Why Christianity?

[Selene]

Eyvind Kelve wasn't a victim of a land fight. Nor were many others. All you are doing is focusing on the examples I give that could possibly have other explanations. I'm sure you've heard of the word "multifactorial" and that things never have a single cause?

The real question, though, is who cares? Someone dying for something doesn't prove anything. You can list off a whole bunch of Christian martyrs (which are mostly Catholic saints) and I could poke just as many holes in the legends surrounding them.

But it doesn't matter. You are positing that people will only face death for a belief if the belief is true (and true = Christian belief), and you are claiming that since (in your opinion) paganism isn't true that no one could have died for it and that if they did, it wasn't over the belief but over something else. However, what you haven't done is proven why that must necessarily be true. We can argue all century about whether people have died for other beliefs, but that doesn't prove anything.

Please enlighten me as to why only Christian martyrs are true martyrs and why this matters to the proposed truth of Christianity.

Martyrs are people who were killed by their persecutors because of their religion. These martrys had everything to lose and nothing to gain. The Christians in Rome were Roman citizens. They were not at war with Rome. They were not up in arms fighting any rebellion or resistance. It was actually their country that killed them. When asked to recant their faith, they refused and were killed. So, what did the Christian martyr gain when his own government and countrymen puts him to death? By refusing to recant, what did they think they could gain from it?

In the Saxon war, the pagans were at war with Christians. The Christians were fighting to gain the land of the pagans, and the pagans were fighting for their country. A solider who refuses to give in to the demands of the invaders even if it's religion has something to gain - his country. His refusal encourages the spirit of his countrymen to continue the armed conflict with the invaders until they are driven out. It is more appropriate to say that they died for their country. But the Christians died for their faith in Jesus Christ.

As for the Crusades, I don't see how that could be a martyrdom. It was a war for land between two religious groups.


By the way, the word "martyr" means "witness." Martyrs are called witnesses because they witnessed something in their faith. In the case of the Christians martyrs in the first and second century, they were the witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ. A soldier who defends his country and resist the invaders in every way possible are not "martyrs."

 

[Lux Veritatis]

Martyrs are people who were killed by their persecutors because of their religion. These martrys had everything to lose and nothing to gain. The Christians in Rome were Roman citizens. They were not at war with Rome. They were not up in arms fighting any rebellion or resistance. It was actually their country that killed them. When asked to recant their faith, they refused and were killed. So, what did the Christian martyr gain when his own government and countrymen puts him to death? By refusing to recant, what did they think they could gain from it?

In the Saxon war, the pagans were at war with Christians. The Christians were fighting to gain the land of the pagans, and the pagans were fighting for their country. A solider who refuses to give in to the demands of the invaders even if it's religion has something to gain - his country. His refusal encourages the spirit of his countrymen to continue the armed conflict with the invaders until they are driven out. It is more appropriate to say that they died for their country. But the Christians died for their faith in Jesus Christ.

As for the Crusades, I don't see how that could be a martyrdom. It was a war for land between two religious groups.


By the way, the word "martyr" means "witness." Martyrs are called witnesses because they witnessed something in their faith. In the case of the Christians martyrs in the first and second century, they were the witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ. A soldier who defends his country and resist the invaders in every way possible are not "martyrs."

That's all good and well but that didn't answer my question. Why is it necessary that only Christians were martyrs? Does it somehow devalue your faith if someone of another religion died for their beliefs?

By the way, by refusing to recant, they gained heaven. That would be the reward. If they were "true believers," they knew they would see God if they died.

 

[Selene]

That's all good and well but that didn't answer my question. Why is it necessary that only Christians were martyrs? Does it somehow devalue your faith if someone of another religion died for their beliefs?

By the way, by refusing to recant, they gained heaven. That would be the reward. If they were "true believers," they knew they would see God if they died.

I never said that only Christians were martyrs. I said that there were only two religions that were martyrs.....Judaism and Christianity (See my post #18).

Gain heaven?? And how would you know that from an atheist standpoint? To the pagans who saw them die in the arenas, it was their testimony that they actually saw the resurrection of Christ. That is why the word "martyr" means "witness."

 

[Lux Veritatis]

I never said that only Christians were martyrs. I said that there were only two religions that were martyrs.....Judaism and Christianity (See my post #18).

Gain heaven?? And how would you know that from an atheist standpoint? To the pagans who saw them die in the arenas, it was their testimony that they actually saw the resurrection of Christ. That is why the word "martyr" means "witness."

I'm sure Islam has had martyrs as well, in addition to any number of religions besides Christianity and Judaism.

You asked what the martyrs stood to gain from dying — "These martrys had everything to lose and nothing to gain." What they had to gain was heaven.

 

[Selene]

I'm sure Islam has had martyrs as well, in addition to any number of religions besides Christianity and Judaism.

You asked what the martyrs stood to gain from dying — "These martrys had everything to lose and nothing to gain." What they had to gain was heaven.

Suicide bombers are not martyrs and soldiers who die for their country are not martyrs. As I said, the word "martyr" means witness. The Christian martyrs of the first and second century were not fighters. They were witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you really want to learn something about Christianity, you can start reading the accounts of the Early Christian martyrs.

When I asked what the martyrs stood to gain from dying.....I was referring to things of this world that even an unbeliever can understand. For example, the soldier who died for his country died for something that even an unbeliever can see - the "freedom" of a country and a people. The Christian martyrs, on the other hand, died for a faith - something you say that doesn't exist. Faith was shown through them.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

Suicide bombers are not martyrs and soldiers who die for their country are not martyrs. As I said, the word "martyr" means witness. The Christian martyrs of the first and second century were not fighters. They were witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you really want to learn something about Christianity, you can start reading the accounts of the Early Christian martyrs.

I didn't say suicide bombers. You really think there are no Muslims that have ever been persecuted and killed because they refused to recant their beliefs? Please.

I'm familiar with the early Christian martyrs. I used to be Catholic and I am well versed in the early Church Fathers and the martyrs.

 

[Selene]

I didn't say suicide bombers. You really think there are no Muslims that have ever been persecuted and killed because they refused to recant their beliefs? Please.

I'm familiar with the early Christian martyrs. I used to be Catholic and I am well versed in the early Church Fathers and the martyrs.

Really? How is it then that you did not know that the word "Martyr" means "witnesses?"

When I asked what the martyrs stood to gain from dying.....I was referring to things of this world that even an unbeliever can understand. For example, the soldier who died for his country died for something that even an unbeliever can see - the "freedom" of a country and a people. The Christian martyrs, on the other hand, died for a faith - something you say that doesn't exist. Faith was shown through them.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

Really? How is it then that you did not know that the word "Martyr" means "witnesses?"

When I asked what the martyrs stood to gain from dying.....I was referring to things of this world that even an unbeliever can understand. For example, the soldier who died for his country died for something that even an unbeliever can see - the "freedom" of a country and a people. The Christian martyrs, on the other hand, died for a faith - something you say that doesn't exist. Faith was shown through them.

When did I say that I didn't know what the word meant? I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. In order to be a witness to your faith one doesn't necessarily have to be a Christian. You claim no one but Christians and Jews have died for their faith. What you haven't told me is why it matters so much that this is true. Does it devalue what you believe if someone of a different faith has died for what they believe?

For the record, martyrdom in Islam is called "Shaheed" which also means "witness" in arabic.

 

[Selene]

When did I say that I didn't know what the word meant? I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. In order to be a witness to your faith one doesn't necessarily have to be a Christian. You claim no one but Christians and Jews have died for their faith. What you haven't told me is why it matters so much that this is true. Does it devalue what you believe if someone of a different faith has died for what they believe?

The thing is....it's true. If you knew what "martyrs" are, then why do you go to those who fought in the Saxon Wars, the Crusade wars and to names of people whose deaths were even uncertain and who were killed by vengeful enemies. The next thing you will be telling me is that the African slaves who threw themselves off the slave ships bound to America are martyrs.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

The thing is....it's true. If you knew what "martyrs" are, then why do you go to those who fought in the Saxon Wars, the Crusade wars and to names of people whose deaths were even uncertain and who were killed by vengeful enemies. The next thing you will be telling me is that the African slaves who threw themselves off the slave ships bound to America are martyrs.

You are arguing with history, not me. There are documented names of pagans who did die for the religious belief. You choose to ignore them. I didn't say every Saxon who died was a martyr.

However, by definition, if they died because they refused to recant their religious belief, they are a martyr.

mar·tyr
[mahr-ter]
noun
1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

 

[Selene]

You are arguing with history, not me. There are documented names of pagans who did die for the religious belief. You choose to ignore them. I didn't say every Saxon who died was a martyr.

However, by definition, if they died because they refused to recant their religious belief, they are a martyr.

Not if they died for a country. Everyone misuses the word "martyr". Even a Buddhist monk who puts himself on fire is called a martyr for a certain cause. But killing yourself is still suicide..

 

[Lux Veritatis]

Not if they died for a country. Everyone misuses the word "martyr". Even a Buddhist monk who puts himself on fire is called a martyr for a certain cause. But killing yourself is still suicide..

The ones who died for not recanting their religion. Those are the ones I'm talking about. You are building a strawman argument. I'm talking specifically about those Saxons, who according to the source you gave me, died because they refused to recant their religion. It didn't say religion and country. It said they were killed because they refused baptism and refused to recant their pagan beliefs. That is the very definition of martyr.

 

[Selene]

The ones who died for not recanting their religion. Those are the ones I'm talking about. You are building a strawman argument. I'm talking specifically about those Saxons, who according to the source you gave me, died because they refused to recant their religion. It didn't say religion and country. It said they were killed because they refused baptism and refused to recant their pagan beliefs. That is the very definition of martyr.

They died during a war fighting against invaders who wanted their land and to change their culture and religion. And even then, a majority of them end up giving up their religion. It was the same with what happened to the Native Americans. The European settlers fought against them, took their lands, and put them in reservations to Americanize them. The Native Americans fought back. They died for a cause, but it was not all about religion. Did we call Sitting Bull a martyr? No? Why not? The Americans wanted to destroy his culture and religion and he refused, but it was really all about the land.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

They died during a war fighting against invaders who wanted their land and to change their culture and religion. It was the same with what happened to the Native Americans. The European settlers fought against them, took their lands, and put them in reservations to Americanize them. The Native Americans fought back. They died for a cause, but it was not all about religion.

You are essentially making up a new definition for martyr by insisting that there can be no events leading up to the death. Not all Christian martyrs died minding their own business and attacked for no reason. No doubt, many did. I do not deny that. But you are claiming that no one else in the history of the world besides Christians or Jews have ever died solely for their religion. That is absurd.

 

[Selene]

You are essentially making up a new definition for martyr by insisting that there can be no events leading up to the death. Not all Christian martyrs died minding their own business and attacked for no reason. No doubt, many did. I do not deny that. But you are claiming that no one else in the history of the world besides Christians or Jews have ever died solely for their religion. That is absurd.

I don't see that as absurd. I get the same thing from gay activists claiming that gay marriages were very common in the ancient world, but it was just not recorded.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

I don't see that as absurd. I get the same thing from gay activists claiming that gay marriages were very common in the ancient world, but it was just not recorded.

I'm not talking about gay marriages. I'm talking about martyrs. And its quite trite for you to claim the "it's not recorded" defense when you also want me to believe in a non-falsifiable invisible being.

 

[Selene]

Okay. Let's go back and take a closer look at your list:

• Julian the Apostate — Roman emperor who tried to bring polytheism back, was killed for it.
• Olvir of Egg — Killed under orders of the King of Norway for continuing to practice his pagan rituals.
• The Saxons who were beheaded by Charlemagne in 782 for refusing to convert to Christianity.

Julian the Apostate was killed in battle (See the weblink below)

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/julian/a/Julianapostate.htm

Olvir of Egg killed by the King of Norway. I suggest you read about Olaf the king of Norway. According to the weblink below:

Traditionally, Olaf has been seen as playing a significant role in the Christianisation of Norway. However, most scholars of the period now recognise that Olaf himself had little to do with the Christianisation process.........Also, questions have been raised about the nature of Olaf’s Christianity itself. It seems that Olaf, like many Scandinavian kings, used his Christianity, in order to gain more power for the monarchy and centralise control in Norway. The skaldic verses attributed to Olaf do not speak of Christianity at all, but in fact use pagan references to describe romantic relationships and in some cases, his longing for an already married woman.[3]
Anders Winroth, in his book The Conversion of Scandinavia, tries to make sense of this problem by arguing that there was a “long process of assimilation, in which the Scandinavians adopted, one by one and over time, individual Christian practices.”[8] Winroth certainly does not say that Olaf was not Christian, but he argues that we cannot think of any Scandinavians as quickly converting in a full way as portrayed in the later hagiographies or sagas. Olaf himself is portrayed in later sources as a Saintly miracle-working figure to help support this quick view of conversion for Norway, although the historical Olaf did not act this way, as seen especially in the skaldic verses attributed to him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_II_of_Norway




The Saxons who were beheaded by Charlemagne happened during the Saxon wars. It was a war for land.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

Okay. Let's go back and take a closer look at your list:

• Julian the Apostate — Roman emperor who tried to bring polytheism back, was killed for it.
• Olvir of Egg — Killed under orders of the King of Norway for continuing to practice his pagan rituals.
• The Saxons who were beheaded by Charlemagne in 782 for refusing to convert to Christianity.

Julian the Apostate was killed in battle (See the weblink below)

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/julian/a/Julianapostate.htm

Olvir of Egg killed by the King of Norway. I suggest you read about Olaf the king of Norway. According to the weblink below:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_II_of_Norway




The Saxons who were beheaded by Charlemagne happened during the Saxon wars. It was a war for land.

So because it happened to fall during battle it makes it invalid? Give me a break. If it had to do with not recanting religion, it is martyrdom. They could be sitting on the toilet for all I care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhai_Dayala

Bhai Dayala was one of the Sikhs who accompanied Guru Tegh Bahadur when the latter left Anandpur on 11 July 1675 to court martyrdom at Delhi, the other two were brothers---Bhai Mati Das, a Dewan and Bhai Sati Das, a Scribe at Guru’s court. Along with Ninth Guru ji, they were arrested under orders from Emperor Aurangzeb at Agra. On 9 November 1675 A.D, the Qazi pronounced his religious order that Bhai Dayala must either accept Islam or be prepared to embrace death by being boiled in a cauldron. Bhai Dayala heroically accepted the latter alternative and asked leave of the Guru. The Guru graced Bhai Dayala for his lifelong devotion as a true and dedicated Sikh and blessed him with glory and success. Bhai Dayala was put into a big cauldron full of water which was later heated to the boiling point. Bhai Dayala continued to his last breath to recite the Japji of Guru Nanak and the Sukhmani of Guru Arjan.

 

[Selene]

So because it happened to fall during battle it makes it invalid? Give me a break. If it had to do with not recanting religion, it is martyrdom. They could be sitting on the toilet for all I care.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhai_Dayala

As I said, a soldier who dies fighting for his country is not a martyr.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

As I said, a soldier who dies fighting for his country is not a martyr.

Where did it say he was a soldier or fighting for his country? He refused to convert to Islam and was boiled to death.