Layman

Henry Durant was a devout evangelical Christian who felt called by God to establish the International Red Cross. Likewise, the founder of the American Red Cross was a Christian who expressly credited specific Christian scripture as her motivation for establishing the American Red Cross.

I thought I discussed this in the original post.

Layman

Perfect example of how you have no interest in a real discussion. I'm perfectly aware that you don't want to "belabor" the point and it has nothing to do with the sake of "clarity." It's because I provided quote after quote from my first post and following posts from before you made your appearance on this thread showing very clearly that my initial claim was the claim I persisted in defending throughout out interaction.

Just admit it. You distorted my position and can't defend that distortion because I have so clearly shown you to be wrong.

Sauron

No, you modified your position, when the words "unique" and "pagan" were forcibly thrust at you. And when someone else besides me(Asha'man) brought up Islam, what happened? Your first instinct was to try and re-direct any credit for charitable social mores in Islam back to Christianity, even without evidence. With you, it's always about Christianity, isn't it?

You remind me of one of Nomad's earlier arguments, where he tried to credit Christianity with changing the Roman Empire, and therefore it must have something special that no other religion has.

However, as I said - your newly re-architected argument is the current focus. So why aren't you proceeding from that base instead?

I'll tell you why: you've evidently decided not to defend that argument, and play the poor, wounded martyr instead. Just admit it - you want the stamp of legitimacy that comes with presenting an argument based on rigorous thinking and deep research, but you're unwilling to do any of it. The 1700 year gap between Constantine and the modern American charities is the most notable evidence of that.

E_muse

Indeed. But at one level this is what is taking place.

If we introduce the idea of protecting values we can still see that this is all the terrorists are doing.

A war against terrorism is a war against a methodology of killing people as an attempt to perpetuate or enforce a particular set of values or ideals.

A definition of terrorism:

Just remove the word 'unlawful' from this definition - or even exchange it with the word 'lawful'. What would this define?

So an oxymoron it is!

Perhaps I should have said that it sees a particular style of killing as wrong as a means of perpetuating a particular set of values.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Layman

I'm not wounded. Not a martyr. But you are a liar. I've shown it before and it's obvious now. I clearly refuted, by laying out a progression of my statements on the issue from the first post to many others before you appeared, showing that you are simply lying about me changing my position. If you insist on sticking to your guns, then go back and refute the clear progression I layed out, as well as my discussion of the context of the lone statement you lifted and distorted.

I don't come here to engage in the kind of gamesmenship you do. It's not worth it to me to engage in a pronged discussion with someone who continually lies about my postion and who will lie about his sources. It's simply not worth the effort.

Sauron

As I figured. It's too much work to substantiate your position, even when both you and I now agree upon what that position is.

From where I sit, you were either:

(a) sloppy with your terminology ("pagan world", "unique"), or

(b) you were making a claim for Christianity being unique in the entire ancient pagan world.

You insist that "pagan" and "unique" were never intended to be that broadly understood. Whatever. Fine. Obviously we disagree on what the original scope of your claim was. Move on, and leave it at that, since neither one will convince the other at this point. Accusations of lying are unnecessary, when misunderstanding is sufficient. I did not lie about your position, and you have offered no proof of lying about sources. (I notice you like to fling character slurs around whenever the heat is on, Layman - it's really not very attractive, you know).

But there are numerous other points in my response to you, aren't there?

Instead of doing the scholarly thing, you've decided to ignore everything else I posted. You hide behind your wounds, hand-wave, and beat a retreat. It's easier for you to do that, than to defend your argument.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

E_muse

Please define 'objective education'.

Also, I see a fallacy in the arguement. The idea that the death penalty and other deterrents were based in Western/Xian morals and values is not an arguement to prove that such deterrant are no longer necessary or not seen to be necessary, even from a rationalist standpoint!

That's been one of the key issues of this thread! Charity was birthed in a theistic age but such behaviour can be rationalized as beneficial and necessary to any society.

I also question the validity of the statement. Are you saying that the threat of death as a means of social control was a Western/Christian idea? Was Jesus, and the two thieves either side of him, crucified by Western Christians? What about Nazi extermination chambers? Couldn't war be seen as a form of death penalty threat on a global scale?

A belief that education can excercise complete control on a society seems to presuppose that people are completely governed by reason and completely ignores human instinct which can override reason under certain situations.

Do you really believe that education is effective in controlling people's behaviour?

Incidently, I have seen the death penalty defended from a atheistic/rationalist/evolutionary position. So whilst such things might be based upon Western Christian ideals it can be argued that such things can be defended from a number of different philisophical standpoints.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Layman

But you continue to insist I have altered my position. That is a lie. I have shown it to be a lie. But you deny it. Just admit it. Be a man.

As for you lying about your sources, I clearly demonstrated that in a separate thread several months ago on the Bible Criticism board. You lied about a website's references to Josephus and the Arabic Version of Josephus. I could dredge up the link for everyone else to see, but I don't really think anyone is taking your seriously, nor is it worth the time to once again rehash your combative posting style designed to disrupt discussion rather than promote it.

(Changed my mind--here's the link:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000393&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000393&p=</a>

Not that I want to rehash the entire issue again, but didn't want people to think I'm just pulling this out of thin air).

I've proved my original point--rather than the one you manufacted. Fruitful discussion with you is impossible--demonstated by your inability to concede you distorted by position and by your lies in the past about your own sources.

I'm more than happy to engage in a constructive discussion with anyone who wishes to reciprocate. But you aren't.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Sauron

No, you have not shown any such thing. What you have shown is that you will claim a lie, in order to create an escape hatch that allows you to exit the debate.

I deny it, because I did not lie about your position. &lt;heh&gt; "Be a man"? Why? Because women can't be honest? What if I'm a woman, Layman?

No, I did not lie, Layman. You're tired, old accusations aren't helping you here.

Your original point stands in tatters. Even your claims about Rome and Greece are questionable.

1. You have failed to connect the dots, and prove causality between xtians in Rome and modern-day American charities.

2. You create a disingenuous connection between organizations whose original founding ethos is worlds apart from their current incarnation.

3. You made claims about the size and scope of such American charities which are questionable - when examined by other evidence.

In summary: your evidence is scant, you refuse to address the gaps in your argument, you made other spurious claims that you have failed to defend -- you're the typical fundamentalist apologist.

Sauron

First, here was my claim:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000238&p=6" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000238&p=6</a>

And here is where you lied about my position:

Note the bold text. So right out of the starting gate, we see Layman engaged in lying about my position on this. I never claimed "many", I said "some". This is a typical Layman trick: he inflates and distorts the position of his opponent, in order to create a strawman to knock down.

But Layman's specific question was which authors prefer the Arabic version. The link I gave:
<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html" target="_blank">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</a>

has this to say:

Since both these authors are cited in the section dealing with the Arabic version of the Josephus passage, it is reasonable to assume that the "some scholars" referenced in the title above are indicated in that section.

Shlomo Pines did publish such a position on the Arabic text of the Testimonium Flavium in 1971. Charlesworth did so in 1988, in the book "Jesus with Judaism", both mentioned above on the web page I cited.

So no, Layman. I did not lie about the source.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>