orsibeth

Why not, as a Christian the Bible is our daily bread!!!

Goldenroad, please don't listen to all of this. If you really want to learn, get away from this website. This has been so completely one sided I can't believe it. Try CARM.

I am impressed by your insight at 15. The posts on this sight want you to be convinced that your post is illogical.

I would add that I don't believe the apostles would die for a lie. They were eyewitnesses to the death and resurrection of Christ. All they had to do was renounce Christ and they could live. They were killed because they were spreading the gospel.

Keep your faith, don't let anyone :devil: snatch it away.

Sven

How does it taste? Do you use butter on it?
Sorry, could not resist.

:huh: You complain about IIDB being onesided, and then go on to say that he should not listen to us? Why on Earth don't you recommend that he listens to both us and CARM and then decide for himself? Tha above makes your complaint about being one-sided a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

If you disagree, please show your argument what exactly was wrong with our posts. Simply whining that we demolished what he said isn't exactly convincing.

Not this old canard again. People die for wrong things all of them, especially religious ones. Does "Heaven's Gate" ring a bell?

How do you know?
And how do you know that the people who wrote about them indeed were the apostels themselves?

Why should they have been killed because of this? All kinds of preachers went around this time, yet apparently only the Christian ones got killed. This makes no sense.

As soon as he (or you?) can defend his faith with a bit more logic and reason, no problem!

Skeptical

By onesided you mean that evidence has been presented tending to show that the OP didn't understand what he was talking about and that he never engaged in any meaningful debate? Yes, I suppose that would be one-sided.

Actually they tried to show him that his post was factually incorrect and showed he did not have even a basic understanding of BC&H that is universally accepted by scholars (many of whom are Christians)

I see this all the time and it really baffles me. I have a question for you: did the suicide bombers on 9/11 "die for a lie", of were they just mistaken in their beliefs?

This "die for a lie" idea seems to be predicated on the assumption that anyone who died for their beliefs was either a) right or b) lying, and since no one would die for b, then a must be true. This ignores the possibility that they were just simply wrong. Perhaps dedicated to an idea that was just factually wrong. Simple. No need to assume "lying" and no reason to assume they were right. Your committing the fallacy of a false dichotomy, claiming only 2 options when in fact there are more options available that make equally good sense. (I will note in pasing that this seems to be a favorite fallacy among Christian apologists for some reason since I see it so often)

Yes, by all means don't try to find truth, it is far less comforting than faith.

hatsoff

It sure is one-sided, but not because we harass non-Christians, as Christian forums do with agnostics and atheists. We simply allow information to be presented. Most Christians run away from that, as has Goldenroad, and as you apparently intend to do.

If your faith is so strong why be afraid of opposing views?

Weltall

It tastes excellent with fava beans and a nice Chianti.
Two observations: You're easily impressed and you didn't reallly read the responses.
Funny, is that why we don't have any copies of the gospels dated around 33 CE or any other contemporary accounts of this fellow you call Christ?

Roger Pearse

I'd be interested to learn of any manuscript copies of that date of literary texts composed around the same time.

Likewise I'd be most interested to read contemporary literary accounts of similar status and geography 1st century figures of the same period.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Mythra

Well, the "die for a lie" argument is a little different than simply the argument that "lots of people die for mistaken beliefs"

This argument, circulated in christian circles, is that the apostles died as courageous martyrs because they had seen the risen christ.

And, the argument then goes - who would die for something that they knew to be a lie. (which would be the case if christ had not risen from the dead)

Of course, if your awareness reaches beyond the level of young adult Sunday School, it's not too hard to find the weaknesses in this position.

Mythra

For instance, orsibeth: Can you provide us with the sources that you use, to support your position that the apostles were all killed for spreading the gospel? (by all, I mean 10 of them - Judas & John excluded)

Of course, I'm speaking of real, credible ancient sources - Josh McDowell doesn't count.

Hint: if the first reference you can find is the citation from a catholic author 500 years after the fact, it could be considered somewhat less than rock-solid.

If this is something that you take by faith, that's fine. But, then your demonstrable statement here doesn't hold much water.

Amaleq13

I would think you would be less sloppy in your descriptions of your cherished texts.

Only the fourth Gospel claims that a disciple (the anonymous beloved) was present at the crucifixion and none of the authors describe the resurrection let alone claim that any disciples witnessed it.

Skeptical

I understand, but I think you missed my point. Setting aside the issue that the gospels weren't written for many decades after the fact, that by the gospels own account almost none of the apostles were martyred (Stephen I think?), etc, there is a distinct possibility that someone can believe something quite sincerely and just be wrong. Their "truth" doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

This "die for a lie" idea is always presented as deciding between whether the "apostles" were lying or telling the truth, and if they were telling the truth as they believed it then it must be FACTUAL. Assuming they were telling the truth (given all the caveats above), this in no way means that their version of the truth corresponded to reality. Someone can be truthful and sincere, and be completely mistaken, their version of the truth can be completely divorced from reality.

Innumerable religious followers of all creeds have had "religous experiences" identical in nature to those of the christian religion but considerably different in content. No doubt the christian would dismiss all of these as erroneous, so there is simply no merit to the idea that these experiences must be factual because they are believed to be true.

Evidence of belief is not evidence of truth.

The argument is just ridiculous and a good example of trivially fallacious reasoning.