@ Alex
(After Constantine I converted to Christianity, the persecuted religion (surprise!) turned into a persecuting one: The Roman army sieged and conquered Jerusalem, and destroyed the Second Temple of Jerusalem)

Constantine simply made Christianity legal. Since during his time, it had been made a matter of official policy to persecute Christians within the empire. Neither Constantine nor the Roman empire persecuted pagans. That is a flat out lie, with no historical evidence of it. During Constantine's reign Paganism was still alive and well, and there was no decreed banning of it. He merely caused Christianity to be tolerated along with the previously existent Roman religeons. Constantine resurected the Roman Senate, of which most of its members were Pagans during his rule.

"Herods" temple(the 2nd) in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 a.d. while they were still completely pagan. That was about 230 years before the time of Constantine's reign.

@ Ted
(Christianity was adopted by the state as its official religion. I haven't read of any Christians at the time saying, “Oh, but maybe we should remain separate from the state…” or “Do we really have to destroy and loot these pagan temples?)

Why would they have said "maybe we should remain separate from the state." The Romans didn't have any policy of "separation of church and state." Why should they have been expected to adopt such a policy at that time? Since throughout the empires entire history, the Roman politicians had all always been religeous. They had always been pagans. With rituals conducted even at the Senate building.

As a matter of fact, not even America has such a
"separation of church and state" official policy.
At least not in the way in which its been interpreted by atheists and the ACLU. "Separation of church and state" was ammended in the 19th century by a hugely majority, Protestant America. Ammended during a time in which there was a giant wave of Catholic immigrants coming to the U.S. from Europe. Americans, having been aware of European and Latin American history, as well as the then, present time. Knew all too well of what had always been the case whenever the rulers of a state were Catholic. That in fact, the rulers would soon become the Vatican. "Separation of church and state" was ammended by, the mostly religeous, representatives of religeous people in America to guard against Vatican rule. Not for a tyranical minority in the 20th century and beyond, to use it as a weapon against them. In that tyranical minority's quest to eliminate that which they are so extremely intolerant of. Not to mention, ignorant of. As well as of Americas true history. Such as Congress' nickname during the war of Independance.........
"The Bible Congress". Kind of a strange name for a bunch of national founding, supposed, secularists. Would'nt you say?

@ Ted (the other one)
@ Shprocket

It has become quite a popular, spreading belief that Judaism & Christianity is simply an adaptation or a reinterpretation of previous pagan religeons. Propagating this view is intended to refute or discredit the validity of Judeo/Christianity's teaching of that its source is the only true god and that he is someone other than the false gods of Paganism. The intention to disprove that is obvious from the implication of that Jud/Chr. is no different than the previous pagan religeons since it is merely a recycling of them. If this were true, and if at their core, they were really just the same thing. Then why would they have always produced different cultures/lifestyles/values that have always been at odds with eachother?

There is obviously a huge fundamental difference between them. Differences which are so different, that they are in fact, opposites. There are reasons why those similarities/mirrorings between Jud/Chr. and earlier Pagan religeons exist. Reasons of which their explaination would be to long for this already long post. Though I'd explain if requested.

EEEEE

The ancient Greeks were just a bunch of Cult crazed, fags that loved rolling all over eachother while covered in oil. Face it, its true, and no amount of modern, legitimizing propaganda which makes it sound like there was sensible reason behind their actions is going to change that.

Otherwise, I suppose you'll also have a reasonable explaination for why it is that when they weren't "all up" in eachother, they were "all up" in adolescent boy's. Nothing new under the sun. Modern fags are no different.