Jewish holy book PROMOTES idiocracy
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
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?
Doesn't it make sense to you that anyone who deviates from the faith and away from the Church's teaching is practically setting himself outside the Church and becoming a heretic? That law is called the law of identity and it's one of the laws of logic. What, you expect everyone who splits from the Church to be equally the Church as if there's no standard for determining what the true Church is? If I go to some island and declare a new nation and call it USA would that make sense?
"Market of free ideas"? Wtf are you using Adam Smith and John Lock's liberal ideas as if any of this makes sense before their time? That's an anachronism. For thousands of years, nobody gave a shit about the free market of ideas before the freemasons took over in the 18c.
"So you need to fight your enemies who seek to destroy you in order to keep yourself together? How weak are you?" You're so bad faith it's not even funny.
Polygamy was never the ideal. The ideal was monogamy in marriage and that's why God created a man and a woman to become one flesh and not a man and 5 women. The law of the OT was appropriate for the time and it regulated the existing practices of the time including polygamy and slavery. As humanity matured and with God assuming human nature, such practices were abandoned.
Every kingdom on Earth has a beginning and an end. The only eternal Kingdom is the Kingdom of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem which is the Church. There's no utopia and no heaven on Earth - this is an antichristian illuminist and talmudic concept.
Sorry to break it to you, but what you have in the US is not Christian rule. It never was. It's a freemasonic liberal democratic rule under republican secularism. This form of government came straight from the Enlightenment and the French revolution (mostly the right side of Parliament there - the girondins). The founding Fathers were revolutionary antimonarchists. In what clown world does the US which is worse than Rome under Nero, Babylon and Sodom and Gomorrah together pass for a Christian country? That's absolutely ridiculous.
The US is not even pagan like Ancient Greece - they were way more virtuous. Today it's outright antichristian in the most blatant way. Do you really think that just because someone stamps a marketing label on something, it becomes that thing? Is this why MAGAtards believe Trump is a Christian?
I would, but that's not happening with today's society. Also I'm not an American and my country was a monarchy less than 100 years ago. In the future if more people turn to God it would make sense for them to organize themselves in a Christian monarchy but it's not something that can be forced from the top. This is the model of the OT too - the jewish people asked God for a king and a king, Saul, was given to them.
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.