No he didn't. Yes, some Christians were encouraged by his tacit support and attacked pagan sites, but this have been going on for decades.

That your statement is idiotic is best illustrated by the fact that Constantine never converted until he died. If he was so hell bent on destroying it, why didn't he convert (here's a hint, it wasn't politically viable for him to do so).

Constantine started the process that would eventually lead to the establishment of Christianity, but this process took nearly a hundred years from his death. And there was a lot of chance involved. Julian, Constantine's nephew, actually re-asserted a ban on Christianity that was ended only by his untimely death/assassination (Christians later took credit for it, but odds are they didn't do it). Theodosius decided to end paganism because it was supporting his enemies when he fought to reunite the eastern and western empires. The battle he fought against the western forces is seen by many as the final battle (though paganism still lasted for hundreds of years).

Really interesting battle you should look up. During it, the wind suddenly changed and directly lead to Theodosius's victory. At the time, even the supporters of paganism acknowledged that this seemed to prove that the christian god was stronger (as opposed to the natural explanation that the place of the battle was prone (and still is) to these wind bursts).

By your own limited, and basic background in history have reinforced the point that Christianity was formed and being practiced long before Constantine, which makes your original point about Constantine becoming a Hindu first inane, and now vapid.

Consult other fundy atheist talking points for further discussion. Psst...like the Council of Nicea (always a favorite).

Your agenda being totally transparent I can fully understand your need to try to falsely claim that Christianity was some popular wide spread grass roots movement. You are only inhibited by the fact, that your claim is simply false.

The fact is, pre Constitintinan Xianity was little more then a cultural curiosity, that more resembled a patchwork of Hebrew and neo Pagan sects then a religion unto itself. and it is likely it would have died on the vine

Like it or not, Modern Christianity would probably not exist, but for the whim of a Roman emperor, and if it did, it would look NOTHING like it does today. If it did exist, it would be nothing more then neo Nosticism, and or a sect of Judisim, or more specificly Judism with the absence of, or greatly diminished emphisis on Mosaic law, which is all early christainity really was.

You make no sense, and your ignorant babble shows that this entire discussion is clearly over your head.

TakuanSoho has chosen to revise history to a way he wishes it had happend, or as his mentors taught him. You on the other hand, are clueless.

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

My agenda? LOL.

Never said that Christianity was a popular movement. It was an urban religion that slowly became powerful, but it was hardly popular. Paganism in the country, where the vast number of people lived, lasted hundreds of years after Constantine (and indeed was never really completely snuffed out).

And "Smartie", I am not "revising" history. You are. The whole "Constantine" created Christianity only became popular during the past 30 years or so. Now revision is not necessarily bad for history, many of the fables we hold true need to be revised, but your revision is crap.

Christianity probably would have survived without Constantine. Roman paganism was pretty much a spent force, the Church had survived extremely brutal repression, and the Christians were very well organized, particularly in the cities where the wealth was, and we know that would be emperors have a fondness for wealth. Furthermore as a universal religion, it had great appeal to monarchs who wanted to unite their various ethnic subjects.

I'm sorry, where did I lose you?

At "By"....

Yupp...your aganda, it screams out loud, which is fine, so long as the context is understood

The history I am reviewing is based on neither an agena or revision, but on historical fact, and all your pro theology spin doesnt change that

What you are missing over and over (either by choice of by lack of knowledge) is that there was no early christian "church", nor anything that reembled one
There were Gnostics, Neo Pagan hybrids, and scattered groups of localized Hebrew converts who were all too happy to embrace a faith that lacked the traditional stringent dogma.
There was no "virgin birth" theory, no "son of god" concept, and for the most part, no "reserection". These all came into play in a sort of fantasy "snowball effect" in which one concept was required to justify the previous entry (IE, the "son of god" concived through human procreation ? UNTHINKABLE !)

Finally, your statement that early christians were Christians were "very well organized" is non secular fantasy, and frankly, not even viable in terms of geography, demographics and proximity.

No offense, but yours is a view that wants desperatly to cling to a romantisized vrew of Paul's spreading of the gospal, and Peter and james stand alone spirit. Inspiring yes, but sadly, historicly flawed

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

Fundy atheist talking point #283.

And they would be totally wrong in arguing that. Of course, it is par for the course for fatty.

Yep. It was already very strong, which is WHY Constantine supported it.

Ironic. Ironic because you have shown yoruself to be lacking in knowledge of basic history.

Constantine did not mandate Christianity. There were no forced conversions and he did not sanction going after any other religions. He was a member of the Mithras Cult for a long time.

Too late. She already sounds like a complete idiot.

Not semantics.

Constantine did not make it the de facto religion at the point of a sword. He didn't force conversions. He never outlawed any paganism either. look it up, I am right.

It isn't like fatty can actually argue with any background knowledge so I am sure you are speaking way over her head here.

Yep. Christianity was not only around, but a strong force before Constantine came to power and that is why he chose Christianity. Fatty seems to have it backwards.

Wrong, it was not a cultural curiosity. You really need to pay attention or maybe do some research. Christianity was growing rapidly and that is why Constantine chose this religion to help unify the Empire.

But it was strong before Constantine. That is why Constantine used it to help unify the Empire.

Fatty sin't so much revising hisotry as she is making it up as she goes along.

It isn't historical fact that you are bringing.

For example, you say that Constantine mandated Christianity at the point of a sword. He didn't do either.

Keep posting on this subject though, it just confirms you don't have a clue what you aer talking about.

But think of the pluses!

Pederasts who play dress-up in gorgeous medieval drag would be out of job in the Vatican and its copycat Calvinazi churches.

Christian churches would be re-decorated by Karma Sutra statuary fucking in every sexual position imaginable.

The variety and taste of takeaway (take-out) food would be improved immensely.

The downside is that misogynistic misanthrophic imbeciles like Bluedog would be crying "In Krishna's Holy name we slay, Lord!" - instead of using his patently plagiarized Kike counterpart as a justification for their insane hatred of His creation.

However, rampant sperm-spitting Cobra-like cocks would be worshippped in his church up in the coves instead of copper-heads.

__________________
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes