Yes, MtheGM, I did mean Nathan Hale, and not Patrick Henry. My error. I don't agree in the least with you about Joan or Gandhi. Joan was extremely reluctant to recant, but she finally did under exhaustion and tremendous persuasion and after numerous mistrials where she had refused to...and almost anyone else would have eventually recanted as well under those circumstances. Gandhi died as a result of his extreme courage in confronting political powers and becoming a household name...even IF he was shot by a lunatic...because the lunatic wouldn't have noticed him, had he not lived a life of high ideals, but I think we'd be wasting our time arguing about it, and it wouldn't matter anyway. I was making a point about people who die for their ideals in a heroic fashion, not counting the number of Angels that can stand on the end of a pin. The crucial thing is the point itself, not whether you approve of the specific heroic examples I picked. If I waited until everyone approved any 3 examples I could pick...I'd wait forever! ;-D Just pick 3 examples YOU like, and apply them to the point, okay? That should solve the problem.

***

You ask "Who decides what IS right?", Eliza? Each one of us does. Or we try to. And sometimes we are dead wrong in those decisions when we make them. Many, if not most, of the people who died defending the Nazi regime in WWII, for example, were quite sure they were doing the right thing at the time, because that's how the human mind works...it usually thinks it's doing the right thing.

"Are we to accept another's decision about what is right?" No! We make our own decision about it, if we've got any sense.....but some people would rather just believe what they are told (by their government, their church, their political party, their commanding officer, their parents, their boss, etc)...and that can lead to a lot of trouble, can't it?

So think for yourself is my advice. I can't think for you, you can't think for me, we all have to do our best to think for ourselves. And there is NO guarantee that we are "right" even after that. No matter how sure we are about something we think, we might still be wrong. And I know that. But we at least do our best to figure it out. That's one of the challenges of life, and that's just fine. It enables us to learn, grow, and mature.

Yes, the idea of Jesus' death as "atonement for sins" is very much tied up with the idea of a sacrificial lamb, which was a huge archetype in the Jewish culture of that time, as well as in several other contemporary cultures of 2,000 years ago. They used to sacrifice all kinds of animals to atone for sines and to "please God" (or "the Gods"). I don't buy it either. I think it's an extremely primitive and invalid idea which has no real bearing on atoning for anything. Nor do I buy many of the other tenets of traditional Christianity....but I find much good there too.

As with a society or a nation, the same with a religion...if you look at it, you'll find both good things and bad things happening there. So...why not partake of the good things and stay clear of the bad things? (rather than simply outright rejecting the entire ball of wax because there are some bad things contained in it?)

And now....we can argue about how we decide what is "good" or "bad"....!!!!!!

;-D

Same deal. We each must decide for ourselves. And our word on the matter isn't the last word. It's just our opinion, period, because that's all we've got to work with, and we do our best to see clearly.