Does being willing to die for ones cause validate the cause?

Question

Christians are always quick to point out that many of the early Christians were martyred and this willingness to die makes what they believed in valid.

A) What does dying for ones cause say about the person who chooses to die?

B) What does it say about the cause?

Answer 1

"The ink of a scholar is worth a thousand times more than the blood of a martyr."

If you cant convince somebody with your words, perhaps there is something wrong with your words.

Answer 2

If you choose the example of a martyr, the martyr really isn't dying for a cause. The martyr has no choice in the matter and the only 'validation' from a martyr's death usually comes from the validation of others. The martyr could rescind their beliefs at the time of interrogation but even so it still isn't in their control, someone else is putting them in that condition and assuming control of them.

If you think about suicide bombers, whatever pressures are on them it doesn't seem as though it amounts to coercion. Whether it validates the cause depends entirely on your perspective. If you believe it the suicide bombers cause then it validates your belief, if you don't then it doesn't.

It depends on the believers perspective as it is a relativist issue.

Answer 3

Tough question! I can see arguments for both sides.

For instance, I'm a recent convert to raw feeding for cats. I feel quite strongly about the topic of cat nutrition. I wouldn't die for my beliefs, however (assuming that there would be a situation in which that would come up!) But if I DID feel strongly enough to sacrifice myself for the good of all felines (again, gotta use your imagination on why that would be necessary!) it would be safe to say I at least believed it was of vital importance.

But does that mean that it IS? Well, I do think so. But does that mean it IS? I can only keep saying, I think so.

But that's just my opinion. Granted it's supported by others, but .....

I guess when all is said and done, all it actually says is that someone feels very strongly about something. It doesn't actually say ANYTHING about the cause itself.

Ooh! Thought of something else. The real reason those silly martyrs didn't just lie is because god told them if they did, they wouldn't get to heaven. So really, didn't they become martyrs out of fear, and NOT because they believed in their cause?

Answer 4

My answer is no, it does not validate the cause.

A)Being willing to die for an ideal just means the person believes it's worthy of that kind of sacrifice.

B) That's going to be subjective. Some people have died for what most of us might deem a worthy cause. Those who went into WWII after the holocaust became public did so to stop a tyrant.
Those who gave their lives in opposition to apartheid gave their lives to what we could say is a worthy cause. Those who gave their lives for christianity's cause? well, how many innocents died at the hands of christians who killed them because of the convert or die mandate of the Inquisition, the Crusades and the witch trials? There is no way to answer this question objectively. Each cause has to be reviewed individually, in my opinion, and even then, my moral code might be different from yours.

Answer 5

First you have to consider the controversy and the reason that the early Christians were martyred for their faith. It was as a result of differing beliefs and refusing to be forced into an apostate form of worship. I am sure that none of us today would want to be forced to worship in a certain way if we considered it to be wrong, but there are some who would accept it; the martyrs did not. It showed that those who acquiesced did not hold their "beliefs" very strongly.

A person who would do everything including risking his live to obtain illegal drugs is in a completely different class of people, but his cause is still illegal.

Answer 6

If your cause is based on honesty, what other way do you have? If you refuse to renounce what you knwo to be right, and you accept the consequences - it is you being killed, not killing others - that is the way it will be. I don't think anyone willingly wanted to be martyred - only sickos would go down that route. The alternative is lying and that is unacceptable to some people. It means that people are so convinced in their truth, that they will die rather than deny it. Which of course, is why it is so impressive that the apostles were martyred. They knew Jesus and were convinced in his truth.
Personally, I doubt very much that I would ever do that. I would be so terrified that I'd probably lie through my teeth, renounce whatever anyone wanted me to renounce and go and live a life of debauchery and sin. Bravery isn't my strong point.
You ask what is says about the cause - that the martyrs thought it was worth dying for.

Answer 7

A) it says that a person is confident that what they believe is not a lie - why would anyone die for what they know is a lie

B) it says that the person believes the cause worthy of giving their life

the difference between the apostles and today's suicide bombers is that the apostles were eyewitnesses who did the writting (and yes we know who did the writting - other extra Biblical sources confirm that) - so they are not taking the word of others and trying to confirm or disprove the stories they were there or spoke to those who were there

today's suicide bombers can only be apart of part B of my answer because they are not witnesses so what they think they know is irrelevant - you would have to go back and compare the apostles with Muhammad for part A - did he die for his cause - No but he did order the killing of a lot of people

Answer 8

The early Christians who were martyred were EYEWITNESSES of Christ's resurrection. That made them willing to die, when all they had to do to avoid death was to denounce Christ. Christians are dying today in moslem and communist countries, for nothing other than believing in Jesus Christ. What does that say about Christianity? That it's valid. What does that say about the people who choose to die for the cause of Christ? That the world isn't worthy of them.

Answer 9

It depends on the cause. Dying for an individual belief does not validate the cause. Suppose I believe that molesting children is just, and I die as a result of a gunshot from an angry parent. Does that mean that, automatically, my death validated the cause?

Dying for a univeral truth is honorable, but in itself does not validate the cause. Socrates taught that truth is absolute, and that self-realization was possible only if people were allowed freedom of thought and expression. He taught that truth was the highest cause and no cost was too high a price to pay for it, including life. He was tested, by being condemned to death if he did not renounce his teachings. He was obliged to die in order to not contradict himself, and so he took his own life. This action validated the man, not the cause itself.

The truth of a thing is inherent in its value. If a cause is just, it remains just regardless of the lives lost or not lost. If a cause is unjust, it remains unjust regardless of lives lost or not lost.

Answer 10

Not at all, there are many martyrs throughout history that have conflicting belief systems. Christian Martyrs negate Muslim martyrs as their beliefs are different. Therefore validation of both would be impossible. The only way it works is if God is a jerk and just enjoys watching his followers run around killing one another.

Answer 11

A Christian martyr is someone that is killed because they will not deny Jesus. It is NOT someone who will kill themselves and others. That is just a murderer and a sick person. Christians believe the greatest thing a person can do is lay down their lives for another. It is about saving other lives by sacrificing yourself. It's what soldiers do when they throw themselves on a grenade so their buddies can live. It's what the children at Columbine did when asked if they believe in God and then were shot. It's what Jesus did for us all.

May God Bless you.