martyrdom of forty wrestlers

Posted on May 26, 2011 by christopher fisher

As I was visiting one church, a guest pastor decided to make an illustration using an event he describes as taking place under the reign of Nero. This event involved the murder of 40 soldiers who were all Christians.

The story is that there were 40 acclaimed warriors. They were told to renounce Christianity (after Nero began the persecution of Christians), but they instead chose punishment. They are sent into a lake to freeze. Their songs and their resolve enticed a guard to join their ranks. In the morning, they are all alive.

Now this was news to me, I had never heard such a story. If it existed it would be very interesting, as all our current evidence points to Nero’s persecution being local and not specifically persecuting Christians for being Christians. An event where Nero kills 40 soldiers for the crime of being Christian would rewrite history. As Bart Ehrman (who is not a Christian) points out:

A. The first emperor to be involved with persecutions was Nero (c. 64 A.D.), who used Christians as scapegoats for the fire in Rome that he evidently started himself.
1. It is important to note, however, that in this case, Christians were condemned for arson, not for being Christian.
2. Moreover, this persecution was localized to Rome. It may, however, have set a precedent for later civil authorities.

It would be major to discover that Nero performed this other persecution.

After some searching for the source of this story I came to two conclusions. 1. Christians generally do not like to source stories (throughout sermons and blog posts). 2. Christians generally have a very bad understanding of early Christian history.

I finally did find the information for which I was seeking.

It turns out that this story was actually attributed to Emperor Licinius Centurion Sempronius (Licinius for short). This took place around 320AD whereas Nero (a co-temporary of Paul) reigned from 54-68AD. The difference is huge, enough to rewrite all of Church history. Imagine a story about terrorists blowing up the Twin Towers but in 1730 AD. Not a small mistake.

The first written account we have of this event is from St. Basil (329-379AD) about 50 years after the actual event. The story is as follows, per St Basil:

Thus it was that they were sentenced to spend the night under the open sky. The lake, round about which the populous town lies and in which the Saints contested, was covered with ice and had become, as it were, solid land fit for chariot driving…

When they had heard the command (in this, consider the invincible courage of the Martyrs), with joy each one cast off even his undermost tunic, and all hastened to encounter death from the cold…

Such consolations did they afford one another, and, each encouraging the others as if they were keeping guard at the hour of battle, they spent the night courageously bearing things present, rejoicing in the things looked for, and deriding the enemy…

As the Martyrs were in the midst of their contest and the guard was keeping watch over events… Throwing off his raiment, he joined himself to the naked ones, crying out in unison with the Saints: “I am a Christian.” The bystanders were astonished at the unexpectedness of his conversion, and as he gave himself to complete their number…

Due to the St Basil detailing this at a memorial service for these martyrs, we can most likely conclude that this did, in fact, happen and long before St. Basil began preaching. This did not, however, happen until Christianity was fairly well progressed. Christianity was then being actively suppressed due to the mere fact that it was a powerful and subversive religion. It was only shortly after this martyrdom that Constantine would declare Christianity as the new state religion.

It makes for a good story, but not one from the reign of Nero.

HT: stevekray88 and Scott Bratt for helping me make this article better.

Posted in Ehrman, History, People | 14 Comments

is music piracy communism?

Posted on May 25, 2011 by christopher fisher

I was accused of being a Communist yesterday. This is a peculiar claim. Anyone who knows me would well know that I oppose Communism to the core. Communism, the abolishment and/or redistribution of private property, is evil.

The accusation stemmed from my advocation of abolishment of what is currently labeled “Intellectual Property”. Intellectual Property, as a term, is fairly new in human history. It seems to have been specifically coined to force an association with actual property. This is much like leftists hijacking the term “liberal” to identify themselves. It would be a mistake to accept this labeling propaganda on face value.

To show the absurdity of the term Communism being associated with “Intellectual Property” one needs only to show the failure of “Intellectual Property” to have an actual real definition. Advocates of “Intellectual Property” neglect a whole host of areas in which: 1. Some concept is created by someone, and 2. A third party freely benefits (e.g. words (coinage and usage), oral stories (retelling stories from friends to friends), germane practices (method of brushing teeth or tying shoelaces), etc.)

Every word we use falls under this. I did not invent the English language. Other people invent words all the time, which I use freely without giving them compensation. Does this fact make every advocate of “Intellectual Property” a “word” Communist?

If I see my friend eating pizza with a fork, and I adopt this practice without paying him, does this make me a “practice” Communist?

This can even be applied to some physical goods. The air I breathe. I do not pay for it. I use it freely without compensating anyone. Does the fact that air is free make this country “air” Communists? Some people even work hard to change the composition of air by applying cologne or perfume. I benefit freely. Should I be paying these people as they pass by? If I do not advocate paying these people am I an “air” Communist?

Real property, unlike Intellectual Property, is rival. That means one person’s use of the item excludes a second person’s use. If someone steals property from one person that means the original owner no longer can use that property. It does not mean that person can no longer make as much money as he would have otherwise. Only when the actual original owned item is diminished does real theft occur.

In the real world, sometimes people work hard to create something that has massive positive externalities. This fact does not authorize the government to use socialism (in the Nazi sense of the word) to encourage those behaviors.

Posted in Intellectual Property | 2 Comments

those who misrepresent government spending

Posted on May 20, 2011 by christopher fisher

A while back I read a post by Don Boudreaux criticizing those who claim trust funds are not real debt. I realized that while he is responding to a real person who reality believes this, I half scoffed to myself “who on earth believes this nonsense besides this one guy”. Today however, while googling the breakdown of government spending I came across this website posting the following image:

I smelt a rat. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and a whole host of government programs seemed to be noticeably missing. Not over 50% of government spending is on military. I decided to look through their explanation.

The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes.

When can the government spend money and not spend money? Apparently when it gives payouts for social security. This dishonest approach seems to be in favor with those who worship the state. This dishonest approach was used on another famous spending chart as well:

Even neglecting the absences of the real bulk of government spending, the military spending rates were extremely high. The site had this to say:

Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.

How naive and extremely stupid. These site owners do not understand that if the government has money, it will find some way to spend it. Reducing debt is not as glamorous as building a bridge to nowhere or expanding aid to the disenfranchised group de jure.

Instead of cutting out real military ongoing benifits from their “military interest payments”, they dishonestly lumped them together. Do not get me wrong, the American military is the most overpaid workers in America, but that does not justify dishonest methods of making that point.

Posted in Economics, Goverment | Leave a comment

a few questions for Socialists on wealth creation

Posted on May 20, 2011 by christopher fisher

From a leftist paper’s online comments:

People shop at Wal Mart BECAUSE they can’t afford to shop anywhere else because Wal Mart drives other businesses who pay more out. Self fulfilling prophecy!

Is that how it works? This conjures up a few follow-up questions. What is wealth and how is it created? If it is defined as the number pictures of dead white people in our pocket, why should the government not just print out a billion dollars for each American? We could all have swimming pools in our backyards and never have to work again, or is wealth actually different than these monochromatic images? How does one increase in wealth? How does society increase in wealth? How do shifts in labor attribute to this increase in wealth, if at all?

In 1870 there were 80% of Americans working in Agriculture. These were small farms, small businesses. Was this society wealthy? Is the average American wealthier today? Could the agrarian society produce an iPod or a Subaru Outback? What changed between then and now? Was the loss of these small businesses good or bad?

Would our society be better off with the current distribution of labor in the future? Do small businesses today create wealth by standing around in a small store managing a counter? Would we be better off if more people did this activity?

Does any socialist have an answer?

[crickets]

Posted in Economics, Labor, Leftists | Leave a comment

God’s omniscience – a rope of sand

Posted on May 20, 2011 by christopher fisher

One of the first hits on a Google search of open air preacher Jesse Morrell is a blog post detailing what it claims as Morrell’s heresy. Now heresy is a peculiar term levied throughout the ages for the most ridiculous reasons. Any search on historical accusations of heresy will reveal issues that modern Christians could not care less about. Anyone using the word heretic should immediately be viewed with suspicion. They better have insurmountable evidence, or else their ploy can easily be dismissed as a desperate ad hominem attack in lieu of real evidence.

This particular blogger points to a few reasons Morrell is a heretic, one of which I will deal with in this post: God’s omniscience. The blogger writes:

Jesse believes that God doesn’t know the future, but kind of just makes the best choices He can as He finds out what free moral agents decide. This is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the whole Bible!

That is a peculiar claim. The entire Bible supports that God knows the future? Remember, in the sense that this blogger uses the term, he means “know” as if God can see the future like a movie. This is opposed to me knowing that I will go to work tomorrow. I can know things because I make them happen.

The blogger decides to post a few nuggets of evidence for this claim, presumably his best evidence.

(Remember, to be actual evidence these verses must demonstrate not only that God knows the future but that he does so in such a way distinguishable from me knowing that I will go to work tomorrow. God has a huge advantage over me in this regard. Whereas I can get sick, die, or be abducted by criminals, God is immune to such contingencies.

Also, these verses must demonstrate that God knows the future in a way distinguishable from the way Austrian economists knew the price of gold would skyrocket after price controls were lifted. If someone understands human action/nature they can easily predict events, especially if they understand unseen consequences.)

With these two factors in mind, here are the verses offered as evidence of omniscience:

Verse 1:

Isaiah 42:9 – “Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.”

Is this verse referring to:
a. God does the things which he says will happen in the future.
b. God predicts human action accordingly.
or
c. God knows the future like a movie.

From the context and face value, the answers can be any or all.
Calvinism: 0 of 1.

Verse 2:

Isaiah 46:5-10 – “To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me… Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”

Is this verse referring to:
a. God does the things which he says will happen in the future.
b. God predicts human action accordingly.
or
c. God knows the future like a movie.

God will cause “the end” assuming this is referring to the end of the world or the end actions of God. So this would most like fall under answer (a). Even if it is not the end of the world, both this and the next sentence, in context, refer to God doing “all [his] pleasure”. The context tells the reader God’s answer is (a). God can tell us his own future actions.
Calvinism: 0 of 2.

Verse 3:

Jeremiah 1:5 – “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

Is this verse referring to:
a. God does the things which he says will happen in the future.
b. God predicts human action accordingly.
or
c. God knows the future like a movie.

I would answer (d) none of the above. Calvinists often like to quote random verses that have nothing to do with supporting their premise.

This verse is explicitly about fetology. God knows unborn babies before they are formed (not to be confused with conceived). Another fallacy would be to extend God knowing one future event (and this is not a future event) to knowing all future events.
Calvinism: 0 of 3.

Verse 4:

Acts 15:18 – “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.”

Is this verse referring to:
a. God does the things which he says will happen in the future.
b. God predicts human action accordingly.
or
c. God knows the future like a movie.

Do I need to even answer this one?

This verse has the added feature of English language ambiguity. Does God know all his own works that he has completed from creation to now? Does God progressively know from creation to now all his own works that he has completed as he completes them? Does God now know and have always known all his own works now and for always? Sketchy people rely on ambiguous verses for support.
Calvinism: 0 of 4.

Verse 5:

Romans 8:29-30 – ”For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Is this verse referring to:
a. God does the things which he says will happen in the future.
b. God predicts human action accordingly.
or
c. God knows the future like a movie.

This verse gets a little tricky. It is important to remember the fallacy of moving from specifics to generics, in any case.

The words foreknow and predestine have historically been mutilated from their real meanings. Take this instance of the same word “foreknow”. This is Paul speaking:

Act 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, God knows;
Act 26:5 Foreknown of me from the beginning, if he would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

From these verses, does it appear God knew Paul from the beginning of time? If the Calvinist answers yes, he has a huge problem: I changed the words in this verse. Every reference to “the Jews” I changed to “God”. The real verses are as follows:

Act 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Act 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

This foreknowledge is not from the beginning of time. It just means that it started to be known sometime in the past. Beginning refers not to the beginning of history, but from Paul’s childhood (not even his birth). I have addressed “predestination” elsewhere. With this in mind does Romans 8:29-30 prove the Calvinist’s point? The answer is a resounding “no”.
Calvinism: 0 of 5.

It is funny that this Calvinist calls Morrell a heretic based on these verses. It shows the lack of intellectual rigor and integrity of these so-called theologians who attack Open Theism. Does this blogger answer any of Morrell’s own words or look to see if Morrell has answered any of these “proof texts”? It does not appear so.

Calvinism: heavy on rhetoric, light on evidence.

Posted in Open Theism, Theology | 3 Comments

Industrial Revolution and Child Labor

Posted on May 19, 2011 by christopher fisher

Zoolander. While this film may be a zany comedy staring the ever-bland Ben Stiller, it did have one scene that truly made me laugh. Will Ferrell, playing the evil tycoon Mugatu, was brainwashing Stiller into opposing the Prime Minister of Malaysia on that grounds that the Prime Minister was making child labor illegal. He said, nonchalantly: “He is trying to steal jobs away from CHILDREN” (paraphrase). That comment made me chuckle. It was funny. The phrasing, the timing, the manner of delivery. It appealed to every populist instinct, but I felt a cold stabbing in my heart at the same time. Child labors laws do actually impoverish and ruin the lives of the very children they intend to help.

In the classic book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, compiled by Ayn Rand, Robert Hesson articulates this concept in detail. He writes:

…the introduction of the factory system offered a livelihood, a means of survival, to tens of thousands of children who would not have lived to be youths in the pre-capitalistic eras. How did children thrive before the Industrial Revolution? …Locke estimated that a laboring man and his wife in good health could support no more than two children… “What they can have at home, from their parents,” wrote Locke, “is seldom more than bread and water, and that very scantily too.”

Hessen then quotes Mises:

It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchen and the children from their play. These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them, in the strict sense of the term, from death by starvation.

Quite literally, as Mises puts it, children no longer starved to death. Hessen gives us a few numbers:

“The proportion of those born in London dying before five years of age” [quoting Mabel C. Buer] fell from 74.5 percent in 1730-49 to 31.8 percent in 1810-29.40 Children who hitherto would have died in infancy now had a chance for survival.

It is sickening, those who advocate child labor laws. Laws are filled with unintended consequences. Their very purpose is to use force to stop people from performing mutually beneficial activities. These laws, quite literally, “steal jobs away from children.” These children often starve, dig through garbage, or turn to prostitution. It makes me sick when Americans advocate ruining the lives of these precious children.

Futher reading:
Krugman (when he was sane)
Kristof and WuDunn
Also, David Henderson

Posted in Economics, History, Industrial Revolution, Labor, Uncommon Sense | 3 Comments

DOD cracks down on spice

Posted on May 19, 2011 by christopher fisher

The DOD is now drug testing for spice. Not everyone is pleased by this new development, including this girl:

spice

Posted in Humor | Leave a comment

Charles Dickens: Racist and Bad Writer

Posted on March 3, 2011 by christopher fisher

I have always had a particular hatred for the works of Charles Dickens. His incessant use of deus ex machine and his unnatural ability to ruin every ending he ever wrote, make him a despicable read. Naturally, bad plot writers also misjudge and do not understand human nature, or, more likely, those who misunderstand human nature make bad plot writers. A few days ago I learned, not surprisingly, that Dickens was an apologist for murderers, and he was a racist to boot:

In a chapter of Bleak House titled “Telescopic Philanthropy” Dickens ridicules a Mrs. Jellaby who neglects her family for the good of Africans in “Borrio-boola-Gha.”14 On the cover of the serial version of Bleak House, we see Mrs. Jellaby holding two black children. And beside her is a sign reading “Exeter Hall.” [an anti-slavery hub of Christians and Economists]

Charles Dickens does his utmost to blacken the name of abolitionists. He filled his writings with hatred of blacks, jews, Indians, and the likes (see The Noble Savage). He even goes so far as to lend his name in support of people who murder abolitionists. Take the case of Edward John Eyre, who murdered several hundred blacks along with murdering a sympathizer Baptist minister, George Gordon. The case was known as the Eyre Controversy:

On October 7, 1865, a black man was put on trial and imprisoned for trespassing on a long-abandoned plantation, creating anger among black Jamaicans. When one member of a group of black protesters from the village of Stony Gut was arrested, the protesters became unruly and broke the accused man from prison… A few days later on October 11, Bogle marched with a group of protesters to Morant Bay. When the group arrived at the court house they were met by a small volunteer militia who panicked and opened fire on the group, killing seven black protesters before retreating. The black protesters then rioted, killing 18 people (including white officials and militia) and taking control of the town. In the days that followed some 2,000 black rebels roamed the countryside, killing two white planters and forcing others to flee for their lives.

Governor John Eyre sent government troops to hunt down the poorly armed rebels and bring Paul Bogle back to Morant Bay for trial. The troops were met with no organized resistance but killed blacks indiscriminately, many of whom had not been involved in the riot or rebellion: according to one soldier, “we slaughtered all before us… man or woman or child”. In the end, 439 black Jamaicans were killed directly by soldiers, and 354 more (including Paul Bogle) were arrested and later executed, some without proper trials. Paul Bogle was executed “either the same evening he was tried or the next morning.”[1] Other punishments included flogging for over 600 men and women (including some pregnant women), and long prison sentences.

The person responsible for all this, Eyre, also executed Baptist minister George Gordon although he was nowhere near the riot at the time of events. Abolitionists instantly were incensed at the wanton murder by Eyre and set out for his conviction. It is telling that Charles Darwin and his bulldog, Thomas Huxley, even sided with the Christians and Economists against Eyre. The classic line-up on behalf of Eyre included notable pro-slavery forces of the likes of Thomas Carlye and the aforementioned Charles Dickens. Naturally the courts let the murderer go.

Charles Dickens, it is no wonder he is a hero to leftists.

Posted in Goverment, History | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

GM – we all fall down

Posted on December 2, 2010 by christopher fisher

In response to the atrocious new GM commercial I created my own version of it.

The problem with GM’s commercial is that is shirks blame for their downfall and then claims that the US needed to help them up because everyone needs help. Never mind that we were forced to help them out by stooges in Congress. When I am down and out, will GM give me free money? Doubtful.

Posted in Human Nature, videos | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

the dinosaurs will die

Posted on November 30, 2010 by christopher fisher

The world is experiencing a new revolution. In the past, the dinosaurs controlled people. The news media told people how to perceive the world, Hollywood told people how to live, and the Record Companies told people what music was good.

Thanks to innovation. Thanks to technology. Thanks to a beautiful global corporation looking out for its bottom dollar. Now Canon has gifted the world with the t2i. This camera retails for under $1000 and allows the smallest amateur to film professional quality movies.

Hollywood, your days are limited. Look to the record companies and mainstream media as your future. You are slowly dying because people crave freedom.

Posted in dinosaurs will die, Human Nature, Intellectual Property, videos | Tagged , | Leave a comment