by BourneIdentity 88 Replies latest jw experiences
Hello TTWSYF.
Thanks for your response.
You say:-
" Just saw your post. Will address all of your questions in the next few days or less. I won't have time to effectively answer each one now."
That's no problem. There's no rush.
I will refrain from responding to your latest comment until you've had time to address the other points you would like to answer.
This line of reasoning is used by nearly all judeo-christian theologies in order to substantiate their faith. It utilises a logical fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance.
The fallacious nature of this argument is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Muslims and Mormons can also employ the same false reasoning to uphold their competing theologies.
I am not citing all early Christian martyrs, I am only citing the witnesses of Jesus resurrection who were martyred for what they witnessed and would not recant. That is the diff. JW martyrs exist because they believe not to take blood and they die for their beliefs. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist martyrs have died for their beliefs, but the examples that I am citing were witnesses. That is why you cannot cite false reasoning or say that it is an argument of ignorance. That doesn't fly for the examples that I cite.
It is also incorrect to presume that the first century martyrs knowingly died for a lie. The fact that they died by such gruesome executions indicates the extent of their conviction in what they believed.
Yes, my point exactly, they did not die for a lie. They would have not died for a lie, if they did, then they were the ones lying. They were the start of the Christian faith. A faith that the authorities did not want to continue.
However, this only goes to demonstrate the folly of using faith as a metric to assess what is truth. Faith allows people to hold conviction in their beliefs without sufficient evidence. As a result, people have died because of holding fast to a belief based on poor epistemology.
Again, they were not martyred because of the conviction of their faith, they were martyred because they witnesses the risen Lord and would not recant or deny what they had witnessed.
Being martyred because of adhering to faulty premises only reveals the fallibility of religious conviction. People can die for being mistaken, which is certainly no indication that what they died for is true. Therefore the martyrdom of the first century Christians can hardly be used as evidence that what they believed in was truth.
Too many witnesses for being mistaken. Many of these people were considered a lower class of society. Fishermen, tax collectors, beggars, women, etc. Yet they all held onto their witnessing of the risen Lord.
" Although both were martyrs, there's a major difference when you are a witness and know that it is false."
Such evidence can only be considered anecdotal and is impossible to distinguish from folklore. That's still not sufficient evidence for God.
This evidence is anything but anecdotal or folklore. There are thousands of pages written about these events.
The above statement negates the unfalsifyiable claim that the martyrdom of the first century Christians can in any way be considered as evidence that the god of the bible exists. If believers of other theologies can have faith based on false beliefs, it leaves us no methodology in order to be able to distinguish the early Christians from any other believer.
Nothing to do with the bible or even religion. Has all to do with what they saw and how they would die rather than say they didn't see it with their own eyes..
For example, the prophet Muhammad many times witnessed an Angelophany as well as many other miracles. He also died a martyr.
The faith of Islam and classic Christianity contradict each other in many ways, yet by the above reckoning they both equally tick the criteria that qualifies as evidence of their gods. This way of reasoning is therefore irreconcilable and defies the laws of logic.
The only way to prove either theological claim would be to supply sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the claim was factual. Therefore, testimony from either of the religious fables cannot be considered as evidence, because they both meet the required criteria while at the same time prove contradictory to each other.
As there is no contemporary evidence to substantiate that the early Christians did actually witness the resurrection of Jesus, (a point equally applicable to the assertions surrounding the prophet of Islam) the testimony of their claim cannot be verified one way or the other. It therefore cannot be considered evidence for God.
Many of the early church fathers speak about the witnesses of Christ's resurrection. Thousands of pages are available. Frankly, though, if one cannot see the difference between on being martyred for ones beliefs as opposed to being martyred for what YOU witnessed, then I am only wasting typing time here.
Hello TTWSYF
Thanks for getting back so soon.
You say:-
“Frankly, though, if one cannot see the difference between on being martyred for ones beliefs as opposed to being martyred for what YOU witnessed, then I am only wasting typing time here.”
I’m not actually arguing against your point above. I agree that there would be a profound difference between the two positions. A first hand account is about the best evidence one could get. So I’m more than happy to concede that point.
However, this distinction still doesn’t help substantiate your original claim… that the manner of their martyrdom proves that God and the bible are true.
This is easily illustrated by using syllogisms. So lets start with what I believe is your proposition (please correct me if I have misrepresented you or if you would like to amend either of the premises or the conclusion):-
Premise 1: The apostles and hundreds of other people witnessed first hand Jesus being resurrected and, as a result, went on to die horrific deaths as martyrs because of the conviction of what they had seen.
Premise 2: ONLY people with the conviction of firsthand experiences would ever allow themselves to suffer such horrific martyrdom.
Conclusion: The ONLY explanation for these people allowing themselves to die in such a manner would be if Jesus had actually risen, therefore the god of the bible exists.
Is this a fair representation of your argument?
Hi GG, Sorry for the delay. I am not always on this site. I reply below, not to get in a he said/she said back and forth thing. I reply only to clarify my position. There are too many reasons for why I believe what I believe. There's no 'only one reason'. There are many, too many for you not to believe.
Ever hear of the 'Miracle of the Sun' Happened in Fatima, Portugal Oct 13, 1917. Some 60.000 firsthand witnesses to the event. All types of folks. Not one denied what they saw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
Giles reply to [in italics] see the difference between on being martyred for ones beliefs as opposed to being martyred for what YOU witnessed,
I agree that there would be a profound difference between the two positions. A first hand account is about the best evidence one could get. So I’m more than happy to concede that point.
However, this distinction still doesn’t help substantiate your original claim… that the manner of their martyrdom proves that God and the bible are true.
So, I never said that the martyrdom of these witnesses proves that God and the bible are true. My position was/is that their martyrdom DOES prove that Jesus Christ DID rise from the grave because of their testimony. For the exact same reason that you gave "A first hand account is about the best evidence one could get. So I’m more than happy to concede that point."
So maybe we agree that their martyrdom could be proof of the resurrection? I accept it as true because of their testimony.
Premise 1: The apostles and hundreds of other people witnessed first hand Jesus being resurrected and, as a result, went on to die horrific deaths as martyrs because of the conviction of what they had seen.
I would agree
Premise 2: ONLY people with the conviction of firsthand experiences would ever allow themselves to suffer such horrific martyrdom.
I wouldn't agree with ONLY, but I think if it were NOT true, someone would have said 'ok, ok, it's a lie'
Conclusion: The ONLY explanation for these people allowing themselves to die in such a manner would be if Jesus had actually risen, therefore the god of the bible exists. Is this a fair representation of your argument?
No, not a fair representation. The resurrection account is only 1 piece of a tapestry that gives my faith conviction or confidence. The bible is not the start all/end all of Christianity. The bible is just a book. Christianity was up and running for 3 1/2 centuries before the bible cannon was completely confirmed. Most biblical scholars put the letters and Gospels and such of the NT written within a generation to a generation and a half after the resurrection. First 75 years or so after Jesus's death and resurrection. They were busy loving their neighbors and ALL that they did could not possibly fit in a book. Just as it couldn't dare to contain the whole of Jesus' life and all of Christianity. In my somewhat bold opinion anyway...
Respectfully,
TTWSYF
Hello TTW.
I’d like to respond to your comment, but this quote of yours alters dramatically my position in our conversation, when you say:-
“So, I never said that the martyrdom of these witnesses proves that God and the bible are true.”
That is exactly the point I am arguing against. It is what I have understood from what you have written. (I believe it is also what Onager concluded as well)
If you are not making that assertion then our discussion is redundant.
I am merely responding to your post on page 6 (the second from last post on that page) of this thread and specifically your reply to Onager’s comment quoted below:-
Onager- “There is no evidence that the god of the bible exists. So you believe without evidence and call this faith.”
You respond to his point with the following:-
TTWSYF- “Respectfully, although you are right as far as each of us are not witness to personal and profound intimate communication / revelation with God, there is still a large amount of evidence. One example of evidence could be the way the apostles and 90% of the early Christian leaders were tortured to death is evidence. Why die for a lie? To what end?”
(please see the original comment for the full exchange in context as I have only quoted the relevant portions of your post)
I understood your response to Onager’s point to mean that you believe the martyrdom of those early Christians who witnessed Jesus’ resurrection was one piece of evidence that upholds that the god of the bible exists.
Perhaps you could elucidate further on exactly what you meant in your response to Onager on page 6 before I respond, just in case we are talking at cross purposes.
Thanks Giles Gray, yes, that was what I was getting at. The bible is the work of men and it's god is a construction of those that wrote it and those that came after.
My thinking is based on Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, which you can read here:
Hello Onager.
Thanks for that link to Thomas Paine's book. His book is referred to regularly in many of the debates I've listened to. So an important book I'm sure.
You say:-
"... yes, that was what I was getting at. The bible is the work of men and it's god is a construction of those that wrote it and those that came after."
Thanks for your confirmation.
Please could you also clarify what you meant in your reply to TTWSYF on page 8 of this thread (3rd post down) when you say:-
" ...but I'm sorry you are wrong to say that there is evidence for the existence of the biblical god."
Am I correct in assuming that you also understood that TTWSYF's reference to the martyrdom of the apostles and the Christians who allegedly witnessed jesus' resurrection was one point of evidence that TTWSYF was using to prove the god of the bible exists?
Or have I misunderstood your post?
Hi Giles Gray,
I was responding to this comment from Page 6 of this thread by TTWSYF:
Respectfully, although you are right as far as each of us are not witness to personal and profound intimate communication / revelation with God, there is still a large amount of evidence.
One example of evidence could be the way the apostles and 90% of the early Christians leaders were tortured to death is evidence. Why die for a lie? To what end?
I thought that the argument that I was responding to was that there is evidence for the existence of God and the first example is the eye witnesses who died as martyrs. I'm not sure what's really going on now since TTWSYF said:
So, I never said that the martyrdom of these witnesses proves that God and the bible are true. My position was/is that their martyrdom DOES prove that Jesus Christ DID rise from the grave because of their testimony.
For me, personally, this is as Thomas Paine said, all hearsay. We know, for a fact, that people have died for beliefs that are incorrect (because people have died for beliefs which contradict each other), so the only reason to accept that these accounts are correct is faith that these particular people are telling the actual truth, not just truth as they see it.
Onager- "I thought that the argument that I was responding to was that there is evidence for the existence of God and the first example is the eye witnesses who died as martyrs. I'm not sure what's really going on now..."
My sentiments exactly.Thanks for the clarification.
