Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 11:29 AM
340 online now:
Coyote, DOCJ, JonF, kbertsche, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (8 members, 332 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,537 Year: 21,143/21,208 Month: 1,576/2,326 Week: 31/881 Day: 31/119 Hour: 6/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Author Topic:   Questions based on a plain and simple reading of the US Constitution
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12969
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 151 of 169 (802085)
03-12-2017 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
03-12-2017 6:18 AM


Re: Rome didn't fall in a day
So a lot of this number have nothing - or almost nothing - to do with the fall of the Western Empire.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 6:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 6:37 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25856
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 152 of 169 (802086)
03-12-2017 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by PaulK
03-12-2017 6:35 AM


Re: Rome didn't fall in a day
You mean because it includes the Eastern Empire? True enough. But the west took quite a beating too, and I bet you didn't know any of this. And besides, Warner focuses on "classical Christian civilization" as the victim, and that certainly included the Eastern Empire.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 03-12-2017 6:35 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 03-12-2017 6:47 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 167 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-14-2017 4:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12969
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 153 of 169 (802087)
03-12-2017 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
03-12-2017 6:37 AM


Re: Rome didn't fall in a day
Marc was talking about the Western Empire. And obviously the fall of the Eastern Empire is attributed to Islam. Although I doubt that you could call the conquest of the Sassanids a direct threat to "classical Christian civilisation"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 6:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 154 of 169 (802105)
03-12-2017 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by LamarkNewAge
03-11-2017 11:28 PM


Re: For the record I find this Roman QUOTE debate END QUOTE to be an exercise in ignoranc
Another dishonest debater? I have not responded to Jar in this thread. My whole purpose of continuing this Roman subthread is to get markymarc to show how Rome is relevant to the topic as yet he has not. He just continues to spout random reasons for the fall of Rome. Most just rehashes from various apologists. I do not know if it is off topic, because of yet I have not seen the purpose of the argument. He is just spouting a gish gallop with no supporting analysis. I guess at this time we can assume it is off topic as he refuses to support what he asserts.

As for you I made one comment to you. All I said was that your understanding of the Roman Empire was flawed. There was no attack. That you portray my post as an attack speaks to your honesty as a debater and poster on this site. I do notice you posted nothing to support your assertions or to counter my claims.

Good day, Sir.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-11-2017 11:28 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by marc9000, posted 03-12-2017 12:29 PM Theodoric has responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 155 of 169 (802129)
03-12-2017 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Theodoric
03-12-2017 8:57 AM


Re: For the record I find this Roman QUOTE debate END QUOTE to be an exercise in ignoranc
Another dishonest debater? I have not responded to Jar in this thread. My whole purpose of continuing this Roman subthread is to get markymarc to show how Rome is relevant to the topic as yet he has not. He just continues to spout random reasons for the fall of Rome. Most just rehashes from various apologists. I do not know if it is off topic, because of yet I have not seen the purpose of the argument. He is just spouting a gish gallop with no supporting analysis. I guess at this time we can assume it is off topic as he refuses to support what he asserts.

It goes back to my Message 93. Twice you asked me to clarify, and I thought you were just taunting, so I ignored it based on my experiences of you from the past. But it seems you genuinely didn't understand it, so I'll clarify. First, the main points of my introduction to the subject of Rome in that message;

Razd writes:

Because this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, because America is (or was) a beacon of hope for people around the world. Because America prided itself once on being a land for refugees to come and seek asylum from horrors of war and famine in other countries.

Because they are human beings with human rights.

So I expect people to come to America to find their dreams, and that the more desperate they are, the more willing they will be to use whatever means possible to get here. Because that is what people do when they can no longer live in their home country. I accept that as part of the price of being a land of freedom and liberty and justice and equality ... not just words ( ... that ALL men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights ... with liberty and justice for all).

The U.S. didn't come into existence automatically, and it won't be preserved automatically. I think you're taking its existence for granted. A lot of people on the political left in the U.S. do today. It's happened before, the Roman Empire as only one example, and it can take hundreds of years for a fallen civilization to recover. It's been estimated that it was a thousand years before Europeans again achieved as high a standard of living as they had in Roman times.

Razd, Jar, and most all those who desperately want the U.S. to be flooded with immigrants post like the U.S. is free of challenges and problems, and is just as fully equipped now as it was 100 years ago to welcome immigrants and give of itself to provide for them. They claim that even illegal immigrants will be more of a benefit to the U.S. than they cost, even though they aren't educated in and experienced in the responsibilities that go along with maintaining the standard of living that we still have in the U.S. That's the reason there are immigration laws.

The wide-open-borders advocates don't fully believe this of course, they want immigrants, especially illegal ones, to come here so they can be recruited to vote for Democrats. They know they're close - the last election showed that with just a little more inner-city mob vote they can fix it so no Republican ever becomes president again.

Links that show the basics of why the Roman Empire collapsed show a ~taking for granted~ attitude by both the citizens and government of their society much like todays Democrats take for granted the existence of today's U.S. government structure and standard of living.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Theodoric, posted 03-12-2017 8:57 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Theodoric, posted 03-12-2017 12:33 PM marc9000 has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 156 of 169 (802131)
03-12-2017 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by marc9000
03-12-2017 12:29 PM


Re: For the record I find this Roman QUOTE debate END QUOTE to be an exercise in ignoranc
So your rants actually are off topic. Thanks for clarifying.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by marc9000, posted 03-12-2017 12:29 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by marc9000, posted 03-12-2017 12:46 PM Theodoric has responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 157 of 169 (802132)
03-12-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by LamarkNewAge
03-11-2017 11:28 PM


Re: For the record I find this Roman QUOTE debate END QUOTE to be an exercise in ignoranc
It's simple, they just didn't want you interfering with what they had planned for me. They expected me to respond to them in a defensive way to Theodoric's claim of expertise on the Roman Empire. It didn't work out for them.

I expect you'd like to show that Christianity itself had a lot to do with the fall of Rome. Of course I disagree, but a discussion of that here would clearly get too far off topic. If you'd like to start a new thread go ahead, but as always, my time is limited for a weeks or months long discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-11-2017 11:28 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Theodoric, posted 03-12-2017 1:48 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 163 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-13-2017 4:10 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 158 of 169 (802133)
03-12-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Theodoric
03-12-2017 12:33 PM


Re: For the record I find this Roman QUOTE debate END QUOTE to be an exercise in ignoranc
So your rants actually are off topic. Thanks for clarifying.

The topic is (thread starter) Jar's desire to find constitutional authority for as much immigration as possible. Very comparable to the mistakes made in the Roman Empire.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Theodoric, posted 03-12-2017 12:33 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 03-12-2017 1:11 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 160 by Theodoric, posted 03-12-2017 1:44 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29183
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 159 of 169 (802135)
03-12-2017 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by marc9000
03-12-2017 12:46 PM


Re: For the record I find this Roman QUOTE debate END QUOTE to be an exercise in ignoranc
marc writes:

The topic is (thread starter) Jar's desire to find constitutional authority for as much immigration as possible.

And once again marc, that is simply a lie.

You simply seem incapable of ever telling the truth.

Nowhere have I suggested there was a constitutional authority for as much immigration as possible. Rather the topic as laid out in the OP says that people within the US have certain rights and those rights are outlined in the US Constitution.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by marc9000, posted 03-12-2017 12:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 160 of 169 (802137)
03-12-2017 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by marc9000
03-12-2017 12:46 PM


Re: For the record I find this Roman QUOTE debate END QUOTE to be an exercise in ignoranc
Very comparable to the mistakes made in the Roman Empire

Alas, you refuse to show how they are comparable or that they are even relevant. Instead you present a hodgepodge of reasons why the Roman empire may have failed without any analysis of how they pertain to the USA.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by marc9000, posted 03-12-2017 12:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 161 of 169 (802138)
03-12-2017 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by marc9000
03-12-2017 12:42 PM


Re: For the record I find this Roman QUOTE debate END QUOTE to be an exercise in ignoranc
Do you really believe there is some sort if conspiracy? All I want you to do is actually present an argument, not just assertions and a gish gallop of reasons apologists think caused the demise of the Roman Empire.

When I requested that all I received were lies and personal attacks.

Edited by Theodoric, : Can I buy a d


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by marc9000, posted 03-12-2017 12:42 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by marc9000, posted 03-12-2017 5:06 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 162 of 169 (802161)
03-12-2017 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Theodoric
03-12-2017 1:48 PM


Re: For the record I find this Roman QUOTE debate END QUOTE to be an exercise in ignoranc
Do you really believe there is some sort if conspiracy? All I want you to do is actually present an argument, not just assertions and a gish gallop of reasons apologists think caused the demise of the Roman Empire.

When I requested that all I received were lies an personal attacks.

From your Message 108;

ABE
Look up lead poisoning in Rome while your at it.

Then, from my Message 141;

quote:
Since they were constantly consuming lead in wine and in other forms many Romans were dying. The excessive drinking made them all exposed to lead in their bodies, ultimately killing and poisoning them.

https://prezi.com/...the-top-10-reasons-for-the-fall-of-rome

Wine? Excessive drinking? Maybe the problem was more with drunkenness than it was with lead in water. Does the U.S. today have a bigger and bigger appetite for drinking, and more importantly, illegal drugs resulting in overdoses?

This is one small part of the substance I presented, and this part was in a direct response to your suggestion. You can't address it at all? You don't have sources that prove that the lead poisoning was ONLY a result of polluted drinking water, and NOT the result of excessive alcohol consumption, possibly from careless methods of brewing their drinks?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Theodoric, posted 03-12-2017 1:48 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 163 of 169 (802221)
03-13-2017 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by marc9000
03-12-2017 12:42 PM


This will be my last post in this thread on the ROMAN EMPIRE.
I will start a thread that fully and decisively makes my case. sometime.

quote:

I expect you'd like to show that Christianity itself had a lot to do with the fall of Rome.

I don't accept that Catholics and Protestants are anything but anti-Christian. The "Pagan Roman Empire" before Constantine tolerated the real Christians (and even Catholics were tolerated mostly). Circumcised Jewish Christians were tolerated before 313 in the West and 325 in the East. They were an old faith that wasn't required to worship the Roman Gods.

380 was a turning point against (the non-Catholic)Christians.

Here will be a few quotes to show what I am getting at.

First an old (flawed view). From the old Cambridge Ancient History.

quote:

It has often been alleged that Christianity in its political effects was a disintegrating force and tended to weaken the power of Rome to resist her enemies. It is difficult to see that p310 it had any such tendency, so long as the Church itself was united. Theological heresies were indeed to prove a disintegrating force in the East in the seventh century, when differences in doctrine which had alienated the Christians in Egypt and Syria from the government of Constantine facilitated the conquests of the Saracens. But, after the defeat of Arianism, there was no such vital or deep-reaching division in the West, and the effect of Christianity was to unite, not to sever, to check, rather than to emphasise, national or sectional feeling. In the political calculations of Constantine it was probably this ideal of unity, as a counterpoise to the centrifugal tendencies which had been clearly revealed in the third century, that was the great recommendation of the religion which he raised to power.108 Nor is there the least reason to suppose that Christian teaching had the practical effect of making men less loyal to the Empire or less ready to defend it. The Christians were as pugnacious as the pagans. Some might read Augustine's City of God with edification, but probably very few interpreted its theory with such strict practical logic as to be indifferent to the safety of the Empire. Hardly the author himself, though this has been disputed.
J. B. BURY


He is talking about the post 380 period

quote:

As soon as he came to Constantinople Theodosius began expelling the Arians, who had hitherto been in possession. The Aryan bishop, Demophilus, left the city (Socr., V, 7; Soz., VII, 5), St. Gregory of Nazianzus undertook the administration of the diocese. In January, 381, the prefect had orders to close all Arian chapels in the city and to expel those who served them. The same severe measures were ordered throughout Theodosius's dominion, not only against Arians, but also in the case of Manichæans and all other heretics. However Sozomen says that the emperor "made severe punishment by his laws but did not carry them out, for he did not wish to punish, but only to frighten his subjects, that they might think as he did about Divine things, And he praised those who were converted of their own accord" (Church History VII.12). In 381 the Second General Council was held at Constantinople under his auspices (Socrates, Church History V.8; Sozomen, Church History VII.7). In 383 he attempted a conference at his capital between Catholics and Arians, with a view to reconciliation; but no result was obtained (Socr., V, 10; Sozomen, Church History VII.12). In the same year Gratian was murdered at Lyons (25 Aug.) and Clemens Maximus usurped the imperial title in the West (383-388). Theodosius acknowledged the usurper on condition that he would allow Gratian's brother, Valentinian II, to reign in Italy. In 387 Maximus broke the contract and expelled Valentinian, who fled to Theodosius. Theodosius brought him back with an army, and defeated and executed Maximus at Aquileia. Valentinian II now reigned in the West until 392. It was also in 387 that Theodosius showed such tolerance in the affair of the statues at Antioch (see JOHN CHRYSOSTOM).

During all his reign Theodosius took severe measures against the surviving remnants of paganism. In 388 a prefect was sent around Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor for the purpose of destroying temples and breaking up pagan associations; it was then that the Serapeum at Alexandria was destroyed (Socr., V, 16). Libanius wrote a "Lamentation" about the destruction of the fanes of the gods (peri ton leron, ed. R. Foerster, Bibl. Script. Gr. et Rom. Teubner). In 391 Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored in the Roman Senate (cf. Gibbon, "Decline and Fall", xxviii).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm


Now 5 myths covered by the Washington Post

quote:

Five myths about the decline and fall of Rome

By Nathan Pilkington

December 2, 2016 
Nathan Pilkington is a lecturer in the department of history at Columbia University.

Nathan Pilkington is a lecturer in the department of history at Columbia University.

The rise of Donald Trump supposedly heralds the decline of the American idea, according to many of his critics, who’ve taken the opportunity to compare this moment to the fall of Rome’s republic in 31 B.C. or its empire in the 5th century A.D. Any historian is happy when their period of study comes into vogue, but these requiems leave a false impression of Roman antiquity and the causes of its greatest crises.
....
[Myth 5 and Gibbons popular b.s.]

In his monumental study “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Edward Gibbon famously proposed that Christianity sparked a decrease in civic duty and a corresponding unwillingness to sacrifice for the empire in its period of greatest stress, ultimately leading (along with barbarian invasions) to its collapse. Because of the widespread acclamation accorded to it, both at the time and by later generations, Gibbon’s work has had unusual longevity.

But no modern scholar believes Gibbon’s thesis, if only for the simple fact that a Christian Roman Empire in the east survived the Germanic migration and lived on as the Byzantine Empire for nearly another millennium. Gibbon was also aware of the fact that the Goths were Christian, but he chose to ignore this when assailing the Roman Empire for its adherence to a new faith. All parties at the end of the Roman Empire were Christian.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...77-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html


Gibbon is responsible for so many lies and confusion. I don't have time to disambiguate.

See page 378 for J.B. Bury offering contradictions to his earlier claim that there were no Arians in the Empire and that do
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/...ts/secondary/BURLAT/11*.html

quote:

§ 4. Persecution of Heresy

The persecution of heretics was more resolute and severe than the persecution of pagans. Those who stood outside of the Church altogether were less dangerous than those members of it who threatened to corrupt it by false doctrine, and the unity of the Catholic faith in matters of dogma was considered of supreme importance. "Truth, which is simple and one," wrote Pope Leo I, "does not admit of variety."108 A modern inquirer is accustomed to regard the growth of heresies as a note of vitality, but in old times it was a sign of the active operation of the enemy of mankind.

The heresy which was looked upon as the most dangerous and abominable of all was that of the Manichees, which it would be truer to regard as a rival religion than as a form of Christianity.109 It was based on a mixture of Zoroastrian and Christian ideas, along with elements derived from Buddhism, but the Zoroastrian principles were preponderant. This religion was founded by Manes in Persia in the third century, and in the course of the fourth it spread throughout the Empire, in the West as well as in the East. Augustine in his youth came under its influence. The fundamental doctrine was that of Zoroaster, the existence of a good and an evil principle, God and Matter, independent of each other. The Old Testament was the work of the Evil Being. Matter being thoroughly evil, Jesus Christ could not have invested himself with it, and therefore his human body was a mere appearance. The story of his life in the Gospels was interpreted mystically. The Manichees had no churches, no altars, no incense; their worship consisted in prayers and hymns; they did not celebrate Christmas, and their chief festival was the Bêma, in March, kept in memory of the death of their founder, who was said to have been flayed alive or crucified by Varahran I. They condemned marriage, and practised rigorous austerities.110

The laws against the Manichees, which were frequent and p379 drastic, began in the reign of Theodosius I. The heresy was insidious, because the heretics were difficult to discover; they often took part in Christian ceremonies and passed for orthodox, and they disguised their views under other names. Theodosius deprived them of civil rights and banished them from towns. Those who sheltered themselves under harmless names were liable to the penalty of death; and he ordered the Praetorian Prefect of the East to institute "inquisitors" for the purpose of discovering them.111 This is a very early instance of the application of this word, which in later ages was to become so offensive, to the uses of religious persecution. When the government of Theodosius II, under the influence of Nestorius, made a vigorous effort to sweep heresy from the world, the Manichaeans were stigmatised as men who had "descended to the lowest depths of wickedness," and were condemned anew to be expelled from towns, and perhaps to be put to death112 (A.D. 428). Later legislation inflicted death unreservedly; they were the only heretics whose opinions exposed them to the supreme penalty.

Arcadius, at the beginning of his reign, reaffirmed all the pains and prohibitions which his predecessors had enacted against heretics.113 In most cases, this meant the suppression of their services and assemblies and ordinations. The Eunomians, an extreme branch of the Arians, who held that the Son was unlike the Father, were singled out for more severe treatment and deprived of the right of executing testaments. This disability, however, was afterwards withdrawn, and it was finally enacted that a Eunomian could not bequeath property to a fellow-heretic.114 Thus there was a certain vacillation in the policy of the government, caused by circumstances and influences which we cannot trace.

The combined efforts of Church and State were successful in virtually stamping out Arianism, which after the end of the fourth century ceased to be a danger to ecclesiastical unity. They were also successful ultimately in driving Nestorianism out of the Empire. The same policy, applied to the Monophysitic heresy, p380 failed. Marcian's law of A.D. 455 against the Eutychians was severe enough.115 They were excluded from the service of the State; they were forbidden to publish books criticising the Council of Chalcedon; and their literature, like that of the Nestorians, was condemned to be burned. But in Syria, where anti-Greek feelings were strong, and in Egypt, where national sentiment was beginning to associate itself with a religious symbol, all attempts to impose uniformity were to break down.

The severe measures taken by the State against the Donatists in Africa were chiefly due to their own fanaticism
[see link for more]


See this.

quote:

The Battle of the Frigidus, also called the Battle of the Frigid River, was fought between 5–6 September 394, between the army of the Eastern Emperor Theodosius I and the army of Western Roman ruler Eugenius.

Because the Western Emperor Eugenius (though nominally Christian) had pagan sympathies, the war assumed religious overtones, with Christianity pitted against the last attempt at a pagan revival. The battle was the last serious attempt to contest the Christianization of the empire; its outcome decided the outcome of Christianity in the western Empire, and the final decline of Greco-Roman polytheism in favour of Christianity over the following century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Frigidus


I'm having trouble finding the 376-382 war against the Goths but Goths ended up being settled in Rome in large numbers and they were Arians.

Also Rome fell in Spain and France around 415-420 and Africa fell in 430. Arianism was a major cause of conflict as Catholics outlawed it but after 430 there was freedom in the Empire.

The Theodosian Emperors outlawed Arianism and were fanatical about it. They got worse and worse. from 380 to 455.

I'll make a better case in a new thread. it will be a lot longer. And have lot of quotes and sources showing the incredible Gothic presence in the Western Empire plus have quotes showing the Arian issu to be important.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by marc9000, posted 03-12-2017 12:42 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 03-13-2017 7:58 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 164 of 169 (802235)
03-13-2017 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by LamarkNewAge
03-13-2017 4:10 PM


Re: This will be my last post in this thread on the ROMAN EMPIRE.
I will start a thread that fully and decisively makes my case. sometime.

[huge snip]

I'll make a better case in a new thread. it will be a lot longer. And have lot of quotes and sources showing the incredible Gothic presence in the Western Empire plus have quotes showing the Arian issu to be important.

I'll look forward to that, but I'll be more likely to participate if you briefly describe, in your own words, just what your point is. And if you take exception to any of my Message 139. Feel free to quote me from that message in the new thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-13-2017 4:10 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-13-2017 8:27 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 165 of 169 (802237)
03-13-2017 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by marc9000
03-13-2017 7:58 PM


The issueeof ROMAN EMPIRE.
My point is related to your link from post 139. That link claimed that the post Constantine or 313 Roman Empire brougbt freedom to Christianity which should, by now, be seen as a lie. It brought persecution AND persecution AND more persecution to Christians. Hence the reason for the 395 splitting of the Empire. I also reject the idea that the German immigrants werabscessv savages who weren't supporttheaoc I can't type I keep getting words deleted
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 03-13-2017 7:58 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017