The Roman empire became Christian through forced conversion. Did you see my post on the Edict of Thessalonica?
So what? Does that change it becoming Christian? Christians were prosecuted and massacred for not participating in pagan rituals. Or do you think the Roman pagan cults weren't forced on people and everyone loved it so much?
Here's a thought. The Gentiles were too pagan to understand who and what Jesus was, so they fashioned him in the image of their Godmen.
Anything to support this claim with?
From that text from Paul, sure looks like a promotion of blind faith.
That's called quote mining. You can cherry pick quotes that affirm your assumptions this way. The correct approach to Scripture is holistic and informed by the tradition of the Church that has produced it.
Prove your Triune God with logical arguments if you want.
I use TAG which poses that God is the necessary precondition for knowledge (or any universal abstract concepts) to exist. It's argumentation on the paradigm level, comparing the Christian worldview with other possible worldviews and proving only the Christian one can provide justification and grounding for the laws of logic, truth, meaning, purpose, etc.
We can go through it if you're into philosophy, otherwise I don't see much point because it requires good knowledge of logic, metaphysics and epistemology.
You can tell a tree by the fruits it produces, and the Church you hold in high esteem was producing some really crappy fruit force converting people and killing off the opposition. Obviously not a sacred divine institution.
Where do you get the standard for judging that from? As I already told you, Rome killed its opposition too, yet you brushed it aside.
I'm sorry dude, I can't deal with this gnostic idiocy. I just addressed the Ebonite heresy in the other thread and here you come with the same shit again... I don't see a point in arguing. I made my case.
Yes, go through this TAG argument. You brought it up as a flex, so lets see what you have. I'm familiar with philosophy, apologetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Are you?
Like hell you are. I can tell how well versed you are in epistemology based on the arguments you make. You literally believe a 4th c. sect that completely distorts the teachings of the early Church to hold authority over what Jesus was about even though they basically do fanfic of Scripture and reject the tradition itself. Why don't you read what St. Irenaeus wrote about them? Or was he part of the conspiracy to push Christianity on everyone (even though at his time the Church was insignificant and prosecuted by both romans and jews)?
You're mad that Roman emperors became Christian and changed the official religion of the Empire from pagan cults to Christianity. "But they forced them!" Cry me a river. Go read what Nero, Diocletian and Julian did to the Christians who rejected the cults. Oh, but I bet that particular history is made up by the Church and pagan Romans loved their Christian neighbors and brought them blankies and hot cocoa.
Absolutely false. You got that idea from The DaVinci Code, not history.
You have this exactly backwards. You fail at theology, too.
You have no idea about any of this. It also sounds like you have absolutely 0 common sense.
So what? Does that change it becoming Christian? Christians were prosecuted and massacred for not participating in pagan rituals. Or do you think the Roman pagan cults weren't forced on people and everyone loved it so much?
Anything to support this claim with?
That's called quote mining. You can cherry pick quotes that affirm your assumptions this way. The correct approach to Scripture is holistic and informed by the tradition of the Church that has produced it.
I use TAG which poses that God is the necessary precondition for knowledge (or any universal abstract concepts) to exist. It's argumentation on the paradigm level, comparing the Christian worldview with other possible worldviews and proving only the Christian one can provide justification and grounding for the laws of logic, truth, meaning, purpose, etc.
We can go through it if you're into philosophy, otherwise I don't see much point because it requires good knowledge of logic, metaphysics and epistemology.
Where do you get the standard for judging that from? As I already told you, Rome killed its opposition too, yet you brushed it aside.
I'm sorry dude, I can't deal with this gnostic idiocy. I just addressed the Ebonite heresy in the other thread and here you come with the same shit again... I don't see a point in arguing. I made my case.
Like hell you are. I can tell how well versed you are in epistemology based on the arguments you make. You literally believe a 4th c. sect that completely distorts the teachings of the early Church to hold authority over what Jesus was about even though they basically do fanfic of Scripture and reject the tradition itself. Why don't you read what St. Irenaeus wrote about them? Or was he part of the conspiracy to push Christianity on everyone (even though at his time the Church was insignificant and prosecuted by both romans and jews)?
You're mad that Roman emperors became Christian and changed the official religion of the Empire from pagan cults to Christianity. "But they forced them!" Cry me a river. Go read what Nero, Diocletian and Julian did to the Christians who rejected the cults. Oh, but I bet that particular history is made up by the Church and pagan Romans loved their Christian neighbors and brought them blankies and hot cocoa.