No, but very nice try. I wasn't calling you a liar for this claim. In fact I was pretty clear about that, so that's another blatant mischaracterization. That argument was already hashed out on the former thread. I was calling you a liar for lying about what was in some evidence that you chose to post.

Had you wanted to stick with the evidence you just posted, I would still have laughed that you were using such a ridiculous source, but it would not have constituted lying.

"Why? It's not by a historian at all. It's by a journalist."

Where do you get this information that John Bishop was a journalist? He is cited in work by historians of ancient rome.

But this is your schtick. Claim I'm lying and then refuse to look at the sources I provide you, even sources by credible historians and early religious texts.

Hilarious that you whine about slander, though.

"You provided evidence that Christians were blamed for starting a fire in one place, and it's a famous accusation almost universally considered to have been false and dishonestly made."

How the fuck would you know? You didn't even look at the Bishop book. Also read Jean Beaujeu, The Fire of Rome in 64 and Christians for various other works that make similar claims.

"and it's a famous accusation almost universally considered to have been false and dishonestly made."

Whether it's "dishonestly" made (it's not) is irrelevant. You're trying to make hay of me saying Christians were blamed for starting fires, and I provided proof that they were. To hell with you.

"I just followed up with this fire thing to see if you were actually going to do it again, or if you had sources. (Either would be interesting)."

"Interesting" is code word for you ratcheting up some smear campaign.

"Oh, the lie I established on page one. We're not even talking about that now."

You established nothing. Nobody but Invictus believes I lied. But like I said you always declare victory for yourself even when you're too lazy to read, and even when nobody is impressed with you but yourself.

"I was calling you a liar for lying about what was in some evidence that you chose to post."

James caused Piobsata to become pregnant. Not a lie. It's in the text. Afterwards he was persecuted. Before he had been preaching for quite a while and nobody laid a finger on him. The chapter prior to the story of his martyrdom demonstrates how 'successful' James was. It was only after the pregnancy that his fortune changed.

Conclude whatever you will from that, but it's not a lie, you smear merchant.

"Where do you get this information that John Bishop was a journalist? He is cited in work by historians of ancient rome."

You're right -- my google search returned the wrong book, and I was sloppy not checking the author. The citation you gave *was* a genuine work of scholarship. I'll check it out.

"Whether it's "dishonestly" made (it's not) is irrelevant. You're trying to make hay of me saying Christians were blamed for starting fires, and I provided proof that they were."

You said they were blamed for starting fires *all over.* Even if your sources are pristine, you've only got one instance, in Rome. (I can think of another, also in Rome. That's still not all over). So your claim remains unsourced.

"You established nothing. Nobody but Invictus believes I lied. "

As I've said several times now, I'm confident in what people will see if they investigate the evidence I've presented.

"James caused Piobsata to become pregnant. Not a lie. It's in the text."

You used the word impregnate, Putin. Nobody interprets that word to mean "to cause pregnancy by prayer so that a woman becomes pregnant by her husband." Sorry.

"James caused Piobsata to become pregnant. Not a lie. It's in the text."

But, again, why should we rely on the story as being true?

I don't understand why anyone thinks Putin is worthy of any regard. Besides his slippery style of debate, his obvious hatred of humanity clouds all his arguments.

I would REALLY like for our Great Debate to be published so people can see what I mean.

Why did Putin bother to come back to webdip after he left? Did he get tired of beating his wife?

To be fair Emac, his wife is probably the only person he really likes, or who likes him. There's no reason to accuse him of something like that.

Speaking of wives how's that divorce coming along Emac?

"his obvious hatred of humanity clouds all his arguments."

Unlike you, supposed 'lover of humanity' (ironic for a Christian, aren't we all depraved and worthy of torturous death?) , I've never wished death upon anyone here. Despite the fact that a good share of the people here are the nastiest excuses for human beings I've ever come across.

"Why did Putin bother to come back to webdip after he left?"

Sad to see your echo chamber disappear?

"Did he get tired of beating his wife?"

Please keep talking. And I hope that your friends keep ignoring the vile and disgusting things you say, simply because you're one of them.

"Even if your sources are pristine, you've only got one instance, in Rome. (I can think of another, also in Rome. That's still not all over). So your claim remains unsourced."

Messianic Jews - believed to be interchangable with Christians at the time - were blamed for a fire in Antioch around the same time.

Doesn't matter, you won't check the sources anyway, but will continue to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

Accuse hell. Putin does beat his wife. It's as much a fact as the bullshit Putin claims is true.

We don't have to get a different insurance plan. It is going to be a pain in the ass if we do. The next time we drive to Vegas to get married. Divorce is a breeze under Nevada law. Why didn't we get married there in the first place? Young and dumb I guess.

Conservative family values.

I didn't wish death on you, Putin. I'm just wondering why you don't act in accordance with your beliefs.

"Messianic Jews - believed to be interchangable with Christians at the time - were blamed for a fire in Antioch around the same time.

"Doesn't matter, you won't check the sources anyway, but will continue to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. "

Haha, I'm actually going to check out the book you suggested.

Anyway, the Antioch thing was stringently investigated by the anti-Christian Julian and turned out to be an accident. I'll grant you that this does count as Christians being accused of arson. But in fairness, your initial point was to argue that because they were accused a bunch, maybe they really did it sometimes. (That's what your "historical sources" have boiled down to, lol). Producing several accusations known to be false or very probably false doesn't really buttress that case, even if it does technically support your narrow claim that they were accused.

"Producing several accusations known to be false or very probably false doesn't really buttress that case"

You can continue to pretend like it's a closed case on whether the Christians started fires in ancient Rome. It's a matter of historical dispute, despite the fact that the historiography of this period is almost certainly biased in favor of Christian apologetics (no pagan Romans around to give their side).

My comment that maybe they did in fact start fires was perfectly reasonable. Your efforts here have failed miserably.

"I didn't wish death on you, Putin. I'm just wondering why you don't act in accordance with your beliefs."

That's pretty slick. So when somebody tells you to 'feel free to kill yourself' you would interpret that as a statement of wonder, a question even?

Gee, I'm sure glad I'm the one being accused of ridiculous interpretations here.

We do know that Putin supports rape, if we are talking about who believe what. Because it is **well known** that according to Putin, if one person does something who is a part of a particular group, then the entire group is guilty. He often uses this logic in his indictments of Christianity.

Putin is a teacher.

The teaching profession has it's fair share of pedophiles and rapists.

Putin is, and advocates, rape and pedophilia.

Isn't this correct, Putin? Tell me where the application of YOUR logic to you is erroneous, please? Because if you deny that you are an advocate of rape and pedophilia....then we had best go back and re-examine ALL your fuck-up wild ass accusations about Christianity, dumbshit.

*Prediction* As always, Putin will ignore my post, because it is a direct indictment of his fucked up childish way of arguing where-by he cherry-picks singular events to paint an entire group. Fucked up asshole...

Lol krellin kills me with the *'s
And don't bother with putin logic, he's lost....

An individual, Putin, who is a Holodomor denier says that someone else is "sick."
Now that defines hypocrisy.

I said slick. Learn to read.

I stand corrected on this point.
At least you now realize you can't call anyone sick.