QUOTE
How did the Christians destroy the Romans? lol! The Roman people became Christian themselves,
Not really... Ya see, it was the Germanic barbarians and the Turks that destroyed the Romans
Again you parrot the Christian “history” without bothering to check its validity. The Roman empire had been, from its inception, successfully defended by its Legions. It was a military monolith, stationed in great fortresses on the frontiers, that had long mastered the arts of military support and logistics. A force of 33 Legions, the army was able to vanquish enemies of the Roman state in all areas, forest, desert, mountain, marsh or sea. Unfortunately, unscrupulous men increasingly used the legions to make emperors. Even though Constantine (known to Christians as Constantine the Great) had used the “Gallic Army” to claim his power, he was wary of the legions and was determined to close the door for any future use of them to make emperors.
In his reorganization of the Army, Constantine created a mobile field force of 100,000 troops (approximately the size of 9 Legions) all drawn from the frontier garrisons. In other words, his fear of someone doing as he did; caused him to denude the frontier forces, putting protection of the regime ahead of protection of the Empire. As Arthur Farrill (“The Fall of the Roman Empire” 1989) reported, “The hugh mobile reserve created by Constantine (306-337) fatally weakened the frontier forces and emphasized cavalry at the expense of infantry ... Yet in the crucial battles that the legions fought against Goths and Huns it was the clash of foot soldiers – not cavalry – that decided the Empire's fate."
Unfortunately for Rome, these forces were replaced with the “Limitarei”, small groups of 1000 men under a “Dux” (our term Duke comes from that name). These small detachments were stationed on hill-top forts, where essentially they avoided any engagement with an enemy they were not expected to defeat. The Greek historian Zosimus (6 century CE) noted:
"Constantine abolished security by removing the greater part of the soldiery from the frontiers to the cities that needed no auxiliary forces. He thus deprived of help the people who were harassed by the barbarians and burdened tranquil cities with the pest of the military, so that several straightway were deserted. Moreover he softened the soldiers, who treated themselves to shows and luxuries. Indeed (to speak plainly) he personally planted the first seeds of our present devastated state of affairs." (Historia Nova, II.34)
Training and equipment for these demoralized troops seriously declined, the expensive body armor was abandoned and leather caps replace the iron helmet. With the demise of the old structure of the army, the 'democratic' escalator, whereby a common soldier, moving through the ranks, could enter the imperial entourage and reach for the throne itself, passed away. The stage was now set for 'Lords' on horseback and shoddily equipped conscripts.
Thanks to Constantine's "religious revolution" and the establishment of a state-endorsed Christian Church, the manpower that might have defended the empire was drawn increasingly into the ranks of the priesthood. The Church offered "the officer class" an alternative career to that of the marching camp or frontier garrison, one superior in rewards of status, wealth and power – and all in safety and comfort. Not for nothing did the Church model its hierarchy on that of the army; it was a fine career for a bright young Roman who preferred to fight the hordes of Satan to the horsemen of Germany or Asia. This is what the conversion to Christianity did to the Roman state, in as far as security and defense went, but that is not the full extent of their unfavorable impact on the Roman state and Roman people.
The simple-minded young emperors following Constantine, each with the guidance of a Christian Bishop, spent their days at court issuing increasingly vindictive edits against heretics and unbelievers. At a time when it was urgently needed to regenerate the legions, the State, advised by the Church, devoted ever more of its dwindling resources to the persecution of its own people. As the “pressing” issues such as whether Christ was actually God and just how virtuous was virginity were being labored over, the provinces were taxed into destitution, the soldiers went unpaid, and barbarian raids went unopposed.
Throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, seemingly limitless funds, extracted from a diminishing tax-base as citizens fled the towns to avoid the rapacious tax collectors, poured into the imperial coffers and consequently the Church coffers. This bonanza intensified the ferocious infighting that has always been a mark of Christianity – Catholic versus Arian, Donatist versus Orthodox, Alexandria versus Constantinople, and Milan versus Rome. In the imperial court a coterie of bishops, regents and eunuchs vied for influence and power. Christianity, far from unifying the Roman world with a single faith, rent division and civil conflict throughout the empire.
Yet the fanatical intolerance rampaged on, with increasingly more severe consequences. Again and again, legislation criminalizing pagan religion and philosophies (rational thought and science) with the severest of penalties were issued. The very fact that these legislations had to be constantly repeated give evidence that the populace of the empire had to be brought kicking and screaming into Christianity, initiating resistance and disaffection to the imperial cause and opening the door to preference of a more tolerant barbarian king to the adolescent fanatics on the Roman throne. By the fall of the city of Rome in the late 5th century (467 CE is the accepted date) to the “barbarians; the religion, after fatally weakening the host body, migrated its psychosis to the newcomers.
The common Christian prevarication is that of “blaming of barbarians” for the destruction of ancient civilization, a deed that they perpetrated. The scenario is familiar to everyone. Hordes (a literal flood) of bloodthirsty pagan barbarians, decimating the Legions, pouring into the empire, sacking Rome and toppling civilization. This leaves only the faintly flickering lights of the Christian monks, keeping the dim flame of civilization alive until a new and brighter day dawns.
Yeah Right! Those barbarian hordes were Christians and had been for nearly a century! The first pillaging of Rome was accomplished by the Visigoths (Christians since the early 3rd century) under their King Alaric in 410 CE. They withdrew from the city after 3 days. In 455 CE the Vandals (also Christians) spent 14 days taking what they could. In all actuality, the Arian barbarians restored much of the glory of Rome for a short period, ruling from Ravenna in a much enlightened manner. At least until the Bishop of Rome managed to inveigle his brand of Christianity into their regime.
The conventional 'wisdom' is a travesty, written by the winning side. The barbarians in the 3rd and 5th centuries CE – like the barbarians of the 1st century CE or 2nd century BCE – had wanted a share of the good life, not the common ruination of everyone. What was different in the age of Constantine and Theodosius, compared to the age of Augustus and Hadrian, was the degenerate nature of the Roman state which opposed them. The barbarians, in the passage of centuries, had learnt from the empire: the practical skills of agriculture and horticulture; the value of armor; the exercise of power within a framework of law; even a version the new Christian religion of the Romans. But the empire, for its part, had turned in on itself, had wasted its energies on the indulgences of a theocratic tyranny, had narrowed its vision, had ruined itself – a process that began with Constantine and his plans of a Christian dynasty. Christianity was the one major factor in the demise of the Roman State and through it’s weakening of the Roman Defense Forces, subsuming of Rome’s legal system and the destruction of pagan learning and philosophy caused the rapid sink into the Dark Ages, a darkness that didn’t lift again for over 1 millennium.
QUOTE
All everyone can seem to do these days is say how Christians are over stepping their bounds or that we're trying to ban the rights of minorities.... But WE are the ones getting our rights taken away,
Actually, you are just having your rights pared back to equal the rights of everyone else. In the past, because at one time the U.S. was over 90% Christian (as opposed to the present 68% now), you could lord it over any non-Christian groups and even some “off-brand” Christian groups. Now the worm is slowly turning. Those “extra” rights that you had in the past are being challenged in the courts and being stripped away, leaving Christians with the same rights as any other American. Get used to it, your religion is bleeding membership at the rate of 1-3% per year and soon your membership will be as low as that of Europe and Britain.
QUOTE
We can't pray in school anymore; we can't say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance; the 10 commandments are being taken out of public buildings
From the inception of our current republic until the early 1900s, prayer in the school was not only not considered, but thought of as “tacky” - something that only the “papists icon-worshippers” would do. The words “under God” were inserted in the 1950’s and were not part of the original pledge. I actually remember when they included it and how all of us kids griped about it making the pledge so long. Unless the 10 commandments (which are patently a religious item) are part of a display of the evolution of government and law-making, they do not belong in a public building. How would you like to see quotations from the I-Ching or the Vesta in public buildings? Our forefathers, many of whom were Deists and other non-Christians, set up a secular Republic, not a Christian Republic (actually Christian combined with Republic is an oxymoron, since Christianity advocates a theocracy).
QUOTE
they either see Christians putting accused witches to death or they see a point in history where some corrupt pope or priest used his power to his own advantage and now they think Christians are some kind of evil people and that we're out there banning peoples rights
You are griping because people are seeing actual history portrayed? You ought to be careful, they might also see portrayals of the Africans being enslaved by Christians using the bible to justify their actions. the land of the native Americans being stolen by Christians, the material wealth of the native Americans of Central and South America being stolen, their lands appropriated and their children enslaved and racist laws passed by good Christians to keep other races “in their place”. From what I have been reading in the papers and magazines, Christians are still attempting to ban other people’s rights.
QUOTE
.... If the two people are gay, then they're not following my faith as I do, and they're openly declaring to the world that they don't respect the way God wants the world to work.
Nor should they have to, as Americans they have the right to follow any faith they choose to including not following any faith, if they so desire. Rather that declaring that they don’t respect the way god wants the world to work, they are saying that they do not accept your religious worldview, which again is their right. If you have any real evidence that your god is THE god and that he says gays can’t marry and be happy – present it now.
QUOTE
No, as I explained already it's not over stepping our bounds. If they want to have a union that is of their own making then fine, but simply put, whatever their declared commitment is called it isn't a marriage that would be recognized by the Christian Church.
Yes, it is stepping over your bounds. You have no legal right to tell other people how they can live, as long as what they do is legal in the sight of the state. Whether their union is recognized by the Christian Church is a moot point, after all, the Christian Church is not the “be-all” of existence, it only thinks it is.
- The Wolf
[right][snapback]819839[/snapback][/right]
For the most part, all you did in that entire post was say what I had already said, but you tried to make it sound like I didn't know what I was talking about.
Just like I stated earlier, people are watching movies and reading stories about things that have happened YEARS ago, and they are now (they didn't do it then) but they are now trying to judge Christians of today by what some of them did a LONG time ago.. Hey ya know what? Napoleon invaded Europe and Russia, maybe we should think of France as a bunch of no good war mongraers *spelling*? And oh yeah, the German people started both of the two world wars, maybe we should take their country from them and start labeling them as genocidal murderers? ........Do you see what clinging to the past and judging the people of the present does? What ethnic group are you? Are you a Native American? If you are you must have had a few ancestors that ransacked and scalped a few early settlers, maybe we should call you a savage? Or maybe your Mongolian, maybe we should label you a monster because of how your people showed such little mercy in the past? Or maybe your english, maybe we should call you a Royal pig because a lot of English kings and queens ruled their people badly?
If you and others keep trying to label todays Christians in the same category as some Christians in the past, the world will continue to operate in prejudice. Which seems to be what you people are all about getting rid of isn't it...?
oh...boy....i feel a big something is about to erupt....
. I had 3 options then: