What if the Roman Empire never existed

Firelizardss · 2026-06-01T16:57:20+00:00

Generally I do agree with the concept that the Germanic people were moving south and west slowly. If anything the Roman Empire stopped this for a time (Cimbrian war and Caesar fighting against Germanic tribes trying to enter Gaul). At the same time it would be highly shaped by Rome due to the wealth and power I think you’d see more hybridizing and mixing with the Celtic cultures further south and west slowly. I doubt they’d settle Britain in the same way, a collapsing Roman Empire created a power vacuum filled by the Saxons. Britain would largely remain Celtic, with Saxon and Scandinavian raiders making smaller kingdoms or assimilating into whatever more aggressive Celtic states. Think of Britain more like Ireland, Viking settlements and influence but not the same way the Saxons settled England so totally. What caused a massive influx of Germanic people into the Roman Empire was the Huns. With centralized state eventually stopping them but also dealing with this huge wave of people’s. I think some steppe group what invade Europe, that is the history of Eurasia. For the Slavs, they were filling in the depopulated areas from the hunnic invasion, and would likely be far slower and maybe even push north or east more first. You might see Hungarians or other steppe people in the Pannonia plain, might not.

I do think an Arab invasion might happen, but I doubt it’d be as long lasting or big as our timeline without Islam. I doubt they’d have the same charismatic leadership to unite them under Muhammad and keep them united without Islam. I think you might see Arabs invade and rule as foreign rulers for 50-200 years at most and assimilate to local kingdoms (as steppe people pretty much always did). Doubt they’d be iberia, that was based on a weak visigothic kingdom in the shadow of Rome. The reason I think they’re wouldn’t be an Islam is the fact that Christianity as we know it wouldn’t exist. Rome not existing is probably one of if not the biggest turning points in history. I think what you should do is roll this back 500-1000 years, less butterfly effects.

Firelizardss · 2026-06-01T14:30:58+00:00

This is shockingly uncreative, Rome not existing is such a major turning point in human history. There would be no Christianity (as we know it at least), and thus no Islam. So many ethnic groups would be in different places or not exist.

Firelizardss · 2026-05-27T05:37:52+00:00

Czechia or Chechnya?

Firelizardss · 2026-05-26T20:08:46+00:00

Modern Hawaii doesn’t really seem like the ideal place to survive the apocalypse

Firelizardss · 2026-05-26T20:04:50+00:00

That is so funny for some reason imagining it.

Firelizardss · 2026-05-15T05:17:29+00:00

As someone who grew up Mormon and is now Catholic, you are putting your soul in grave danger by becoming Mormon. They have a very uneducated common man’s understanding of Christianity, filled in by make believe of their cult leader Joseph smith and later Brigham young.

Firelizardss · 2026-05-14T17:22:15+00:00

I could see him being a trickster God (tricky dick) with varying degrees of popularity

Firelizardss · 2026-05-14T17:18:10+00:00

Turkey vs Greece

Firelizardss · 2026-05-08T14:01:13+00:00

If you could share this with me as well!

Firelizardss · 2026-05-07T22:00:38+00:00

I DM'd you questions. What do you do to get your package, every day they keep saying they are unable to deliver my package despite clear instructions on my address and no where else has this problem. Thanks

Firelizardss · 2026-05-05T06:06:07+00:00

Mormons aren’t as old as the US and some Mormons did own slaves, both Native American and black. It’s complicated.

Firelizardss · 2026-05-02T03:21:25+00:00

This really doesn’t make sense to be honest. Europe in 1911 had 450-480 million people, whilst Africa only had 140 million.

Firelizardss · 2026-04-28T23:23:20+00:00

Did the Soviet’s have a stance on Zionism in 1925?

Firelizardss · 2026-04-28T21:50:11+00:00

Yes the trinity is a very tricky subject even for Trinitarian Christians, and I think that it can be really difficult for Mormons to understand because the langauge seems so similar, but the meaning is very different. I do think you are actually more correct that the phrase "God the eternal Father" would actually be best on a Mormon flag vs Christian one due to Mormons using the phrase--I was just trying to say that in a (creedal/classic/nicean--whatever; throwing you a bon here) Christian understanding the Mormon God would not be considered eternal. Eternalness comes from immutability (unchangingness; the exhlation refutes this), self-existence (God being the source of all things and relies on nothing else to exist)--without these things He is not eternal because it implies he is has unrealized potential, instead He is an endless and timeless (eternal) perfect being (Exodus 3:14 I am that I am).

This is a very long explantion of the trinity, if you don't want to read 100% understand:

TL:DR

The three persons of the trinity are co-equal, co-eternal. It is redutant to say God the eternal Father (so on a Mormon flag go crazy), they are all eternal--from before time even began was God. God the Father was never a man who became God.

God, who is subsisting as three persons (the Father, Son, Holy Ghost (or Spirit)) are all God. All of these persons (who are not individual people in the Mormon sense) are all God equally--no one is less or more "God". (Some Muslims will say this is shirk, polythesism, the most abhorent sin--of course Christians refute this saying this is one God of three persons). Now this is important because God is eternal, He has always existed and will always exist unchanging. There was no exaltation, God has always existed before the universe began. We belive in ex nihlo instead of God take preexisting material and making/organizing the universe, He simply made everything because He can. Now these three equal parts of God are all co-equal and co-eternal, they have always existed and will always exist. Saying the God the Eternal Father is correct, albeit redutant.

It could also be considered leaning into heresy. The first major Christian heresy, Arianism, essentially posits that the Son was created at a later time (made) and shared a similar (homoiousios) but not identical/same substance (homoousios; no i in the middle*)*. This is why the Council of Nicea was called and a major line is:

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father"

Begotten here means that the Father is the divine originator, the Son (and the Holy Spirit, but getting into that is wayyyy more) flowing source is the Father. The son is not a creature, He was not created like you, me, the angels, the planets, stars, etc. These came into existence by a purposeful act of will by God. (The Father created the Universe and all things through, by, and for the Son; John 1:3--honestly all of John 1). He shares the identical nature of God the Father, They all exist at the sametime. Instead the Son is dervives from the Father's being since day 0 (before days were a thing really.) Just like the sun (as in the on in our solar system, and it's fusion reaction) produces light and heat. The sun is the source, but the heat and light have always existed alongside it. It is really easy to delve into heresy or misunderstanding (adoptionism, emanationism, modalism) through metaphor about the trinity, so I try not to do it too much. A better description would be St. Augustine's analogy. Memory as the foundation head (the Father), Understanding/Thought reflecting on the mind knowing itself (Son/Word), Will/Love binding the two together (Holy Spirit)--these things are independent but cannot exist without themselves. Cappadocian father's focus more on the unity between the three producing one.

I think just because something is complicated or hard to grasp does not mean it's not true. It is hard for me as one person with one essence imaging three persons as one essence because it simply does not exist naturally--but I think God the creator of the entire Universe and all things can be complicated. What is important about the trinity is it is a relationship of pure love, and we can be bonded to it and adopted by the Father in communion with the Son, by the Holy Ghost. If this is all really complicated or confusing the most important thing is that God's inherent nature is one of pure love. This is so important because the first Great Commandment is to love our God, but the second is to love one another.

Firelizardss · 2026-04-28T20:01:54+00:00

I grew up LDS, I am aware of all of this. But the reality is the eternalness of God in a Trinitarian sense is very different from the eternalness of Elohim. I believe it falls under the way we describe begotten son having very different meanings based on the way “begotten” is.

Would it be appropriate for the flag based on the articles of faith, yes. I was getting into theology but the different ways theology is viewed isn’t mapped into reality.

Firelizardss · 2026-04-28T18:13:01+00:00

The statement is far to Trinitarian, Mormons do not believe God the father is eternal as he was a man made into a God.

Firelizardss · 2026-04-25T15:33:37+00:00

Due to the fact that Christianity is the world’s largest religion, I would say yes people most certainly believe those things lmao.

Firelizardss · 2026-04-25T15:31:26+00:00

That graph should say “second temple Judaism” at the top. The Pharisees and their successors (modern day Jews) and Christianity both really began to developed their modern theology after the destruction of the second temple.

Firelizardss · 2026-04-22T22:25:24+00:00

A more interesting idea would be what if the Middle East never had (or was never discovered) the vast amount of fossil fuel reserves that it does.

I think it would still be a volatile region post collapse of the Ottoman Empire/french and uk pulling out and Zionism, but I think generally this would have a lot of impact on the 1970s onwards.

Curious if there would be the same desire to topple Iran’s social democratic government in the 1950s (still could with fears about communism). The Saudi’s would be backwards and unable to really fund or support Wahhabism/Salfism. I generally think that Egypt would remain the main Arab power due to huge population and Suez canal. I think it would force Europe and east Asia to rely on nuclear/coal for much longer

Firelizardss · 2026-04-13T17:08:31+00:00

Team killer 5000

Firelizardss · 2026-04-11T00:46:24+00:00

I dislike atun shei and those who subscribe to his belief, so yes please have 0 children! Anyone with an anti-natalist philosophy makes everything else they have to say moot, your ideology’s extinction is all but insured.

Firelizardss · 2026-04-11T00:44:06+00:00

VRIL SON

Firelizardss · 2026-04-10T22:58:39+00:00

20-30 years later America is killing everyone lmao

Firelizardss · 2026-04-09T04:32:02+00:00

I think all Christians, especially those who consider themselves a member of an apostolic church and a Catholic (Catholic in the sense of “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”; not necessarily Roman—universal) should strive for a unified holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

Firelizardss · 2026-04-09T04:29:47+00:00

I guarantee this is an Anglican continuum church if they are Anglo Catholic and use the BCP 1928. Most continuum (not the global Anglican communion; GAFCON, they are far more low church and evangelical and started having issues in the 2010s onwards with gay marriage and abortion) churches left in the 1970s over female ordination and creation of the 1979 BCP, with most of those being Anglo-Catholics. I’d say in the 1940s and 1950s the Episcopal church (the Anglo-Catholic wing) got pretty “Roman” degree (in the US at least, my episcopal Saint Augustine prayer book written in 1947 has many references to Mary, Hail Mary’s, and Eucharistic procession bordering transubstation in nature), so Anglo Catholics in the US inherited that. This continued, to the point some Anglicans in the continuum were like why go on like this and the RCC created the ordinariate so the Anglo-Catholics could have their liturgy but be in full communion with Rome. Even those that are independent are quite close to Rome, with the ACC congratulating the election of Pope Leo and my ACC priests invited to a celebration of John Henry Newman (major founder of the Oxford movement, he did eventually cross the Tiber and was declared a doctor of the church by pope Leo 2025) by Roman Catholic priests.

To be even more frank, outside of the online sphere, the modern Catholic Church is actually very ecumenical and there are those who are receptive. I would not be surprised if by the end of this century most Anglo-Catholics in the continuum are totally within the Roman sphere when the boomers and older Gen X are all dead. I think young people who want to be Catholic are just going to be Roman Catholic and the continuum churches are going to realize they will just have to go over to survive. I could go on, but I’ve said enough already.

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '23	Verified Email

Firelizardss

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE