"No man would stand by a lie to the point of death" - I don't think we have proof of this assertion, by the way. I can easily imagine someone standing by a claim they know is a lie simply because to recant publicly would result in great shame - and to die for one's beliefs, is a death of a martyr - seen by many with great reverence. It hardly matters whether the beliefs are genuine - the person under threat of death would probably not be inclined to recant simply to protect the honor of their tribe and family and their good name.

@semck83, please define "factual belief". I don't understand your distinction.

A mundane example of someone lying to the point of death: a person who pleads innocent despite mountains of evidence against them even though they could have avoided the death penalty by pleading guilty under a plea bargain. A different example: A false confession - where someone tries to be identified as a notorious serial killer because they want the notoriety - they want their form of immortality.

Well, Dexter, suppose I believe "taxes are always bad!" and I hold this political belief so strongly that I die for it (don't ask me how, but this is a silly example). I might just have been wrong, as you point out; one can infer nothing about the truth of my belief based on my actions.
But suppose I believe "I was in the funeral parlor alone with the body of my dead brother when he came to life and spent an hour talking with me." And I die for that belief.
There's a difference between these two beliefs. The second one is not some abstract ideal that I'm in as bad a position to judge as anybody else. It's actually something I'm claiming happened to me, with my 5 senses. At some point before I die for the truth of that belief, I should say it was a lie if it was, because I would _know_ it was a lie. (Of course, I might have hallucinated, etc., but hallucination becomes less credible the more people we're talking about).
Do you see the distinction? It doesn't have to be a resurrection, of course. It could just be "the car that rolled up in my driveway the night before the murder was red." If I think I might be mistaken about that, or I know I'm lying, it would be best to say so before I die for my statement. And unless I'm insane, it's just not a belief I can truly hold without being right (unlike the political example, and unlike the example of a religious person who does not claim to be an eyewitness).

Well, dexter, the latter is usually considered mentally unstable, of course. And of course that is an option to discuss in the present case.
As for the former -- you're talking about somebody who's really guilty doing this? I'm familiar of course with innocent people doing it. If it happens with somebody who's actually guilty, I guess you'd have to look at what else was going on. Perhaps they misjudged the liklihood of acquittal. Wouldn't really apply in the case under discussion.

semck83, thanks for explaining. I see your point - and give it some weight... though it is not close to convincing me. Here is some of the reason why: one can believe they saw something without it being a mass hallucination... and once seen and remembered repeatedly and discussed, these things prove rather fluid - eye witness testimony is infamously undependable... and masses of people - particularly people with a shared pre-existing belief and desire to see something - can certainly interpret something they see as miraculous - despite any objective ambiguity. Example: multiple "sightings" of the Virgin Mary over the years into modern times. Weeping statues, burnt toast, etc., etc. If a "miracle" is experienced by someone and becomes a rock on which they feel they can secure their beliefs as definitively true, then such a comforting experience will be held onto fiercely - despite any doubts expressed by unbelievers, etc. It is real to the person who makes the claim and has the memory. Again, it doesn't prove it's real. I've talked with sports fans during or after a game, for example, who's view on what just happened on the TV screen is clearly and sharply affected by their team loyalty... even in slo-mo replay (a luxury the ancients did not have ;-), their view often does not change. Mutually exclusive views held by people viewing the same event result... and if you have a room full of fans of one team, of course, the view will be dominantly in favor of that team. And no, I don't think they are consciously lying... but they are not objective - and certainly after experiencing something in a crowd, they are swayed by what everyone around them believes they saw. Crowd hysteria/enthusiasm sweeps away doubts that they had... (think the Nazi Nuremberg rallies, for one infamous example of many)

dexter,

Thank you, I appreciate your fair post. I think the phenomena you're talking about do exist, but I don't really see them as likely candidate explanations for the behavior in this instance. It is true that sports fans, e.g., often see what they want to see. It is true that people cling to comforting beliefs, even about experiences, despite the improbability of those beliefs being true (although, to take the toast example, and many of the other religious examples: the thing they're probably wrong about there is the interpretation, not the experience. It's just not so unlikely that toast burn might look like a face if you squint just right).
On the other hand, we're talking about claimed multiple meetings with somebody who had died, one of them putting his hand in His side, a miracle (the fish), etc. Let's say that, at the least, they would have to be well above average at self-delusion, which I think is putting it really mildly.
Perhaps the closest to something like what you are saying might be Paul's experience, except that he did not want it, and in fact was opposed to the Christian message.
As for the rest, I think there are few signs that they were expecting a resurrection. Philip had the opposite reaction from what you suggest, e.g.
So anyway, I don't really find your suggested explanations that convincing as analogies, or believe that they can explain the facts of the early Christian movement. However, I appreciate the post.

No proof has been provided of Christians "dying" for their belief. There is scant evidence that even Nero persecuted Christians (the lone evidence of this is from Tacitus, no other source from the time corroborates this story). The Christians were largely ignored by the Roman authorities. Rome was, indeed, a beacon of religious tolerance I don't think the world had seen before or has seen since.

"Perhaps the closest to something like what you are saying might be Paul's experience"

Paul didn't see a resurrection. He uses the same word (appeared) that is used elsewhere when referring to Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration. Did Moses and Elijah rise from the dead?

Furthermore, Paul inaccurately says Jesus "appeared" to the twelve apostles. But that's impossible since Judas was dead. Elsewhere in Acts, Paul refers to the 'appearance' of Jesus as a 'vision'. In 2 Corinthians 12 Paul boasts of all sorts of 'visions', so we know he has them..a lot.

Putin, I am really not going to waste time arguing with you. I see no sign that you are a seeker of truth in any way; rather, you believe what you want to believe, and will do anything necessary to prop up those beliefs, much like an extreme religious fundamentalist.
If you want to believe that Rome was a beacon of religious tolerance unrivaled, fine. Those who care can research Roman history for themselves and make up their own mind.

Putin33 said: "Rome was, indeed, a beacon of religious tolerance I don't think the world had seen before or has seen since." My understanding was that this was largely the case... unless the religion threatened the political order or put itself above or outside of the political order... which early Christianity did. Until, of course, it *became* part of the political order, that is.

@semck83, what do you make of the experiences of Joseph Smith and his witnesses? How about of Mohammed? How about of Rev. Moon? These, as far as we can tell, were honestly held beliefs of divine revelations and miracles.

Rome, being influenced by the humanistic Greek tradition, simply looked at their religion as a matter of patriotism. Virtually all pagans who were under Roman rule and who did not worship Roman gods were tolerated, so long as they made perfunctory offerings to the Roman Emperor on certain occasions. Romans in return made offerings to the gods of the conquered, similarly out of respect. Some even adopted such gods as their own. The difference with Jews and Christians was that they rejected making any such patriotic tribute to the Emperor. This Jewish practice was in fact tolerated anyway and the Jews were left to themselves as they didn't proselytize. The difference with the Christians was that not only did they not want to be citizens of Rome, they actively insulted the Roman Emperor and the Roman gods and sought to preach their anti-social religion to all who would hear it.

"No man would stand by a lie to the point of death". I agree completely, and therefore have to profess that Allah is the one true god, as the 9/11 hijackers taught us.

Dexter, good question. I must confess at the outset that I'm more ignorant of Joseph Smith than I should be. Of course, a remark at the outset would be that none of these people actually died for their claimed revelation, so the same argument simply does not apply.
Now, as for Mohammed, my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) was that he had visions of Allah. So several differences jump out. First, these are visions, not physical experiences. Second, they are of somebody he has never met, not of a good friend and associate who had died. Third, it was one person, not many. I find it much easier to believe that such a vision might be mistaken, in one person, than that 12+ people would be wrong about a highly concrete experience.
Similar remarks would go for Joseph Smith, mutatis mutandis.
As for Moon... I'm really aware of nothing in his life that would vaguely compare, evidentially. Again I'm not much of an expert. Please feel free to draw my attention to something specific. Regards.

"Until, of course, it *became* part of the political order, that is."

I don't think it should be any surprise that the Empire fell apart as soon as Constantine's family took over the throne. Julian tried to stem the tide, but ultimately it collapsed.

People have arguing over the bible and the story of Jesus for ages, yet it's still there, and many people still believe. You really can't argue with faith.

*have been

In my experience, most people choose their beliefs, either for God and rejecting God, based on their emotions. But emotions are not the proof either way. Is it amazing that the God of the whole universe cares about me personally, even though I don't deserve it? Of course it is. Incredible. Unbelievable, really--until we really wrap our brains around the fact that it's not because we deserve it--or some people deserve it and some don't. It's because God loves each person enough to give up the most precious thing in eternity, his son, in order that those who seek, who receive the gift, who dare to believe--can have their sins forgiven, their hearts changed, and their lives saved. What a price. That concept alone is mind-altering.

God gave the gift, and all we have to do is receive it.

"It's because God loves each person enough to give up the most precious thing in eternity, his son, in order that those who seek, who receive the gift, who dare to believe--can have their sins forgiven, their hearts changed, and their lives saved."

Sounds like the human equivalent of scapegoating, described in Leviticus 16. Human sacrifice is abominable. Why must human life be taken to forgive humanity of sins? Doesn't automatic forgiveness of sins due to belief absolve people of moral accountability?

"God loves each person enough to give up the most precious thing in eternity, his son..."

What does this even mean? Doesn't Jesus just go back to Heaven? And why does an omnipotent god have a "son." What does that mean?

I'm seriously interested in the answer.

"Of course, a remark at the outset would be that none of these people actually died for their claimed revelation"

You may want to look into the persecution of the Mormon Church in its early days. Joseph Smith and his followers were driven out of 3 states; Smith was murdered by a lynch mob who stormed the jail he was being held in after his arrest. The governor of Missouri even called for the Mormons to be "exterminated", and they eventually had to flee to Utah to get away from the angry mobs and state militias - only to be pursued by the US Army instead.

"Now, as for Mohammed, my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) was that he had visions of Allah."

Muhammed had visions of the archangel Gabriel, who conveyed God's revelations (the Qu'ran) to Muhammed.

"First, these are visions, not physical experiences. "

In Joseph Smith's case, I think it's interesting to note that some of his followers who became disenchanted with Smith and left the church continued to claim to have witnessed some of Smith's visions. I think the question of why anyone would attest to miracles of a man you have come to dislike and think is not worth following is just as interesting a question than why someone would die for a lie.

"I don't think it should be any surprise that the Empire fell apart as soon as Constantine's family took over the throne. Julian tried to stem the tide, but ultimately it collapsed."

So the Roman Empire fell because it offended The Gods? Odd position for an atheist to take.

also, didn't jesus just return to god after he died? sure he got tortured, but he got to experience human life and now he's back up there at the right hand of the father. doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice considering it was in exchange for all the sins of the world.

beat me to it, abgemacht.

Tolstoy,

Thank you much for the corrections. I agree that Smith's death and the continued testimony of his followers makes his testimony seem stronger. The other remarks would still apply.

As for Mohammed, thank you also for the correction there. This has no bearing on the arguments, of course.

"I don't think it should be any surprise that the Empire fell apart as soon as Constantine's family took over the throne. Julian tried to stem the tide, but ultimately it collapsed."

So the Roman Empire fell because it offended The Gods? Odd position for an atheist to take.

-------

I read his position as being Rome fell in part because Christianity helped weaken the system.

"So the Roman Empire fell because it offended The Gods? Odd position for an atheist to take."

Lol. Not because it offended 'the gods', but because Christianity weakened the social bonds of the Empire and encouraged people to focus on private spirituality and the afterlife rather than public service.

The view that Jesus was a god (or 1/3 of god) was not at all the unanimous opinion of the early Christian community. Many early Christian sects rejected the idea of the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the equality of Jesus and god the father, and/or the existence/nature of the Holy Spirit. Arianism was the most popular belief system of the non-trinitarians, but there were others. All of them were wiped out at about the same time Christianity became the official religion, and the Church hierarchy suddenly had the power to 'suppress heresy' with the power of state-sanctioned violence.