Ierre Il

Charlatan: some more good meat... you're mostly carrying this discussion...

1) Thats a question of Biblical authenticity... discussed in another thread. Nonetheless, think about it, you don't kill a man for telling people to be nice. Most of what he said was stated somewhere in scripture, and he was just bringing it to light. You can't kill someone for pointing out a verse to you. Also, many of his teachings, according to someone else in this thread, and I think I heard it mentioned before too, were taught by others, who didnt get killed. It wasn't what he suggested others do that got him killed, it was what he claimed about himself... going beyond logic to what testimony we have (again, biblical autheniticity comes into play, but it's what we have), the people loved his teachings, and the only people who were annoyed even in the slightest over his teachings were other teachers who couldn't catch him out on anything. As soon as the point of divinity came up though, they had him, and the crowds screamed for his blood, as the ultimate blasphemer. Not only is this what an old book says, its what logic would indicate knowing the social context and the teachings.

2) You're ambiguous in your sarcasm. Pray remember this is the internet, where noone can hear you sneer. Alternatively, you're not being sarcastic. I can't tell that either, so please try to check for ambiguity... no doubt I do the same thing, just ask for clarification if I do... Now. Struggle for a nice lie, yes. Die for a nice lie, no. Ultimately one can't claim knowledge of how anyone thinks but himself, and others only by inference, but I know I would die for the truth, however distasteful, and would not lay down my life for a lie, no matter how happy it made people. As to the question of a witness... here's the main problem. Why did the witness make it up? I don't have a problem so much with people believing lies as people inventing them and dying for them, with no personal gain. (Naturally, if there really was a 'witness', in the usual, rather than ironic, sense of the word, the event actually ocurred. I'm fairly sure you didn't mean that.) In addition, at least 13 people off the top of my head (Mary Magdalene and the 12 disciples), claimed to be eye-witnesses. That's some conspiracy, considering all of them had slunk away like dogs when they hung him on the cross, weeping and disillusioned. Within 3 days, they've organised a conspiracy by which they gain nothing, and in which all of them claim to have seen Jesus risen, face to face, a claim which would have seemed as preposterous when people made it then as it would if someone did so now.
"Yes, he's dead, Yes, he's buried... yes, he's back. Is there a problem with my story?"
Call that group of people decievers if you will, but at least credit them with an ounce of common sense.

3) They were making a pretty good dying as disciples of Jesus. At this stage there was absolutely NO benefit in being a Christian, materially. That is the point that makes all these lies seem so strange, and that seems so hard for some people to accept. Christianity may be the majority religion in some parts of the world now (One wonders why, but this is irrelevant), but at that time it was an extreme persecuted minority. Both extremely persecuted and extremely minor. Paul supported himself as a tent-maker while he preached (except when he was in prison, of course... perhaps he simply wanted to find a good crime so he could get himself some shelter. After all, one wouldn't expect a Greek-educated, ethnically Jewish, Roman citizen, to have any home of his own or connections to help him. He had nothing to lose, right?), although offered help from those around him who were attempting to put into practice what he had preached to them, he chose to be likewise unselfish and take nothing material but what he earned materially.

The bottom line here, in the lives of Jesus, the disciples, and Paul, is that I can see no personal gain in what they preached, and cannot believe, from the substance and tone of their teachings, that they were willing to base them on a lie, just so that people would be a bit nicer. I use the word lie here, and will substitute no other, which brings me quite neatly to my next point.

4) What you believe does not make the truth. I cannot stand subjectivisim, and if you examine it, you will find no logical basis whatsoever. The concept of truth is unchanging, a set representation of reality, as it truly is, regardless of how people look at it. It is the way the universe is, not the way it is seen. If there is nothing which is not dependant on out beliefs, there is no truth. The concept of subjective truth is inherently self-contradictory. You may say there IS no truth if you wish, but in that case surely there is no point arguing either, as we will arrive at no conclusion, or if we do, it will be no better than the one we started with... or at least, not unless you work with a certain value of better, that each of us may define ourselves. As to your closing question (again seemingly steeped in sarcasm to my perhaps paranoid mind), millions of Christians can be wrong, and probably are about a great many things they are united in believing. I personally do not believe the Christian faith is incorrect in any of its essential details, but there may be some more or less meaningless little things around the edges that everyone accepts, but are wrong. Millions of people, Christian or otherwise, can be wrong. Surely my argument suggests that millions of atheists are wrong, does it not? Why should it be any different for theists, or Christians? You can't solve this by popularity, or rhetoric, but by reasoned argument.

Thanks, HeAtHeN. Stated, noted and answered elsewhere.

Constant - good point, but I'm fairly sure Charlatan stated he wasn't Christian or anti-christian, so he's not knocking the philosophy, just the metaphysics it is built on.