Ah so you know so much about our religion huh?

Suicide is not forbidden in the face of torture

Did they know that?

Otherwise why didnt they?

Epistulae 10:96 documents correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Emperor Trajan

Why did 2 million get totured when they could have just killed themselves?

O shit I know why

Because it wasnt an option once caught

That leaves lieing to get out of it

So I guess the actual writings by the people who were there, must have been faked

What a dumbass

Can you lie to avoid toture?

You said they could have suicided

Its on you to show why they didnt contrary to my assertions

Being that there wasnt an easy way to suicide

Making it not an option

It's on you to prove your assertions, of which you have made many

You said the were tortured but could have suicided

I asserted that they didnt have the physical choice

We know from EMPEROR TRAJAN AND PLINY THE YOUNGER what the procedure was. The court process is detailed in his writings

Or didnt know they could

They were given the option to commit suicide?

By the government, no

In the face of toture?

THEN THEY DIDNT HAVE THE PHYSICAL ABILITY TO DID THEY?

So we know very well what the process was. That they were given the opportunity to recant and be pardoned

Which again leads to my unanswered question

Can you lie to avoid toture?

Any statement to the contrary might as well include an assertion that Gandalf the Grey was President of the Continental Congress

Technically yes

Peter lied

He was forgiven

If its a technicality it probably wasnt well known

But these people clearly believed so strongly that they had no desire to lie. Torture and death meant nothing to them.

It was very well known. People knew the law.

Because they were going to a better place through death

Early Christians knew it quite well. Hence the usher. The origin of the church usher is a guard to keep troublemakers out.

People who might attack them, or report them to the authorities

That still doesn't prove it couldnt be faked.

Ive said many times believers were believers regardless

So when I bring my two million man witness list to court, will the defendant be acquitted? Because it's not proof, it could be faked, and a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

You've said many things, you've proven none, including to prove that ancient people were so superstitious and stupid to have said "yes I saw Jesus do that" and then die for it

When I bring the 100 million that says they're bullshit no

Stop the bandwagon fallacy

It works both ways

They were superstitious enough to kill 2 million christians for their beliefs

Otherwise if they were so smart maybe they'd figure out there is something to this thing they believe?

2 million seems like a large number of people to not believe

Unless of course people were pretty sure it was bull

Smart people by your reasoning

You might bring the entirety of the Roman Empire to court to say "no I did not see it". But guess what? I can bring in a thousand Americans to a trial in Russia who will say "no I did not see Alexei do it". Why? Because they weren't there

No Roman or Jewish documents deny the miracles

But they denied the interpretation of what happened and why

They claimed it was demons. That's all.

Making my point still valid

Hell

The argument for killing them was they were tricked...

There's also plenty of writing from contemporaries and later on, which show they are not a bunch of superstitious idiots believing in witches and wizards.

That would make everybody else superstitious idiots

Someone is a superstitious idiot in that story

They cant all be smart

The Jews wanted to kill them because they could not accept Christianity. The Pharisees were a lot like you. Very circular reasoning, claiming logic yet not using it, etc.

I choose to believe it was the smaller group is all

The Romans wanted to kill them because they were refusing to follow the state religion.

Which is not an unusual thing when a country has state religion.

It would still mean they were superstitious idiots that you claimed couldn't exist back then

Which is it

Because you blew up on me for that

I didn't say couldn't exist. But they were not like you claim. Not a bunch of people scared of their own shadow and retarded like in Monty Python or a CT Yankee in King Arthur's Court

I never said they were afraid of their own shadow

You painted them as overly superstitious people

Just that they were far more superstitious than now

Which leans towards a lack of intelligence

Ever read anything they wrote? Nah probably not.

I won't bore you with facts.

Would intelligent people murder 2 million because demons tricked them?

Or is that superstition?

Also the literary works represent the exceptions not the rules

So its largely irrelevant want they wrote and fallicious to assert it does

But alas I forgot that it is I who am arrogant and only I can be wrong and never right...

Wait.

🤔

If Christianity is real, then so are demons.

Intelligent people killed five times that number in Europe about 70 years ago

And another five times as many in Asia in the same time period

And we aren't talking about literary works

We are talking about governors asking the emperor what to do

Detailed explanations of what they have been doing so far

If you dismiss that then you might as well dismiss every historical document there is

I guess Pat Robertson wrote the Bible

And doctored every historical reference to it

Is that a possibility???

Maybe I'm a time traveler from the bronze age and you're advanced AI

You can't prove the ancient Egyptians weren't black with spaceship pyramids

Can you prove that the universe is whatever billion years old?

Can you prove god exists?

Without referencing his works?

There are plenty of other explanations to reference the creation of the universe

Saying that the universe exists is proof enough that god is real is simply a copout

I can prove that your great great great grandfather exists by simple logic