Lewis wrote:


And once more for the umpteenth time, devoid of any real relevance or even logic it seems, you’re wondrously back to tendentiously citing Bacchanals, Druids and Vestal Virgins and the same repetitive spiel that these somehow prove that stepping beyond what apparently to your mindset represent immutable “parameters”, inevitably invoked “violent suppression” - and then as across a thousand-year long empire, one variously subject to tumultuous upheaval yet in essence necessarily predicated on inclusiveness.

With such a galaxy of diverse cultures and creeds and provinces, you’d have to wonder how Rome’s legions ever found time for anything else, friend, apart from how you’re also starting resemble some stuck record!

Oh, the irony. Constant repetition doesn’t make the flawed nonsense above any less flawed. Why would the legions be tied up with constant repression if most cults did fit within the Roman parameters of what was “proper” religion? The druids, the bachannals, the Christians and the Manichaens didn’t, but most did. So within those parameters Roman inclusiveness worked just fine. Outside it, the Romans were highly and violently Intolerant. When the emperors converted to Christianity the parameters narrowed sharply, but the intolerance for practices and beliefs that fell outside them stayed the same.

It’s a commonplace and basic historical observation that this was one of the consequences of the conversion of the emperors and Christianity becoming a state religion. It’s not like this is some crazy idea that I’ve made up. The Romans had always been intolerant of religions and practices that were “novel”, “superstitious” and at least suspicious of any faith that was “foreign” or “barbarous” (the cults of Cybele and Isis were both periodically expelled from the city, for example, though later tolerated). You can’t simply pretend this wasn’t the case. Nor can you pretend the intolerance of the Christians and Manichaens was purely the result of the chaos and instability of the Third and Fourth Centuries. The first persecution of Christians was as early as the 60s AD and is attested in the reigns of Domitian, Trajan and Hadrian – all long before the upheavals after Marcus Aurelius’ reign.

But let me guess – that’s all wrong and I’m silly and bad and you’ve read some fucking Wiki articles and if you pad out your posts with enough generally irrelevant quotes from them, couch them in lofty condescension so it might seem to a passing idiot that you know what you’re talking about here (some more “alacks” and a “balderdash” or two might help) you’ll feel as though you are actually “winning” here. Or something

A little reality check for you – if you look back over the thread you’ll find four people agreeing with me and totally unconvinced by your pompous rambles and the grand total of … zero agreeing with you.

Given that you’ve repeated the same crap about four times now, it doesn’t look like you’re succeeding in changing anyone’s minds. Give that some thought.

As much as I like debating, see Tim debate is pretty nifty

Only four others posters agree with you, Tim?

Pal, you must be in the wrong forum!
Why not let me steer you to far more obliging venues, those where any rampant religious apologist worth his salt will instantly attract a whole chorus of sycophantic acolytes, regardless of what rubbish they flog?

Simply repeating ad nauseam your simplistic Druid and Bacchanalia tripe like some stuck record player doesn’t alter a thing. Of course if you want me to also keep repeating the many reasons why this is so, I’ll gladly do so.

Ah, The Roman’s innate violent intolerance now becomes a “basic historical observation that this was one of the consequences of the conversion of the emperors and Christianity becoming a state religion”!

Hallelujah! Simply making it up now as you go along, pal? Desperation setting in?

Unlike the Jews who similarly denied the existence of other gods but were simply seen as perverse, the Christians were accused of all sorts of anti-social behaviour, everything from cannibalism to myriad ghastly secret rituals (and even this didn’t start till toward the end of the first century, being seen prior as just another Jewish faction),

After the first century, despite Christianity accordingly being declared illegal, persecution was mainly local in nature, and mostly sporadic at that.

Successive emperors weren’t so much concerned with Christianity as some incorrect religion, as with keeping particular communities content: thus Trajan’s advice that Roman governors should not search out Christians in any systematic way, but merely deal with those arrested by the individual local authorities, social stability the name of the game, as always. Most of the time and in most places the Christians also simply lived normal daily lives, even to a fairly public degree.

Little to do with official “violent intolerance”, as opposed to the public’s perception of what Christian practices were about. The chaotic third century also experienced massive changes in other Roman traditions and institutions, further contradicting your expediently self-serving “parameter” construct.

As this section is meant to deal in history, I don’t want to be drawn into some nonsense of Nero persecuting Christians etc: those venerable Church Fathers did well with their fraudulent insertions and burning of contradicting texts.

The Manichaens, once again! But why stop here?

“In 325, Constantine I facilitated the Church's bishops to convene the Council of Nicea, which asserted that Jesus, the Son, was equal to the Father, one with the Father, and of the same substance. The council condemned the teachings of the heterodox theologian Arius… Despite the council's ruling, controversy continued. By the time of Theodosius' accession, there were still several different Church factions that promoted alternative Christology.

In May 381, Theodosius summoned a new ecumenical council at Constantinople to repair the schism between East and West on the basis of Nicean orthodoxy. The council also ‘condemned the Apollonarian and Macedonian heresies, clarified jurisdictions of the state church of the Roman Empire according to the civil boundaries of dioceses and ruled that Constantinople was second in precedence to Rome.’

His first attempt to inhibit paganism was in 381 when he reiterated Constantine's ban on sacrifice. In 384 he prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, and unlike earlier anti-pagan prohibitions, he made non-enforcement of the law, by Magistrates, into a crime itself. Theodosius participated in actions by Christians against major Pagan sites.

The apparent change of policy that resulted in the ‘Theodosian decrees’ has often been credited to the increased influence of Ambrose, bishop of Milan. It is worth noting that in 390 Ambrose had excommunicated Theodosius, who had recently given orders which resulted in the massacre of 7,000 inhabitants of Thessalonica, in response to the assassination of his military governor stationed in the city, and that Theodosius performed several months of public penance.

Arianism
The Council of Nicea in AD 325 officially declared that Arianism was a heresy, basing their findings in part on John 1:1-18. The resolution that they adopted to combat Arianism is the Nicene Creed. In the continuing controversy, Athanasius was the chief advocate of orthodoxy and because of his labors the orthodox position prevailed. The Council of Constantinople in AD 381 essentially ended the controversy by reaffirming the condemnation of Arianism.

Apollinarianism
His teachings were condemned by Bishop Damasus of Rome by AD 377, by the Council of Alexandria in AD 378, the Council of Antioch in AD 379, and the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in AD 381. The Roman Emperor implemented the Council’s rulings in his decrees between AD 383—388 by outlawing Apollinarian worship. Apollinarius also taught millennialism, which the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople also ruled heretical.

Monarchianism
Monarchianism was considered a heresy in the third century. It stressed the unity of God to the point of denying the Trinity, which was at the time already normative Christian doctrine.

Pelagianism
Pelagianism is a largely hypothetical heresy that is named after Pelagius, a British theologian who taught in Rome beginning in the late fourth century. Augustine of Hippo bitterly opposed him in theological debates and even had him declared a heretic by a local council.”


You see, pal, you keep dabbling in the wrong century!

If you want “violent intolerance” you should really focus on the fourth, on the period when the Catholic Church’s powers and doctrines got into full swing. And then you handily put the blame instead on centuries of Rome’s traditional inclusiveness, and Bob’s your uncle…

In that you’re obviously desperate to always have the last word, I couldn’t be bothered to counter your topping bit of rhetoric in that Pope–UK-visit topic, but not here or again, pal!

Lewis wrote:Only four others posters agree with you, Tim?

That's rather better than zero, which is the total number of supporters you've managed to win on this thread for all your frantic Wiki-pasting.

Pal, you must be in the wrong forum!
Why not let me steer you to far more obliging venues, those where any rampant religious apologist worth his salt will instantly attract a whole chorus of sycophantic acolytes, regardless of what rubbish they flog?

Resorting to calling me an apologist again? Wave to the Mods!

(Argumentum ad Nauseum mercifully deleted)

willhud9 wrote::popcorn:

As much as I like debating, see Tim debate is pretty nifty

Glad you and others enjoyed it. But the show's over. This guy has one trick - endless repetition of failed arguments. My work here is done.

I'll just pose one question (which I think has an extremely obvious answer).

What was the most distinctive outward difference between Christianity and Judaism that would have affected the attitude of the Roman public and statesmen towards the two religions?

virphen wrote:I'll just pose one question (which I think has an extremely obvious answer).

What was the most distinctive outward difference between Christianity and Judaism that would have affected the attitude of the Roman public and statesmen towards the two religions?

Antiquity. As bizarre and alien as the Romans may have found Judaism, it had the benefit of being a faith with a long history and not a "novelty" and "superstition" like Christianity. That's why Judaism was never made illegal or persecuted per se, as Christianity and Manichaeanism were. Even when Judaism was seen as a major motivation for repeated uprisings against the Roman state, it was still not made illegal, though Jews were punished financially via the Fiscus Iudaicus tax on Jews and converts to Judaism.

This makes a nonsense of the argument that Roman religious intolerance was actually just defence of the state and nothing more. Unlike Christians, the Jews rose in outright rebellion against the Empire on several occasions, two of them resulting in long wars that were amongst the most successful rebellions against Rome in the Empire's whole history. Yet their religion was not repressed while the Christian superstitio, who did no more than refuse to sacrifice to the Imperial cult, was made illegal. The difference was religious - plain and simple.

See, that wasn't the answer I was looking for, and which I think explains the difference in antipathy better - I think the fact that Judaism is not an evangelical religion, whereas Christianity always has been just that. Jews typically kept to themselves, and increased their numbers by far for the most part just by natural reproduction - whereas Christianity grew, and grew aggressively - many citizens would have known, (and probably seen it as lost) friends and relatives to Christianity, and as a result been more likely to hate & fear it.

virphen wrote:See, that wasn't the answer I was looking for, and which I think explains the difference in antipathy better - I think the fact that Judaism is not an evangelical religion, whereas Christianity always has been just that. Jews typically kept to themselves, and increased their numbers by far for the most part just by natural reproduction - whereas Christianity grew, and grew aggressively - many citizens would have known, (and probably seen it as lost) friends and relatives to Christianity, and as a result been more likely to hate & fear it.

Sorry, but if there was a period in which Judaism was a proselytising faith, it was in the First Centuries BC and AD. Not all sects of Judaism were open to converts, but some - particularly the proto-Rabbinical Pharisaic elements - actively sought them. And found them. Jewish literature in this period is full of stories of Gentiles seeking out famous rabbis and there were also substantial communities of so-called "God Fearers" - Gentiles who practised Judaism or followed key elements of the Torah without fully converting (that whole circumcision thing was still a bit of a stumbling block for many, understandably).

The NT material reflects this as well. "God fearing" gentiles in the diaspora were Paul's stepping stones towards more conversions when "Christianity" was still very much simply another sect of Judaism. The Romans also did seek to restrict this aspect of Judaism, which is why the Fiscus Iudaicus didn't just apply to Jews by birth but to converts as well. It was partly aimed at discouraging conversion.

Yet despite all this Judaism still wasn't persecuted and made illegal as "novel superstitions" like Christianity were. That's because Judaism was still regarded as a faith of some antiquity and so a "proper" religion in the way cults that didn't fit Roman parameters were not.

You’re not far wrong, virphen, aggressively spreading the faith when and wherever possible was very much part of the Christian cult, with many an extant anecdote of parents fearful over the loss of sons or daughters to Christianity, and of the local social condemnation it could inflict on the family.

The general populace’s loathing toward Christians was far more broadly based than that though, in large part fueled by a whole array of misperceptions.

The very fact that the Jews also denied the existence of other gods without being persecuted over it despite two major rebellions, surely demonstrates both state, social and religious tolerance in its own right.

Yet the Jews, despite their strong tradition of nationhood and resistance to invaders, also comprised a distinct cultural group: people knew who they were. Christians, on the other hand, hailed from every level of society and any culture. This in itself made the wider population very suspicious and uneasy, in that nobody actually knew how many there were, or who they were.

Most of the Roman establishment in fact tended to see almost all other religions outside of their own as superstition, but this was never a reason for persecuting or banning them. (Even today’s archeology shows clearly that many cultures and creeds peacefully coexisted, including in the eastern parts of the empire, Jews no exception)

What’s more, Cicero and some of his praetorian peers even thought their own state religion was nothing more but silly nonsense! (Like true politicians, not that this stopped them from meticulously attending all the religious events.)

To link Christian illegality to some simple refusal to ‘sacrifice to the Imperial cult” is not only plain nonsense, but intellectually dishonest. A person’s belief didn’t really concern the empire, more so if they were kept private.

Even Constantine was more obsessed that the general populace should agree that his rule was God-ordained, than with the actual nature of their belief (other than such social disunity caused by factional disputes over doctrinal differences.)

Unlike the vast bulk of the population who did indulge in animal sacrifice as part of one creed or another, the Christians didn’t - full stop. Apart from which they placed homage to their church or group before everything else, including the taking part in public offices (during the first centuries, that is).

As a result they were seen as anti-social, a subversive society that communicated through secret codes, indulged in the drinking of human blood and despicable secret rituals, including base cannibalism.

To the population at large, as for the perceived Druid practice of human sacrifice (or even the Senate’s preoccupation with Bacchanalia), it failed to accord with civilized society or acceptable social behaviour: “So in different ways Roman abhorrence towards human sacrifice came to be regarded as what set themselves apart as a sophisticated, civilized people from those who were barbarians.”

Thus perceived as social outcasts by choice, the Christians also often served as ideal scapegoats for any local disaster. (Before the middle of the third century, larger-scale persecutions were rare.)

Apart from various conflicts between Jews and Christians, after Constantine, Christians also killed and persecuted each other over a host of factional doctrinal disputes, particularly against those who rejected the Nicene creed, especially the Donatists. You even had mobs of Christians fighting each other over the appointment of particular bishops, or as to whether Constantinople, Rome or Alexandria held ultimate Church supremacy.

Toward the end of the fourth century, and certainly in the fifth, it became crystal clear that Roman culture had changed forever, and then wholly because of the nature of Christianity itself. The earlier variety in writings and books gradually became less and less, secular histories and well-established forms of literature began to disappear.

TimONeill: “The NT material reflects this as well. ‘God fearing’ gentiles in the diaspora were Paul's stepping stones towards more conversions when ‘Christianity’ was still very much simply another sect of Judaism.”

The New Testament!
That much for ever-vaunted rationality and evidence…

For the most part the views expressed here I don't thinka re that different.... in a lot of parts it's a matter of semantics, with parties having a different view of what constitutes "tolerance"

This bit I have a big problem with.

Lewis wrote:
To link Christian illegality to some simple refusal to ‘sacrifice to the Imperial cult” is not only plain nonsense, but intellectually dishonest. A person’s belief didn’t really concern the empire, more so if they were kept private.

This, under the dominate, is essentially wrong in my view.

When Domitian took control of the Empire, he had one primary problem to solve (compared to this, all the economic, social, military and defence problems, massive as they are were small potatoes) - emperors just couldn't survive more than a few years without their troops, or the troops of a usurper, chopping them up into little bits.

One of his principal solutions to that problem was to elevate himself, and subsequently his partners in the tetrarchy, to an elevated semi-divine position, to attempt to make the holder of that post untouchable. This is reflected in so many of the changes of his reign, from the laws, the language, the titles (Dominus Nostrum was a title no emperor retaining even the slightest traces of the anti-monarchical pretence of the Principate would have touched with a bargepole) and the art. The refusal of Christians to play their part in these changes, at a minimum acted as a pretext, but more likely was far more of an incentive to the persecutions under the tetrarchy. By refusing to play the game, the Christians became a threat, hence their treatment, and hence while the scale of the persecution was so much greater than what had been seen before.

It would be true to say private views wouldn't concern the empire - but as long as you were willing to go through the motions in public, or weren't numerous or significant enough to be perceived as a threat.

virphen wrote:For the most part the views expressed here I don't thinka re that different.... in a lot of parts it's a matter of semantics, with parties having a different view of what constitutes "tolerance"

This bit I have a big problem with.

Lewis wrote:
To link Christian illegality to some simple refusal to ‘sacrifice to the Imperial cult” is not only plain nonsense, but intellectually dishonest. A person’s belief didn’t really concern the empire, more so if they were kept private.

This, under the dominate, is essentially wrong in my view.

It's wrong under the Principate as well. The fact that Christianity was a "novel" religion was part of the problem, and the main reason it was persecuted when even bothersome (and proselytising) "ancient" faiths were not. But the other main problem was their refusal to sacrifice to the gods on behalf of the emperors and the Roman state. This was such a marked feature of their faith, and of the problem the Romans had with them, that Pliny wrote to Trajan noting that it was the way he used to work out if people accused of Christianity were actually Christians:

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

He goes on to note that once he cracked down on Christians in this way, executing the ones who confessed their faith:

[M]any persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found.
(Pliny, Letters 10.96-97)

The sign that the accused were not Christians was that they gave worship to the emperor and the gods of Rome. And the sign that Christianity was losing ground in the province was that "the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed". This was long before the Dominate.

When Domitian took control of the Empire ...

I think you mean Diocletian.

It would be true to say private views wouldn't concern the empire - but as long as you were willing to go through the motions in public, or weren't numerous or significant enough to be perceived as a threat.

Religion in the ancient world was almost always public and communal. This is why the mystery religions were at first regarded with suspicion. Those that could prove an ancient pedigree (those of Isis and Cybelele and some of the Greek mysteries) were tolerated, though even they were restricted and occasionally oppressed. Those that at least claimed it (Mithraism, though that was tenuous) was also tolerated and went on to become popular. Those that could not (Christianity) were oppressed and periodically persecuted.

It should be noted that when the emperors converted to Christianity they never bothered to make paganism illegal, just its public practice. Private pagan rites continued, particularly in the West and amongst the more conservative upper classes, well into the late Fifth or even the Sixth Century.

Just a bit of clarification there, Tim. What where they sacrificing? I presume it was lambs or something, not humans anyway?

EDIT: "were"

The world without Christianity and Islam?

We'd be making fun of the right-wing discussing the war on Mithras' Birthday and discussing the thread of the Zoroastrianization of Europe.

TimONeill wrote:
I think you mean Diocletian.

Yup, proofreading fail.

Animavore wrote:Just a bit of clarification there, Tim. What where they sacrificing? I presume it was lambs or something, not humans anyway?

EDIT: "were"

Er, no not humans. The Romans only resorted to that in very extreme circumstances, such as when they were staring down the barrel of defeat in the Second Punic War.

The best possible sacrifices were usually animals, mainly oxen, cows, sheep, goats or pigs. They had to be unblemished, the best available and usually white (thiough black or darker animals were preferred for the gods of the underworld).

But lesser offerings could be made, including offerings of grain, fruit, honey, beans, flower garlands or even simply incense. This would depend on the festival, the circumstance and the seriousness of the petition being made. Household gods usually had these minor offerings made to them.

The Romans often gave recalcitrant Christians the chance to make these minor offerings to the gods or to the emperor as a way of saving their lives and were consistently amazed at these fanatics who would die rather than offer even a pinch of incense for the health and protection of the emperor. This was considered the outward sign of their “atheism” and proof they deserved to die.

NineBerry wrote:The world without Christianity and Islam?

We'd be making fun of the right-wing discussing the war on Mithras' Birthday and discussing the thread of the Zoroastrianization of Europe.

Well, I hate to be a pedant, but ...

Despite regular and widespread assertions to the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence to connect December 25th with Mithras. None. So the right-wing might whine about the war on the Natali Sol Invictus ("the birth of the Unconquered Sun [God]"), but Mithras wouldn't have anything to do with it.

Who said anything about December 25th?

NineBerry wrote:Who said anything about December 25th?

Er, okay. So when was "Mithras' birthday" then?

TimONeill wrote:

NineBerry wrote:Who said anything about December 25th?

Er, okay. So when was "Mithras' birthday" then?

Nineberry's joke didn't refer to the actual date, he could have picked any deity from Anubis to Zeus ...

virphen wrote:

TimONeill wrote:

NineBerry wrote:Who said anything about December 25th?

Er, okay. So when was "Mithras' birthday" then?

Nineberry's joke didn't refer to the actual date, he could have picked any deity from Anubis to Zeus ...

Yeah - got that. Perhaps I should use those emoticon thingies more often.