Summations Only

You said there are lots of examples of Muslims being willing to die for their faith at the hands of others, but I don't know of any that are so certain as you seem to think. Perhaps there are, but you'd need to convince me.

Well yes, actually. Aren't they often one and the same? Or are all those U.S. flags in the sanctuaries of churches just there for decorative purposes? Not to mention the Church of ENGLAND, Manifest Destiny, For GOD and COUNTRY, For GOD and KING, Gott mit uns (German military) etc. And that is just Christianity.

LOLLearn history of Protestant behavior faith, not just the propaganda. Look up the Protestant Revolution in Maryland.Maryland had been established as a safe haven for Roman Catholics fleeing from the Protestant oppression in England but in 1649 passed the second freedom of religion law to be found in the Colonies. It was limited to cover only Trinitarian Christians but it was a first step and protected Puritans moving into Maryland.However after the Protestant Revolution the Puritans outlawed Roman Catholicism.It was acts of oppression like that that lead to the inclusion of full religious freedom in the Constitution.

Try comparing soldiers willing to die for America today with Christians being willing to die rather than recant their faith when given a choice. I don't see a lot of psychological similarity myself.

You cannot be convinced. If a Muslim is placed in the same position as a Christian you will claim that it is all about the virgins, dismissing any other possible explanation and insisting on proof. Yet those after life virgins are allegedly promised by their religion in exactly the same way that eternal life is promised to Christians.I'm not trying to convince you. Just pointing out the holes in your arguments.

Okay, I'll try to rewrite the conditions to take this into account. Not just hard but impossible, right? A Muslim suicide bomber strolls into a caf frequented by Christians and sets off the bomb. There's no testimony of faith and truth for Christians here - all these victims did was go to lunch. How could that ever be considered a testimony of faith and truth?But the suicide bomber walking into the caf to die for his faith in Allah, now that's a testimony of faith and truth, is it not?So now I'll try to rewrite the conditions for a death to be a testimony of faith and truth. I think they become simpler:

1. The death must be a voluntary self-sacrifice motivated by one's religious beliefs.

If this still isn't right then just give me feedback, I'll go through more revisions.But the more important point is one NoNukes keeps touching on: How is willingness to die for one's religious beliefs connected to religious truth?--Percy

I agree, there is very little similarity. The former seems to have value and worth but what is the value or worth of dying rather than recanting some faith?Didn't Jesus accept Peter's denial of his faith?Gave you ever actually read the Bible Faith?How would someone dying for some faith provide any support for the concept of Inerrancy?

Of course you don't. I am quite sure that many others do though. Why is the U.S. flag in the front of many churches? Why was "under God" added to the Pledge of Allegiance? I will give you a clue - it was added in 1954, right in the middle of the Cold War against "Godless Communism." Just a coincidence I guess.

Well of course it doesn't. I could be wrong but I think this is based on the logical fallacy of "begging the question" aka "circular reasoning."If I am correct it goes something like this - "If the Bible is inerrant, I will have so much faith in it that I am willing to die for it." I am willing to die for my faith, therefore the Bible is inerrant.

Jess gets funner and funner.The 1954 changes where almost totally driven by a Knight of Columbus 1951 initiative. The Knight of Columbus is, as most folk might know, the largest Roman Catholic fraternal organization and as WE all have been told on very high authority, Roman Catholics are not even Christians.The only possible reasonable conclusion from those facts is that the phrase does not refer to the Christian god.

Seriously off topic now but can't resist this one. Don't you hate it when Christians start fighting among themselves over who is Christian and who is not? I do believe this is actually how most Christians have been killed for their faith - at the hands of other Christians. Even during the Crusades, when the goal supposedly was to kill Muslims, a fair number of Christians (and Jews) died at the hand of the Christian Crusaders. Thus the famous line supposedly uttered at the sack of Beziers in 1209 - "Kill them all and let God sort them out." Massacre at Bziers - Wikipedia

Well, as a Christian, I understand that the norm throughout the existence of Christianity have been to impose membership by force and Christian killing Christian for Christianity not at all unusual.A corollary to that is related to the topic. It seems that it is those factions that most strongly claim biblical inerrancy that also do not accept that the words in the Bible actually mean what is written but rather mean what they say it should mean.

That's what I said. If you're going to quibble about "some" or "many", I'll concede - for the purpose of discussion - that a majority of people who die for their beliefs are Christians.But that doesn't address my point: As long as there is anybody else who is willing to die for his beliefs, the willingness to die for a belief is NOT a reliable indicator of the "truth" of those beliefs. It may give you a statistically satisfying conclusion but not an infallible one.

Crusades...do we need to add more? Pretty sure lots of Muslims were martyred during this time. Would this fall under your definition of being forced to endure torture and death in the name of faith?

What do you think motivated Giordano Bruno? Do you think he was burned for his orthodox, protestant Christian beliefs? Does his death in anyway convince you that his theology was correct. Because quite clearly he did not recant.