QUOTE: Martyrdom is a pretty poor way of "proving" anything, as we should be only too aware nowadays. And in the course of centuries, the "one true church" has offered plenty of examples of preferring whatever serves its interests as "true." Why should the apostles be given the benefit of the doubt?
Comparisons to men killing in order to die on the basis of something they've read, and for the sake of a reward are specious. They fail to address the specifics, the historical facts.
1) Christ's disciples turned apostles died to spread the word for something they had experienced themselves. If they hadn't experienced it, if they hadn't with their own eyes seen the risen Christ they preached, why would they preach it when it cost them beatings and ultimately death? Can you explain why they would die for a lie? Even Mohammed Atta surely died for something he believed.
2) Christ's disciples didn't seek martyrdom; they didn't believe martyrdom was necessary for a heavenly reward. Jesus told them nothing of the sort.
3) They risked martyrdom not in order to destroy people who disagreed with them, but in order that the people who persecuted them and whom they they might finally subject them to an early and not too pleasant death might experience the same eternal joy they themselves anticipated. Mohammed Atta died because he hated; they died for the same reason Christ did, because following Christ's example, they loved.
I certainly had no intention of equating the apostles' motives with those of the nihilist mass murderer Mohammed Atta. I merely meant that martyrdom is a poor substitute for reason* when it comes to defending a point of view. Unfortunately, it's an "argument" the early Church relied on (perhaps understandably) to the extent of completely discrediting it, long before the Islamo-nihilists turned it into a appalling murderous ritual. Not satisfied with the numbers who actually willingly or unwillingly embraced martyrdom, it acquiesced to so many pious frauds as to discredit those who genuinely perished as witnesses to the faith. To quote Edward Gibbon,
"The learned Origen [early Church father], who, from his experience as well as readings, was intimately acquainted with the history of the Christians, declares, in the most express terms, that the number of martyrs was very inconsiderable. His authority would alone be sufficient to annihilate that formidable army of martyrs, whose relics, drawn for the most part from the catacombs of Rome, have replenished so many churches, and whose marvellous achievements have been the subject of so many volumes of holy romance... We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth which obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdoms, it must still be acknowledged that the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels."
*Note: I find that "reason", as commonly understood, is a poor word to convey the alternative to religious zeal in support of an argument. "Reason" as I use it embraces any argument that eschews an appeal to the mystical or metaphysical, arguments that I consider second-rate if not downright mendacious. But as well as cold logic, it includes an appeal to the human heart and conscience.
Few as the Christian "martyrs" may have been in reality, there have undoubtedly been fewer martyrs for philosophy. Socrates was the first, but he wouldn't have claimed that his willingness to die for his convictions was what dignified them as true. Although making the customary plea for clemency by flattering his jurors would almost certainly have saved his life, he scorned to make such an appeal, confident that if there was no afterlife he had nothing to lose, and that if there was, he had everything to gain.
Just back from Istanbul.Easter holidays.But i also just finished my supper with a superb rioja wine.And i come back to dylanhood and this is what i find.Over... and over again my friends... arguing....Neil singing.But, well yes the people in Turkey are kind and good fellows.Dont want the religious stuff.Military keeps an eye on that.But still they win.The muslims i mean.Every year more than half a milion people come to the city from mainland.Until it explodes? Well The Cairo has more and hasnt done so yet.But hey, let me tell you something, the Blue Mosque, the Sulynam Mosque, the Mother sultan Mosque...all the same, nothing in there.Just alah.
Until you get to think, wait who was here before? And you find out Saint Sophie Basilic,or Saint Irene Church,or Saint Salvator Church, and what is that, all those mosaics all those beautiful images about our holy scripture that were covered by the otomans on the excuse that no images are allowed inside temples.Jah.Cover what was before us or our people come and see and ask.
Ok, bu who was before that? The romans. And before them? the greeks.Ah the greeks, always Greece.The light.
Now, as you can see i can also bore you if i want to.
Good night, sleep tight.
The Moors should have kept Spain. We'd all be better off.[/quote]
Excuse me lady, i think i said this before.If the moors had stayed in Spain they might have then been the ones to discover the american continent.And now you wouldnt have mexicans for neighbours, but moors.And then yes,the whole world would be better off.
QUOTE: I certainly had no intention of equating the apostles' motives with those of the nihilist mass murderer Mohammed Atta. I merely meant that martyrdom is a poor substitute for reason* when it comes to defending a point of view. Unfortunately, it's an "argument" the early Church relied on (perhaps understandably) to the extent of completely discrediting it, long before the Islamo-nihilists turned it into a appalling murderous ritual. Not satisfied with the numbers who actually willingly or unwillingly embraced martyrdom, it acquiesced to so many pious frauds as to discredit those who genuinely perished as witnesses to the faith. To quote Edward Gibbon,
"The learned Origen [early Church father], who, from his experience as well as readings, was intimately acquainted with the history of the Christians, declares, in the most express terms, that the number of martyrs was very inconsiderable. His authority would alone be sufficient to annihilate that formidable army of martyrs, whose relics, drawn for the most part from the catacombs of Rome, have replenished so many churches, and whose marvellous achievements have been the subject of so many volumes of holy romance... We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth which obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdoms, it must still be acknowledged that the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels."
*Note: I find that "reason", as commonly understood, is a poor word to convey the alternative to religious zeal in support of an argument. "Reason" as I use it embraces any argument that eschews an appeal to the mystical or metaphysical, arguments that I consider second-rate if not downright mendacious. But as well as cold logic, it includes an appeal to the human heart and conscience.
Few as the Christian "martyrs" may have been in reality, there have undoubtedly been fewer martyrs for philosophy. Socrates was the first, but he wouldn't have claimed that his willingness to die for his convictions was what dignified them as true. Although making the customary plea for clemency by flattering his jurors would almost certainly have saved his life, he scorned to make such an appeal, confident that if there was no afterlife he had nothing to lose, and that if there was, he had everything to gain.
I have a hard time seeing how this is to the point. Let's say Gibbon is correct that the Church vastly overstated the number of true martyrs. But does he say it lied about the apostles? What's your point then? The question remains: why would men die for a lie? The concept of martyrdom is not being substituted for reason; I'm pointing to actions, offering a logical explanation for them, and asking what other adequate explanation there could be. Now if you insist on ruling out the supernatural (that Christ did rise) from the start, then you can without evidence speculate that the disciples were subject to some kind of mass delusion. Something in the water at the Last Supper no doubt. But if your intention is to actually disprove the supernatural, you have to come up with more than historically unfounded speculation.
And speaking of reason, how could any one person or one body's lies "discredit" someone else's heroic and noble sacrifice? And how could intra-Christian cruelty disprove the testimony of Christ's own disciples? Anyhow, I'm no expert on the number of martyrs, but there is a reason Christians took to the catacombs in Rome and elsewhere. Nero scapegoated Christians after the great fire of Rome in 64. By that time, according to Tacitus, they were already "hated for their [supposed] vices" of cannibalism and incest.
That reasonable arguments are those which eschew appeals to the mystical and the metaphysical is what you should be attempting to show; to merely assert it when confronted with an argument which doesn't even appeal to them (Christ's disciples were willing to die for saying that he rose again, so they must have believed he rose again) isn't even an argument.
You talk as though the Gospels were some kind of contemporaneous eye-witness testimony, instead of conflicting accounts of Jesus' life written several decades after the supposed events to provide a mythological background for a persecuted, but growing religion. The accounts of the apostles' meetings with the resurrected Christ should be treated with at least as much scepticism as, e.g. Herod's massacre of the innocents (no historical evidence), the story of the Virgin Birth ("young woman engaged to be married is raped by a ghost", as Tom Paine summed it up) that took place during a Roman census that never happened, or the total eclipse of the sun and the resurrection of the saints that supposedly accompanied Christ's expiration on Gethsemane that no ancient commentator thought worthy of comment, even though Matthew claims these saints went into Jerusalem and were seen by many....
Over to Christopher Hitchens:
QUOTE: This supposed frequency of resurrection can only undermine the uniqueness of the one by which mankind purchased forgiveness of sins. And there is no cult or religion before or since, from Osiris to vampirism to voodoo, that does not rely on some innate belief in the "undead." To this day, Christians disagree as to whether the day of judgment will give you back the old wreck of a body that has already died on you, or will reequip you in some other form. For now, and on a review even of the claims made by the faithful, one can say that resurrection would not prove the truth of the dead man's doctrine, nor his paternity, nor the probability of still another return in fleshly or recognizable form. Yet again, also, too much is being "proved." The action of a man who volunteers to die for his fellow creatures is universally regarded as noble. The extra claim not to have "really" died makes the whole sacrifice tricky and meretricious. (Thus, those who say "Christ died for my sins," when he did not really "die" at all, are making a statement that is false in its own terms.) Having no reliable or consistent witnesses, in anything like the time period needed to certify such an extraordinary claim, we are finally entitled to say that we have a right, if not an obligation, to respect ourselves enough to disbelieve the whole thing. That is, unless or until superior evidence is presented, which it has not been. And exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.
The scholarly research of Bart D. Ehrman (for some reason called Barton Ehrman by Hitchens) provides strong evidence for what any healthily skeptical mind should already suspect: namely, that the gospels were doctored many times by the "Orthodox" to suit the contemporary needs of the Early Church. E.g. the account of Jesus' resurrection was added at a later date to the Gospel of Mark. Ehrman began his work not as a skeptic, but as an Evangelical Christian, but his findings undermined his faith and he now describes himself as an agnostic. Of course: you can have faith or evidence, but not the two together.
QUOTE: You talk as though the Gospels were some kind of contemporaneous eye-witness testimony, instead of conflicting accounts of Jesus' life written several decades after the supposed events to provide a mythological background for a persecuted, but growing religion. The accounts of the apostles' meetings with the resurrected Christ should be treated with at least as much scepticism as, e.g. Herod's massacre of the innocents (no historical evidence)
Er, that they were intended to provide a "mythological background" is what you're trying to prove. Oral cultures have oral history which has been shown to be remarkably accurate. And why would the religion be growing in the first place, especially if it lacked convincing historical evidence? Finally, this is all beside the point again: the martyrdom of Christ's disciples is not recorded in the Gospels.
As to the Hitchens quote you posted, at some points he misrepresents what Christians believe, and at other points he begs the question. What frequency? And Christians have different opinions as to whether resurrection will be bodily or spiritual, but no one believes we'll be resurrected with prostate cancer. And the resurrection notwithstanding, Jesus was crucified for ours sins. Resurrection doesn't negate the agony he suffered and knew full well beforehand that he'd suffer. And yes, Hitchens is correct that the resurrection doesn't prove the truth of Christ's claims. Given the lack of a better explanation, it just makes them highly plausible.
Message Board 
