Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No one said there was no purpose for it. We simply rejected your made up explanation.So why Christian symbolism (seemingly more representative of a sword) if most here say there was no purpose for it, in disagreement with me
Constantine to God.By who and to who?
All we have stated is the reasons you put forth have no basis in reality. That is not the same thing as saying it had no purpose.What I heard here was either there was no Christians fighting or they wouldn't have understood the new symbol.
So why Christian symbolism (seemingly more representative of a sword) if most here say there was no purpose for it, in disagreement with me
Agreed and that also applied during the civil war and to Christian soldiers fighting on either side.There was plenty of purpose for it for Constantine, firstly to ally Christians within the Empire (8%) with his cause, which gave him a wide base on which to build power.
Exactly and Constantine was not Christian either but a worshipper of the sun god, himself and as a incarnation of various gods including Jesus. But he knew how to manipulate Christianity for his own purposes.The point I made earlier that the ChiRho does not appear on Constantine's Arch, constructed as it was by the Senate, and so, despite all manner of Symbolism, the Christian Symbolism is not there.
Truth doesn't care what you think. It remains true regardless.I'm not interested in a denomination's reality
So in the end Constantine was a great politician doing what politicians do in the world of man. He can't be faulted for working in the ways of the world. The Church however was not supposed to be taking the route of the world of man. They can be faulted for not sticking with the Kingdom. God was well aware they would do this (being human in spite of their claims of godly connections) and used them for His purpose.
The church should not have been made the Supreme law of the land giving it's leaders diplomatic immunity because that is where the abuse begins. No one anywhere should be given diplomatic immunity to be held above the law if they are a human being. The laws are of God, all start with God, and since there is no one above Him, no one should be immune to the laws. Now we have all this sexual abuse of children in the Vatican. Can no one be held accountable? What should have been done is what was done in America. Freedom of religion. No one has the right to tell another person who they have to worship. For example, I am completely against satanism. I loathe the idea of it however I would stand neck and neck with satanists for them to have the right to worship who they want because that is their right. Do I agree with it? No! Absolutely not but I stand for the RIGHT to worship who we want individually because once that is taken, we are no longer a free society. Does that make sense? I hope no one gets the wrong idea the way I worded that.This is a question for those who have a mostly negative view on the whole issue of Constantine the subsequent Constantinian shift within the Roman Empire towards Christianity. Many have a negative view about this history and I think it would be beneficial to ask two questions:
Why was it a mistake or mostly a mistake for the Church to associate with the Imperium?
Then the follow up would be:
What should the Church have done instead?
The church should not have been made the Supreme law of the land giving it's leaders diplomatic immunity because that is where the abuse begins. No one anywhere should be given diplomatic immunity to be held above the law if they are a human being. The laws are of God, all start with God, and since there is no one above Him, no one should be immune to the laws. Now we have all this sexual abuse of children in the Vatican. Can no one be held accountable? What should have been done is what was done in America. Freedom of religion. No one has the right to tell another person who they have to worship. For example, I am completely against satanism. I loathe the idea of it however I would stand neck and neck with satanists for them to have the right to worship who they want because that is their right. Do I agree with it? No! Absolutely not but I stand for the RIGHT to worship who we want individually because once that is taken, we are no longer a free society. Does that make sense? I hope no one gets the wrong idea the way I worded that.
But Paganism is alive in that its traditions can be found in most all of our major holidays, and Baal basically became Allah, so his worship lives on in Islam.I understand the modern American perspective, I just don't think your ideas about freedom of religion would have been particularly helpful or beneficial to Christians or Christianity at the time of the Roman Empire. Nor do I think one could reasonably appeal to this enlightenment standard in the fourth century and expect anyone to go along with it. For Pagans the fault of Christians was their unwillingness to worship and give due honour to the gods. For Christians the fault of the Pagans was that they were worshipping false gods and idols, literal demons who masqueraded as gods.
There can be no tolerance between these two diverging views. One had to give way to the other. Thankfully Christianity triumphed.
Yet who, besides the Emperor, was not held accountable to the law? Clergy were not free to do as they wished. They only assumed more power in later centuries as the clerical estates expanded.
If Christians had protected the rights of Pagans to worship their false gods, Paganism might still be around today and I would think that a bad thing. Was Israel punished because it refused to tolerate teh presence of Idolatry? Or because it refused to blot out from the land the idolatry present? I think we should consider that it was the good Kings who destroyed the high places of the worshippers of Baal. It was the bad Kings of Israel who tolerated them.
I'll have to disagree on the historical connection between Pagan and Christian holidays. Especially the typical ones when it comes to Easter. I'm sure there'll be a 2021 thread dedicated to Easter sometime soon. So maybe we can discuss that there.But Paganism is alive in that its traditions can be found in most all of our major holidays, and Baal basically became Allah, so his worship lives on in Islam.
As I understand it, Allah is the correct term for God when worshiping in Arabic Speaking Christian ChurchesAllah
The fact is that Christianity took over pagan holidays and temples, just as the Muslims have done to Christianity in Istanbul/Constantinople and Jerusalem while referring to Jesus and His teachings. It does not mean they adopted their practices.But Paganism is alive in that its traditions can be found in most all of our major holidays
No, that is not a fact.The fact is that Christianity took over pagan holidays
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?