Christianity takes over Rome

>Is it pure coincidence that the only wave they didn't assimilate was the one after christianity?
The Visigoths only appeared in Roman territory 80 years after the fact. Even beforehand the Emperor Valens integrated some Gothic people into the Empire. Christianity has nothing to do with the ability for the Romans to integrate their enemies.
Augustine wasn't exactly a key political thinker or really very powerful in the Roman military or in the Italian and Gallic aristocracies.

turn the other cheek works wonders with protecting your border and maintaining a military empire doesn't it?

Rome was founded in 312 CE when Constantine converted to Christianity and moved the capital of Rome to Constantinople.

Attached: images (50) (10).jpg (411x597, 22.72K)

>HRE

Attached: 279213581_4859706950822440_6682172527596288004_n.jpg (719x724, 23.72K)

>turn the other cheek
Funny enough, that only works on translations. Latin makes a difference between inimicus and hostis. Where one is a neighbor you dislike and the other is warriors at the gate of the city.

>source?
Are you fucking retarded? Its called the crisis of the 3rd century. Look it up.
And you do realize the byzantines were christian?
Bullshit.

>turn the other cheek works wonders with protecting your border and maintaining a military empire doesn't it?
They didn't though? It was stil normal Imperial policy to take to punative wars in exchange for any raids on Roman territory or for prestige sake.

In his illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Jesus foretold a great rebellion (apostasy) against true Christianity. (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) For a long period of time, true Christians and false Christians would be indistinguishable. Just as Jesus foretold, the apostasy flourished after the apostles died. (Acts 20:29, 30) While apostate teachings may vary, the various forms of imitation Christianity have all “deviated from the truth.”—2 Timothy 2:18.

Jesus also predicted that the distinction between true and false Christianity would eventually become clear. This has happened in our time, during the “conclusion of a system of things.”—Matthew 13:30, 39.

Nobody cares shut the fuck up

Attached: photonapoleonbasuterwijk-tt-width-637-height-956-crop-1-bgcolor-ffffff-lazyload-0.jpg (637x956, 64.52K)

You should care, because Jesus prophesied that many would claim to be Christian yet fail to obey his commands and that he would reject such ones. (Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 6:46)

Some people would be misled by religious leaders who corrupt true worship to further their own interests. (Matthew 7:15) However, other people would actually prefer imitation Christianity because it would tell them what they want to hear rather than the truth from the Bible.—2 Timothy 4:3, 4.

It was necessary and time for the next chapter. Christianity then proceeded to serve as the central religion for what would arguably become the most successful culture to ever exist on this planet.

shut up lara

Please show your divine breasts. Good wills it!

>the crisis of the 3rd century
what about it?
it ended with Diocletian instituting a system of dividing power which ended in one traitor (C*nstantine) betraying his position granted by the Tetrarchy and starting a civil war to become sole emperor which caused the west to be destroyed.

Attached: Tetrarchy_map3.jpg (991x751, 668.09K)

Sorry pal, she only shows them to her elder during her "cleansing" ritual.

Germans killed Rome, not Christianity.

>Genseric cuts off your food supply
>Majorian tries to get it back
>Ricimer stabs him in the back
>Can't feed soldiers anymore
>lights out

Wrong. Under the Roman catholic empire, faith was not required, only surrender. This is disingenuous and oppressive.

Christians are instructed to submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13) and not to be involved in the political system.

The government was never intended to be a means of evangelism.

The government was never intended to be a means of evangelism. The Church is. And the Church must be flexible enough to adapt to any culture.

Any religion that relies on the power of the state to ensure adherence obviously has NO CONFIDENCE in the power of its God to rule hearts !

Christians do not seek a theocracy nor will the Church overly concern itself with civil/legal issues.

Enforcing civil law is not our business. By the same token, respect for God, contributions, church attendance and other outward expressions of personal piety are not civil concerns.

Jesus nullified the theocratic approach because it had served its purpose. He in turn established an ecclesiastical approach because only God's organization can effectively reach local peoples within the context of their particular customs and circumstances.

What did I say that was false ?

so do you confirm you're called lara?

giving christianity to an empire is like giving poison to a man to cure his illness.

Less than 20 years after Jesus’ death, the apostle Paul indicated that efforts of Satan to cause division and turn men away from the true faith were “already at work.” (2 Thess. 2:7) As early as 49 C.E., in a letter sent out to the congregations, the governing body noted: “We have heard that some from among us have caused you trouble with speeches, trying to subvert your souls, although we did not give them any instructions.” (Acts 15:24) So some within the congregation were vocal about their opposing viewpoint—in this case evidently over the issue of whether Gentile Christians needed to get circumcised and observe the Mosaic Law.—Acts 15:1, 5.

As the first century progressed, divisive thinking spread like gangrene. (2 Timothy 2:17.) By about 51 C.E., some in Thessalonica were wrongly predicting that “the presence” of the Lord Jesus was imminent. (2 Thess. 2:1, 2) By 55 C.E., some in Corinth had rejected the clear Christian teaching regarding the resurrection of the dead. (1 Cor. 15:12) In 65 C.E., others said that the resurrection had already taken place, it being of a symbolic kind that living Christians experience.—2 Tim. 2:16-18.

There are no inspired records as to what took place within the Christian congregation during the next 30 years. But by the time the apostle John wrote his letters (98 C.E.), there were “many antichrists”—persons who denied that “Jesus is the Christ” and that Jesus is the Son of God who came “in the flesh.”—1 John 2:18, 22; 4:2, 3.

For over 60 years, the apostles had ‘acted as a restraint,’ endeavoring to hold back the tide of apostasy. (2 Thess. 2:7; compare 2 John 9, 10.) But as the Christian congregation was about to enter the second century, the last surviving apostle, John, died in 100 C.E. The apostasy that had slowly begun to creep into the congregation was now ready to burst forth unrestrained, with devastating organizational and doctrinal repercussions.

SHOW
YOUR
BREASTS
GOD WILLS IT!

Don’t know what you’re getting at. I’m referring to the period that effectively starts with Charlemagne.

This. Religion is not to be involved in politics

jw.org/en/library/series/more-topics/religion-in-politics/

My name is NOT lara and I am NOT a girl !

Begone

What I'm getting at is Christian elders are expected to treat God's flock in a compassionate way. They are not like worldly rulers, who often lord it over their subjects.

Whereas Charlemagne “compelled the Saxons, under pain of death, to receive baptism, condemned to the severest punishments the breakers of Lent, and everywhere substituted force for persuasion.” (The History of the Christian Church, by William Jones)

>compelled the Saxons, under pain of death, to receive baptism
There's actually no proof he did this.

i only pray to helios

Attached: images.png (624x491, 41.26K)

H. G. Wells says: “He made his wars of aggression definitely religious wars. . . . Whole nations were converted to Christianity by the sword.” In 782 at Verden he massacred in cold blood 4,500 prisoners who had led a revolt and turned back from “Christianity.” Concerning the conquest of Saxony the Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The violent methods by which this missionary task was carried out had been unknown to the earlier Middle Ages.”

Cowed by Charlemagne’s cruel reputation, the Slavs of eastern Europe were easily subdued and converted. In 988 Vladimir, the Russian ruler, maneuvered his marriage to a Byzantine princess, an Eastern Orthodox Catholic, and agreed, as part of the political contract, to become a “Christian.” He then “commanded the collective baptism of his subjects.”

“The conversion of Europe to Christianity,” wrote historian Fisher, “was, after the first heroic age of poverty and enthusiasm, mainly the result of material calculation or political pressure. The Goths, the Franks, the Saxons, the Scandinavians went over to Christianity, not as individuals directed by an inner light, but as peoples subject to mass suggestion and under the direction of political chiefs.”

Christianity did lead to a lot of dysfunction but its not for the reasons chuds think. Instead of being loving pacifists as soon as christians got power they turned into sectarian psychos killing and expropiating from eaxh other based on doctrinal differences. No shit this exasperated divisions.