The Case for Christ

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

Of course.

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.

My point is that there's no "probable" answer that can be used as evidence to any question about an individual's motivation to do anything, especially someone that lived 2000 years ago. Trying to conclude with anything other than "dunno" is making an illogical leap of conjecture without direct evidence that supports their position.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course.



My point is that there's no "probable" answer that can be used as evidence to any question about an individual's motivation to do anything, especially someone that lived 2000 years ago. Trying to conclude with anything other than "dunno" is making an illogical leap of conjecture without direct evidence that supports their position.

Again, for my epistemology, this isn't a problem. The mistake Christians often make in apologetics is to think the 'evidence' should convince one to become and remain a Christian. I, on the other hand, only see Biblically related evidence as a signpost, not a cognitive switch thrower; it is God who has to ultimately throw the switch for each individual, and we don't need Calvin to tell us this.

p.s. I'm really not trying to be curt, but I am determined to stand my ground, especially since I know I'll be outnumbered by both atheists and fellow Christians in the kind of way I approach these topics.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Again, for my epistemology, this isn't a problem. The mistake Christians often make in apologetics is to think the 'evidence' should convince one to become and remain a Christian. I, on the other hand, only see Biblically related evidence as a signpost, not a cognitive switch thrower; it is God who has to ultimately throw the switch for each individual, and we don't need Calvin to tell us this.

p.s. I'm really not trying to be curt, but I am determined to stand my ground, especially since I know I'll be outnumbered by both atheists and fellow Christians in the kind of way I approach these topics.

Nope, you're good. It was a reasoned answer.

I'm baffled by anyone, theist or non-theist, that proposes what they see as evidence, even evidence seen as insubstantial, and try and prop it up to the position of absolute truth. Probably has something to do with a need to be right.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Lie is the wrong word to use. People suffer and have died for a myriad of different beliefs, that they truly believe in. Obviously, it doesnt mean these beliefs are true, it just means some folks are capable of sincerely believing just about anything, with the right psychological makeup.