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.
You think forced conversions is a good thing? You think killing off your religious opposition is a good thing?
I'll take things that never happened for 500 hundred, Alex.
Compulsory conversion is generally not a Christian practice because the teachings of the Church hold that people have free will and come to God willingly. Historically this happened mostly under Justinian in parts of Asia Minor and Africa but it was the exception. You're mistaking Christianity for Islam.
The reality of how Rome (and other nations) was converted follows the model Outlined in the OT - the head of the family (patriarch) converts and so does his entire household - wife, children, relatives and subordinates (see Abraham). Likewise, no one forced Christianity on the masses. It was a process that starts with the conversion of the elites and aristocracy and trickles down to the population at large because society was strictly hierarchical back then and people were dependent and infuenced by those above them socially. Thus Constantine's mother Helen converted him, and the aristocracy was influenced by his conversion and followed suite.
But as you said you can tell a tree by its fruits and many people converted to Christianity because they saw its fruits. Even Julian the Apostate who hated Christ with a passion wrote that Christians were outdoing pagans in charity (it's the same today of cours - Christians are the most charitable group in every society).
I bet it was rabbis and their freemasonic goons who spread that disinformation.
Do some actual research into history. The Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE made Nicene Christianity the official religion of Rome, and the only legal one, upon threat of punishment. Check out https://youtu.be/WkCFJC_cCWg?si=MlGe4Wrj4B7fymSa.
Outlawing and prosecuting heretics is not the same as force converting people to Christianity. The purpose of the edict was to preserve Christianity and go after sectarians, not to baptize pagans by coercion. Theodosius ramped up anti-pagan legislation too and went after their practices and temples but didn't force them to convert.
See, while you say that "Compulsory conversion is generally not a Christian practice...", the truth is that it has been the Christian practice at times whether you like that or not. Check out about the Albigensian Crusade (https://www.cathar.info/cathar_wars.htm#crusade), they killed the Cathars because they wouldn't convert.
Crusades are Rome's thing and we don't consider Rome to be part of the Church after 1054. But there were similar heretical sects which were politicized and rebelled (they were proto-commies denying private property and monogamy) in the East like the Bogomils and they had to be dealt with by force because they terrorized the locals. In general, in a Christian societies heretics were seen as dangerous - much like terrorists are seen by the regime of today.
In today's society, many people are rejecting Christianity because of the fruits of Christians.
What are the fruits of Christians? The creation of civilized society built around long-lasting tradition, community, social cohesion and shared values?
The phrase there's no hate like Christian love is a testament to glaring issues with Christianity. Rabbis and Freemason goons? What are you talking about? Christianity has completely failed to produce some kind of super awesome society to live in and it has had nation after nation to succeed in.
It literally produced the longest lasting empire in history - the Byzantine empire. I'm not sure how you'd define "super awesome" society but it definitely doesn't sound like you apply some objective standard to this and it's all based on your subjective ideas of what such society looks like.
Even with the vast majority of national leadership being Christians for the history of the nation, Christians aren't happy with Christian rule.
How did you determine that? Such a bizarre sweeping claim. How much do you know about the history of Christian monarchies?
Adding that the Christian Priests are all essentially rebranded Rabbis and the Freemasons came from the same group that once compromised Rome and turned all of Europe into some sort of medieval shithole and started the French Revolution.
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.
I'll take things that never happened for 500 hundred, Alex.
Compulsory conversion is generally not a Christian practice because the teachings of the Church hold that people have free will and come to God willingly. Historically this happened mostly under Justinian in parts of Asia Minor and Africa but it was the exception. You're mistaking Christianity for Islam.
The reality of how Rome (and other nations) was converted follows the model Outlined in the OT - the head of the family (patriarch) converts and so does his entire household - wife, children, relatives and subordinates (see Abraham). Likewise, no one forced Christianity on the masses. It was a process that starts with the conversion of the elites and aristocracy and trickles down to the population at large because society was strictly hierarchical back then and people were dependent and infuenced by those above them socially. Thus Constantine's mother Helen converted him, and the aristocracy was influenced by his conversion and followed suite.
But as you said you can tell a tree by its fruits and many people converted to Christianity because they saw its fruits. Even Julian the Apostate who hated Christ with a passion wrote that Christians were outdoing pagans in charity (it's the same today of cours - Christians are the most charitable group in every society).
I bet it was rabbis and their freemasonic goons who spread that disinformation.
Outlawing and prosecuting heretics is not the same as force converting people to Christianity. The purpose of the edict was to preserve Christianity and go after sectarians, not to baptize pagans by coercion. Theodosius ramped up anti-pagan legislation too and went after their practices and temples but didn't force them to convert.
Crusades are Rome's thing and we don't consider Rome to be part of the Church after 1054. But there were similar heretical sects which were politicized and rebelled (they were proto-commies denying private property and monogamy) in the East like the Bogomils and they had to be dealt with by force because they terrorized the locals. In general, in a Christian societies heretics were seen as dangerous - much like terrorists are seen by the regime of today.
What are the fruits of Christians? The creation of civilized society built around long-lasting tradition, community, social cohesion and shared values?
It literally produced the longest lasting empire in history - the Byzantine empire. I'm not sure how you'd define "super awesome" society but it definitely doesn't sound like you apply some objective standard to this and it's all based on your subjective ideas of what such society looks like.
How did you determine that? Such a bizarre sweeping claim. How much do you know about the history of Christian monarchies?
Adding that the Christian Priests are all essentially rebranded Rabbis and the Freemasons came from the same group that once compromised Rome and turned all of Europe into some sort of medieval shithole and started the French Revolution.