The Roman Empire and Christian Persecution

They didn't require conversion is the main point I bring to this discussion. They wanted Christians to accept the existence of other religions but Christians would actively attack non-Christians. Combine this with their refusal to pledge loyalty the state and you have yourself the equivalent of rebels or terrorists. So they got persecuted, yes, but the extent and the horror of it is massively overstated. They were attempting to overthrow the state, execution and being put to the cross is a basic expectation. You know, if you had citizenship in Rome, it was illegal to put you to the cross.

That came later. Much later, in fact. Christians were very critical of Paganism, obviously, and wanted no part in it; but they did not go around murdering Pagans or trying to overthrow the Empire.

Not that I'd have minded the latter, myself: a state which requires that its leader be granted divine honors is a state best destroyed.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Off-topic, but "subjective" doesn't equal "nonexistant"/

You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!

Basically most pre-modern states then. In medieval Christian kingdoms, for example, it was believed the monarch ruled by divine privilege.

edited 29th Sep '11 9:19:19 AM by honorius

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

Yeah, and it was a Very Bad Thing. Not nearly as bad, however, as the sheer blasphemy of pretending that the ruler him/herself was divine.

And? If one pulls a "it's all relative anyway, man" gambit when it comes to Roman persecutions against Christianity, they do not really have any ground to criticize any of the other events, past or present, that I mentioned.

edited 29th Sep '11 9:28:29 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

at least romans had some semblance of a judicial process. Divine right kings were essentially unquestionable and uncriticizeable.

edited 29th Sep '11 9:27:57 AM by Midgetsnowman

It isn't blasphemy if people (like Hercules) can get in your pantheon all the time.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

And the Roman Emperor was otherwise, at least as long as he was alive?

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Granted, but at least there was a rule of law. Rule of law in say, Medieval age britain was "you have 2 options. either work the land you dont own for your lord, or get stabbed in the face"

Actually, medieval age Britain had a fairly sophisticated system of law. And there was some sort of balance between State and Church, which made it so that neither had truly absolute power.

I am not a Pagan myself, but I think that it was. Very much so — in fact, if I were Pagan, I would think that the fall of Rome was the just punishment of the gods for the senseless hubris of the Emperors.

Hercules was a demigod to begin with, and he made a bunch of heroic*

acts, and after his death the gods decided to elevate him to the pantheon. That's a whole different thing from an arrogant human ruler starting to demand that his subjects tribute divine honors to him.

edited 29th Sep '11 9:50:30 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

except by the time Rome Fell, christianity controlled the empire and was happily massacring pagans or forcing them to convert at swordpoint to "civilize" the world.

edited 29th Sep '11 9:38:15 AM by Midgetsnowman

Christains were also persecuted because, for a while, it was rather apocalyptic. They claimed a "New Kingdom" was coming "soon" that would destroy and overthrow the bad people of the world. To the Romans, this sounded like a threat.

(assuming that this in response to my "if I were Pagan, I'd think that the fall of Rome was a punishment of the gods for the imperial cult")

And? The classical deities could be rather destructive if they got pissed, and, while they appreciated human worship, they did not need it. I could see them getting so annoyed at the Imperial cult that they decided to abandon all of their followers for a few millennia. If one was so inclined, he or she could even see the current resurgence of neopaganism as a sign that the gods have finally started to get over it.

edited 29th Sep '11 9:50:50 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

You could. I'd wager christians on a whole see it as "idiotic kids being quaint and stupid and not converting to jesus like they should"

snowman@Have you been reading some of Richard Dawkins' work lately?

If you want a book on Christian Persecution during the Roman times read Fox's"Book Of Matyrs".I have the book at my dad's house.

edited 29th Sep '11 9:49:08 AM by joyflower

Or as "young people being dissatisfied with materialistic ideologies, failing to connect with Christianity, and seeking their spirituality in long past, idealized and half-forgotten religions". But I might be veering a little off-topic.

edited 29th Sep '11 9:49:09 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Oddly enough English common law could alter a lot over the centuries, not least based on its relative social mobility when compared to its continental neighbours. to characterise the king as "divinely appointed" was quite a recent invention, relativly speaking. OFC "sacral" or "sacred" kingship, in which the king has a connection to God has been around for aaaaages.

But Divine Right Of Kings is a more recent invention, and "sacral" usually meant that they were supreme in religious authority, making them more like the emperor of China or Japan.

Its only when the state became efficient enough to accomidate one man running it that Divine Right Of Kings really appeared.

@Joy: Wasn't that done in the 16th century? I mean they do tend to make stuff up a fair amount back then (look at voltaire)

edited 29th Sep '11 9:56:43 AM by JosefBugman

That's hardly an objective source.

edited 29th Sep '11 9:51:18 AM by honorius

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

I really don't want to justify the Roman persecutions of Christians, but you've got to admit that every functional state has to put some limits to the religious freedom of its citizens. Absolute religious freedom is neither attainable nor desirable.

Let's just say and leave it at that.

But killing people because they don't want to worship the emperor as a god is being very petty.

It's killing people because they are subverting one of the states most important rituals.

I don't agree with that either but it's fair for it's day.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

I feel like I'm coming off as being okay with the Christian persecution but I'm not. I'm just trying to put the situation into context. In any other state other than the Romans, Christians would have been ethnically cleansed for what they did. Okay maybe that's an exaggeration, they would probably not be ethnically cleansed by Egypt, Persia or China either.

But I do remember Christians in fact committing large acts of vandalism against non-Christian targets and demanding to be executed over it (which the Roman authorities typically balked at due the martyrdom problem). They also committed religious riots and they did in fact kill Pagans. It got worse after Christianity became the state religion. It's not like the Christian persecution of other religions came out of nowhere. Whatever the Romans did pales incredibly to what Christians did later on.

And guess what, who's the worst criminal for the mass murder of Christians in religious cleansing campaigns? Christians.

I found something that conercens the Roman Empire and the persecution of Christians before you shout bias it is on the BBC website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/martyrs.html This one came from PBS.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/history/persecution.htm

And this from a site,it is relgious based but it seems factual.

edited 29th Sep '11 10:38:47 AM by joyflower

Well, killing them may have been petty, but note that Roman God-Emperor ideology didn't simply end with the victory of Christianity. The Byzantine Emperor was also accounted as the head of the Christian Church (by the Eastern Church, at least), while the Pope claimed the same position in the West. Both offices claimed to be "holy" and the deputies of Jesus (= God) on earth; and people who contradicted didn't fare too well.

The truth is that every major religion has at one time or another persecuted and killed people for their beliefs, or lack thereof. Religion and freedom of religion never go well together.

Let's just say and leave it at that.

Do the Jains count? They are pretty major in their part of India and they haven't done so.