Tahe (Tay)

Figuring out exactly what I want this to be for. I'm a digital marketer, a family man, I love anime, I'm a Christian, and I like having my thoughts challenged.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

I've been engaging a little more X lately, so even though I have a non-existent audience, I do collaborate with a friend to put out commentary from time to time on current issues.

https://t.co/UNVLr6qbW2

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

@KeyserSoze16924 @justinboldaji This HAS to be ragebait 😂

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

@BMcGrewvy Two of the greatest Bible teachers of this generation by the way.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

@5solas So...Heiser is dangerous because he follows the most basic tenet of Biblical interpretation... "understanding context."

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

@AkaruiSakura So far every source I see about it says it's a part of new additions to the museum. I'm not seeing anything about it being on display for years.

Do you have an image of the display or this quote from Isayama anywhere from years ago?

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

Hey @dominos my 5yo daughter loves your pizza and she's been looking forward to a pizza party sleepover that we've been planning since a week ago. Not only is your app and website down, but when I called my local Dominos (110 Florida Blvd, Denham Springs, LA 70726) the number doesn't work...

I had to order Pizza Hut instead and since your local Dominos can't take an order, the wait time is very long at the Pizza Hut...

Big let down.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

Yeah for sure, I hear you - thanks for clarifying that it's not a gotcha!

Yeah I first want to acknowledge I do think it's problematic when Christians aren't willing to be consistent with how they weigh the evidence and arguments for other worldviews and commit special pleading.

With that I also think some of the particulars surrounding the Christian argument about the apostles martyrdom in relationship to resurrection are relevant when assessing the veracity of the belief.

So for example, I wouldn't say that people merely dying for a claim is necessarily greater evidentiary weight for the claim or belief.

I would say there is greater evidentiary weight when

1. It's a group of people who all hold a specific belief or claim.

2. Each person is willing to die independently from one another directly because of that belief or claim.

3. The persons within that group and hold that belief or claim would know with virtual certainty whether they are lying or not about the belief or claim.

So I don't think the mere existence of Christian martyrs in general increases the likelihood of the resurrection of Jesus being true.

I think it's particularly the apostles (and Jesus' brother) being willing to die for the claim of Jesus' resurrection because given the particulars surrounding his death and their claim of resurrection, they would most certainly know if they were lying or not and the chances of them all being "sincerely mistaken" are incredibly low.

So if the apostles all died because of a belief that "they would go to Heaven," I don't think that makes it "more likely" because they could in general be sincerely mistaken about that belief.

But being willing to die because of the claim Jesus resurrected is far less likely to be a sincere mistake given that they are all claiming not just an abstract belief it happened but they're saying it happened based on direct first hand experience on multiple occasions with him that are long, drawn out, and coupled with empirical experience.

Again, I'm not saying all of those conditions are "unique" to Christianity, I would give increased evidentiary weight to any belief or claim that meets those additional conditions even if they contradicted Christianity.

I just simply wanted to caveat I don't think it's "mere" willingness to die.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

I'm not sure if this is being framed as a gotcha but I would have no problem saying that it would add evidentiary weight to virtually any claim or belief (whether it conflicts with Christianity or not) for a group of people to indepedently die for something that they would have otherwise knowingly made up.

And such an event should be taken into account when assessing the veracity of the claim or belief.

How is this controversial?

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

Alright sounds good. I think this is probably as far as we need to go - don't need to push it any further.

I agree that "if a bunch of guys said they saw Shiva and accepted martyrdom over it I would not become Hindu."

I'll go even further and say that, if a bunch of guys said they saw Jesus and accepted martyrdom over it I would not become Christian.

Nor would I recommend anyone become Christian merely over that either. Neither is the argument that I presented concluding that someone should become a Christian over that either.

So we're on the same page there, not exactly sure why you brought that up.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

Perfectly fine, I'll grant all of that to you.

That aside, I repeat my questions:

Do you agree or not that, generally speaking, it would be unlikely for a group of people to *knowingly* make something up and then the persons within that group independently die for the thing they knowingly made up?

And if you agree, should such a thing, generally speaking, add evidentiary weight to the claim or belief those persons all died for?

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

Okay, I hear you. But the fact you created a caveat for "without knowingly making it up" it sounds like you do agree with me that it would be unlikely for a group of people to *knowingly* make something up and then the persons within that group independently dying for the thing they knowingly made up.

Whether this applies to the apostles or not, such a thing would add to the evidentiary weight of the claim or belief being true and should be accounted for when assessing the veracity of the claim/belief.

So for the sake of our X discussion, I won't even push the above point forward and try to show that applies to the Apostles.

For the sake of our engagement, I'll grant the Apostles "could have been mistaken." No bait-and-switch to follow, you have my word.

So Apostles aside, do you agree with what I said above in this post (in the first two paragraphs/sections of text.)

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

Whether it means nothing to you or not, I just want to make sure you're understanding the framing.

You do understand I'm not simply saying "all martyrs in general" adds evidentiary weight to a claim or belief. So for example, this argument does not apply to any of the martyrs after the time of the apostles.

The argument is specifically limited to the individuals that would actually know for a fact or not if they were making the thing up. And then those individuals all independently dying for the thing they knowingly made up.

If you do understand that's the framing, then I personally don't understand why that wouldn't add evidentiary weight to you - but to each their own.

Personally, that would add evidentiary weight to me even if it wasn't related to Christianity - I'm not special pleading for it.

Again, I don't care to "convince" you that such framing "should" make "you" specifically add that to the evidentiary weight of Christianity (or any claim), I only want to make sure you understand the framing.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

I think you're missing the larger framing here.

I agree that merely 'someone dying for something' doesn't prove the thing is true.

But that's not the framing.

The framing is...

Multiple people all independently dying for something that they each fully knew was a lie they themselves made up is extremely unlikely.

Therefore that meaningfully increases the evidentiary weight of what they died for and should be considered when assessing the veracity of the thing they died for.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

Why is this kind of reasoning unnecessary? Paul appeals to eye-witness accounts of resurrection appearances when writing to the Corinthians - not merely "faith." One of the purposes of the gospel accounts being written is to provide a "defense" for the events surrounding the gospel that was being proclaimed. Peter says to make a good defense for why we believe.

And why is it totally unconvincing to secular points of view when arguments, like the one we're currently discussing, play a pivotal role in converting many non-Christians. It has already happened so not sure why we're claiming it can't or doesn't have this effect.

And it seems like you're the one begging the question by simply asserting it's more likely that the accounts are mistaken or incomplete in some way. That often just begs the question of a particular flavor of atheistic-naturalistic-materialism.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

@GaiusLatine @ian_engz @genzdivorceddad @xwanyex If the Gospel accounts reliable, they didn't first think it was resurrection. They needed to be later convinced of resurrection. Their initial reaction was confusion, wonder, his body was moved, etc. Gospel accounts are explicit about this.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

@MatKnowsBall @breakerrr99653 @chikun @Jackkk I'm casually typing all of this... putting very little effort into my replies. Nothing I'm saying is "trying to sound smart." I'm saying the most simple and basic common sense stuff.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

My guy - he's talking about getting drive thru in his car. He's clearly talking about being local and in his city. Not being out anywhere in the United States of America.

He lives in a city with under 100,000 people.

If you had a white 2008 honda civic in a town with less than 100,000 people and you're one of the most famous people in the world...

...there would 100% be people in the city trying to track down and follow every 2008 white honda civic in hopes they'd catch Mr. Beast.

That is just true.

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

I'm failing to see the problem. We all experience a favorite something in many categories, usually earlier in life than later, and we'll never experience anything we think is as good as that thing...

...but we don't live as if we now have a "problem" in that category because we experienced our "favorite" or what we believe to be the best.

Also many anime fans, think the first anime they've seen is the best...but they don't think they now have a problem.

It's standard practice to recommend people things you think are the "best" for their first experience with no concern of it creating a "problem."

[Tahe (Tay) @TaheGovernor]

@lameyzzz Hmm, I think maybe you might be taking this too seriously? I was just disagreeing with you and explaining why I do.

Didn't realize that was "too serious" 😂