All kinds of History
DnA Dvorkin
In article
<Pine.PMDF.3.95.97121...@TIGGER.STCLOUDSTATE.EDU>, "Guy
T. Rice" <ric...@TIGGER.STCLOUDSTATE.EDU> wrote:
> Hmmph. I'd acknowledge it if it was a fact, but it's not. The Romans,
> like most pagans, had no problems with people worshipping whatever diety
> they choose. They were polytheists, after all. The Christians, on the
> otherhand, were not so tolerant. If they'd simply run around worshipping
> their own god while acknowledging the validity of other people's faith, as
> pagans did, there would have been no problems for them. The problems
> arose because they ran around saying everyone else's faith was invalid,
> that other people's gods and goddesses didn't even exist, and that they'd
> all go to Hell if they didn't worship the Christian god.
It goes deeper than that, really. The Roman persecution of Christians was
an outgrowth of their persecution of the Jews -- the early Christians
regarded themselves as Jews, of course, and Christ as the Jewish Messiah
-- and it was for political reasons, not religious ones. As Guy said, the
Romans had no problem with other peoples' religions. They absorbed many
other religions into their own: the classic Roman pantheon is a mix of
native Roman, Etruscan, Greek, Egyptian, and who-knows-what-else.
But they were _absolutely_ intolerant of anything which challenged Roman
political power, and when the Christians militated against Roman rule, as
their Jewish ancestors had done, the Emperors couldn't have that ...
--
Daniel Dvorkin
d...@netherworld.BOUNCE.com Please remove "BOUNCE."
daniel....@sff.BOUNCE.net from addresses to send
d.dvo...@genie.BOUNCE.com e-mail -- Thanks!
Marija Kuncaitis
> It goes deeper than that, really. The Roman persecution of Christians
was
> an outgrowth of their persecution of the Jews -- the early Christians
> regarded themselves as Jews, of course, and Christ as the Jewish Messiah
> -- and it was for political reasons, not religious ones. As Guy said,
the
> Romans had no problem with other peoples' religions. They absorbed many
> other religions into their own: the classic Roman pantheon is a mix of
> native Roman, Etruscan, Greek, Egyptian, and who-knows-what-else.
>
> But they were _absolutely_ intolerant of anything which challenged Roman
> political power, and when the Christians militated against Roman rule, as
> their Jewish ancestors had done, the Emperors couldn't have that ...
I agree. The Early Christians lectured that they should only submit
to the will and authority of god. They refused to enter military service
and refused to acknowledge Caesar (etc) as their rulers.
/|\
LadyRhye
On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:43:26 GMT, "Marija Kuncaitis" <lil...@istar.ca>
wrote:
Umn.. especially hypocritical and self serving when you consider that
they were supposed to "...render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's
(the physical everything) and unto god that which is God's (the
spiritual).. . ." Very self-serving twist of their doctrine, no? Yet
another traditional element of Xian culture.
-LadyRhye- who is ng hopping again and, being the educated pagan that
she is, is unable to resist these threads
~*~Darling, I'm simply dripping with money--it may be vulgar, but it's Wonderful~*~ -Freddie Mercury
LRhye @ Primenet.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Club/1375
~*~GoAu5$Th5$AT5$ TGAnTg7]Jt[ PPeSaNi B8/15Bk\"2 cNr-P9 V7s M3p2wD
Z!! C7om a22= n7 b67F H171 g8T??90A m6Ea@Z6 w6T v4MR r3EISP p719Z5Me
De66!~ h6(PPeSaNiSc) sF6n SsYn k7Z N0192JFCOEBH]LM[ RnS LusAZ6~*~
**Remove spaces and ~s from email before replying**
Axel
LadyRhye <~lrhye~@~primenet.com~> wrote in message
<34a58812...@news.primenet.com>...
>On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:43:26 GMT, "Marija Kuncaitis" <lil...@istar.ca>
>wrote:
>>I agree. The Early Christians lectured that they should only submit
>>to the will and authority of god. They refused to enter military service
>>and refused to acknowledge Caesar (etc) as their rulers.
>
>Umn.. especially hypocritical and self serving when you consider that
>they were supposed to "...render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's
>(the physical everything) and unto god that which is God's (the
>spiritual).. . ." Very self-serving twist of their doctrine, no? Yet
>another traditional element of Xian culture.
>
Actually to argue that for the early Christians to refuse to enter military
service or to acknowledge Caeser as self-serving is phenomenally stupid.
By doing those things they were persecuted & murdered.
They did these things in the first instance because the religion teaches
that you are not allowed to kill things & in the second instance because
part of acknowledging Caesar as a ruler was to acknowledge that they were
deities which would have been blasphemy.
In both cases they were risking their lives for their beliefs.
To go back to an earlier point in this thread:
It was claimed that polytheists didn't persecute people because of their
religion, I would like to point out that the pagan Greeks persecuted the
Israelites (amongst others) for refusing to acknowledge the Greek pantheon.
Axel... ...Callisti
Hail Eris... ...All Hail
Discordia
<axelmaya@SPAM_IS_NOT_NICEglobalserve.net>
(Due to the unreliability of my news feed please e-mail me a copy of any
reply you wish me to read/respond to)
Individuation
> >It goes deeper than that, really. The Roman persecution of Christians was
> >an outgrowth of their persecution of the Jews -- the early Christians
> >regarded themselves as Jews, of course, and Christ as the Jewish Messiah
> >-- and it was for political reasons, not religious ones. As Guy said, the
> >Romans had no problem with other peoples' religions. They absorbed many
> >other religions into their own: the classic Roman pantheon is a mix of
> >native Roman, Etruscan, Greek, Egyptian, and who-knows-what-else.
> >
> >But they were _absolutely_ intolerant of anything which challenged Roman
> >political power, and when the Christians militated against Roman rule, as
> >their Jewish ancestors had done, the Emperors couldn't have that ...
>
> a political subversion was that they would acknowledge the validity
> of only one god. This ran into a problem in imperial Rome, where
> much of the Emperor's power and cache (never minding the fact
> that he had The Army, because IIRC the senate had quite a lot to
> do with the control of the army as well) rested on the fact that he
> was to be seen as a deity on earth. If you were Xian and were
> adamant about "one god", you obviously were traitorous towards
> the Emperor and Rome itself, ergo... byebye.
What I have read and written down from lectures is that the romans
accepted old and respected religions. The reason they disliked Xtianity
is because it was new...and they distrusted anything new. Even Judaism
wasn't really disrespected...just seen as a bit odd. But it was old, and
well known...so Jews were not really persecuted that much. The great
following of Xtianity stems from political reasons (hey if the emporer is
a xtian it doesn't hurt to be one yourself...especially if you're a
politician... so we have Constantine to blame)...
but whatever...that was mostly spoon fed to me in a history class...and I
haven't done my own research so what do i know.
Eileen (no back...really...just waiting for the boy to come home)
-----
"There are no happy endings...because nothing ever ends"-Schmendrick
the Magician _The Last Unicorn_
orz...@students.uiuc.edu //www.students.uiuc.edu/~orzoff
LadyRhye
On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 19:40:02 -0500, "Axel"
<axelmaya@SPAM_is_not_very_NICEglobalserve.net> wrote:
>
>LadyRhye <~lrhye~@~primenet.com~> wrote in message
><34a58812...@news.primenet.com>...
>>On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:43:26 GMT, "Marija Kuncaitis" <lil...@istar.ca>
>>wrote:
>
>>>I agree. The Early Christians lectured that they should only submit
>>>to the will and authority of god. They refused to enter military service
>>>and refused to acknowledge Caesar (etc) as their rulers.
>>
>>Umn.. especially hypocritical and self serving when you consider that
>>they were supposed to "...render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's
>>(the physical everything) and unto god that which is God's (the
>>spiritual).. . ." Very self-serving twist of their doctrine, no? Yet
>>another traditional element of Xian culture.
>>
>Actually to argue that for the early Christians to refuse to enter military
>service or to acknowledge Caeser as self-serving is phenomenally stupid.
>By doing those things they were persecuted & murdered.
>They did these things in the first instance because the religion teaches
>that you are not allowed to kill things & in the second instance because
>part of acknowledging Caesar as a ruler was to acknowledge that they were
>deities which would have been blasphemy.
>In both cases they were risking their lives for their beliefs.
I didn't say that. I said that they ignored part of their holy
doctrine for their own benefit. (i.e. not rendering unto caesar...
etc...). I didn't say it was stupid to avoid military service. Just
that it was self serving of them to imply that it was for religious
reasons.
-LadyRhye-
Axel
LadyRhye <~lrhye~@~primenet.com~> wrote in message
>I didn't say that. I said that they ignored part of their holy
>doctrine for their own benefit. (i.e. not rendering unto caesar...
>etc...). I didn't say it was stupid to avoid military service. Just
>that it was self serving of them to imply that it was for religious
>reasons.
You must be arguing that it was sensible to avoid military service. That is
unfortunately inaccurate. While now avoiding conscription isn't such a big
deal, in that period the idea of conscientious objection was unheard of. It
was classed as treason, and was cause for death by crucifixion.
I don't really think you could claim that they benefitted from it, unless
they were severe masochists who wanted to be persecuted & murdered.
And the section of scripture you are referring to is Luke 20:20-26.
In this story agents of the Pharisees ask Jesus a question with the
intention of entrapping him & using his response to prove that he is a
traitor.
However his answer is indirect:
J: Look at a coin, who's head is on it?
P:The emperors
J:So it's his.
Bearing in mind that he also says (Luke 14:33): Do be one of my disciples
you must give up everything.
He never says that his followers owe fealty or allegiance to the Roman
empire, and as a Jewish Prophet he wouldn't have.
To follow up with this, incidentally, the evidence implies, that most of the
early Christians did follow the Scriptures & it was only the mass acceptance
of Christianity and it's adoption as a state religion by Constantine that
turned it into an institution as corrupt as any other human power trip.
LadyRhye
On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:13:25 -0500, "Axel"
<axelmaya@SPAM_is_not_very_NICEglobalserve.net> wrote:
<<snip>>
>To follow up with this, incidentally, the evidence implies, that most of the
>early Christians did follow the Scriptures & it was only the mass acceptance
>of Christianity and it's adoption as a state religion by Constantine that
>turned it into an institution as corrupt as any other human power trip.
::shrug::
I grew up with a "Meta Christian" father who is into the entire
historical aspect. During the time you were talking about, there were
so many different sects of Xianity that it seems pointless in
hindsight to argue for them as one group. (brings to mind Monty
Python's Life of Brian. "We're the People's front? What ever
happened to the popular front?" "He's over there").
In any case, my point is merely that any doctrine can be turned to the
adherant's advantage even if the advantage in this case was martyrdom.
-LadyRhye- who isn't a discordian either and is currently not watching
"Oh God" on TV even though George Burns is rather cool.
Thessalia
>> The problems
>> arose because they ran around saying everyone else's faith was invalid,
>> that other people's gods and goddesses didn't even exist, and that they'd
>> all go to Hell if they didn't worship the Christian god.
>
>an outgrowth of their persecution of the Jews -- the early Christians
>regarded themselves as Jews, of course, and Christ as the Jewish Messiah
>-- and it was for political reasons, not religious ones. As Guy said, the
>Romans had no problem with other peoples' religions. They absorbed many
>other religions into their own: the classic Roman pantheon is a mix of
>native Roman, Etruscan, Greek, Egyptian, and who-knows-what-else.
>
>But they were _absolutely_ intolerant of anything which challenged Roman
>political power, and when the Christians militated against Roman rule, as
>their Jewish ancestors had done, the Emperors couldn't have that ...
Well, it's deeper than that, even. The reason Xianity was considered
a political subversion was that they would acknowledge the validity
of only one god. This ran into a problem in imperial Rome, where
much of the Emperor's power and cache (never minding the fact
that he had The Army, because IIRC the senate had quite a lot to
do with the control of the army as well) rested on the fact that he
was to be seen as a deity on earth. If you were Xian and were
adamant about "one god", you obviously were traitorous towards
the Emperor and Rome itself, ergo... byebye.
frogs and fishes from Thessaly
~~~~~~~~~~~thes...@aol.com~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ http://members.aol.com/thessalia/rose.htm ~~
"Ange, plein de gaîté, connaissez-vous l'angoisse?"
~~~~~~"Virtue is fragile." - Angela Carter~~~~~~
tee...@spamtrap.com
Individuation <orz...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
: Eileen (no back...really...just waiting for the boy to come home)
Would you please stop teasing us like this?
Individuation
Yeah well :) I'm still occasionally around. I read once every few
days...I only post if I see the need.
I suppose I have that old fart syndrom someone was talking about. I'm
just sick of it here. My personal life is getting much better...yet i
still don't feel the need to come back here in full force. Maybe it's
because my personal life is so wonderful right now.
I was really lonely for a long time...and I found some solitude in
alt.gothic. I found friends that became very close to me...people that
helped me through hard times...people that listened. I thought I was in
love a few times because i needed that connection. I wasn't finding
totally satisfactory friendships or relationships in real life...and this
was a place to escape to.
But now, things are so much happier...espeically since last year. I have
found someone that I truely love and care about, funny that he was right
in front of me for two years...and I never realized how much i had grown
to love him until this year. My best friend at school, Sylvia, has moved
into my house...and I feel finally comfortable with who I am and what life
has to offer. I feel like I have family here... Sure we all get into
spats and it's not totally happy go lucky...but it's safe. We fight..we
make up ..life goes on. I'm not afraid of being so totally alone anymore.
Alt.gothic provided a great service to me for a time...like therapy on
line. I got all my agressions out here...and now the flaming and the
fights seem totally pointless to me. When there is something interesting
to dicuss, like the history thread, I'll be around. But I don't really
need the rest of it.
So I thank all those that have been wonderful, and listened to me rant and
rave...and have seen me at my worst...and still offer a hand to hold.
Really guys, thank you...from the whole of my heart...thank you.
I'm still around watching and reading...so behave...cause I haven't gone
totally soft :)
Eileen
tee...@spamtrap.com
Individuation <orz...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
: On 29 Dec 1997 tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
: So I thank all those that have been wonderful, and listened to me rant and
: rave...and have seen me at my worst...and still offer a hand to hold.
: Really guys, thank you...from the whole of my heart...thank you.
Well, I'm glad for you that your life is going well. It's good that you're
not so alone anymore.
But I do miss your posts; you're one of the people I have in my killfile
to highlight instead of kill.
: I'm still around watching and reading...so behave...cause I haven't gone
: totally soft :)
Kewl.
Cuz sometimes I need a good spanking. :P