Gud, finns han?
Citat från HampusAKAskinkan
Citat från ErikSchwartz
Citat från HampusAKAskinkan
Citat från ErikSchwartz
Finns det ingen liten kristen här som kan försvara sin tro?
Jag har tråkigt.
Jag finns :D
Du har redan bevisat att du inte kan argumentera:
"SKIT I BEVISEN NÅN GÅNG! Jag tror på att min herre Jesus sa det och dessutom vilken skulle annars ha sagt det?"
Om du var villig att utveckla längre än att säga "Jag tror det, därför är det så" så skulle vi kunna ha en diskussion, men annars är det bara en kristen som sitter och predikar..
Japp! :D deal with it :D
Jag mår officiellt dåligt.
"Men då har ju ingenting någon mening?"
Om livet är en del av 'guds allsmäktiga plan' då spelar ju inget roll? Det är ändå menat att vara så som det blir.
Om allting är av slump då blir det helt plötsligt roligt att leva. VAD SOM HELST KAN HÄNDA! (inom ramarna fysikens lagar och annat som bara är osannolikt [som en gubbe i rymden som skapade jorden och alla dess otroligt komplicerade organismer på 6 dagar)
Det är inofficiellt fuck religion-bild-dagen idag :D
Så jävla sann!
w/e
Tror varken det ena eller det andra
The Empire had come to depend on the enrollment of barbarians, in large numbers, in the army, and … it was necessary to render the service attractive to them by the prospect of power and wealth. This was, of course, a consequence of the decline in military spirit, and of depopulation, in the old civilised Mediterranean countries. The Germans in high command had been useful, but the dangers involved in the policy had been shown in the cases of Merobaudes and Arbogastes. Yet this policy need not have led to the dismemberment of the Empire, and but for that series of chances its western provinces would not have been converted, as and when they were, into German kingdoms.
It may be said that a German penetration of western Europe must ultimately have come about. But even if that were certain, it might have happened in another way, at a later time, more gradually, and with less violence. The point of the present contention is that Rome's loss of her provinces in the fifth century was not an "inevitable effect of any of those features which have been rightly or wrongly described as causes or consequences of her general 'decline.'" The central fact that Rome could not dispense with the help of barbarians for her wars (gentium barbararum auxilio indigemus) may be held to be the cause of her calamities, but it was a weakness which might have continued to be far short of fatal but for the sequence of contingencies pointed out above.
In short, Bury held that a number of contingencies arose simultaneously: economic decline, Germanic expansion, depopulation of Italy, dependency on Germanic foederati for the military, the disastrous (though Bury believed unknowing) treason of Stilicho, loss of martial vigor, Aetius' murder, the lack of any leader to replace Aetius — a series of misfortunes which proved catastrophic in combination.
Bury noted that Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was amazing in its research and detail. Bury's main differences from Gibbon lay in his interpretation of fact, rather than any dispute of fact. He made clear that he felt that Gibbon's conclusions as to the "moral decay" were viable — but not complete. Bury's judgement was that:
The gradual collapse of the Roman power …was the consequence of a series of contingent events. No general causes can be assigned that made it inevitable.
It is his theory that the decline and ultimate fall of Rome was not pre-ordained, but was brought on by contingent events, each of them separately endurable, but together and in conjunction ultimately destructive.
Katolicismen hade inget med Romarrikets Kollapas att göra.
Nu tycker jag vi lägger ner med bilduppladdningarna. Det är kul ett par gånger, men sen försviner diskussionerna och tråden överflöds av bilder och tas eventuellt bort vid fortsättning av överflöd.
Du måste vara inloggad för att skriva i forumet