|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2012 : 04:41:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
The 2011 Status of Global Mission from International Bulletin of Missionary Research defines a martyre as:
"believers in Christ who have lost their lives, prematurely, in situations of witness, as a result of human hostility.” |
Well, that's far too broad. Someone who dies in a bar fight because he cheats at darts while he happens to also be doing missionary work isn't a martyr. Martyrs are people who die specifically because they refuse to change their beliefs, not people who have certain beliefs but who die for other reasons.
It is likely that within the World Trade Center on 9/11, at least one of the now-dead was in a "situation of witness." But because the attack wasn't motivated by his/her Christianity, he/she is not a martyr. The cited definition would say otherwise.
For another example, the idea that Cassie Bernall is a martyr seems to depend upon the idea that had she said, "No," her murderer would have let her live. That seems to be a less-than rational assumption. But it's irrelevant to the IBMR's definition, which would include her regardless of why she was shot.
|
The source defines martyr even more broadly than the above statement, including people who die in their sleep in their homes in wars.
Edit: the rest of the world only includes those who willingly give their lives for the cause. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 06/22/2012 04:54:23 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 05:56:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
The source defines martyr even more broadly than the above statement, including people who die in their sleep in their homes in wars. |
Wow. Do you have a link? I went searching a little and could only find people talking about the report. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 06:23:47 [Permalink]
|
It helps if you just invent a word to search for "Martyrology" for example. The referenced report just refers to another page, which then links exclusivly to gordonconwell.eduHeres his martyr data
It seems he has referenced every single article on the planet with the word martyr in it in the bibliography, a bit much for such a short article. I couldnt find the specific document referenced regarding 2000-2010 data.
Not sure why christians killed in the Rawandan genocide would be included for example, I dont recall any stories about them lining up to be martyred for the machete gangs, nor do I recall this being an anti-christian event.
Edit: heres the loose definition of "Witness" from the above description.
‘In situations of witness’. This phrase incorporates
the original heart of the etymology. However, “witness”
in this definition does not mean only public testimony
or proclamation concerning the Risen Christ.
It refers to the entire lifestyle and way of life of the
Christian believer, whether or not he or she is actively
proclaiming at the time of being killed. In this sense
all Great Commission Christians, committed to
Christ’s mission as by definition they are, are ‘witnesses’
to the Lordship of the Risen Christ daily and
continuously, whether consciously or unknowingly |
i.e. anyone who happens to be breathing and has heard of Jesus. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 06/22/2012 06:29:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 08:43:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
i.e. anyone who happens to be breathing and has heard of Jesus. |
So all the dead on both sides of the Irish fighting were martyrs. Brilliant.
I think the reason the definition is so broad is so that it's easier to claim persecution while maintaining an obvious majority.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 12:51:50 [Permalink]
|
| Oh man. Leave for a day and it blows up in my face. I guess I have some work to do. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2012 : 11:50:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Oh man. Leave for a day and it blows up in my face. I guess I have some work to do.
|
Checking your statements for logical consistency, and your premises for soundness, and you'll lower the risk of it blowing up... 
Like, the number of people prepared to martyr themselves for a cause is not an indication of the validity or "truthness" of the cause they are comitting themselves to. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2012 : 11:05:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Convinced
Oh man. Leave for a day and it blows up in my face. I guess I have some work to do.
|
Checking your statements for logical consistency, and your premises for soundness, and you'll lower the risk of it blowing up...
Like, the number of people prepared to martyr themselves for a cause is not an indication of the validity or "truthness" of the cause they are comitting themselves to.
|
I wasn't saying that martyres prove god exists only to respond to Dave W's claim that more people were killed in the crusades than have been martyred.
My other point earlier was that the early christians that were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus died for that belief. If you believe the bible is reliable. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2012 : 12:56:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
My other point earlier was that the early christians that were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus died for that belief. If you believe the bible is reliable. |
And the only reason for thinking the Bible is reliable is that the Bible claims to be reliable. That is what is circular.
If you try to break the circularity by "presupposing" that the Bible is reliable, then you're just engaging in blind faith. If that's the case, then the Bible itself doesn't matter, you can presuppose your way into believing whatever you want. But pointing to events in the Bible that you think must be true to try to show that the Bible is reliable is then nothing more than an exercise in fooling yourself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2012 : 06:40:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
My other point earlier was that the early christians that were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus died for that belief. If you believe the bible is reliable. |
And the only reason for thinking the Bible is reliable is that the Bible claims to be reliable. That is what is circular.
If you try to break the circularity by "presupposing" that the Bible is reliable, then you're just engaging in blind faith. If that's the case, then the Bible itself doesn't matter, you can presuppose your way into believing whatever you want. But pointing to events in the Bible that you think must be true to try to show that the Bible is reliable is then nothing more than an exercise in fooling yourself.
|
Ok,
I asked this of leoofno:
You likely have used reason to determine that reason is the best way to find truth.
Do you think this describes you? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2012 : 11:04:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
My other point earlier was that the early christians that were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus died for that belief. If you believe the bible is reliable. |
And the only reason for thinking the Bible is reliable is that the Bible claims to be reliable. That is what is circular.
If you try to break the circularity by "presupposing" that the Bible is reliable, then you're just engaging in blind faith. If that's the case, then the Bible itself doesn't matter, you can presuppose your way into believing whatever you want. But pointing to events in the Bible that you think must be true to try to show that the Bible is reliable is then nothing more than an exercise in fooling yourself.
|
Ok,
I asked this of leoofno:
You likely have used reason to determine that reason is the best way to find truth.
Do you think this describes you?
|
You keep on using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means. You seem to believe we use some kind of book titled "Reason" as a guide. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2012 : 13:31:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
You likely have used reason to determine that reason is the best way to find truth.
Do you think this describes you? |
Implicit in the question is the assumption that if I have not used some sort of completely unreasonable method "to determine that reason is the best way to find truth," I am guilty of circular reasoning. Since "determining" something requires the use of reason, it is impossible to use "unreason" to determine anything. Random guessing, for example, is not a determination.
(However, the idea that one must use only the Bible to determine if the Bible is reliable is ludicrous, hence my requests for independent evidence.)
Of course, there isn't a single set of mental tools that we call "reason," and different types of reasoning apply in different situations. I no more use science to balance my checkbook than I use arithmetic to determine if a dark alley is safe to walk down. Different scenarios require different tools of reasoning.
We have no way to absolutely determine "the truth." All of our attempts are approximations, and so determining "the best" method of approximation for a particular application necessarily involves value judgments and prioritization, and so requires value-based reasoning. In other words, deciding that science is "the best" way to learn about our physical world doesn't depend upon science, but instead upon valuing practicality and utility, and dismissing solipsism.
So, which kind of "reason" do you want to talk about? Perhaps the sort of reasoning that leads me to reject the Bible as reliable? There are three primary objections to the Bible's reliability: scientific inaccuracy, internal inconsistency and the lack of independent, contemporary confirmation of major events. None of those three require themselves (or even each other) as assumptions, so my reasoning about the Bible's reliability certainly isn't circular.
Is that the sort of answer you were looking for? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2012 : 07:10:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
You likely have used reason to determine that reason is the best way to find truth.
Do you think this describes you? |
Implicit in the question is the assumption that if I have not used some sort of completely unreasonable method "to determine that reason is the best way to find truth," I am guilty of circular reasoning. Since "determining" something requires the use of reason, it is impossible to use "unreason" to determine anything. Random guessing, for example, is not a determination.
(However, the idea that one must use only the Bible to determine if the Bible is reliable is ludicrous, hence my requests for independent evidence.)
Of course, there isn't a single set of mental tools that we call "reason," and different types of reasoning apply in different situations. I no more use science to balance my checkbook than I use arithmetic to determine if a dark alley is safe to walk down. Different scenarios require different tools of reasoning.
We have no way to absolutely determine "the truth." All of our attempts are approximations, and so determining "the best" method of approximation for a particular application necessarily involves value judgments and prioritization, and so requires value-based reasoning. In other words, deciding that science is "the best" way to learn about our physical world doesn't depend upon science, but instead upon valuing practicality and utility, and dismissing solipsism.
So, which kind of "reason" do you want to talk about? Perhaps the sort of reasoning that leads me to reject the Bible as reliable? There are three primary objections to the Bible's reliability: scientific inaccuracy, internal inconsistency and the lack of independent, contemporary confirmation of major events. None of those three require themselves (or even each other) as assumptions, so my reasoning about the Bible's reliability certainly isn't circular.
Is that the sort of answer you were looking for?
|
Sure. I disagree though. I agree that using reason to reject the bible is valid but we all have a base set of assumptions we start with. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2012 : 07:22:52 [Permalink]
|
I like how he tells christians what they believe and think in order to make his arguement.
In the end I think christians get it wrong when they use apologetics to try to convert people. It has its place, but it is an unbiblical way to save people and most people including myself are not experts in most fields of science. That's why I think creation museums and the sort are wasted money. They will never convince people the bible is true. You simply tell them the gospel and let god convert them. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2012 : 07:55:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
I disagree though. I agree that using reason to reject the bible is valid but we all have a base set of assumptions we start with. |
Not all assumptions are equal. Assuming that the Bible is true involves a whole slew of unspoken and untestable assumptions. Assuming only that you exist and reasoning your way out of that solipsistic pit does not.
Saying "my assumptions are different from yours" should be a starting point for a discussion about why our assumptions are different, and not used as an excuse to refuse to defend your position. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Stan, the self-righteous fundy psycho
