Replies

Havoc, might I suggest you go to any search engine and enter the words "Roman Empire"?

The Roman Empire was directly responsible. But it did not Order other Nations to do it's dirty work. It did that itself. Thus they martyred, they didn't cause anyone else to martyr on their behalf. being guilty of the blood of a saint presumes a saint was put to death and that one was only secondarily responsible. If one doesn't directly kill a saint, one has not martyred them. If they compell another government to do so, that government is guilty of the martyr; but, the compellor is guilty of the blood as well. This is true with the Holy Roman Empire in which the Roman Catholic Government both martyred christians for their non Romanist beliefs and compelled the governments of Spain France and Germany to do likewise.

Show me another that fits that mold. This is a restatement of something that has been before you at another time. At that time, you and the rest of the crew clammed up and never retorted with anything other than rhetoric. The challenge didn't go away - just the noise from your side. The challenge stands unanswered. It isn't a charge based on nothing. It's based solidly on fact. And I'd be happy to discuss it all you want.

But I won't sit back and be slurred by the likes of your doc with the bad bedside manner over making a conclusion based on Fact rather than claims.

The Roman Empire was directly responsible. But it did not Order other Nations to do it's dirty work. It did that itself.

LOL. No, the Roman Empire never ordered its subject nations to do its dirty work. No, never. LOL.

SD

You initially wrote:

Now name me any empire since Christ that both Put Christians to death and because of the way that empire was structured, also ordered other authorities under their jurisdiction to do the same

and then:

Show me another that fits that mold. This is a restatement of something that has been before you at another time. At that time, you and the rest of the crew clammed up and never retorted with anything other than rhetoric. The challenge didn't go away - just the noise from your side. The challenge stands unanswered. It isn't a charge based on nothing. It's based solidly on fact. And I'd be happy to discuss it all you want

You were shown an example - two in fact, based on your initial statement. And those are based solidly in fact. So it stands answered - if you consider facts that refute your assertions to be "noise", that's your choice.