Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 01-15-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

The christians were declared responsible for the fire; a great number were taken into custody, sentenced to death, executed in different ways, during the the festivals that Nero offered to the people to appease them. P.134

[Guglielmo Ferrero "The Lowell Lectures"]

But that does not say anything about the number of Christians who were persecuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Nero Fabricates a charge which he knows to be untrue. To his astonishment, the charge is openly admitted by the people against whom it was fabricated. This is to good to be true so he convicts a lot more Christians P.81

[John Bishop "Nero"]

How many Christians is "a lot more Christians"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Quote:

Besides, why should we assume that the persecutions did not spread beyond the bounds of Rome?[...]There was not only time enough to allow a change in the mode of prosecution, but the massacre continued long enough to bring satiety to a populace pretty well accustomed to public butcherings. P.14

his [Nero's] action must have served as a precedent in other parts of the empire. P.15

[J. Jahn Ph.D "A Critical Study of the Sources of the History of the Emperor Nero" Facsimile edition]

But that does not say anything about how many Christians were persecuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Quote:

The existence of Christians as such was inconsistent with the public welfare and safety. Christianity was now, as under Trajan later, a sufficient crime in itself, when the magistrate of Rome or in the provinces chose to act, to discover, or accept accusations against its followers, and, if he liked, to condemn... P.350

[Bernard Henderson: Former Fellow at Exeter College and the University of London "The Life and Principiate of the Emperor Nero"]

But that does not say anything about the number of Christians who were persecuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Quote:

This is a precious glimpse into the 'fatal charades' of the spectacle- its context is certainly Neronian, and the only concerted persecution of the Christians which involved large-scale, not to mention theatrical suffering- in the first century was that of Nero after the fire.

[Edward Champlin Professor of Classics, Princeton University "Nero"]

But what is "large-scale"? Consider the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney Stark and Marta Sordi ("The Rise of Christianity")

Indeed, commenting on Tacitus’s claim that Nero had murdered “an immense multitude" of Christians, Marta Sordi wrote that “a few hundred victims would justify the use of this term, given the horror of what happened." (1986:31). The truth is that the Roman government seems to have cared very little about the "Christian menace." There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians, and when a wave of persecution did occur, usually only bishops and other prominent figures were singled out. Thus for rank-and-file Christians the threat of persecution was so slight as to have counted for little among the potential sacrifices imposed on them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Microsoft Encarta 2002 Encyclopedia

In July 64, two-thirds of Rome burned while Nero was at Antium. In ancient times he was charged with being the incendiary, but most modern scholars doubt the truth of that accusation. According to some accounts (now considered spurious), he laid the blame on the Christians (few at that time) and persecuted them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition

[Nero] became infamous for his personal debaucheries and extravagances and, on doubtful evidence, for his burning of Rome and persecutions of Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Jonathan Roth, San Jose State University

Tacitus frequently uses.......hyperbole. A good example is in his description of various emperors killing members of the Senatorial opposition. He implies that large numbers are involved, but when one counts up the numbers, they are only a few dozen at most. All ancient writers use exaggeration and hyperbole.

We seldom have a source other than Tacitus, so it is difficult to check his statements.

.......remember that history was considered literature and meant for entertainment. Tacitus is always thinking about making his stories more interesting and readable."

http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/Chris...s/tacitus.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Darrell Doughty

Tacitus' Account of Nero's Persecution of Christians. Annals 15.44.2-8

This passage is often cited by Christian scholars as an early witness by a Roman historian to the presence of the Christian movement, as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, and as evidence for persecution of Christians by the Romans. It is a text, therefore, that requires careful and critical examination.

On July, 19th, 64 CE, a fire started in Rome and burned for nine days, finally destroying or damaging almost three-quarters of the city, including numerous public buildings. Rumors spread that the fire had been planned by Nero. And according to Tacitus, to put an end to such rumors, Nero blaimed the disastor on the Christians.

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos. et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius christus. Tyberio imperitante per procuratorem pontium pilatum supplicio adfectus erat. repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat. non modo per iudaeam originem eius mali. sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque .,. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur. deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens. haud proinde in crimine incendii. quam odio humani generis coniuncti sunt .,.

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

Tacitus continues:

"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

Paul Keresztes, "Rome and the Christian Church, I. From Nero to Sereri," ANRW 2.23.1, 247-315; L. H. Canfield, The Early Persecutions of the Christians (New York, 1913); H. Fuchs, "Tacitus über die Christen," VC 4 (1950), 65-93; E.T. Klette, Die Christenkatastrophe unter Nero nach ihrem Quellen inbes nach Tac. Ann. XV, 44 von neuem untersucht (Tübingen, 1907); Charles Saumagne, "Tacite et Saint Paul," Revue historique 232 (1964), 67-110; "Les incendiaires de Rome et les lois pémales des romains," Revue historique 227 (1962), 337-360.

THE TEXT IS FULL OF DIFFICULTIES [emphasis mine], and there are not a few textual variations in the mss tradition (e.g., "Christianos" or "Chrestianos" or even "Christianus"? - "Christus" or "Chrestos"?) -- which at least reflects the fact that this text has been worked over.

It is not even clear what Tacitus means to say - e.g., whether he implies that the charge of setting the fires brought against Christians was false; whether some Christians were arrested because they set fires and others because of their general "hatred for humankind"; what those persons arrested "confessed" to--arson or Christianity? -- or whether they were executed by crucifixion or immolation, or some one way and some in another.

But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this information -- i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes!

Dr. Doughty has impressive credentials. Consider the following:

http://www.users.drew.edu/ddoughty/

Quote:

Originally Posted by user.drew.edu

Darrell Doughty grew up in Oakland, California. He received his B.S. in Engineering Physics from U.C. Berkeley (1958), his M.Div. from San Francisco Theological Seminary (1962), and his D.Theol. in New Testament from the University of Göttingen, Germany (1965). He taught in Drew University's Theological and Graduate Schools from 1969 to 2003. His teaching and research in the field of New Testament and Early Christianity focusses on Christian origins, the Pauline writings, the history of Pauline Christianity, second century Christianity, the rise of normative Christianity, Higher Criticism and the New Testament, and the history of research in these areas. He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and a participant in the Paul Seminar of the Westar Institute . He was director of the Institute for Higher Critical Studies at Drew University and associate editor of the Journal of Higher criticism. He now resides in Portland, Maine.

Courses Taught

Introduction to the New Testament
The Pauline Writings
The Acts of the Apostles
Interpreting the New Testament in the Church
Unity and Diversity in the Pauline Writings
Paul in the Second Century
The Apocryphal Acts
Problems and Issues in Second Century Christianity
Heterodoxy and Orthodoxy in Early Christianity

Selected Publications

"The Priority of Charis," New Testament Studies, 19 (1973), 163-180.

"The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 66 (1975), 61-90.

"Citizens of Heaven: Philippians 3:2-21," New Testament Studies, 41 (1995), 102-122.

"Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity," Journal of Higher Criticism, 1 (1994), 95-128.

"Searching for the Historical Paul," Westar Institute Seminar Papers (Spring, 1996), 113-122.

"Luke's Story of Paul in Corinth: Fictional History in Acts 18," Journal of Higher Criticism, 4/1 (Spring 1997), 3-54.

"Reflections on 1 Thessalonians as a Deutero-Pauline Writing," Westar Institute Seminar Papers (Spring 1999), 29-52.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu...f_persecutions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

According to H. B. Workman, the average Christian was not much affected by the persecutions. It was Christian “extremists” that attracted the attention of angry Pagans. “Earthly institutions should not be judged by their averages, but by the ideals of their leaders”, Workman adds. Persecution of Christians only became significant, curiously enough, in the 3rd and 4th centuries, on the eve of the Christian triumph.[2]

The Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized, and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. Moreover, imperial decrees against Christians were often directed against church property, the Scriptures, or clergy only. It has been estimated that more Christians have been martyred in the last 50 years than in the church's first 300 years.[3]

Reasons for persecution

The Roman Empire was generally quite tolerant in its treatment of other religions. The imperial policy was generally one of incorporation - the local gods of a newly conquered area were simply added to the Roman pantheon and often given Roman names. Even the Jews, with their one god, were generally tolerated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

No it doesn't. Logically, he who asserts first must defend first. Some Christians first asserted centuries ago that large numbers of Christians were persecuted. It is not up to me to reasonably disprove those claims. It is up the Christians to reasonably prove those claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

If we were talking about the supposed "Massacre of the Innocence" under Herod you would be right. But this case is different. The texts available from the time make the original assertion not silly Christian Apologists desperately searching for facts to back up Biblical stories.

But lots of contemporary secular sources do not agree with the interpretations of your contemporary sources. Neither did some prominent Roman Catholic sources centuries ago, including a Pope, a Cardinal, and some presitigous Roman Catholic scholars, who certainly had nothing to gain by opposing exaggerated claims except to maintain their honesty and integrity. My Roman Catholic sources along with my contemporary secular sources are much better than your sources. My Roman Catholic sources give credibility to my arguments. Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...h/PandC-1.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph McCabe

According to the Catholic writers, and even the official liturgy of their Church, the Roman community of the first three centuries was so decked and perfumed with saints and martyrs that it must have had a divine spirit in it. Now the far greater part, the overwhelmingly greater part, of the Acts of the Martyrs and Lives of the Saints on which this claim is based are impudent forgeries, perpetrated by Roman Christians from the fourth to the eighth century in order to give a divine halo to the very humble, and very human, history of their Church.

This is not merely a contention of "heretics and unbelievers." It is not even a new discovery. The legends of the martyrs are so gross that Catholic historians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries frequently denounced them. Cardinal Baronius and Father Pagi repeatedly rejected them. The learned and pious Tillemont, in the fifth volume of his Mémoires, slays hundreds of them. Pope Benedict XIV, of the eighteenth century, a scholar who by some mischance was made a Pope, was so ashamed of the extent to which these forgeries permeate the official ritual of his Church that he entered upon a great reform; but the cardinals and monks obstructed his work, and the literature of the Church still teems with legends from these tainted sources. In fact, many of these forgeries were already notorious in the year 494, when Pope Gelasius timidly and haltingly condemned them.

These forgeries are so gross that one needs very little historical knowledge in order to detect them. Large numbers of Roman martyrs are, like the Pope Callistus whom I have mentioned, put in the reign of the friendly Emperor Alexander Severus, who certainly persecuted none. One of these Roman forgers, of the sixth Of seventh century. is bold enough to claim five thousand martyrs for Rome alone under the gentle Alexander Severus! Other large numbers of Roman martyrs are put in the reign of the Emperor Maximin; and Dr. Garres has shown that there were hardly any put to death in the whole Empire, least of all at Rome, under Maximin. [3] The semi-official catalogue of the Popes makes saints and martyrs of no less than thirteen of the Popes of the third century, when there were scarcely more than three or four.

No one questions that the Roman Church had a certain number of martyrs in the days of the genuine persecutions, but nine-tenths of the pretty stories which are popular in Catholic literature — the stories of St. Agnes and St. Cecilia, of St. Lucia and St. Catherine, of St. Lawrence and St. George and St. Sebastian, and so on — are pious romances. Even when the martyrdom may be genuine, the Catholic story of it is generally a late and unbridled fiction.

A short account of the havoc which modern scholars have made of the Acts of the Martyrs is given by a Catholic professor, Albert Ehrhard, of the Vienna University, and will cause any inquiring Catholic to shudder. [4] Dr. Ehrhard mentions a French work, L'Amphithèâtre Flavien, by Father Delehaye, a Jesuit, and calls it "an important contribution to the criticism of the Roman acts of the martyrs." It is a "criticism" of such a nature that it dissolves into fiction all the touching pictures (down to Mr. G. B. Shaw's Androcles and the Lion) of the "martyrs of the Coliseum." It proves that no Christians were ever martyred in the Amphitheatre (Coliseum). The English translation of Father Delehaye's Legends of the Saints (1907) gives an appalling account of these Roman forgeries. Another scholar has, Professor Ehrhard admits (p. 555), shown that "a whole class" of these saints and martyrs are actually pagan myths which have been converted into Christian martyrs. The whole literature which this Catholic professor surveys is one mighty massacre of saints and martyrs, very few surviving the ordeal. These fictions are often leniently called "pious fancies" and "works of edification." Modern charity covers too many ancient sins. These things were intended to deceive; they have deceived countless millions for fourteen centuries, and in the hands of priests they deceive millions to-day.

Of particular note was "The legends of the martyrs are so gross that Catholic historians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries frequently denounced them. Cardinal Baronius and Father Pagi repeatedly rejected them."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

"Secular historians"? Now that is interesting. Which secular historians are you referring to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

My definition of "secular historians" might differ slightly from yours. Under my definition, historians count as secular so long as they do not proselytize or have proselytizing as a mentioned goal of the institution they represent.

The only kind of consensus that I am interested in is a consensus of conservative Christians (who are the chief promoters of large numbers of persecuted Christians within the Christian community), and historians who identify themselves as atheists, agnostic, and deists.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "secular" as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

"1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>

"2: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>

"3 a: occurring once in an age or a century b: existing or continuing through ages or centuries c: of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>"

That obviously contradicts your convienient, contrived definition that you invented to try to help you win this debate.

Please remember that the main issue here is not whether or not "some" Christians were persecuted, but whether or not "large numbers" of Christians were persecuted. Many fundamentalist Christians claim that large numbers of persecuted Christians makes Christianity more credible. Do you agree with that?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-15-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If you win this debate, you will have significantly helped to promote fundamentalist Christianity. Even if I believed that large numbers of Christians were persecuted, I would never consider helping fundamentalist Christians promote one their most important issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

The implication being, that even if it were true that Nero ordered a widespread persecution of Christians, we still shouldn't give the fundies the ammunition. Is that what you meant or do you want to rephrase what you said?

As I will explain below, yes, even if I believed that Nero ordered a widespread persecution of Christians, I would not publically state that information unless I was asked about it, in which case I would tell the truth.

You oppose assisted suicide. If you knew of an easy way for terminally ill people to kill themselves, would you publically offer that information? Well of course you wouldn't, and not even if someone asked you if you knew of any easy way for terminally ill people to kill themseves, and yet, in order to be consistent with what you said, you would have to say "The implication being, that even if we knew of an easy way for terminally ill people to kill themselves, we should not give them that information."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If as you claim Christianity is not any more attractive if large numbers of Christias were persecuted, a claim that many fundamentalist Christians dispute, if you are right, then Christianity would not be any less attractive is no Christians were persecuted, which invites the question "If how many Christians were persecuted does not make any difference, why are you making posts in this thread?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

The fact that you cannot concieve of a reason for posting in this thread other than to push one dogma over another is disturbing.

My question was reasonable. If you believe that large numbers of Christians makes Christianity more credible, and you are a Christian, you would have a vested interest in reasonably proving that large numbers of Christians were persecuted. If you are a Christian, and do not believe that large numbers of Christians makes Christianity more credible, you might still be willing to help Christians who make a big deal out of large numbers of persecuted Christians. If you are a dedicated skeptic, there is no way that you would be making posts in this thread because no dedicated skeptic would ever argue for large numbers of persecuted Christians even if he believed that there were large numbers of persecuted Christians. An honest dedicated skeptic who believed that there were large numbers of persecuted Christians would admit that if he was asked about it, but he would never offer that without being asked about it.

I challenge you to provide a sensible reason how, if you were a dedicated skeptic, it could benefit you to make posts in this thread. I have made over 9,000 posts at the IIDB since June, 2005. Other than you, I have only encountered one person who deliberately concealed their worldview, and he is a Christian. I am referring to Nice Squirrel, who is a moderator. He never specifically indicated whether or not he is a Christian, but I became suspicious that he is a Christian. I finally got him into a corner and he admitted that he is a Christian. Fortunately, he is not a fundamentalist Christian, so that is ok. Since the IIDB is part of the Secular Web, and is predominantly skeptic, there would not be any reason why a skeptic would conceal his worldview, but there would be a reason why an occasional fundamentalist Christian would conceal his worldview. For instance, regarding the thread at the MF&P Forum about the Mathericks, you argued just like a fundie would argue. If you are a fundie, you know that if you let people know you are a fundie, you might have been accused by some people of being biased, and you might have been asked some questions about the Bible.

So, since the cat is already out of the bag, I do not really need to ask you whether or not you are a fundie any more because it is probable that you are. This is the third debate that I have had with you where you argued just like a fundie would argue. Yes, some skeptics oppose assisted suicide, and some skeptics support the Mathericks, but no skeptic would oppose assisted suicide, support the Mathericks, AND help fundamentalist Christians in this thread by defending one of their sacred cows.

I will give you this, you are clever, but not clever enough.

I am glad that you are participating in this thread because good competition always help me devolop better arguments.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-15-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

It is interesting to note that you withdrew from the other two debates when you knew that you were in trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

I withdrew from the debate on PAS when you stopped replying to my posts and instead focused on the gentleman who entered the discussion late.

Ok, let's see if what you said is true. My last reply to you was my post #211. You did not reply to that post, and you did not reply to anyone else's post after your post #210, which was a reply that you made to Sabine. The link for that page is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226918&page=9.

Your last reply to me was your post #155. The link for that page is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226918&page=7. I replied in the very next post, which was post #156. You did not reply to that post, and yet you falsely claimed that you withdrew from the debate on PAS when I stopped replying to your posts and instead focused on someone else. In fact, even after you did not reply to any more of my posts, as I showed previously, you did not actually withdraw from the debate on PAS until you made your post #210, and you had a number of other discussions with Sabine before that post.

Obviously, you did not tell the truth. In addition, you made some invalid claims in that thread, and I can prove it if you wish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

I withdrew from the Human Nature Thread I started when Sabine said, "Will address the rest of your comments later. I appreciate your willingness to allow me to respond by bits and pieces." and then never replied. I waited and waited, but she never followed up with her full response.

If you contact Sabine, I am sure that she will be willing to discuss anything from that thread with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

If you would like to debate those issues some more, just let me know. I am sure that fundies would like for you to help them some more, assuming that you are not a fundie, which I do not assume.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

What issues? Don't you mean issue? Refresh my memory, but the only time I remember locking horns with you before was over the PAS issue.

Oh my, in a thread at http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=225577 at the MF&P Forum, you and I had lots of disagreements about the Mathericks, who are fundamentalist Christian foster parents in Britain. You and I disagreed on many things, and you made many blunders which I can prove if you wish to debate that issue some more. One blunder that you made was when I told you that the government holds foster parents to a higher standard. You asked me why that is the case as if you objected to that. No rational person would ask such a question. I think that I told you because the government has the best interests of children at heart, and that children who develop homosexual sexual identities would be better off being raised by foster parents who would not teach them that God opposes homosexuality. I told you that the system that I proposed was that prospective foster parents who would not teach their children that God opposes homosexuality should be given first chioce, and that I would agree that after that, people like the Mathericks should be able to raise foster children and teach them anything that they want to teach them, not that that would be best, but it would be better than no foster parents at all. I do not know how the British Government resolved that problem, but I am pretty sure that the British government did not give in to the Matherick's demands.

Another reason why the government holds foster parents to a higher standard is because foster parents can be carefully screened BEFORE they raise children, and natural parents CANNOT be carefully screened before they raise children. Some natural parents have no business raising children, but it is not illegal for natural parents to have children. Do you propose that the government lower its standards for foster parents? If so, that would probably put you in a minority of one.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-15-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If you are not a fundie, you are a great asset to them. This is the third time that you and I have had a debate where you argued like the vast majority of fundies argue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

It is interesting that the only options you seem to think possible for me are Christian/Atheist. As a Scientologist me and Will Smith are very offended.

Would a Scientologist be interested in defending a fundie sacred cow in this thread? Of course not. Why must you embarrass yourself? No man who opposes fundamentalist Christianity would make posts in this thread because he would not want to help the opposition. You are quite naive if you believe that you can get away without revealing what your worldview is.

Do you believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead? I predict that you will refuse to answer the question.

Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that at discussion forums it is very useful to know what a person's worldview is if you have discussions with them. For instance, if a man has stated that he opposes homosexuality solely for scientific reasons, that would be useful for people who have discussions with him. If a man has stated that he opposes homosexuality solely for religious reasons, the would be useful for people who have discussions with him. A man's motives are very important. What you seems to be proposing is that a man's motives do not make any difference. If that what you believe, you need psychological counseling. It makes a big difference to me if a man votes Republican solely for secular reasons, such as the economy and national defense, or if he votes Republican solely for religious reasons, such as regarding the issues of abortion and physician assisted suicide. Even though I much prefer Democrat political candidates, I have some good friends who are Republicans, but they are not Christians, and they vote Republican solely for secular reasons. If they voted Republican solely for religious reasons, I would not have chosen to be their friends.

You are needlessly rude, argumentative, and evasive, and very atypical of people at the IIDB, and of people at any other discussion forum.

Edit: I take back what I said about you being a fundie. I just found the following in another thread at another forum:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron SF

BTW Spreading birth control information and methods to overpopulated countries has been held back by the religious right more than anything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Your point makes a lot of sense in this argument given the fact that the Conservative Christian movement isn't comprised of humans.

This means that your presence in this thread is even more questionable than I thought it was. If you were a fundie, that would explain your presence in this thread. Since you oppose the Conservative Christian movement, it is not rational for you be defending one of their sacred cows in this thread.

You could have saved me the trouble of having to find out what you had already publically stated.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-15-2008, 08:22 PM

Message to Champion: This post replaces my post #33.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

It is interesting to note that you withdrew from the other two debates when you knew that you were in trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

I withdrew from the debate on PAS when you stopped replying to my posts and instead focused on the gentleman who entered the discussion late.

Ok, let's see if what you said is true. My last reply to you was my post #211. You did not reply to that post, and you did not reply to anyone else's post after your post #210, which was a reply that you made to Sabine. The link for that page is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226918&page=9.

Your last reply to me was your post #155. The link for that page is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226918&page=7. I replied in the very next post, which was post #156. You did not reply to that post, and yet you falsely claimed that you withdrew from the debate on PAS when I stopped replying to your posts and instead focused on someone else. In fact, even after you did not reply to any more of my posts, as I showed previously, you did not actually withdraw from the debate on PAS until you made your post #210, and you had a number of other discussions with Sabine before that post.

Obviously, you did not tell the truth. In addition, you made some invalid claims in that thread, and I can prove it if you wish.

Consider the following from that thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySketpic

Does that mean that you disapprove that an unknown person killed Humbert at his own request? If so, why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

I don't think we should waste our time looking for him. I wouldn't want him wandering around a hospital though.

No compassionate, non-religious person would make a claim like that. Vincent Humbert was quadriplegic, blind, and mute, and he wanted to die. French President Chirac denied his request for an exemption to the French law that prohibits assisted suicide. A merciful unknown person killed Humbert at his own request. Few non-religiousl people who were quadriplegic, blind, and mute would want to go on living. You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

I am not alarmed by anyone's hesitancy to kill someone, even someone going through what Mr. Humbert went through. I oppose it because I don't trust that any system we set up would be completely infallible. I oppose it for the same reasons I oppose the death penalty.

However, since an unknown private party killed Humbert at his own request, there is not any evidence that his death was caused by the system, which in fact does not exist in France because physician assisted suicide is illegal there. In addition, your comment "I am not alarmed by anyone's hesitancy to kill someone, even someone going through what Mr. Humbert went through," that does not have anything to do with system either.

As you know, the lethal drug Nembutal is easily accessible in Mexico. It is commonly used by veterinarians for putting animals to sleep, and it is not difficult for people to obtain. Do you object to Americans who are terminally ill, and do not live in Oregon where physician assisted suicide is legal, going to Mexico to obtain and use Nembutal? Since that would not be part of the system, you should not oppose that. What if a terminally ill man in the U.S. has tried all of the available medical treatments that he can, and has failed to obtain treatments that in his own opinion can provide him with an acceptable quality of life, wants to kill himself with a gun? Would you object to that?

Of course, you lose hands down because poor lifestyle habits such as eating lots of greasy food and smoking cigarettes shorten life far more than physician assisted suicide does. PAS usually shortens life by six months or less. Eating lots of greasy foods and smoking cigarettes typically shortens life by years, and sometimes by decades. Anyone who opposes physician assisted suicide and has poor lifestyle habits is a hypocrite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

I withdrew from the Human Nature Thread I started when Sabine said, "Will address the rest of your comments later. I appreciate your willingness to allow me to respond by bits and pieces." and then never replied. I waited and waited, but she never followed up with her full response.

If you contact Sabine, I am sure that she will be willing to discuss anything from that thread with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If you would like to debate those issues some more, just let me know. I am sure that fundies would like for you to help them some more, assuming that you are not a fundie, which I do not assume.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

What issues? Don't you mean issue? Refresh my memory, but the only time I remember locking horns with you before was over the PAS issue.

Oh my, in a thread at http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=225577 at the MF&P Forum, you and I had lots of disagreements about the Mathericks, who are fundamentalist Christian foster parents in Britain. You and I disagreed on many things, and you made many blunders which I can prove if you wish to debate that issue some more. One blunder that you made was when I told you that the government holds foster parents to a higher standard. You asked me why that is the case as if you objected to that. No rational person would ask such a question. I think that I told you because the government has the best interests of children at heart, and that children who develop homosexual sexual identities would be better off being raised by foster parents who would not teach them that God opposes homosexuality. I told you that the system that I proposed was that prospective foster parents who would not teach their children that God opposes homosexuality should be given first chioce, and that I would agree that after that, people like the Mathericks should be able to raise foster children and teach them anything that they want to teach them, not that that would be best, but it would be better than no foster parents at all. I do not know how the British Government resolved that problem, but I am pretty sure that the British government did not give in to the Matherick's demands.

Another reason why the government holds foster parents to a higher standard is because foster parents can be carefully screened BEFORE they raise children, and natural parents CANNOT be carefully screened before they raise children. Some natural parents have no business raising children, but it is not illegal for natural parents to have children. Do you propose that the government lower its standards for foster parents? If so, that would probably put you in a minority of one.

Although you are not aware of it, you gave away your opposition to homosexuality in that thread although you did your best to conceal your opposition.

My apologizes to everyone for getting off-topic. If Champion wishes to debate these issues further, all that he has to do is reopen that thread at the MF&P Forum, or start a new thread at that forum.

Champion · 01-16-2008, 12:03 PM

Johnny Skeptic:

You brought up quite a number of issues in your last set of posts so I think it's best if I address them all at once. You stated that I withdrew from some discussions prematurely. I am more than to participate in a new thread on whichever discussion you like whether it be our talk on PAS, The Mathericks, Human Nature, or whatever other topics we may have discussed previously. However, I do not have the time to keep up with a 5 topic at once shotgun approach to these issues. I invite you to pick one topic you wish to discuss with me and I will gladly participate in whichever thread you choose to start.

As for the sniping that has gone on over my decision not to disclose my worldview, I suggest we discuss that via email over the server. Right now, it seems to be more of a distractor from whichever topic we are discussing.

I hope you consider this to be a fair proposal. Hopefully we can both work at treating eachother with more civility.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-16-2008, 01:40 PM

Message to Champion: Please reply to my post #31. What I need is contemporary non-Christian sources that state that Nero and/or other Roman emperors persecuted large numbers of early Christians. No other sources will do. The issue is not whether or not early Christians were persecuted, but how many.

One thing that makes my sources much more than your sources are is that I provided a good number of Roman Catholic sources, including a Pope and a Cardinal, who strongly protested exaggerated claims regarding the numbers of Christians who were persecuted. It is important to note that those sources had records available to them for inspection are not available to us today. It would have taken a good deal of very credible evidence to convince those sources to cause a lot of commotion in the church. While I can credibly bring up the issue of questionable ulterior motives for exaggerated claims regarding the numbers of Christians who were persecuted, you cannot credibly make a case for questionable ulterior motives regarding my Roman Catholic sources.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-16-2008, 01:51 PM

Message to Champion: You claimed that it is emcumbent upon me to disprove claims by Christians that large numbers of Christians were persected. I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

No it isn't. Logically, he who asserts first must defend first. Some Christians first asserted centuries ago that large numbers of Christians were persecuted. It is not up to me to reasonably disprove those claims. It is up the Christians to reasonably prove those claims.

You replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

If we were talking about the supposed "Massacre of the Innocence" under Herod you would be right. But this case is different. The texts available from the time make the original assertion not silly Christian Apologists desperately searching for facts to back up Biblical stories.

I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

But lots of contemporary secular sources do not agree with the interpretations of your contemporary sources. Neither did some prominent Roman Catholic sources centuries ago, including a Pope, a Cardinal, and some presitigous Roman Catholic scholars, who certainly had nothing to gain by opposing exaggerated claims except to maintain their honesty and integrity.

The people who were most responsible for reasonably proving their case were the first Christians who claimed that large numbers of Christians were persecuted. If they used Tacitus as a source, it was up to them to reasonably prove how many Christians Tacitus meant by "a vast multitude." Lots of comtemporary scholars have a variety of good reasons for rejecting the use of those words to make a case that Nero killed thousands of Christians.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-16-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Johnny Skeptic:

You stated that I withdrew from some discussions prematurely.

You did, but you falsely claimed that you didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

I am more than willing to participate in a new thread on whichever discussion you like whether it be our talk on PAS, the Mathericks, Human Nature, or whatever other topics we may have discussed previously.

Rather, since it was YOU who withdrew from the debates on PAS and the Mathericks, not me, I am more than willing to take up where we left off if that is what you want. You certainly cannot get away with claiming that you are willing to participate in threads that YOU vacated without replying to my posts.

My last reply to you in the thread on PAS was my post #211. You did not reply to that post, and you did not reply to anyone else's post after your post #210, which was a reply that you made to Sabine. The link for that page is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226918&page=9.

Your last reply to me was your post #155. The link for that page is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226918&page=7. I replied in the very next post, which was post #156. You did not reply to that post, and yet you falsely claimed that you withdrew from the debate on PAS when I stopped replying to your posts and instead focused on someone else. In fact, even after you did not reply to any more of my posts, as I showed previously, you did not actually withdraw from the debate on PAS until you made your post #210, and you had a number of other discussions with Sabine before that post.

Would you like to admit that you made false claims?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If you would like to debate those issues some more, just let me know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

What issues? Don't you mean issue? Refresh my memory, but the only time I remember locking horns with you before was over the PAS issue.

In a thread at http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=225577 at the MF&P Forum, you and I had lots of disagreements about the Mathericks, who are fundamentalist Christian foster parents in Britain. You and I disagreed on many things. Are you saying that that thread was not a good example of "locking horns"? If so, I beg to differ. Anyone who visits that thread will agree with me that we locked horns over practically everything that was discussed. Whether or not "locking horns" applies to that thread, you withdrew, not me.

Champion · 01-17-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Rather, since it was YOU who withdrew from the debates on PAS and the Mathericks, not me, I am more than willing to take up where we left off if that is what you want. You certainly cannot get away with claiming that you are willing to participate in threads that YOU vacated without replying to my posts.

You are correct on one point. I did withdraw from the PAS debate prematurely. However, I did not withdraw from the Mathericks discussion prematurely my post (#390) went unanswered by you and Sabine. I think that is the source of my confusion. In the Mathericks thread you and Sabine focused your attention on the late comers, Aaron SF, Stinger, and Revroswell. That did not occur in the PAS thread and I was wrong to claim so.

Quote:

My last reply to you in the thread on PAS was my post #211. You did not reply to that post, and you did not reply to anyone else's post after your post #210, which was a reply that you made to Sabine.

You are correct. Which brings me back to my proposal, do you want to revive that discussion or not?

Quote:

In a thread at http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=225577 at the MF&P Forum, you and I had lots of disagreements about the Mathericks, who are fundamentalist Christian foster parents in Britain. You and I disagreed on many things. Are you saying that that thread was not a good example of "locking horns"? If so, I beg to differ. Anyone who visits that thread will agree with me that we locked horns over practically everything that was discussed. Whether or not "locking horns" applies to that thread, you withdrew, not me.

Our discussion on the Mathericks had slipped my mind. We did have quite a go over that didn't we. However, I only withdrew after my post, number 390, didn't get any replies from either you or Sabine. You probably overlooked it, it's a long thread.

You have not yet responded to my proposal.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-16-2008, 12:03 PM	#36
Champion Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 193	Johnny Skeptic: You brought up quite a number of issues in your last set of posts so I think it's best if I address them all at once. You stated that I withdrew from some discussions prematurely. I am more than to participate in a new thread on whichever discussion you like whether it be our talk on PAS, The Mathericks, Human Nature, or whatever other topics we may have discussed previously. However, I do not have the time to keep up with a 5 topic at once shotgun approach to these issues. I invite you to pick one topic you wish to discuss with me and I will gladly participate in whichever thread you choose to start. As for the sniping that has gone on over my decision not to disclose my worldview, I suggest we discuss that via email over the server. Right now, it seems to be more of a distractor from whichever topic we are discussing. I hope you consider this to be a fair proposal. Hopefully we can both work at treating eachother with more civility.

01-16-2008, 01:40 PM	#37
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Champion: Please reply to my post #31. What I need is contemporary non-Christian sources that state that Nero and/or other Roman emperors persecuted large numbers of early Christians. No other sources will do. The issue is not whether or not early Christians were persecuted, but how many. One thing that makes my sources much more than your sources are is that I provided a good number of Roman Catholic sources, including a Pope and a Cardinal, who strongly protested exaggerated claims regarding the numbers of Christians who were persecuted. It is important to note that those sources had records available to them for inspection are not available to us today. It would have taken a good deal of very credible evidence to convince those sources to cause a lot of commotion in the church. While I can credibly bring up the issue of questionable ulterior motives for exaggerated claims regarding the numbers of Christians who were persecuted, you cannot credibly make a case for questionable ulterior motives regarding my Roman Catholic sources.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.