Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ned]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Christian in Europe was spead by the sword especial the one who believe that God is three persons. That why they accue Islam of speading by the swors as that how Christian spead. From the beginning it was forbin to use force to convert people to Islam. It Islam have use force there wouldnot be million's of christian in the middle east left.

The only examples that I know of were the Goths in the 700's, whose persection of the Jews lead to the invasion of the Berbers; and Karl de Grosse's forced conversion of the Saxons.

In all other cases, the covernsions were ordered by King and obeyed by his people. The reason Karl could not simply order the Saxons to convert was they did not feel they owed him any allegience whatsoever. They were a conquered people.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ned

Proteus, you seem to have fallen for the spells and propaganda of our resident communist chairman.

Not exactly.
It´s rather because I am just 2-3 months away from my Diploma in Biology
and as I my study is somehow centered around Biopsychology and Neurobiology,
I also read a lot about Ethology.

Within Animals many strategies center around giving your Genes to the next generation,
normally the female animal takes care that she is only inseminated by the fittest animal she can get (be it the smarttest, or the strongest or the animal which is highest oin the social ladder)

But the male also has a lot of tricks, to get more offspring with his genes. Lions for example are known to kill the Babies of their Rivals after they succeeded in a battle agaionst their Rival and therefore took over his hunting grounds and his harem.
This is done because a lioness can´t get pregneant if she still nurses cubs and, if the cubs are killed she can get sooner pregnant (but this time with the genes of the Lion in Command )
Of course the Lioness tries to prevent this, but she often fails, as the male lion is stronger.
Some Tactics among animals even involve that a male removes the Semen of his predecessor from the femals (various Incsect Species)
or that they risk their lifes either by mating the female (female Spiders are known to eat the males, female mantis are known to bite off the head of their mates during sex (and it has been proven, that a female mantis produces more and healthier offspring if she bites off the head of her mate than if she doesn´t do it) or in order to attract females (female Birds of Paradiese are known to choose the Male with the longest Tail. The Problem is, that longer tails also mean, that the Bird takes longer time to take off, which could mean death, if a Predator appears).

Also some differences between male and female animals (including humans) center around producing offspring with their genes:
For males it is advantageous to inseminate as much females as possible so that as much females as possible get offspring with their genes.
On the other Hand females tend to carefully choose the male from wich they want to get pregnant, according to which male can get the best protection and future for their offspring.
That´s because pregnancy takes a long time for a female during which she first has to bear the child and then to nurse it (and preferably protecting it for some time) until she can think of giving birth to another child (whereas males could inseminate a lot of females during a short time)

So I think, from the standpoint of an ethologist Che is right with thinking, that the Ritual of Marriage could initially also have been be centered around binding the female to the male (but also vice versa), to ensure that the offspring really carry genes from this male alone (and, if polygamous marriages aren´t allowed, also to ensure that the male doesn´t sleep with another female)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Constatine was not full emperor until ater he converted. He was only co-emperor.

Indeed, his conversion was likely before he was even a co-emperor. We have at least three different historical accounts for his conversion, all centered around the battle of Milvian Bridge, in 312. That battle secured him the Western emperorship over his rivals, and he did not become sole emperor until 324.

And I thought it was pretty well-known that the Gothic invaders into the Roman Empire in the 5th century were Christian by that point. After all, a crucial part of that history is the conflict between the Latin Church and the German's Arianism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Remember that Constantine did not make Christianity Rome's official religion. The Edict of Milan simply made Christianity equal to other faiths again. It was Theodosius who established Christianity and created the Corpus Christianum and Ceasaropapism.

[Ned]

And, it was Valentinian III who, in 445, made the Bishop of Rome the Pontifex Maximus, a title the Pope holds to this day.

[Proteus_MST]

I always wondered why Bishops, which were initially just accountants for their parish (and therefore were not considered to be above other members of their parish in a spiritual sense)
could get so much power within the catholic church.

Especially that an accountant of the parisah in Rome became the head of the whole catholic church is something which always amazes me.
Especially as Jesus himself didn´t care a lot about money and just said (about paying taxes): Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

[Elok]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Anyway, when the Romans really wanted to crush a religion, it got crushed. Where are the Druids today?

They're pretty silly, but still ticking in the form of Wicca. Not that it matters for the sake of this discussion. Don't know that the discussion matters for the sake of the validity of Christian doctrine either. The faith was spread by violence in the past, not now. And even if it had to be spread by violence to succeed, that might say just as much about human nature as it does about the faith itself. Hint, hint, Mr. Commie.

[Drake Tungsten]

Actually, Druidism was pretty thoroughly wiped out, so much so that we really don't have much of an idea what Druidic religion actually entailed. There are hints that it was quite the bloody affair and probably bore little resemblence to the tree-hugging Wicca religion we have today.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I always wondered why Bishops, which were initially just accountants for their parish (and therefore were not considered to be above other members of their parish in a spiritual sense)
could get so much power within the catholic church.

Especially that an accountant of the parisah in Rome became the head of the whole catholic church is something which always amazes me.
Especially as Jesus himself didn´t care a lot about money and just said (about paying taxes): Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

With the collapse of Roman power came a collapse of the local system of government. With such a vacuum, it was only natural that local bishops, seen as leaders by their flock, should step in and take political leadership. People turned to the only leaders they had left.

[Elok]

Hey, how much do you think tent revivals resemble ancient Christian worship? But I was pretty much kidding, yeah. A day not spent being a heel to people with different opinions is a day poorly spent. And stuff.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't see why you guys bother arguing about these obsolete religions, anyway. We'll all be a part of Tenrikyo soon enough...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I think that if the world were ending and we needed to shelter a limited number of people undergraound to perserve the human race then polygamy would even be desireable to provide for the maximum population growth when the crisis was over. I would suggest a ratio of about ten women to one man. The survivors would be chosen from among the world's best human specimens, scientists, doctors, intellectuals, doctors, high government officials, doctors, and .... you get the picture. This is an original idea, I though of it, so I get first dibs.

"We're going to Doomsday city and have some fun,
Yeah we're goin' to Doomsday City where it's ten to one,
Ten girls for every boy-oy-oy-oy."

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned


The only examples that I know of were the Goths in the 700's, whose persection of the Jews lead to the invasion of the Berbers; and Karl de Grosse's forced conversion of the Saxons.

In all other cases, the covernsions were ordered by King and obeyed by his people. The reason Karl could not simply order the Saxons to convert was they did not feel they owed him any allegience whatsoever. They were a conquered people.

Still force convertion as what would happen if some people refuse. In 1492 Spain pass a law that said all jews and muslim have to convert to Christian or leave or face the inquistor. That still force convertion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


With the collapse of Roman power came a collapse of the local system of government. With such a vacuum, it was only natural that local bishops, seen as leaders by their flock, should step in and take political leadership. People turned to the only leaders they had left.

This is true.

But the political power of the Bishop of Rome came from his being the Pontifex Maximus. As the Empire fell away, its bishops remain under the authority of the Bishop of Rome. When the Germans became Catholic, their religious leadership fell under the authority of the "pope."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
No, the point I was making was that outlawing a religion, even at the pain of death, does not result in its extinction.

A valid point, but the Romans really didn't enforce the ban on Christianity, not like they did on Druidism. They didn't hunt down Christians, but if it came to their attention someone was Chritians, that person was likely in a lot of trouble. I would like to note that not a few Christians brought themselves to the Roman's attentions. For example, Irianius (sp?) signed a letter to the authorities asking for the end of persecution against the Romans, etc. Kinda like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in today's military.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Actually, Druidism was pretty thoroughly wiped out, so much so that we really don't have much of an idea what Druidic religion actually entailed. There are hints that it was quite the bloody affair and probably bore little resemblence to the tree-hugging Wicca religion we have today.

Modern Druidism actually has its roots in objectivism, believe it or not. A number of atheist followers of Rand were at school at some small college in Minnesota in the late 1950s, and part of the school rules were that students had to attentd religious service. It didn't say what religion, however, so these guys came up with the Reformed Church of Druidism of North America (or something very close to that). From this, all modern paganaism springs: wiccans, Odinists, New Age spiritiualism, etc. It spread from the U.S. back to Europe. Druidism is only 45 years old.

[Ned]

Che, after seeing the Passion, one is really "impressed" with the degree of cruelty of the Romans. No one in their right mind would voluntarily submit to torture and crucifixion -- and yet, history records that Christians did voluntarily submit to this for hundreds of years.

Contrast that with paganism, Druidism and Wotanism. The former withstood the assault of Christianity for some time. But the latter two religions seem to wilt almost immediately in the face of persecution. This tells me something about the strength of those religions vis-a-vis the strength of Christianity.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You don't chose to be gay, but you do chose to believe in grown-up Santa Claus. I see no reason to respect someone who believes something so silly as an invisible spirit which loves you, made you, but can't be detected and will torture you for all eternity if you don't love him back.

On top of that, you only believe it because some shepard 5,000 years ago said its true. Well heck, shepards 5,000 years ago believed a lot of crazy things. Why pick one shepard over another? Because he wrote it down? Because a group of religious fanatics seized control of the most powerful empire in the West and forced everyone to believe on pain of torture and death?

Yeah, I'm gonna respect that. You and Ben are both crazy.

So not only do you refuse to respect religious people, but your bigoted against them as well?

How is bigotry against religious people any better than bigotry against gay people? Simply because you can justify your bigotry because one is a choice, and the other isn't?

[Thorn]

Death to Religion!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Thorn
Death to Religion!

Death to Bigotry... religion is fine

[Sava]

Che, after seeing the Passion, one is really "impressed" with the degree of cruelty of the Romans. No one in their right mind would voluntarily submit to torture and crucifixion -- and yet, history records that Christians did voluntarily submit to this for hundreds of years.

you see... this is the problem... people are going to accept this movie as FACT... when it is a fictional depiction of mythical religious scripture.

[Elok]

Okay, so we have the Reign of Terror, the October Revolution, and now the invention of Dungeons and Dragons-oid wannabe religions....

The "atheists have never perpetrated atrocities upon the world in following their beliefs" argument is dying quickly.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
The "atheists have never perpetrated atrocities upon the world in following their beliefs" argument is dying quickly.

Who says that?

[Elok]

It was just a joke, but I was referring to the familiar litany of "religion breeds evil blah blah spanish inquisition blah blah crusades blah blah that one Pope was totally buddy-buddy with Hitler blah blah blah..." that every religion argument inevitably turns to.

[Ben Kenobi]

#1, who says they were?

The only sources we have corroborate.

#2, grave robbing is a serious taboo in most cultures.

Yeah. So that is why they made sure they had plenty of guards to make sure no one tampered with Christ's tomb.

Constatine was not full emperor until ater he converted. He was only co-emperor.

I concede the point. He was not full emperor, because of the seperation of powers under Diocletian.

So you have his conversion in 311, and his complete control of the Empire by 325.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

So far Constantine, who was at this time defending his own frontier against the Germans, had taken no part in the quarrels of the other claimants to the throne. But when, in 311, Galerius, the eldest Augustus and the most violent persecutor of the Christians, had died a miserable death, after cancelling his edicts against the Christians, and when Maxentius, after throwing down Constantine's statues, proclaimed him a tyrant, the latter saw that war was inevitable. Though his army was far inferior to that of Maxentius, numbering according to various statements from 25,000 to 100,000 men, while Maxentius disposed of fully 190,000, he did not hesitate to march rapidly into Italy (spring of 312). After storming Susa and almost annihilating a powerful army near Turin, he continued his march southward. At Verona he met a hostile army under the prefect of Maxentius' guard, Ruricius, who shut himself up in the fortress. While besieging the city Constantine, with a detachment of his army, boldly assailed a fresh force of the enemy coming to the relief of the besieged fortress and completely defeated it. The surrender of Verona was the consequence. In spite of the overwhelming numbers of his enemy (an estimated 100,000 in Maxentius' army against 20,000 in Constantine's army) the emperor confidently marched forward to Rome. A vision had assured him that he should conquer in the sign of the Christ, and his warriors carried Christ's monogram on their shields, though the majority of them were pagans. The opposing forces met near the bridge over the Tiber called the Milvian Bridge, and here Maxentius' troops suffered a complete defeat, the tyrant himself losing his life in the Tiber (28 October, 312). Of his gratitude to the God of the Christians the victor immediately gave convincing proof; the Christian worship was henceforth tolerated throughout the empire (Edict of Milan, early in 313). His enemies he treated with the greatest magnanimity; no bloody executions followed the victory of the Milvian Bridge. Constantine stayed in Rome but a short time after his victory. Proceeding to Milan (end of 312, or beginning of 313) he met his colleague the Augustus Licinius, married his sister to him, secured his protection for the Christians in the East, and promised him support against Maximinus Daia. The last, a bigoted pagan and a cruel tyrant, who persecuted the Christians even after Galerius' death, was now defeated by Licinius, whose soldiers, by his orders, had invoked the God of the Christians on the battle-field (30 April, 313). Maximinus, in his turn, implored the God of the Christians, but died of a painful disease in the following autumn.

Of all Diocletian's tetrarchs Licinius was now the only survivor. His treachery soon compelled Constantine to make war on him. Pushing forward with his wonted impetuosity, the emperor struck him a decisive blow at Cibalae (8 October, 314). But Licinius was able to recover himself, and the battle fought between the two rivals at Castra Jarba (November, 314) left the two armies in such a position that both parties thought it best to make peace. For ten years the peace lasted, but when, about 322, Licinius, not content with openly professing paganism, began to persecute the Christians, while at the same time he treated with contempt Constantine's undoubted rights and privileges, the outbreak of war was certain, and Constantine gathered an army of 125,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry, besides a fleet of 200 vessels to gain control of the Bosporus. Licinius, on the other hand, by leaving the eastern boundaries of the empire undefended succeeded in collecting an even more numerous army, made up of 150,000 infantry and 15,000 cavalry, while his fleet consisted of no fewer than 350 ships. The opposing armies met at Adrianople, 3 July, 324, and Constantine's well disciplined troops defeated and put to flight the less disciplined forces of Licinius. Licinius strengthened the garrison of Byzantium so that an attack seemed likely to result in failure and the only hope of taking the fortress lay in a blockade and famine. This required the assistance of Constantine's fleet, but his opponent's ships barred the way. A sea fight at the entrance to the Dardanelles was indecisive, and Constantine's detachment retired to Elains, where it joined the bulk of his fleet. When the fleet of the Licinian admiral Abantus pursued on the following day, it was overtaken by a violent storm which destroyed 130 ships and 5000 men. Constantine crossed the Bosporus, leaving a sufficient corps to maintain the blockade of Byzantium, and overtook his opponent's main body at Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon. Again he inflicted on him a crushing defeat, killing 25,000 men and scattering the greater part of the remainder. Licinius with 30,000 men escaped to Nicomedia. But he now saw that further resistance was useless. He surrendered at discretion, and his noble-hearted conqueror spared his life. But when, in the following year (325), Licinius renewed his treacherous practices he was condemned to death by the Roman Senate and executed.

Henceforth, Constantine was sole master of the Roman Empire.

[Ben Kenobi]

Apparently they did it violently. "With this sign, conquer" ring any bells?

But the Christians, as this account confirms, Constantine says he recieved a revelation, and trusted the revelation to help him gain control of the empire. His conversion was not forced, but rather through a remarkable revelation.

So please, show me how they convinced Constantine through military means.

[Ben Kenobi]

It does in a society where conformity is enforced.

No. I'm sorry. Paul explicitly argues against this position, in saying that everyone must come to a personal faith. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, it's the faith that counts. If you have some sort of family tradition, than that is all it is, a tradition of the family, and not faith in Christ.

Then they were bad Christians. They failed to follow a direct order from Christ. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Ah, but does this belong to Caesar? They can follow his rules so long as they do not contradict with their duties to God. Christians have a master in Christ, not in Caesar, thus they are to pay taxes, yet not profess sole allegiance to him.

All of which is still irrelevent to the discussion. By the way, most fish have scales. I don't see why you can't understand that.

No it is not. They spread Christianity peacefully, and have been woefully neglected in your considerations.

As I mentioned, the Goths and Vandals were already Christian when they particiapted in the conquestion of the Western Empire. The Vandals were Christian when the sacked Rome.

The pagan conquerors didn't convert immediately, but only after hundreds of years. But when their kings converted, everyone in their kingdoms was forced to convert to Christianity or be executed. Thus, Christianity was spread by the sword in those kingdoms where the King converted.

I concede your first point, but not the latter.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.ii.xvi.html

The first wholesale conversions of the Germanic or Teutonic race to the Christian religion took place among the Goths in the time when Arianism was at the height of power in the East Roman empire. The chief agents were clerical and other captives of war whom the Goths in their raids carried with them from the provinces of the Roman empire and whom they learned to admire and love for their virtue and supposed miraculous power. Constantine the Great entered into friendly relations with them, and is reported by Eusebius and Socrates to have subjected them to the cross of Christ. It is certain that some ecclesiastical organization was effected at that time. Theophilus, a bishop of the Goths, is mentioned among the fathers of the Council of Nicaea, 325.

The real apostle of the Goths is Ulifilas,97 who was consecrated bishop in 348 at Constantinople, and died there in 381, aged seventy years. He invented the Gothic alphabet, and translated the Bible into Gothic, but was an Arian, or rather a semi-Arian, who regarded Christ as a secondary God and the Holy Spirit merely as a sanctifying power.98

Arianism spread with great rapidity among the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, and Vandals. This heretical form of Christianity, however, was more a matter of accident than preference and conviction among the Germans, and soon gave way to orthodoxy when they became acquainted with it. When Alaric, the famous king of the Visigoths, captured Rome (410), he treated the city with marked leniency, which Augustin justly traced to the influence of the Christian faith even in heretical form. The Vandals, the rudest among the Teutonic tribes, made an exception; they fiercely persecuted the orthodox Christians in North Africa (since 430) and desolated this once flourishing field of the Catholic Church, the scene of the immortal labors of St. Augustin. Their kingdom was destroyed under Justinian (534), but the Catholic Church never rose from its ruins, and the weak remnant was conquered by the sword of Islâm (670).

Chrysostom made a noble effort to convert the Eastern Goths from Arianism to Catholicity, but his mission ceased after his death (407).

The conversion of the Franks to Catholic christianity and various political circumstances led to the abandonment of Arianism among the other Germanic tribes. The Burgundians who spread from the Rhine to the Rhone and Saone, embraced Catholic Christianity in 517, and were incorporated into the French kingdom in 534. The Suevi who spread from Eastern Germany into France and Spain, embraced the Catholic faith in 550.

The Visigoths in Spain, through their king, Reccared the Catholic, subscribed an orthodox creed at the third Council of Toledo, a.d. 589, but the last of the Gothic kings, Roderic, was conquered by the Saracens, breaking into Spain from Africa, in the bloody battle of Xeres de la Frontera, a.d. 711.

The last stronghold of Arianism were the Longobards or Lombards, who conquered Northern Italy (still called Lombardy) and at first persecuted the Catholics. They were converted to the orthodox faith by the wise influence of Pope Gregory I. (590616), and the Catholic queen Theodelinde (d. 625) whose husband Agilulf (590–616) remained Arian, but allowed his son Adelwald to be baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church. An Arian reaction followed, but Catholicism triumphed under Grimoald (662–671), and Liutprand (773–774). Towards the close of the eighth century, Pepin and Charlemagne, in the interest of France and the papacy, destroyed the independence of the Lombards after a duration of about two hundred years, and transferred the greater part of Italy to the Eastern empire and to the Pope. In these struggles the Popes, being then (as they have been ever since) opposed from hierarchical interest to the political unity of Italy, aided the Franks and reaped the benefit.


Again, we see my arguments confirmed. All of the Germanic tribes were converted by missionaries among them and contact with Christianity, not the sword.

[Ben Kenobi]

Che:

I don't have to grapple with it at all. Missionary goes to the chief and converts him. Then the chiefs orders all his people to convert or die. The tribe is thus converted by the sword.

Consider this. If a woman puts a gun to my head, and forces me to marry her, is that marriage valid? No. My consent is not given freely. Same with conversion. One cannot convert by force, since conversion is more than just an outward appearance, but involves the heart as well. One can only truly convert if one does so freely, and not under duress.

[Jaguar]

Ben, even if we were wrong, you still wouldn't be able to convince us because we are stubborn bastards. So why do you even try?

[Ben Kenobi]

you still wouldn't be able to convince us because we are stubborn bastards. So why do you even try?

I try because others bothered to do so with me. I had an open mind, and others will have the same, even if you do not.