Worth dying for?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, we're just going to have to disagree on this one. The trouble with saying "no one would die for something they knew was a lie" is that it's too simplistic. A belief system may contain a few lies and many truths, in the eyes of the teacher. So, what is he really dying for - the few lies, or the many truths?

I think you mean that Peter 'stepped do ...[text shortened]... to avoid death out of fear, rather than whether they believed all of their own teachings.

Yes it was after his arrest, my mistake.

Yes fair point; I can see a scenario where the apostles were executed for a political cause irrespective of whether they renouced Christ or not.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I am sympathetic to the JW position even if I do not share it. War sucks. I wish we never had to do it. I am opposed to most of the wars my country is fighting and has fought since WWII.

Me too. 'War' is it's simplistic sense an extension of dying to defend your homeland, home, famly and countrymen which you (and twhitehead) mentioned earlier. Of course that is rarely what it's really about.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what I can tell, you think that all the apostles were "brutally murdered for their faith in Jesus Christ and his message" and that they had an opportunity to save their lives by renouncing their faith.

What evidence do you have that the above is true?

I found the following written by J B Phillips which is not in agreement with the above:
http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN500APOSTLES%20FATE.htm

Had a quick scan through (short of time but look more thoroughly in a couple of days) and I don't see how this contradicts your version of one of the points in my OP.

I accept that there is no proof that I know of, that the executed apostles could have saved thier lives but my quick scan through indicates that this artcle mearly gathers some scriptural and apocryphal evidences to confirm how they died. I may be missing something.

Originally posted by divegeester
Had a quick scan through (short of time but look more thoroughly in a couple of days) and I don't see how this contradicts your version of one of the points in my OP.

I accept that there is no proof that I know of, that the executed apostles could have saved thier lives but my quick scan through indicates that this artcle mearly gathers some scriptural and apocryphal evidences to confirm how they died. I may be missing something.

For one, according to Phillips, John died of natural causes. So it's not "all the apostles".

For another, most of the other accounts are couched in terms such as "claims are", "may have been", "possible", etc. So there does seem to be doubt about how factual the "tradition[al]" stories are and in some cases there are more than one.

There are other problems as well.

So unless you can provide evidence, your point seems to be built upon sand.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
For one, according to Phillips, John died of natural causes. So it's not "all the apostles".

For another, most of the other accounts are couched in terms such as "claims are", "may have been", "possible", etc. So there does seem to be doubt about how factual the "tradition[al]" stories are and in some cases there are more than one.

There are other p ...[text shortened]... well.

So unless you can provide evidence, your point seems to be built upon sand.

"For one"...

For one what? The website you posted did not do what you claimed. I think you just did a search and posted the first link you found which looked as though it supported whatever it is you are trying to say. What are you prepared to die for? Got anything to contribute?

Originally posted by divegeester
I sometimes wonder about the apostles who were brutally murdered for their faith in Jesus Christ and his message. I wonder that if (as some say) they were fabricating his resurrection, surely they wouldn't die for something they knew was a lie?

If you are religious, would you die before renouncing your beliefs?

If you are not religious, what is worth dying for in your opinion?

The monks that burned themselves while being invaded sitting in the lotus position had a very deep and powerful effect on the soldiers that were invading them. I had actually met one and he said that it changed his whole life right there.

Not to mention I guess these buddhist monks realized that they would be tortured for information,etc.
While at the same time demonstrating that physical life is transient and they were willing to die for their beliefs

Originally posted by divegeester
[b]"For one"...

For one what? The website you posted did not do what you claimed. I think you just did a search and posted the first link you found which looked as though it supported whatever it is you are trying to say. What are you prepared to die for? Got anything to contribute?[/b]

The premise for the OP was built upon the following:

I sometimes wonder about the apostles who were brutally murdered for their faith in Jesus Christ and his message. I wonder that if (as some say) they were fabricating his resurrection, surely they wouldn't die for something they knew was a lie?

Based on that and some other things you posted later I responded as follows:

From what I can tell, you think that all the apostles were "brutally murdered for their faith in Jesus Christ and his message" and that they had an opportunity to save their lives by renouncing their faith.

What evidence do you have that the above is true?

I found the following written by J B Phillips which is not in agreement with the above:
http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN500APOSTLES%20FATE.htm

The Phillips accounts do not support your premise.

If you have evidence that does, then simply post it.

If you don't, then the entire premise is built upon sand.

I'm at a loss as to why you don't seem to comprehend the above.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The premise for the OP was built upon the following:

I sometimes wonder about the apostles who were brutally murdered for their faith in Jesus Christ and his message. I wonder that if (as some say) they were fabricating his resurrection, surely they wouldn't die for something they knew was a lie?

Based on that and some other things you ...[text shortened]... se is built upon sand.

I'm at a loss as to why you don't seem to comprehend the above.

After rebuking the High Priest and the Jews, stephen said the following:

But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the
glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said,
“Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the
right hand of God!”

(Acts 7:55-56 NKJV)

Then the Jews stoned Stephen to death.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The premise for the OP was built upon the following:

I sometimes wonder about the apostles who were brutally murdered for their faith in Jesus Christ and his message. I wonder that if (as some say) they were fabricating his resurrection, surely they wouldn't die for something they knew was a lie?

Based on that and some other things you ...[text shortened]... se is built upon sand.

I'm at a loss as to why you don't seem to comprehend the above.

The OP presents a premise about causes to die for and uses the apostles deaths as an example of dying for something you believe in. I do not think the apostles were ALL brutally murdered, some were according to various sources; the link YOU post supported that some were and some were not. Perhaps you should read the links you post more carefully. You now seem to be 'foot-stamping' and demanding 'evidence' of apostolic executions. But carry on.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The monks that burned themselves while being invaded sitting in the lotus position had a very deep and powerful effect on the soldiers that were invading them. I had actually met one and he said that it changed his whole life right there.

Not to mention I guess these buddhist monks realized that they would be tortured for information,etc.
While at ...[text shortened]... ime demonstrating that physical life is transient and they were willing to die for their beliefs

Dying for a belief is one thing, dying for something you know to be a complete lie is something else. I wouldn't even die for something religious I new was the truth - why? Because I want to live.

I'd die defending family and loved ones, that's about it.

Originally posted by divegeester
Dying for a belief is one thing, dying for something you know to be a complete lie is something else. I wouldn't even die for something religious I new was the truth - why? Because I want to live.

Clearly your beliefs are not that strong - and you don't actually know your religious beliefs to be the truth - or you simply don't have any religious beliefs worth dying for.
If for example you believed that renouncing your faith would lead to eternal punishment in hell, then presumably you would be willing to die rather than renounce your faith.

I must also point out that humans seem to be remarkably adept at convincing themselves that something is true for reasons other than evidential ones, and also humans can be remarkably stubborn - even to the point of dying rather than admit a lie (which they know to be a lie).

But once again, I do not believe that there is good evidence that the disciples died for something they knew to be a complete lie there are many possibilities including:
1. That most of them were not martyred as claimed.
2. That they were killed for other reasons.
3. That they were not given a choice of renounce or die.
4. That they genuinely believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
5. That the did not make any such claim.
6. That the claim was not central to their teachings / religion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clearly your beliefs are not that strong - and you don't actually know your religious beliefs to be the truth - or you simply don't have any religious beliefs worth dying for.
If for example you believed that renouncing your faith would lead to eternal punishment in hell, then presumably you would be willing to die rather than renounce your faith.

I am absolutely convinced that 2+2=4 is the truth but I wouldn't die for it. As you say consequences are what matters and possibly a belief that martyrdom will perpetuate the cause. In fact there is evidence that Jesus believed this:

Jn 12:24
I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.

I believe Jesus' act of surrendering to death was correct for him and his obedience; possibly also for the apostles. The question arises: does what Jesus said apply to all Christians across all ages.

Whilst this may be a truth for those who believe their death is a catalyst for perpetuating their particular religion, for me I know for a certainty that if someone put a gun to my head and gave me the choice of life or death based on renouncing my faith - I would verbally renounce it.

What would my death gain? A bereaved wife. If I was old a widower and dying of cancer in the same scenario I would probalby stand firm and take the bullet.

*apologies for the edits - darn typos

Originally posted by divegeester
Dying for a belief is one thing, dying for something you know to be a complete lie is something else. I wouldn't even die for something religious I new was the truth - why? Because I want to live.

I'd die defending family and loved ones, that's about it.

it gets interesting when its not certain death. who would you save and at what risk?

would you play one round of russian roulette to save a random childs life? would it make a difference if they were in the room with you or on the other side of the planet?

Originally posted by divegeester
I am absolutely convinced that 2+2=4 is the truth but I wouldn't die for it. As you say consequences are what matters and possibly a belief that martyrdom will perpetuate the cause.

Of course it is not about simply refusing to renounce your beliefs, it is about what you believe the consequences are of doing so and whether those outweigh the consequences of dying. Most of us would deny that 2+2=4 over even a minor threat as we see no benefit to defending it.

But when it comes to religious beliefs there are many elements in play.
- you may consider it a 'matter of principle' not to deny your belief.
- you may consider it a religious duty not to deny your beliefs - and this may carry severe consequences.
- you may, as you mention, be interested in perpetuating those beliefs regardless of whether you live or die.
- there may be social pressures - this should not be underrated, some people would rather die than live with the shame of certain acts.
- you may not consider death to be such a serious thing. You worry about your family etc, but the disciples presumably had already left their families and were assured of a place in heaven.

Originally posted by divegeester
The OP presents a premise about causes to die for and uses the apostles deaths as an example of dying for something you believe in. I do not think the apostles were ALL brutally murdered, some were according to various sources; the link YOU post supported that some were and some were not. Perhaps you should read the links you post more carefully. You ...[text shortened]... seem to be 'foot-stamping' and demanding 'evidence' of apostolic executions. But carry on.

I do not think the apostles were ALL brutally murdered, some were according to various sources

You certainly seemed to indicate otherwise earlier:

This supposition is not a reason to presume someone would die for what they knew was a complete lie. I think all the apostles died horrible deaths, surely one or two would have just stepped down from the plate to save their lives, like Peter did just that right after Christ's execution.

the link YOU post supported that some were and some were not. Perhaps you should read the links you post more carefully.

I did read it "carefully". As I posted earlier, the "support" was less than firm:

... most of the other accounts are couched in terms such as "claims are", "may have been", "possible", etc. So there does seem to be doubt about how factual the "tradition[al]" stories are and in some cases there are more than one...There are other problems as well.

Some of the other problems with your premise were listed by TW:

But once again, I do not believe that there is good evidence that the disciples died for something they knew to be a complete lie there are many possibilities including:
1. That most of them were not martyred as claimed.
2. That they were killed for other reasons.
3. That they were not given a choice of renounce or die.
4. That they genuinely believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
5. That the did not make any such claim.
6. That the claim was not central to their teachings / religion.

But of course you evaded the issue in your discussion with TW just as you've been evading the issue in your discussion with me.

You now seem to be 'foot-stamping' and demanding 'evidence' of apostolic executions. But carry on.

The following hardly constitutes 'foot-stamping'. Why the mischaracterization?

If you have evidence that does, then simply post it.

If you don't, then the entire premise is built upon sand.

You could do something really unusual like actually addressing the issues put before you instead of continuing to try to avoid them.