Worth dying for?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I do not think the apostles were ALL brutally murdered, some were according to various sources

You certainly seemed to indicate otherwise earlier:
[quote]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 ssing the issues put before you instead of continuing to try to avoid them.[/b]

Look chap, I don't hold that all the apostles were brutally executed (despite my sentence earlier, I was inaccurate and generalising to make a point) some were I think, a point which is clearly indicated in the link you yourself posted.

Why don't you just get into the spirit and theme of the thread. Honestly, why is it you insist on being such an arse every time we have an exchange.

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.

Thanks. I know we usually get the ole " well if everyone believed as you do we'd all die". Well if everyone believed like we do...duh, no one would be fighting anyone.

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.

The word 'complete' is misleading at best.

Originally posted by divegeester
Look chap, I don't hold that all the apostles were brutally executed (despite my sentence earlier, I was inaccurate and generalising to make a point) some were I think, a point which is clearly indicated in the link you yourself posted.

Why don't you just get into the spirit and theme of the thread. Honestly, why is it you insist on being such an arse every time we have an exchange.

Let me see if I understand you.

You had indicated that you thought that all the apostles were brutally executed.

You started a thread which has a premise that doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

In the case of the former, I pointed out that it wasn't true.

In the case of the latter, I pointed out that fact and have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence otherwise.

Now, in your mind, this makes me an "arse".

Do I understand you correctly? Any chance that it is you who is being an "arse"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let me see if I understand you.

You had indicated that you thought that all the apostles were brutally executed.

You started a thread which has a premise that doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

In the case of the former, I pointed out that it wasn't true.

In the case of the latter, I pointed out that fact and have repeatedly asked you to pro ...[text shortened]... arse".

Do I understand you correctly? Any chance that it is you who is being an "arse"?

Just because you point out that you think something isn't true, doesn't make it so. no matter how much of an arse you are on the internet.

The thread is about 'things worth dying for' it doesn't require "scrutiny" it requires some considered input into what you think may be worth dying for.

Whether you are right about the apostles deaths or not, the link you posted did not support your position and in fact confirmed mine in the main.

And yes it is my opinion that whether you are 100% right or not, you are indeed an arse.

Originally posted by divegeester
Just because you point out that you think something isn't true, doesn't make it so. no matter how much of an arse you are on the internet.

The thread is about 'things worth dying for' it doesn't require "scrutiny" it requires some considered input into what you think may be worth dying for.

Whether you are right about the apostles deaths or not, th ...[text shortened]...
And yes it is my opinion that whether you are 100% right or not, you are indeed an arse.

Do you believe that no one should ever take issue with anything anyone else posts? Or is it just that no one should ever take issue with anything you post?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you believe that no one should ever take issue with anything anyone else posts? Or is it that no one should ever take issue with anything you post?

No, I just think you're an arse who didn't read his own link.

Originally posted by divegeester
No, I just think you're an arse who didn't read his own link.

You pitched a hissy fit and call me an "arse" because you believe I didn't read my own link? That is hard to believe. Seems much more likely that you've taken exception to someone taking issue with your posts. Wouldn't it have been simpler for you to have addressed the issues instead of all this nonsense?

BTW I did read the link as I explained earlier:

I did read it "carefully". As I posted earlier, the "support" was less than firm:
[quote]... 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. [/quote]
Not sure why you still can't seem to be able to wrap your mind around the above.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You pitched a hissy fit and call me an "arse" because you believe I didn't read my own link? That is hard to believe. Seems much more likely that you've taken exception to someone taking issue with your posts. Wouldn't it have been simpler for you to have addressed the issues instead of all this nonsense?

BTW I did read the link as I explained earlier: sure why you still can't seem to be able to wrap your mind around the above.

You can believe what you like buddy. I accept your point about the lack of concrete evidence, but your link was a fail because you didn't read it. Try to understand that being an irritating arse has nothing to do with logic or the length of your posts.

Originally posted by divegeester
No, I just think you're an arse who didn't read his own link.

I read his link and generally agreed with him. You have already withdrawn some of your claims that he posted the link in answer to. I really don't see what your problem is, nor why you are so insistent on arguing over a link.

Originally posted by divegeester
You can believe what you like buddy. I accept your point about the lack of concrete evidence, but your link was a fail because you didn't read it. Try to understand that being an irritating arse has nothing to do with logic or the length of your posts.

You can insist that I didn't read the link. I suppose you'd know better than me whether or not I did, lol.

Face it, what you find "irritating" is that there have been issues with your posts and to avoid addressing them, you've taken to all manner of unscrupulous tactics.

What are you accomplishing besides embarrassing yourself?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I read his link and generally agreed with him. You have already withdrawn some of your claims that he posted the link in answer to. I really don't see what your problem is, nor why you are so insistent on arguing over a link.

The link was posted as an "argument" against my post I don't see why you are against me arguing against someone arguing with me. The link does not support ThinkOfOne's claim, irrespective of whether he is right or not, which remains unsubstantiated.

I've not made "claims" - I stated in one of my posts that "all" of the apostles were brutally murdered, that was an unintentional error which I corrected. Some of them were brutally murdered and there is plenty of evidence of that in ThinkOfOne's link, which I appreciated him helping me with.

This thread is about "things worth dying for", the apostles who were brutally murdered died for something they believed in. [Possibly...]

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You can insist that I didn't read the link. I suppose you'd know better than me whether or not I did, lol.

Face it, what you find "irritating" is that there have been issues with your posts and to avoid addressing them, you've taken to all manner of unscrupulous tactics.

What are you accomplishing besides embarrassing yourself?

I can't believe someone as intelligent as you would jump into a thread and post a link claiming it as evidence supporting your position, when it clearly does not. Sorry if I'm giving you more credit than you deserve. I'm not embarrassed at all.

What would you think was worth dying for ThinkOfOne?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The word 'complete' is misleading at best.

You mean in that scenario they may have been deluded into thinking it was real, as opposed to realising it was a lie?

Originally posted by divegeester
You mean in that scenario they may have been deluded into thinking it was real, as opposed to realising it was a lie?

No, I am imagining that, even if they were given a chance to renounce their faith, they were unwilling to do so because they believed most of its precepts [or at least the most important precepts] to be true, even if they knew some of them were lies [like perhaps the resurrection of Jesus].