saying no sane person will die for a lie made up by himself. You however said otherwise but failed to give any live example!

 

[Hawkins]

A martyr is simply someone willing to die for a belief, period.

No. A martyrdom can be someone willing to die for what they witnessed (not just believe) with their eyes! That's where you tried to argue equivocally. And that's all you can do.

 

[bhsmte]

No. A martyrdom can be someone willing to die for what they witnessed (not just believe) with their eyes! That's where you tried to argue equivocally. And that's all you can do.

How one percieves what they claim to witness, is a belief.

 

[Hawkins]

How one percieves what they claim to witness, is a belief.

There's however a fundamental difference between a belief and a belief but witnessed by one own eyes. That's where you tried to argue equivocally by confusing the two!

Again, no sane person will deliberately lie then martyr for that made up lie!

 

[bhsmte]

You don't following me. I am saying no sane person will die for a lie made up by himself. You however said otherwise but failed to give any live example!

You can say what you like. Humans are fully capable of convincing themselves, certain things are true, when they are not.

 

[Hawkins]

You can say what you like. Humans are fully capable of convincing themselves, certain things are true, when they are not.

That depends on how. Are you a person who won't be convinced by what you saw with your own eyes? That's where your equivocation is coming from!

 

[bhsmte]

That depends on how. Are you a person who won't be convinced by what you saw with your own eyes? That's where your equivocation is coming from!

And how do you personally confirm what a person claims to have seen is true. Do you take them at their word, no matter how incredible the claim?

 

[Hawkins]

And how do you personally confirm what a person claims to have seen is true. Do you take them at their word, no matter how incredible the claim?

No. But shall it be a true there, it's the closest way humans can get to. Humans in general don't have the capability to confirm a historical truth happened 2000 years ago. Humans don't even have the capability to confirm a truth in WWII. That's why the Japanese can deny Nanjing massacre. That's actually why the said martyrdom of eye-witnesses are important to prove a point.

Even today, you can still doubt a human witnessing backed by video recordings as they can be faked. Yet it's already the best way to back up a human witnessing under the circumstance that humans don't have the capability to confirm the past!

Similarly, said martyrdom of eye-witnesses is already the best way to back up a claim back then in Jesus' time. That's why human witnessings all invite faith to believe. It's just a matter of what extent of faith is required. That's what human history is made up of, that's what our daily news are made up of. They are the different forms of human witnessing for us to believe with faith.

 

[bhsmte]

No. But shall it be a true there, it's the closest way humans can get to. Humans in general don't have the capability to confirm a historical truth happened 2000 years ago. Humans don't even have the capability to confirm a truth in WWII. That's why the Japanese can deny Nanjing massacre. That's actually why the said martyrdom of eye-witnesses are important to prove a point.

Even today, you can still doubt a human witnessing backed by video recordings as they can be faked. Yet it's already the best way to back up a human witnessing under the circumstance that humans don't have the capability to confirm the past!

Similarly, said martyrdom of eye-witnesses is already the best way to back up a claim back then in Jesus' time. That's why human witnessings all invite faith to believe. It's just a matter of what extent of faith is required. That's what human history is made up of, that's what our daily news are made up of. They are the different forms of human witnessing for us to believe with faith.

Whatever works for you. We do have means to determine the likelyhood eye witness claims are true or not. This happens in courts of law every day. We also have the historical method which historians apply, to claimed events of the past, to determine confidence in these claims.