the lack of attention being given to the poor by either candidate in this election. While I have no question that Obama's moral compass is more likely to steer towards the poor, I often wish he was more vocal about it.

and that it pretty much always has. It's worth keeping in mind that the words of the NT are simply put into the mouth of characters to advocate a particularly obedient worldview.

Saint Constantine knew what was what. He didn't mind putting up with little inconsistencies like not mistreating the poor, they're easy enough to ignore in practice. The important lessons of obey your masters, pay your taxes, and don't tolerate other religions were what counted then and now.

Unlinked drivel.

Many Christians aren't really aware that before Saint Constantine got involved sponsoring it, Christianity really wasn't making much headway. It's fascinating history, but not one you're likely to learn in Sunday school.

His character and the character of his mother are important guides for the student of Christian history. His politically adroit hands lay very heavily over all the future of Christendom. It was he who first clearly saw the value of Christianity to the administration of the Empire and correct and proper control of its subjects.

One can glean all the info from Gibbon, a more modern treatment is found in several of the later texts of Ramsay McMullen.

Still, your broad brush overlooks the first three centuries of Christianity. If it is a political construct of Constantine, it's really not tenable to claim that he would choose, of all the religions in the Empire, one not "making much headway" as the unifying religion of his Empire.

I will look into Ramsey McMullen. I never heard of him before.

It's certainly known that he was originally an adherent of Sol Invictus, as with so many of the emperors about that time.

It is to be regretted that so little is known for sure, and that the church saw fit to so completely obscure the details with fanciful legends.

Numbers as to the percentage of Christians in the Empire at about that time vary widely, but probably 5% would be high, others of course disagree.

The kingdom of Armenia had already adopted Christianity before Constantine.

The Church was already large enough that the Arian controversy was impacting the entir Empire, necessitating Constantine calling the Council of Nicaea.

Paganism was rapidly losing its potency as a state religion.

To say that Christianity owes its existence to Constantine is unsupported.

he put his stamp on it for all time to come. He gave it its character, as a supporter of the powers that be. Finally, Constantine set the pattern of furthering Christianity through financial advantage which would last right up until today.

Constantine was not the first Christian monarch, or so many sources say. That distinction fell to a chap called Abgar, who was later dragged to Rome in chains. Abgar's history is semi-legendary, tho. Also Abgar's timeline is shadowy. If Abgar was actually a Christian he wasn't an orthodox one, rather on the gnostic side.

I recommend that every Christian examine the character and intentions of Saint Constantine. In many respects he is the first important Christian whose motives are clear. Just as we judge Mormonism by a careful examination of the character of Joseph Smith, just as we judge Scientology by examining the character of Lafayette Hubbard, so we are wise to examine Saint Constantine and his doting mother.

Some more than others.

It's not surprising because it has a very human message.

Really, if you want to impugn it by examining motives, you have to go back further than him. If you want to study, as opposed to denounce, the beginnings of Christianity, you at least have to mention Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. Then you can impugn their motives.

I'll be quite interested in hearing what you think were the clear motives of the Christians who were killed in the first three centuries CE, unless, of course, you're going to say that it didn't happen or that they were deluded.

Constantine is most important in the melding of church and state, not in the rationale for a religion.

And, yes, Helena was a doting mother. We should all have one.

We still have enough from his detractors to evaluate historical reality. Of the others you mention, (almost) all that remains is what the church saw fit to preserve.

Christianity had its martyrs, for sure. So did the adherents of Bacchus. It's hard to judge much from that.

doubtless for political reasons.

As to critiquing sources, you cannot credibly reject the writings that do remain because other writings do not, even assuming that your cynical view that the Church deliberately destroyed their other writings is accurate. Your cynicism leads you to suspect that the non-extant writings must have contradicted the extant writings, without evidence.

And you can infer quite a bit from three centuries of recurring persecutions. The cult of Bacchus is a poor parallel.

over the years observers have come to gravely suspect arguments supported by evidence in the custody of an interested party.

If this is cynicism, it is cynicism in good company.

I don't believe that there is any practical question whether Constantine and his immediate followers burned opposing documents en masse. This is IMHO simply a fact of history, but of course the era was a troubled one.

I recommend interested parties investigate the persecutions suffered by the followers of Bacchus. That won't take a great deal of time.

It is surely not a reason to reject the evidence that does exist.

Victors always write history. Yet truth emerges. Frankly, after 1700 years a reasonable person would expect the evidence for the suspicions to have emerged.

Google produced this on 0.38 seconds:

http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/CJLyes_Roman_Persecution_Xians.pdf

The contrast between the Christian and Baccanalian persecutions is mentioned on page 3.

This one mention 5,000 Dionysian martys in the second century BCE at the time of the Republic.

http://suite101.com/article/baachanalia-and-roman-repression-a109638

If we started counting Jewish martyrs, or Isian martyrs, we could go on much further. Can we agree they don't indicate much about the religions they represent? Both lists blend inevitably into crowd control. If we had the records from those sects of those martyrs, how do you imagine they would read?

I disagree that it is silent on the motives of those who were martyred. In Rome at least, it was common for Rome to offer a chance to acknowledge the state religion. Some took the offer. Others didn't. Their motives for doing either were certainly different from the motives of the state in bringing on the persecutions.

I expect we both agree that the fact of martyrdom is not evidence of the truth of the belief.

Derivative, bitter and shallow.