I know that if this had happened to me at the height of my christianity, I'm positive I would have said yes. Yes,I was actually eager to die for god. It's not as heroic as it might seem though, it partly stemmed from fear that ever denying god would condemm me to hell. I would have rather risked getting shot.

On a side note, I hate it when christians ignore the fact that things like are false because it suits them. Selective hearing anyone? The christian band Flyleaf has a song about it called 'Cassie'. It pretty much glorifies them for being martyrs yet it never happened.

Brian: As I said, we're leaving facts out of this one for the time being. The scenario is simply following the noton (however inaccurate) that Bernall and Scott were shot because, "They said 'Yes'." I just want to know if the Christians visiting here (many of which claim to be moderates) see that as a noble and 'correct' response to a gunman who is effectively giving the ultimatum, "Renounce your faith right now or eat lead."

Excellent reply Occam's, and I've quoted you because my reply will echo what you have already said. Motivation is implied by words like :heroism or :nobility, you really can't know heroism without understanding motivation. At best these columbine girl's "martyrdom" is a projection of motivation vicariously by the christian following that claims it, a great deal of martyrdom actually boils down to this. 

IF this scenario had actually specifically happened, ie explicit choice = point blank bullet or renounce faith - and it did not as far as I can tell from the reports - then I'd hesitate to call it noble (there's still a possibility that it wasn't, understanding of the motivation is needed) but I wouldn't rule out a heroic intent to die as a martyr to ones faith in a possible universe where christian faith really represented a thing worth dying for.

However, (and I apologise Kevin, I know you've asked us not to put this in but I feel I should qualify my position a bit more) we really don't have that scenario here even in the least, the actual scene does not bear out any assumption of motivation behind the three girl's professions of faith.  Nobody in the real story was given an explicit choice to make between faith and death. By the majority of accounts the question was simply a question, no strings implied, thus the motivation to answer in one specific way could have come from anywhere and, of course, that's even before we note that the only wholly substantiated account of a person answering this question directly does not involve a point blank shooting at all.

    I can picture an angry, sexually frustrated teenage boy/s  with guns/power   looking down at  a  girl he has no chance with under normal circumstances, but now he has a gun,   the power, he could never dreem of before. To exercise his power  and his frustration;  he asks a question;;   Those   two girls  are dead  no matter what the answer is. That is the suicidal power of a gun.

There is an obvious difference, they suppose vastly different limits as to what their faith calls them to sacrifice.

I have never agreed with that use of cowardly to describe the 9-11 attacks, it's ignorant rhetoric, in truth it was simply incomprehensible to our western sensibilities at the time and it was shock and defensiveness that lead to the general use of specious vocabulary, nobody that called it cowardly could honestly say they had yet thought through what had happened from a rational perspective. In all fairness it was a very rare person who managed to stand back and think rationally about the motivations behind these actions for at least a year following it, and even now there are those that have never rethought the primal impulse that overtook western society at that time.

Indeed.

good quote.

I see it is. I personally didn't advocate for an unexamined equating, though, if you are referring to my reply. I said I would hesitate to call it noble and I would require a plausible universe where it mattered to die for your christian faith in order to call it noble, really. And actually  while I am on the subject, I do believe the facts of the columbine events are quite telling in regard to the meaningfulness of dying for christian faith as it were. The fact that nobody actually did choose willingly to lay down their life for christian faith, the fact that nobody actually asked anyone to, and the fact that christianity has latched onto it for an example regardless of the previous two facts add quite neatly up to a world where dying for christianity doesn't seem to mean anything. Well, except, as a religious fantasy.

I agree that there are other ways to express heroism, and that you could call them better in that, for example, running into the line of fire and managing to disable a gunman before you die confers clearly tangible benefit to someone.

It is this tangible benefit which is really required for me to call it heroism the intention to confer benefit to someone else unconditionally is a hero's primary motive. In this sense the 9-11 cell got it more right than christianity seems to have, they at least believed that their actions could emancipate an economically oppressed society, the benefit perceived by those who believe the columbine girls were martyrs is that others will be inspired to be 'better christians' as if more devout christian arrogance even has a benefactor to speak of, which it doesn't.

Technically speaking, if they died for their faith, then they are martyrs, yes. The motivations of the killers in asking them to choose between their faith and their lives are irrelevant. All that matters is they die for their faith.

I suppose there are measuring sticks of fanaticism and the unit of measure is what interested me.  Does my fanatical desire for chocolate put me in the same league as the anti-Semite willing to open and close the gas chamber door?  I'd like to think it doesn't but I can't be sure.

The descriptors 'coward' and 'cowardly' are among the most insulting and dehumanizing words to be flung in someones direction.  I suspect that Bush's speechwriters and handlers never once lost sight of what they were doing.

And I agree, the very essence of the heroic act is the benefit of others.

I'd write more but I have to go whip some actors into shape. 

First of all, I think everyone has their own opinions, so here's mine.

Have you read Rachel's Tears?

She already knew she was going to die. She was scared- but she knew where she was going, she knew she'd be safe. Rachel accepted it, and wanted to do as much as she could for God in her short lifespan. She wasn't perfect, nobody is.

I am not here to change your thoughts about God, that's your personal issue and hopefully you figure that out. It took me awhile, but I'm happy to have someone to always rely on. I will pray for you, even though you might not want it. I am here to tell you I think it is very disrespectful to write such things about Rachel when you don't know her. Then again, everyone has their own opinions, but there is something as going too far.

And she's just another dead kid? No, there is NO such thing as "just another dead kid." Every person put on this earth is special. Even if you don't believe in God, you shouldn't believe anyone is not important.

Yeah, Rachel's dead. But her story has reached MILLIONS of people and changed their hearts. She's not just another dead kid.

Yes, I have.

She was an angsty teenager with occassional fits of depression, that all angsty teenagers, and channelled those emotions onto paper. Arguing this 'premonition' angle is nonsense - if she knew she was going to get shot full of holes, why did she go to the schoolgrounds? Moreover, why was she hanging-out with her good friend Richard and put him in the line of fire (resulting in his paralysis)?

What things? Calling her beautiful?

My, what an offensive thing for me to say.

Yes, she is.

And Christians who insist otherwise are doing a tremendous injustice to the tragedy, as they shout down the truth regarding Eric and Dylan's actual motives.

What Loc said.

Eric Harris was a diagnosed sociopath, whose agenda was to kill more people on a random killing spree than anyone else had done before himself, thus landing himself a page in the world's history books. The shooting wasn't even supposed to be a shooting: the cafeteria was to be blown-up by a pair of propane-based bombs that, had they exploded, would've caused the school's second floor to come crashing down - probably killing somewhere in the nighborhood of 200-300 people.

The two would then pick-off people as they fled, get to their vehicle, and make for an airport - where Harris intended to hijack an airliner and crash it into a NYC skyscraper.

Of course, Eric clearly saw himself as a much more capable human being than he actually was. The last part of his plan was, at best, far-fetched, and the initial part didn't happen as intended because neither he nor Dylan were particularly good at making reliable explosives.

Dylan himself is another matter. By all accounts, he was a shy outcast at the school, Eric being one of his only 'friends'. Harris used his emotional leverage to manipulate Dylan into being his accomplice.

Christians say Martyrs, I say Inferiors