Hypatia of Alexandria [Archive]

ComradeMan

14th October 2011, 11:31

It's hard to answer the question without seeming to form apologetics, and there is no justification for the horrible act of violence that led to Hypatia's gruesome death and nothing exculpates those "Christians" involved.

Nevertheless, popular culture and anti-Christian, as well as Protestant anti-Catholic, and atheists circles, culminating (in my opinion) in the film Agora have led to a completely biased and downright false idea of what was going on.

The Alexandrian Pagan philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria (370-415 AD), who was gruesomely murdered by a gang of Christian monks, is a good example of the savagery that organized Christianity used against non Christians in late Antiquity.

There is no historical evidence to suggest that monks killed Hypatia, a mob led by a minor figure (reader) by the name of Peter was responsible and furthermore there is nothing to suggest it was organised. Indeed, the Christian writer Socrotes of Constantinople (a contemporary) who provides us with an account of the events seems to be shocked and disgusted by it and praises the virtues of Hypatia.

Hypatia was one of the last Pagan philosophers in Egypt; in an age where most non Christian religions had been made illegal, Pagans were still allowed a very restricted existence in Alexandria, and Hypatia taught platonic philosophy to both Pagans and Christians.

Hypatia was a neo-Platonist, we don't know for sure what her own religious beliefs were as such other than that she was not a Christian of Jew. You'll note that many great Christian theologians such as Origen, St Augustine and Ambrose were keen supporters of neo-Platonism so it's unfair in my opinion to present this as "Christianity versus Paganism".

The bishop of the city, "Saint" Cyril (the nephew of bishop Theophilus, also sainted, who destroyed Alexandria's pagan temples and the famous Serapeum in 390) was at the time involved in a conflict with the city's prefect Orestes over religious turmoil pitting Christians against Jews, and he summoned 500 Nitrian monks to help him gain the upper hand. Just beforehand, Cyril expelled the Jews from Alexandria, confiscated their property, and burned all their synagogues.

The city of Alexandria had had about 400 years of "gang" violence between the various quarters of the city, the Christians, Jews and non-Christians had fought it out in their ancient ghettos for long before this conflict. Indeed throughout the Roman period Jewish-Christian relations varied, however in the 339 CE the Emperor Constantius had to pass a law against the Jewish stoning of Christian converts. :crying:

As for the Serapeum, there are conflicting accounts of what actually happened in 391 and it's hard to decide who bears more responsibility, the Christians for intolerance of the non-Christians, or the non-Christians who initially attacked the Christians and took prisoners who they tortured inside the Serapeum. :confused: The violence and scheming by Jews and Christians in this period is quite horrible, tit-for-tat and so on. Imagine a kind of ancient version of Belfast (no offence meant to Irish readers)- in terms of religious sectarian violence and antipathy.

As a side note, the Serapeum was built on the site of the Great Library of Alexandria that was actually sacked and destroyed by the troops of Julius Caesar (a pagan) and we don't know what it contained. This idea of the Christians destroying the Great Library, as is alluded too in the film Agora, is without any real historical foundation at all.

The prefect Orestes, who had tried to protect the Jews,

Orestes had not tried to protect the Jews at all. In my opinion he was a weak Prefect and a political nincumpoop who lost control of the situation entirely- call yourself a Roman! Orestes had had one of St Cyril's envoys arrested and tortured in a dispute over public theatre shows after the Jews had rioted against the presence of this envoy, Hierax. The torture and execution of Hierax in turn provoked the Christians into an angry mob attack on the Jews and the whole cycle of violence continued. Let's not also forget that Orestes was a Christian too. However, Orestes actually comes out of this one quite cleverly, for it was he who called the conference in the first place in order to put laws in place to regulate these public theatres and dances on the "Sabbath" and it was he too who was about to put laws in place that would have provoked the Jewish community.

Cyril decided to avenge himself one someone close to Orestes: Hypatia.

There is no evidence for this at all other than speculation by far later historians.

In a shocking example of fabrication, the Church a few centuries later created the story of a Christian Alexandrian woman, saint Catherine of Alexandria, who was tortured to death by Pagans. Most historians attribute the origin of this fictional martyr to have been based on Hypatia. As usual, in the Christian martyrdom stories, the Christians become the good guys who are ruthlessly persecuted by the evil Pagans. Thankfully, the original account of Hypatia's death survived this disgusting fabrication.

We know very little about St Catherine of Alexandria at all, the Catholic Church has removed her from the official calendar of Saints too. We are dealing with the 4th century at the end of the day and the speculation of modern historians hardly counts for evidence. To say it's a shocking case of fabrication is to present the case as declared, which it is not.

You cannot deny that intolerance existed in all quarters and that there were Christians who suffered at the hands of pagans too. It seems to me that what happens here is-

"Christian martyrdom of which we know very little"- the evil Christians made it all up and are lying because few records remain.

"non-Christian martyrdom of which we know very little"- the evil Christians must hade done it and we'll then present historical speculation as fact despite the few records that remain.

On this last note.

"Shortly after her murder, there appeared under Hypatia's name a forged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgery) anti-Christian letter.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#cite_note-41) The Neoplatonist historian Damascius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascius) (ca. AD 458–538) was "anxious to exploit the scandal of Hypatia's death", and attributed responsibility for her murder to Bishop Cyril and his Christian followers; that historical account is contained in the Suda.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#cite_note-Whitfield-42) Moreover, Damascius's account of the Christian murder of Hypatia is the sole historical source attributing responsibility to Bishop Cyril.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#cite_note-43) Maria Dzielska proposes that the bishop's body guards might have murdered Hypatia.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#cite_note-44)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Works

The saddest thing about the legacy of Hypatia, in my opinion, is that someone who was murdered because of politics, religious intolerance and racial incidents has been manipulated and used further throughout history as a tool in politicising, polemics and anti-tolerance.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

14th October 2011, 17:05

The saddest thing about the legacy of Hypatia, in my opinion, is that someone who was murdered because of politics, religious intolerance and racial incidents has been manipulated and used further throughout history as a tool in politicising, polemics and anti-tolerance.

I think the saddest thing is that the murder of Hypatia by a Christian mob, among the many and varied crimes of Christianity throughout its history, isn't better known amongst the general population.

But apparently pointing out Christian crimes and the overall reactionary role of Christianity throughout history is "anti-tolerance". :rolleyes:

Astarte

14th October 2011, 18:45

I think it was kind of a situation of "dual power" in terms of religion - with Christianity taking the ascendancy and paganism in decline. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD Roman Emperors had been trying to crush organized Christianity for hundreds of years. Diocletian, who left power in 305 AD seems to have been the last Emperor who seriously attempted a Christian persecution before Constantine made it the state religion. But then, even in 361-363 AD Julian came to power and tried to re-instate paganism as the official religion, even restructuring the Roman religious system to mirror the Christian Church - the pagan counterfeit of the church apparatus - the very "Bride of Christ" probably made the Church Fathers a little nervous, and zealously outraged.

So, it could be that by the time Julian was gone, Christianity was a bit hardline in retaining its position as the hegemonic religion of Rome.

Seeing as though the track record of Christianity in terms of its spreading throughout Europe in the 500-900's was full of the crushing of indigenous pagans and the slaughter of even fellow Christians with different ideas as 'heretics', I wouldn't be surprised if a Christian mob got to her which was whipped up into a frenzy by some local bishop.

ComradeMan

14th October 2011, 20:09

I think the saddest thing is that the murder of Hypatia by a Christian mob, among the many and varied crimes of Christianity throughout its history, isn't better known amongst the general population.
But apparently pointing out Christian crimes and the overall reactionary role of
Christianity throughout history is "anti-tolerance". :rolleyes:

Your missing the point. If you read my response at the beginning of my post you'll see I don't exculpate anyone- however, using something as terrible as this dishonestly in a different epoch in order to further one's own "political" agenda is also distasteful.

The overall reactionary role of Christianity throughout history...? Well, most of history is pretty damn reactionary regardless of whether it's Christianity or not so that's not really an argument. It's not like the "pagans" beforehand where leftists....

Zostrianos

14th October 2011, 22:15

Hypatia was a neo-Platonist, we don't know for sure what her own religious beliefs were as such other than that she was not a Christian of Jew. You'll note that many great Christian theologians such as Origen, St Augustine and Ambrose were keen supporters of neo-Platonism so it's unfair in my opinion to present this as "Christianity versus Paganism".

Augustine and Ambrose only used the bits of Neoplatonism that were useful in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity. They were otherwise very hostile to Pagan philosophy.

As for the Serapeum, there are conflicting accounts of what actually happened in 391 and it's hard to decide who bears more responsibility, the Christians for intolerance of the non-Christians, or the non-Christians who initially attacked the Christians and took prisoners who they tortured inside the Serapeum.....
As a side note, the Serapeum was built on the site of the Great Library of Alexandria that was actually sacked and destroyed by the troops of Julius Caesar (a pagan) and we don't know what it contained. This idea of the Christians destroying the Great Library, as is alluded too in the film Agora, is without any real historical foundation at all.

The accounts from the time actually state that it was Theophilus who provoked the Pagan populace. Right after Theodosius' edict in 391, after Theophilus found some statues in an old temple he displayed them in public in order to mock the Pagans. This of course provoked a riot by the Pagans, who walled themselves up in the Serapeum. There is one account that says they took Christian hostages and forced a few to perform sacrifices and killed others, but this could very well be a fabrication by a Christian writer who wanted to paint the Pagans in a a bad light. We'll probably never know.
The library itself had been destroyed a few centuries earlier, but there were some books that survived, and they were later transferred to the Serapeum, which subsequently became the main cultural center of the city. I believe it was Gibbon who first suggested that Theophilus burned the library after demolishing it. The contemporary accounts don't make mention of any books, but it wouldn't be far fetched to suggest that whatever books the Christians found were tossed on a bonfire. Sure, book burning had also occurred under Pagan emperors, but it became much more widespread after Christians took power and set out to eradicate heretical sects often by burning their books, and destroying Pagan literature they regarded as contrary to Christianity.

Zostrianos

14th October 2011, 22:37

But then, even in 361-363 AD Julian came to power and tried to re-instate paganism as the official religion, even restructuring the Roman religious system to mirror the Christian Church - the pagan counterfeit of the church apparatus - the very "Bride of Christ" probably made the Church Fathers a little nervous, and zealously outraged.

Actually Julian was probably the most tolerant emperor in the entire history of the empire. His reputation was soiled by Christian apologists because he established religious tolerance, but he never persecuted anyone:

Among dozens of specific cases of Christians listed by our sources as “martyred” under Julian, it seems that
the majority were actually killed by pagan mobs or by the secular authorities in retaliation for their provocative attacks against paganism—smashing idols, destroying temples, disrupting rituals. This fact is not only admitted but even celebrated by Christian sources, who without exception refer to the slain Christians as martyrs. (M. Gaddis, There is no crime for those who have Christ, 94)

When he came to power, he simply removed the Church's privileged status above other faiths, and actually helped many Christian factions who had been exiled by anti-heretical edicts by welcoming them back into the empire. THe only move he made against Christians was to forbid Christian teachers from using Pagan texts to teach, but this was well justified: Christians had a habit of using Pagan texts to denigrate them and show that Christianity was superior. You couldn't have people like that as teachers, denigrating what they were teaching.
Julian also had a sense of justice, and forced the Church to pay for repairs to temples they had destroyed.
Here's a couple of good examples of Julian's clemency: when some Arian Christians burned down a gnostic sanctuary in Egypt, Julian didn't start putting people to death (like others would have). He merely confiscated the church's property to pay for the damages. Another example, also in Egypt, was when a mob of Alexandrians killed the local bishop George, a fanatic who had slandered Pagans publicly and thus provoked the ire of the populace: instead of condoning the actions of the mob, Julian sent a furious letter to the Alexandrians saying that while George's behaviour was unacceptable, they had no right to have killed him.
Julian wasn't perfect, but he was a good man, whose reputation was later slandered by Christian writers:

"Gregory seems actually resentful of Julian’s reluctance to persecute, accusing the emperor of begrudging Christians the honor of martyrdom.
Christians were determined to make Julian a persecutor, and were ready to suffer to that end. In later historical memory, sectarian differences between Nicenes, Homoians, Anomoians, and others were buried for the duration of Julian’s reign. Nicene tradition happily commemorated as martyrs many who in other circumstances might have been condemned as heretics. Despite Julian’s best efforts to avoid the label, later Christian sources elaborated him into a persecutor of Diocletianic proportions and repeated stories of “martyrs” who had defied him." (Gaddis, 92)

Zostrianos

14th October 2011, 22:48

"I had imagined that the prelates of the Galilaeans were under greater obligations to me than to my predecessor. For in his reign many of them were banished, persecuted, and imprisoned, and many of the so-called heretics were executed ... all of this has been reversed in my reign; the banished are allowed to return, and confiscated goods have been returned to the owners. But such is their folly and madness that, just because they can no longer be despots, ... or carry out their designs first against their brethren, and then against us, the worshippers of the gods, they are inflamed with fury and stop at nothing in their unprincipled attempts to alarm and enrage the people." From Julian's edict of tolerance

manic expression

14th October 2011, 23:16

As a side note, the Serapeum was built on the site of the Great Library of Alexandria that was actually sacked and destroyed by the troops of Julius Caesar (a pagan) and we don't know what it contained. This idea of the Christians destroying the Great Library, as is alluded too in the film Agora, is without any real historical foundation at all.
As an extra-side note, the Great Library of Alexandria wasn't actually attacked by Caesar's troops. Caesar and his not-quite-a-legion (4,000 soldiers) were besieged within a small district by a force about 5x that number; they burned the Egyptian fleet purely as a matter of survival, and it was probably this fire that destroyed the library. Blaming Caesar is a bit harsh IMO, he wasn't trying to damage the library and if he hadn't torched the fleet he and his men and his cause would have been done for.

Still an absolute tragedy, though.

You cannot deny that intolerance existed in all quarters and that there were Christians who suffered at the hands of pagans too.Well, I'm not so sure of this. If we look at the wider history, pagans were exceptionally tolerant of Christianity. With the rare exception such as Nero, Roman persecution of Christians was kept to a minimum. Even when there were persecutions much later on, it was not only based on questionable loyalty to the empire (meaning it was political and not just religious) but also usually focused on the priesthood and not practitioners at large.

Compare this to Christianity which, at its first real opportunity, outlawed paganism outright.

In all, European paganism trounces Christianity in any contest of tolerance. The real sad part is that if paganism hadn't been so tolerant, it might have avoided utter extermination.

ComradeMan

14th October 2011, 23:17

Augustine and Ambrose only used the bits of Neoplatonism that were useful in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity. They were otherwise very hostile to Pagan philosophy.

Not really- most of Neoplatonism corresponded so well the Christianity or vice-versa that the only thing they had to add was the theology of Christ. Augustine wasn't the only one.

The accounts from the time actually state that it was Theophilus who provoked the Pagan populace. Right after Theodosius' edict in 391, after Theophilus found some statues in an old temple he displayed them in public in order to mock the Pagans. This of course provoked a riot by the Pagans, who walled themselves up in the Serapeum. There is one account that says they took Christian hostages and forced a few to perform sacrifices and killed others, but this could very well be a fabrication by a Christian writer who wanted to paint the Pagans in a a bad light. We'll probably never know.

There isn't just one account and there is no consensus. Sozomen's account for example states that it all started with a row over an abandoned temple of Dionysus. A temple that had fallen into disrepair due to its abandonment under Theodosius' laws. Statues that had been "excavated"- including "phallic symbols". Don't forget that the Roman Senate had once tried to ban the Dionysian rites, as well as Lycurgus of Thrace and Pentheus of Thebes long before the incidents in Alexandria.

Now the retaliation of which you speak, involved a riot and people being captured, humiliated and tortured along with a lot of killing....

The other point is that why is it always a fabrication by Christian writers unless it's Christians in a bad light? Socrates of Constantinople, a Christian, certainly did not describe the Christians in a "good light" at all with regards to Hypatia.

The library itself had been destroyed a few centuries earlier, but there were some books that survived, and they were later transferred to the Serapeum, which subsequently became the main cultural center of the city.....The contemporary accounts don't make mention of any books, but it wouldn't be far fetched to suggest that whatever books the Christians found were tossed on a bonfire.

Right, the contemporary accounts and the evidence.:thumbup1: You can't base historical narrative on what you might think wouldn't be far fetched.... we all know where that can lead.

Sure, book burning had also occurred under Pagan emperors, but it became much more widespread after Christians took power and set out to eradicate heretical sects often by burning their books, and destroying Pagan literature they regarded as contrary to Christianity.

Not really, in fact, other than the burning of the Library of Antioch (political), most of the book burning that went on was Christians burning other Christians' books. I can't actually find much at all to suggest Christians burning pagan books all over the place other than two or three incidents. Of course book burning was nothing new, the pagan Emperor Diocletian was a major book burner. You also forget that outside of the Mediterranean there weren't all that many books to be burnt anyway.

The allegations are also not borne out by the fact that throughout the late Western Empire and onwards into the Medieval period, it was actually the Christians who conserved most of the works of the classics and knowledge of Greek and Latin (by now turning into Romance languages). Most of the Christian writers from this period also cite classical texts, Boethius and Cassiodorus come to mind.

Zostrianos

15th October 2011, 08:10

Not really- most of Neoplatonism corresponded so well the Christianity or vice-versa that the only thing they had to add was the theology of Christ. Augustine wasn't the only one.

Initially Augustine used Neoplatonism as a philosophical basis for Christian doctrines, but he soon discarded it entirely. Him and most other church fathers were generally dismissive of Pagan philosophy, and when they did refer to it it was either to mock it or to try and use parts of it to confirm Christian dogma. Basil advised Christians to limit thought and inquiry, and stay away from philosophy in his Homilies, because ultimately God is behind everything, and so reasoning and inquiry is useless:

To spend time on such points would not prove to be to the edification of the Church...Put then a limit to your thought, so that your curiosity in investigating the incomprehensible may not incur the reproaches of Job...
At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason....
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32011.htm)

Chrysostom was even more hostile:

For that which philosophers were not able by means of reasoning to accomplish, this, what seemed to be foolishness did excellently well...What great labors did Plato endure, and his followers, discoursing to us about a line, and an angle, and a point, and about numbers even and odd, and equal unto one another and unequal, and such-like spiderwebs; (for indeed those webs are not more useless to man's life than were these subjects, and without doing good to any one great or small by their means, so he made an end of his life.... And even as he came he went away, having spoken nothing with certainty, nor persuaded any hearer. But the Cross wrought persuasion by means of unlearned men; yea it persuaded even the whole world: and not about common things, but in discourse of God, and the godliness which is according to truth, and the evangelical way of life, and the judgment of the things to come...And of all men it made philosophers: the very rustics, the utterly unlearned.

Especially towards the 'Greeks' (i.e. educated Pagans and philosophers):

In like manner let us also act; and as fathers with children, so let us discourse with the Greeks. For all the Greeks are children. And this, some of their own writers have said, that that people are children always, and no Greek is an old man. Now children cannot bear to take thought for any thing useful; so also the Greeks would be for ever at play; and they lie on the ground, grovelling in posture and in affections. Moreover, children oftentimes, when we are discoursing about important things, give no heed to anything that is said, but will even be laughing all the time: such also are the Greeks. When we discourse of the Kingdom, they laugh. And as spittle dropping in abundance from an infant's mouth, which oftentimes spoils its meat and drink, such also are the words flowing from the mouth of the Greeks, vain and unclean.

(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220104.htm)

There were a few exceptions of course, like the Neoplatonist Synesius who converted, became a bishop and composed a set of magnificent Pagan styled hymns, but this was the exception and not the rule.

Not really, in fact, other than the burning of the Library of Antioch (political), most of the book burning that went on was Christians burning other Christians' books. I can't actually find much at all to suggest Christians burning pagan books all over the place other than two or three incidents. Of course book burning was nothing new, the pagan Emperor Diocletian was a major book burner. You also forget that outside of the Mediterranean there weren't all that many books to be burnt anyway.
The allegations are also not borne out by the fact that throughout the late Western Empire and onwards into the Medieval period, it was actually the Christians who conserved most of the works of the classics and knowledge of Greek and Latin (by now turning into Romance languages). Most of the Christian writers from this period also cite classical texts, Boethius and Cassiodorus come to mind.

Not including the numerous book burnings of heretical literature, R. Macmullen in his "Christianity and Paganism" book, p162 in the endnotes, cites no less than 8 major episodes where Christians burned Pagan texts often by the thousands, including the burning of the works of Celsus, Porphyry, and others. This was more than just 2 or 3 incidents. Add to that the campaigns against heretical literature, and we have a good case for the Church's destruction of literature on religious grounds. Christians scribes also gave preference to Christian works over others when deciding what to copy, and stamped out Pagan texts to reuse the vellum for Christian works:

"Those centuries, as everyone knows, constituted a differentially permeated membrane: it allowed the writings of Christianity to pass through, but not of Christianity's enemies. As a tangential illustration: our sole copy of the sole work about political good sense by the person arguably best able to deliver it to us from classical Antiquity, Cicero, was sponged out from the vellum to make room for our hundredth copy of Augustine's meditations on the Psalms....similar differences in the various fates of his various works reflect the interested choices made over the generations to replicate or not; to let die, or to multiply and preserve..." (Macmullen, 4)

As for the works that were preserved, Christian copyists habitually excised portions of texts they found offensive or inappropriate. And even classical philosophical works that were preserved, lost prestige from the 4th century to the Middle Ages and were stored away and forgotten, as the educational institutions of the Byzantine empire gave preference to Christian doctrine over the "pagan errors".
But you're right that it was Christians who preserved most literature that survived, the reason being that by the 6th century there were only Christians left! The rich multiculturalism of the late empire had been stamped out by the Church, the philosophical schools shut down, and the educational and literary institutions were transferred to monks and clergy. And a lot of the classics were not preserved by Christians, but made their way to Mesopotamia after Justinian closed the schools, and the philosophers fled to Harran and neighbouring regions. Later, Muslims, who were more tolerant, became acquainted with Classical works in this region, and it's thanks to them that a lot of them survived and returned to Europe during the 12th century renaissance. But only in the later Renaissance did the classics once again regain their full prestige.

ComradeMan

15th October 2011, 10:04

Actually Julian was probably the most tolerant emperor in the entire history of the empire. His reputation was soiled by Christian apologists because he established religious tolerance, but he never persecuted anyone:

Julian was no Diocletian but it is inaccurate to say that no persecutions occurred under his reign. As Emperor it was also his responsibility to maintain the Pax Romanum, and there a numerous cases of quite horrendous acts of violence by "mobs" under his brief rule. You should also be careful in ascribing to much religious/spiritual zeal to Julian, he was in effect a Roman Emperor of the House of Constantine and political motivations were behind his edicts. The 4th century had seen a lot of the Roman upper classes, the learned and the wealthy convert to Christianity and this meant that the ruling classes in Rome did not owe their allegiance to the "divine Emperors" in the same ways as of old. ;) Julian was also, it seems irritated by Christian charity to the poor, Christian and non-Christian and it was something he tried to model a Roman charity system on!

Another thing that people miss is that Julian was a Neoplatonist, he had no real intention of restoring the religion of the Ancient Romans and Greeks that we think of- he was indifferent. He had his own Neoplatonist spirituality that might have caused his premature death too in that he believed to be a reincarnation of Alexander the Great and went into a battle against the Persians without armour and got wounded and died.

He barred Christians from holding military commands and public office- thoee who refused to renounce their faith were often killed. He stopped Christians from teaching and using classical texts- (which implies that before they had been learned in the classical world and used non-Christian authors) in order to separate them from society. There is already ample evidence that Christian writers during this period took a lot of scholarship from the works of antiquity, not merely to denigrate them. As far as textual criticism is concerned- well, the philosophers had been denigrating each other in one sense or another for centuries. Let's not forget that one of the charges against Socrates has been a trumped up charge of blasphemy. The recalling of "heretic" bishops was a political act designed to "divide and rule".

Basil of Ancyra was one of the victims of Julian. Basil had issues with the pagans but also with the Arians. Julian called Basil in front of him on a visit to Ancyra and tried to persuade him to change, Basil refused and also apparently prophesied Julian's death at which point the elderly priest was taken away, tortured and killed by being skinned (torn into seven parts) alive. This happened in 362 CE. We can also add to this Donatus Bishop of Arezzo and quite a few others.

However, you have to ask yourself why Julian failed?

As for the works that were preserved, Christian copyists habitually excised portions of texts they found offensive or inappropriate. And even classical philosophical works that were preserved, lost prestige from the 4th century to the Middle Ages and were stored away and forgotten, as the educational institutions of the Byzantine empire gave preference to Christian doctrine over the "pagan errors".

I think you have to look at things within the context of the times too. Those people were not modern historians or historiographers applying a modern, we hope objective ;), approach. For these people, as for their pagan predecessors, religious and spiritual correctness was also a matter of life and death- not just an exercise in object textual criticism. Classical writers were not known for their objectivity as such and did not follow the same canon as those of today are at least supposed to do.... Herodotus "Father of Lies".... LOL!!!

But you're right that it was Christians who preserved most literature that survived, the reason being that by the 6th century there were only Christians left! The rich multiculturalism of the late empire had been stamped out by the Church, the philosophical schools shut down, and the educational and literary institutions were transferred to monks and clergy. And a lot of the classics were not preserved by Christians, but made their way to Mesopotamia after Justinian closed the schools, and the philosophers fled to Harran and neighbouring regions. Later, Muslims, who were more tolerant, became acquainted with Classical works in this region, and it's thanks to them that a lot of them survived and returned to Europe during the 12th century renaissance. But only in the later Renaissance did the classics once again regain their full prestige.

This is not quite how it went. The Eastern Roman Empire preserved a lot of the corpus of classical literature and learning. The East-West split caused a major downturn in the West, where it was, I believe, the monks of Ireland and Britain who actually preserved the Latin language and knowledge of the classics so much that many ended up being missionaries back in places such as Italy. When Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks, the mass exodus of learned Christians with their classical knowledge and (books) to Italy is was set off the Renaissance. Don't forget that when the Muslims conquered Alexandria, the "other" Library was allegedly burnt down by the army of Amr Ibn Al'Aas in 642 CE. This is controversial but both Islamic and non-Islamic writers refer to this.

FFS--- being a librarian in Alexandria was not much fun!!!

As an extra-side note, the Great Library of Alexandria wasn't actually attacked by Caesar's troops. Caesar and his not-quite-a-legion (4,000 soldiers) were besieged within a small district by a force about 5x that number; they burned the Egyptian fleet purely as a matter of survival, and it was probably this fire that destroyed the library. Blaming Caesar is a bit harsh IMO, he wasn't trying to damage the library and if he hadn't torched the fleet he and his men and his cause would have been done for.

You're right- Caesar was attacking Alexandria and it's unclear from the classcial authors what the fire was about- if it was accidental, or deliberate (he needed to clear an area of Alexandria) and so on. Caesar "notably" does not mention it all in his writings. However it all gets confusing because of the Royal Library at Alexandria too. Nevertheless, it burnt down as a result of Roman violence.

Nevertheless the idea that the Christians burnt the library is a common one and yet without much basis in truth.

Well, I'm not so sure of this. If we look at the wider history, pagans were exceptionally tolerant of Christianity. With the rare exception such as Nero, Roman persecution of Christians was kept to a minimum. Even when there were persecutions much later on, it was not only based on questionable loyalty to the empire (meaning it was political and not just religious) but also usually focused on the priesthood and not practitioners at large.

Which pagans?

You forgot about Diocletian too.

In all, European paganism trounces Christianity in any contest of tolerance. The real sad part is that if paganism hadn't been so tolerant, it might have avoided utter extermination.

Yeah, when those Norseman were murdering monks and sacking monasteries they were pretty tolerant....

You can't reify "European paganism" into one monolithic block. Someone like Julian the Apostate would have probably had as much contempt for the "barbarous" religions of the north and the "primitive superstitions" of the peasants as he seems to have had for Christianity too. Of course we don't know a lot about many "pagan" religions and belief systems of ancient Europe because they were wiped out by the pagan Romans (druids) or deliberatly romanised to a point at which it's difficult to tell... :rolleyes:

Zostrianos

15th October 2011, 10:30

thoee who refused to renounce their faith were often killed.

Do you have a source for this? It doesn't sound like something Julian would do. The only similar account I had read was when a Christian insulted him to his face, and Julian had him arrested and was about to have him tortured, but felt remorse and let him go.
There is another story of 2 of his officers (Juventinus and Maximus) who were Christians and when he found out he had them executed. However, it turns out they were actually killed by a Christian emperor (I don't recall which) in a heretical dispute; later Christian writers (predictably) ascribed them to Julian and sainted them.

He stopped Christians from teaching and using classical texts- (which implies that before they had been learned in the classical world and used non-Christian authors) in order to separate them from society. There is already ample evidence that Christian writers during this period took a lot of scholarship from the works of antiquity, not merely to denigrate them. As far as textual criticism is concerned- well, the philosophers had been denigrating each other in one sense or another for centuries. Let's not forget that one of the charges against Socrates has been a trumped up charge of blasphemy. The recalling of "heretic" bishops was a political act designed to "divide and rule".

He had taken rule in an empire that had been ravaged by Christians, and was trying to find ways to clean up the mess left by his predecessors. He could have resorted to massacres, but chose instead to restrict Christians in authority, knowing the danger that they posed - and as later history has taught us, he was quite right to do so. Julian's detractors complain about these measures, but for some reason they remain silent when later Christian emperors stripped Pagans and Jews of any rights, and resorted to massacres and unspeakable savagery. It's an unfortunate consequence of 1800 years of Christian hegemony over western culture, that, for instance, the wise Julian is depicted as an intolerant evil persecutor, while the brutal Justinian is revered as a patron of byzantine culture, and a saint in the Orthodox church.
As for the recalling of heretical bishops, that's another charge that Christians place at Julian's doorstep: his intentions must have been to divide. That's like saying modern multiculturalism and acceptance of different races and creeds is a way for governments to create division and strife in society.

However, you have to ask yourself why Julian failed?

Because he was killed in battle after a short rule of 3 years. Mind you, I don't think Julian was perfect; his noble philosophical background stood in contrast to his addiction to sacrifices, which apparently made him unpopular (the people wanted festivals, not sacrifices). However, I think he stands as an example of justice against fundamentalism, of wisdom standing up to fanaticism.

ComradeMan

15th October 2011, 10:58

Do you have a source for this? It doesn't sound like something Julian would do. The only similar account I had read was when a Christian insulted him to his face, and Julian had him arrested and was about to have him tortured, but felt remorse and let him go.
There is another story of 2 of his officers (Juventinus and Maximus) who were Christians and when he found out he had them executed. However, it turns out they were actually killed by a Christian emperor (I don't recall which) in a heretical dispute; later Christian writers (predictably) ascribed them to Julian and sainted them.

Basil of Ancrya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_of_Ancyra
Etc...

He had taken rule in an empire that had been ravaged by Christians,

In what way had it been ravaged by Christians? It had been ravaged by the Romans for a fair few centuries.... and by the time of Julian the empire was only nominally Christian anyway and for no more than really half a century or so.

You are also forgetting that Julian was born to "Christian parents" had been brought up a "Christian" and been educated a "Christian". Also that Constantinia dynasty were pretty nasty regardless of religion and spent a lot of the time murdering and plotting against each other!

manic expression

15th October 2011, 11:11

Basil of Ancrya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_of_Ancyra
Etc...
Even according to those Christian sources, the guy wasn't killed for being Christian, he was killed for being a trouble-making douche (pardon the expression).

As far as Julian's "persecutions", you have to understand that the Christians had done the same for some decades. Since Constantine, Christians had gotten preference from the state, then tax breaks. Add to this the mob violence throughout some areas...and how else could things be brought to a reasonable conclusion other than saying "no, you can't be a jerk to the Arians and pagans and expect to get away with it"? After all, the breakdown of secular power in front of religious fanatics was leading up to arguably the most complete suppression of religion in history.

In what way had it been ravaged by Christians?You alluded to it yourself:

The city of Alexandria had had about 400 years of "gang" violence between the various quarters of the city, the Christians, Jews and non-Christians had fought it out in their ancient ghettos for long before this conflict.

Christians were doing their best to remove all religious competition...and not long after Julian, the worst would come. Ambrose and his pet king Theodosius outlawed paganism, and all the rich traditions of the Mediterranean began to be destroyed. Julian, I think, saw what was happening and tried to stop it.

Zostrianos

15th October 2011, 11:19

Basil of Ancrya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_of_Ancyra
Etc...

I've perused several scholarly works, and never saw any references to this Basil as being murdered by Julian. Every work I've seen states that Julian never persecuted anyone, and that all martyrs attributed to him were victims of revenge by Pagans. I did find a reference to Basil in Gaddis' book, but it's a bit different, ironic almost:
Basil of Ancyra was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 360 on charges that he had ordered secular authorities to sentence clerics to imprisonment or exile, and that he used judicial torture to force a slave to testify against her mistress

Since the only reference to that is from Orthodox christian sources, I have a feeling Basil may have not been a victim of Julian's fury.

In what way had it been ravaged by Christians? It had been ravaged by the Romans for a fair few centuries.... and by the time of Julian the empire was only nominally Christian anyway and for no more than really half a century or so.
You are also forgetting that Julian was born to "Christian parents" had been brought up a "Christian" and been educated a "Christian". Also that Constantinia dynasty were pretty nasty regardless of religion and spent a lot of the time murdering and plotting against each other!

Yes, I think as a child he was the only survivor of a massacre by one of is Constantinian predecessors.
Now the empire had suffered immensely under the Church. Religious violence (which was unheard of outside of monotheism) ran rampant, and the Church, who had a privileged place after Constantine's edicts, routinely abused its authority already in the first half of the 4th century, by vandalizing temples, and pressuring the emperors to restrict the rights of Pagans and Jews. The Church did a lot of damage to the empire; sure it wasn't the only culprit, but in religious matters it bears the bulk of the responsibility.

ComradeMan

15th October 2011, 11:20

Even according to those Christian sources, the guy wasn't killed for being Christian, he was killed for being a trouble-making douche (excuse the expression).

Double standards here. Basil of Ancyra was not killed for anything other than he would not compromise his beliefs to the will of the Emperor. If a Christian does something it's because they are a Christian, but if a Christian is a victim it's for every other reason other than that they are a Christian.

As far as Julian's "persecutions", you have to understand that the Christians had done the same for some decades.

And you have to understand that the pagan Romans had done the same for centuries....

This leads us to the question... how much of this intolerance was actually to do with the professed belief systems of those involved or to the fact that generally speaking we weren't dealing with a culture or world that was particularly tolerant. The Romans tolerated you if would submit yourself to the authority of the Roman state, and that was about it. The Romans destroyed the Druids, they attempted to destroy Judaism and desecrated the Temple, they tried to destroy Christianity too.

Getting back to the point: may we ask then: "Where the Roman Christians intolerant because they were Christians or because they were Romans?"
:crying::confused:

Since Constantine, Christians had gotten preference from the state, then tax breaks. Add to this the mob violence throughout some areas...and how else could things be brought to a reasonable conclusion other than saying "no, you can't be a jerk to the Arians and pagans and expect to get away with it"?

Furthermore, I have stated before that I am not trying to exculpate anyone from their acts of violence or intolerance but I do seem to find that these days the Christians are focused upon with a certain bias that disingenuously excludes all of the other groups.

Let's face it, we can find acts of intolerance from just about everyone in the ancient world.

Zostrianos

15th October 2011, 11:28

The Romans destroyed the Druids, they attempted to destroy Judaism and desecrated the Temple, they tried to destroy Christianity too.

THe Roman persecutions of Judaism were motivated entirely by a desire to keep control of the empire by repressing the 2 Jewish revolts. They were horrendous and abominable, but were not motivated by religion Before the 67 revolt, Jews were allowed to practice their faith (though they were heavily taxed). The Roman state even afforded them privileges in Judea in order to keep the Pax Romana: according to Roman law, if a roman official or soldier harassed or attacked a Jew without reason, he was to be put to death.

ComradeMan

15th October 2011, 11:34

I've perused several scholarly works, and never saw any references to this Basil as being murdered by Julian. Every work I've seen states that Julian never persecuted anyone, and that all martyrs attributed to him were victims of revenge by Pagans. I did find a reference to Basil in Gaddis' book, but it's a bit different, ironic almost:

http://www.bartleby.com/210/3/221.html
http://home.iprimus.com.au/xenos/frbasil.html

Since the only reference to that is from Orthodox christian sources, I have a feeling Basil may have not been a victim of Julian's fury.

It's not really fair to dismiss a source solely because it's Christian. In a case both prosecution and defense have their say. When dealing with these early saints and martyrs there are usually different versions and so on but we have to analyse all of them. Don't you think that the anti-Christian polemicists etc such as Celsus may have been just as biased and probe to doctoring the facts?

Now the empire had suffered immensely under the Church.

How? I seem to recall that the Roman Empire was marked by assassination and civil war for the majority of its bloody history. The crises of the 3rd century were not due to Christians, the "false" emperors were not Christians and so on. Constantine had managed, albeit by means and methods we might not like today, to bring about some unity and order.

Religious violence (which was unheard of outside of monotheism) ran rampant,

That is completely untrue. The pagan Romans had persecuted the Druids and massacred them, they had persecuted the Jews and they had also persecuted the Dionysians (under the Republic). You are also ignoring the persecution of Christians when they were a minority in "pagan" Rome. There are also other examples from the Hellenistic world too.

"ran rampant"- What are the actual stats?

THe Roman persecutions of Judaism were motivated entirely by a desire to keep control of the empire by repressing the 2 Jewish revolts. They were horrendous and abominable, but were not motivated by religion Before the 67 revolt, Jews were allowed to practice their faith (though they were heavily taxed). The Roman state even afforded them privileges in Judea in order to keep the Pax Romana: according to Roman law, if a roman official or soldier harassed or attacked a Jew without reason, he was to be put to death.

Did a Roman tell you that? ;)

manic expression

15th October 2011, 11:35

Double standards here. Basil of Ancyra was not killed for anything other than he would not compromise his beliefs to the will of the Emperor. If a Christian does something it's because they are a Christian, but if a Christian is a victim it's for every other reason other than that they are a Christian.
No, I don't buy that. If someone says "my religion tells me to set fire to every synagogue in Europe", attempts to act on it and then refuses to compromise their beliefs to secular authorities, they're not punished for their religion, they're punished for being an intolerant lunatic who is a present danger to society.

I don't think Basil was harassing and preaching hatred for the Arians just because he was a Christian...after all, they were Christians as well.

And you have to understand that the pagan Romans had done the same for centuries....

This leads us to the question... how much of this intolerance was actually to do with the professed belief systems of those involved or to the fact that generally speaking we weren't dealing with a culture or world that was particularly tolerant. The Romans tolerated you if would submit yourself to the authority of the Roman state, and that was about it. The Romans destroyed the Druids, they attempted to destroy Judaism and desecrated the Temple, they tried to destroy Christianity too.

Getting back to the point: may we ask then: "Where the Roman Christians intolerant because they were Christians or because they were Romans?"
:crying::confused:The Romans went after the Druids because they perceived them as a source of human sacrifice (something that's hard for us to independently confirm, since we don't have any surviving responses from any Druids), not because it was different or another religion. Gaelic deities were, however, allowed to be worshiped and sometimes incorporated into mainstream Roman religious traditions IIRC.

The Romans were very open when it came to Judaism. The only reason the Temple burned was because the last remaining Zealots barricaded themselves in there and refused to come out. And on edit: ironically enough, Julian was trying to get the Temple rebuilt...

And I don't think you can really say that Roman pagans tried to do away with Christianity completely. Diocletian's measures were almost exclusively political while we certainly can't say the same for Ambrose's.

Furthermore, I have stated before that I am not trying to exculpate anyone from their acts of violence or intolerance but I do seem to find that these days the Christians are focused upon with a certain bias that disingenuously excludes all of the other groups.

Let's face it, we can find acts of intolerance from just about everyone in the ancient world.Yes, but I fear you're looking for some equivalency when in fact there is none.

Zostrianos

15th October 2011, 11:57

"ran rampant"- What are the actual stats?

25,000 deaths over doctrinal differences from the time of the Nicean council around 325, and the mid 6th century, compared to some 1000-2000 Christians who had died during the previous persecutions.

Did a Roman tell you that? ;)
[/QUOTE]

I don't remember where I read it but I'll find it.

ComradeMan

15th October 2011, 12:34

No, I don't buy that. If someone says "my religion tells me to set fire to every synagogue in Europe", attempts to act on it and then refuses to compromise their beliefs to secular authorities, they're not punished for their religion, they're punished for being an intolerant lunatic who is a present danger to society.

Is that what Basil was saying or doing? Can we be sure of this?
Was it not the Arians who started persecuting the non-Arians in the Eastern Empire and then under Julian tried to gain political advantage?

The Romans went after the Druids because they perceived them as a source of human sacrifice (something that's hard for us to independently confirm, since we don't have any surviving responses from any Druids), not because it was different or another religion. Gaelic deities were, however, allowed to be worshiped and sometimes incorporated into mainstream Roman religious traditions IIRC.

The archaeological evidence does suggest that headhunting and human sacrifice were present in Iron-Age Celtic populations. How much the druids were involved in that we don't know and we have to bear in mind that a lot of what we know comes from hostile sources. But the Romans could be accused of being hypocrites here. Human sacrifice was not unknown, if not common, to the Romans and in Roman law it seems that criminals could be sacrificed as well as a few instances we know from Livy and Plutarch was only outlawed in Rome in 97 BCE under the consulship of Crassus. Nevertheless whilst they so nobly pursued this anti-human sacrifice stance, slaves were forced to kill each other in gladatorial competitions for entertainment. You'll also note that Caesar had Vercingetorix' paraded in his triumph in 46 BCE and then strangled- is this not a form of human sacrifice?

Suetonius Paulinus' campaign in Britain was noted for its cruelty, even by the Romans themselves and his later governorship was terminated prematurely under Nero, of all people, because of worries how it might have provoked the native populations.

Regardless of the justifications, the conquistadores also accused the Aztecs of human sacrifice and used this as a justification didn't they, but I don't suppose anyone here would form apologetics for that... :rolleyes: It is still false to claim that religious violence and persecution was the sole prerogative of the monotheistic religions and likewise unknown to the pagan Romans and others.

The Romans were very open when it came to Judaism. The only reason the Temple burned was because the last remaining Zealots barricaded themselves in there and refused to come out. And on edit: ironically enough, Julian was trying to get the Temple rebuilt...

Pompey the Great desecrated the Holy of Holies and showed contempt for the religion of the Jews. The Roman destruction of Jerusalem is estimated to have been a holocaust of up to a million people with up to 100,000 or so being sold into slavery afterwards. The Bar Kokhba revolt and its defeat saw a further half-a-million deaths and slavery as a result. In about 135 CE the Romans attacked Judaism at its heart, circumcision was forbidden, reading Torah was forbidden and a temple dedicated to Jupiter was built on the Temple Mount. Judaea became Syria Palestina and Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina (a religious undertone here too) in attempt to cancel the "Jews" and "Judaea" from history. The Jews were barred from entering Jerusalem except for one day of the year (when they were allowed to mourn their defeat at the hands of Rome) and since 70 CE some degree of religious "freedom" had been granted only if a tax was paid- the Fiscus Judaicus. Conversion to Judaism was also banned at one stage. To this day- the Roman Jews, arguably one of the, if not the, oldest diaspora
communities never walk under the Arch of Titus.

Julian's attempt to rebuild the Temple was also a disaster- who knows what those "balls of fire" allegedly were? Perhaps an earthquake? Perhaps it was divine but we'll leave that for now. Anyway, this attempt was not particularly well-received by Jews either.

And I don't think you can really say that Roman pagans tried to do away with Christianity completely. Diocletian's measures were almost exclusively political while we certainly can't say the same for Ambrose's.

Double standards. Diocletian's attack on Christianity in the Empire was an attack on all fronts and at every level. If Diocletian's actions were exclusively political them Aurelius Ambrosius of Milan could also be excused in that his motives were political inasmuch as the non-Christian forces in the Empire were constantly trying to undermine the authority of the Christian Emperors and ultimately threated the cohesion of the state. ;) Now, I am not going to form apologetics for Ambrosius, but to try and excuse Diocletian is far fetched.

Yes, but I fear you're looking for some equivalency when in fact there is none.

I'm not looking for any equivalency. What I am trying to point out that inasmuch as the early Roman Christians were quite often a pretty nasty bunch to be honest, they weren't without their side in the argument and the pagan Romans were hardly anything to glorify by today's standards either.

ComradeMan

15th October 2011, 12:46

25,000 deaths over doctrinal differences from the time of the Nicean council around 325, and the mid 6th century, compared to some 1000-2000 Christians who had died during the previous persecutions.

The fact is... that we'll never know.. :crying:

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that "Ancient, medieval and early modern hagiographers were inclined to exaggerate the number of martyrs. Since the title of martyr is the highest title to which a Christian can aspire, this tendency is natural". Estimates of Christians killed for religious reasons before the year 313 vary greatly, depending on the scholar quoted, from a high of almost 100,000 to a low of 10,000."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#The_Great_Persecution

Another thing that is being missed I think is that in all of this we may be guilty of thinking in modern terms. The ancient world did not really have the idea of the separation of "state and church (i.e. cult/religion)"- the state, the ruler, the tribe, the ethnos, and the "official" cult were all part and parcel of the sense of identity. When the Christian mobs were rushing around being intolerant of pagans it was also because of the fact that the Emperor was a "Christian" and therefore they were demonstrating their romanitas in a sense, in that they were loyal to the Emperor. Roman history pre-Christian and Christian is basically about loyalty to the state and the leader of the state with dire consequences for those who found themselves on the wrong side of the winner.

manic expression

15th October 2011, 15:17

Is that what Basil was saying or doing? Can we be sure of this?
Was it not the Arians who started persecuting the non-Arians in the Eastern Empire and then under Julian tried to gain political advantage?
We can be sure that someone who is a threat to society cannot fall back on the "well I believe what I believe" argument. Basil was harassing and preaching hatred for Arians and pagans in a period in which sectarian mob violence was tearing apart entire regions.

Suffice to say, he wasn't put to death for being a Christian, he was put to death for being a bloodthirsty lunatic.

The archaeological evidence does suggest that headhunting and human sacrifice were present in Iron-Age Celtic populations. How much the druids were involved in that we don't know and we have to bear in mind that a lot of what we know comes from hostile sources. But the Romans could be accused of being hypocrites here. Human sacrifice was not unknown, if not common, to the Romans and in Roman law it seems that criminals could be sacrificed as well as a few instances we know from Livy and Plutarch was only outlawed in Rome in 97 BCE under the consulship of Crassus. Nevertheless whilst they so nobly pursued this anti-human sacrifice stance, slaves were forced to kill each other in gladatorial competitions for entertainment. You'll also note that Caesar had Vercingetorix' paraded in his triumph in 46 BCE and then strangled- is this not a form of human sacrifice?The gladiatorial games weren't actually like that, at least not until the empire started falling apart in the 3rd Century. There were referees who closely watched each fight, and the only techniques that were prohibited were those that could threaten the vital organs of one's opponent. Gladiators were rarely killed in the arena until the years of economic and social collapse.

The other stuff you mention is pretty run-of-the-mill state-sanctioned execution. The point, though, is that in the eyes of the Romans, the Druids were doing something inherently wrong (something, I think, the Romans acknowledged they used to do and no longer did).

Regardless of the justifications, the conquistadores also accused the Aztecs of human sacrifice and used this as a justification didn't they, but I don't suppose anyone here would form apologetics for that... :rolleyes: It is still false to claim that religious violence and persecution was the sole prerogative of the monotheistic religions and likewise unknown to the pagan Romans and others.True, but the conquistadores also gleefully annihilated the Incan Empire, which wasn't big on human sacrifice at all...so we know they're full of crap.

Pompey the Great desecrated the Holy of Holies and showed contempt for the religion of the Jews. The Roman destruction of Jerusalem is estimated to have been a holocaust of up to a million people with up to 100,000 or so being sold into slavery afterwards. The Bar Kokhba revolt and its defeat saw a further half-a-million deaths and slavery as a result. In about 135 CE the Romans attacked Judaism at its heart, circumcision was forbidden, reading Torah was forbidden and a temple dedicated to Jupiter was built on the Temple Mount. Judaea became Syria Palestina and Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina (a religious undertone here too) in attempt to cancel the "Jews" and "Judaea" from history. The Jews were barred from entering Jerusalem except for one day of the year (when they were allowed to mourn their defeat at the hands of Rome) and since 70 CE some degree of religious "freedom" had been granted only if a tax was paid- the Fiscus Judaicus. Conversion to Judaism was also banned at one stage. To this day- the Roman Jews, arguably one of the, if not the, oldest diaspora
communities never walk under the Arch of Titus.Don't take casualty reports of ancient historians as truth. Lop a couple 0's off the number and that's usually closer to the reality.

Anyway, you of all people should know that rebellion against Roman authority was taken very seriously by Rome, and that Roman vengeance was the stuff of nightmares across the Mediterranean world. This didn't only happen with Jerusalem, the Gauls, Spanish, Carthaginians and others all got similar or worse treatment. Acting like the treatment of the Jews was exceptional is ridiculous...it wasn't, and it certainly wasn't about religion. Before the Zealot revolts, the Jews were probably accorded the most tolerant policies in the whole of the empire.

Julian's attempt to rebuild the Temple was also a disaster- who knows what those "balls of fire" allegedly were? Perhaps an earthquake? Perhaps it was divine but we'll leave that for now. Anyway, this attempt was not particularly well-received by Jews either.I honestly don't care about any of that. The intention is what counts here, and it clearly shows that pagans were willing to try to make amends for their mistakes, whereas Christians still brag about their intolerance today.

How many Christians have proposed rebuilding the Sarapeum?

Double standards. Diocletian's attack on Christianity in the Empire was an attack on all fronts and at every level. If Diocletian's actions were exclusively political them Aurelius Ambrosius of Milan could also be excused in that his motives were political inasmuch as the non-Christian forces in the Empire were constantly trying to undermine the authority of the Christian Emperors and ultimately threated the cohesion of the state. ;) Now, I am not going to form apologetics for Ambrosius, but to try and excuse Diocletian is far fetched.Wrong. Diocletian's persecutions did not target the majority of practitioners, and instead targeted the priesthood. Further, this was after pagans were pretty live-and-let-live with the Christian community, while the latter more and more turned their back on the former.

Ambrose's persecutions happened because he had Theodosius swinging from his shoestrings, and could basically order his puppet to do whatever he wanted.

I'm not looking for any equivalency. What I am trying to point out that inasmuch as the early Roman Christians were quite often a pretty nasty bunch to be honest, they weren't without their side in the argument and the pagan Romans were hardly anything to glorify by today's standards either.If you are not looking for equivalency, then why the attempt to equivocate? The only "side" on the argument of the orthodox Christians was "Our God is the only god, and if you worship anything else we're going to kill you. Also, if you disagree on the nature of Jesus, we'll probably kill you too." The end result? Virtually all the religious traditions of the preceding ages were wiped away.

And by this era's standards (let's say from the mid-19th Century), the pagan Romans actually come up pretty high in the list when it comes to religious conviviality.

ComradeMan

15th October 2011, 16:00

Basil was harassing and preaching hatred for Arians and pagans in a period in which sectarian mob violence was tearing apart entire regions.

The Arians were not exactly the most tolerant bunch...

Suffice to say, he wasn't put to death for being a Christian, he was put to death for being a bloodthirsty lunatic.

Did he kill anyone? Did he order anyone's death- do you have a source or evidence to show that a man who was brutally executed in his seventies was a "bloodthirsty lunatic".

The gladiatorial games weren't actually like that, at least not until the empire started falling apart in the 3rd Century. There were referees who closely watched each fight, and the only techniques that were prohibited were those that could threaten the vital organs of one's opponent. Gladiators were rarely killed in the arena until the years of economic and social collapse.

Source for that please? Because that is completely unsubstantiated by the archaeological records, classical writers and just about everything we know about gladiators. :rolleyes:

The other stuff you mention is pretty run-of-the-mill state-sanctioned execution. The point, though, is that in the eyes of the Romans, the Druids were doing something inherently wrong (something, I think, the Romans acknowledged they used to do and no longer did).

That argument falls apart if you are then going to attack the later Christians for attacking something they also thought was inherently wrong. Secondly, we only have the Roman version of events as far as the druids go...

True, but the conquistadores also gleefully annihilated the Incan Empire, which wasn't big on human sacrifice at all...

Err... that's not true at all.

"The Incs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca) of Peru also made human sacrifices. As many as 4,000 servants, court officials, favorites, and concubines were killed upon the death of the Inca Huayna Capac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huayna_Capac) in 1527, for example.[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#cite_note-78) "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#Pre-Columbian_Americas
Nigel Davies, Human Sacrifice (1981, p. 261–262.).

Don't take casualty reports of ancient historians as truth. Lop a couple 0's off the number and that's usually closer to the reality.

Is it a numbers game? The non-Jewish writer Cassius Dio records that around 985 villages/towns were completely destroyed after the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Do you have an sources to confirm/contradict numbers?

I honestly don't care about any of that. The intention is what counts here, and it clearly shows that pagans were willing to try to make amends for their mistakes, whereas Christians still brag about their intolerance today.

No it doesn't at all. It shows that Julian was trying to play off the Jews and the Christians against each other after a couple of centuries of growing animosity as he had done too with the various "denominations" within Christianity- despite the fact that the actual Jewish population were completely ambivalent to this.

Wrong. Diocletian's persecutions did not target the majority of practitioners, and instead targeted the priesthood. Further, this was after pagans were pretty live-and-let-live with the Christian community, while the latter more and more turned their back on the former.

Nonsense, Christians were barred from military service and office, Christian writings were burnt and churches destroyed to name but a few of the actions. To say that this didn't affect Roman Christians in the Empire is ridiculous.

The "pagans" were not so live-and-let-live as three centuries of persecution beforehand had also shown along with the constant mockery and abuse that the Christians had to endure.

Ambrose's persecutions happened because he had Theodosius swinging from his shoestrings, and could basically order his puppet to do whatever he wanted.

Is that a fact or your opinion? Source?

If you are not looking for equivalency, then why the attempt to equivocate?

I am not looking for equivalency. You are the one who seems to attack the slightest wrongdoing of any Christian in the period and yet when it comes to pagans it's a different story.... You are seriously going to attack intolerance by defending Diocletian?

And by this era's standards (let's say from the mid-19th Century), the pagan Romans actually come up pretty high in the list when it comes to religious conviviality.

Except they didn't really when you look into things, unless of course you were completely willing to submit your entire being to the state. Even this so-called Roman tolerance of the "pagan" religions, i.e. non-Roman, did not necessarily put them on an equal footing with the "Roman religion" and were tolerated only inasmuch as they did not assert themselves too much.

manic expression

15th October 2011, 17:10

The Arians were not exactly the most tolerant bunch...
Seeing as there aren't any of them left, I'd say the other guys beat them on the intolerance scoreboard.

Did he kill anyone? Did he order anyone's death- do you have a source or evidence to show that a man who was brutally executed in his seventies was a "bloodthirsty lunatic".Even from friendly sources (read: biased sources), we know he was preaching hatred and division in a time of critical disunity. Surely you do not disagree that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is deserving of the attention of the authorities.

Source for that please? Because that is completely unsubstantiated by the archaeological records, classical writers and just about everything we know about gladiators. :rolleyes:The entire exhibit in Nimes drives home those points again and again: that gladiators were professionals who were admired for their bravery and skill, not forcefully driven to their deaths in front of mouth-breathing crowds; that the gladiatorial games weren't about people dying in bunches (that's what the mid-day stuff was for, if you were into that...many left their seats to get something to eat at that point); there were rules for safety; most of the individuals who put on the games (excluding emperors) would have wanted to avoid condemning defeat gladiators as they would have to pay the schools for killed members.

When Seneca and others write about the abject cruelty of the arena, they're usually talking about public executions and not the actual gladiatorial games. Even the morning hunts were technically different events.

That argument falls apart if you are then going to attack the later Christians for attacking something they also thought was inherently wrong. Secondly, we only have the Roman version of events as far as the druids go...No, it doesn't fall apart, no more than when I attack fascists for attacking something they also think is inherently wrong.

Yes, I already conceded that we can't know for sure what the Druids were up to, but we do know that the Romans themselves ascribed such practices to them. Again, the Romans were fine with other cults, it wasn't as if they were mad that some were worshiping Gaelic gods instead of Olympians.

Err... that's not true at all.

"The Incs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca) of Peru also made human sacrifices. As many as 4,000 servants, court officials, favorites, and concubines were killed upon the death of the Inca Huayna Capac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huayna_Capac) in 1527, for example.[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#cite_note-78) "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#Pre-Columbian_Americas
Nigel Davies, Human Sacrifice (1981, p. 261–262.).Alright, I'll concede that one. How about the Mayans?

Is it a numbers game? The non-Jewish writer Cassius Dio records that around 985 villages/towns were completely destroyed after the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Do you have an sources to confirm/contradict numbers?You do know it's common practice for historians to not take those numbers literally, right? We all know that 300,000 Arabs didn't die at the Battle of Tours, even though Frankish chronicles would like us to think so.

No it doesn't at all. It shows that Julian was trying to play off the Jews and the Christians against each other after a couple of centuries of growing animosity as he had done too with the various "denominations" within Christianity- despite the fact that the actual Jewish population were completely ambivalent to this.Oh, please. He was "playing off the Jews and the Christians" by offering to pay for the reconstruction of Judaism's most sacred temple? Offending the sensibilities of some is no cause for objection. It's about the intent.

I'd be cool with Christians funding a reconstruction of any one of the pagan temples they destroyed.

Nonsense, Christians were barred from military service and office, Christian writings were burnt and churches destroyed to name but a few of the actions. To say that this didn't affect Roman Christians in the Empire is ridiculous.

The "pagans" were not so live-and-let-live as three centuries of persecution beforehand had also shown along with the constant mockery and abuse that the Christians had to endure.Of course it affected them, but they weren't targeted for destruction like you keep insisting. Constantine's tax breaks and government preference for Christians affected pagans.

As for mockery, that was due to the facts of the social dynamics of Christianity. For some time, it was a religion of the outcasts, the uneducated. Christianity didn't make sense to the pagans of the Roman world...of course they would mock it.

Is that a fact or your opinion? Source?Theodosius took off his cloak and knelt down before Ambrose himself in penance...this was Christmas 390. That moment was the moment in which the church triumphed.

I am not looking for equivalency. You are the one who seems to attack the slightest wrongdoing of any Christian in the period and yet when it comes to pagans it's a different story.... You are seriously going to attack intolerance by defending Diocletian?Slightest wrongdoing? I'm looking at a tapestry of religious tradition that was exterminated. Diocletian was trying to right the ship of the Roman world. Had he succeeded, maybe the elimination of every religion aside from Nicaean Christianity wouldn't have been carried out.

Except they didn't really when you look into things, unless of course you were completely willing to submit your entire being to the state. Even this so-called Roman tolerance of the "pagan" religions, i.e. non-Roman, did not necessarily put them on an equal footing with the "Roman religion" and were tolerated only inasmuch as they did not assert themselves too much.How do you figure that when cults such as that of Mithras became very popular in some of the most central Roman institutions? When Romans remarked with admiration of a Hindu convert who immolated himself at the Olympic Games? So long as you showed loyalty to the empire itself and didn't step over certain lines (ie human sacrifice), the Romans would tolerate just about any religious belief you could offer up. Compare that with what Ambrose set into play.

ComradeMan

15th October 2011, 17:54

Seeing as there aren't any of them left, I'd say the other guys beat them on the intolerance scoreboard.

That's an assumption until you provide evidence or a source. To say that Arianism died out is also not quite the case, non-Trinitarian denominations, perhaps "semi-Arianism" exist to this day.

Even from friendly sources (read: biased sources), we know he was preaching hatred and division in a time of critical disunity. Surely you do not disagree that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is deserving of the attention of the authorities.

What exactly? We don't know all that much about him. Have you got a source or a reference that says what he said or did?

Basil was also a Semi-Arian anyway. According to what few historical sources remain I have read that Basil was trying to seek a compromise. Basil was gagged by the Arians for daring to speak his opinion against them. So much for free-speech.

The entire exhibit in Nimes drives home those points again and again: that gladiators were professionals who were admired for their bravery and skill, not forcefully driven to their deaths in front of mouth-breathing crowds; that the gladiatorial games weren't about people dying in bunches (that's what the mid-day stuff was for, if you were into that...many left their seats to get something to eat at that point); there were rules for safety; most of the individuals who put on the games (excluding emperors) would have wanted to avoid condemning defeat gladiators as they would have to pay the schools for killed members.

When Seneca and others write about the abject cruelty of the arena, they're usually talking about public executions and not the actual gladiatorial games. Even the morning hunts were technically different events.

No, you can try to "spin" it however you want. At the end of the day, gladiatorial contests involved killing for entertainment.

"For death, when it stands near us, gives even to inexperienced men the courage not to seek to avoid the inevitable. So the gladiator, no matter how faint-hearted he has been throughout the fight, offers his throat to his opponent and directs the wavering blade to the vital spot. (Seneca. Epistles, 30.8)"
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_30

No, it doesn't fall apart, no more than when I attack fascists for attacking something they also think is inherently wrong.

But you seem to be justifying the Roman extermination of Druid culture and religion based solely on the "propaganda" of err.... the Romans.

Yes, I already conceded that we can't know for sure what the Druids were up to, but we do know that the Romans themselves ascribed such practices to them. Again, the Romans were fine with other cults, it wasn't as if they were mad that some were worshiping Gaelic gods instead of Olympians.

That falls apart too. Think about in history what has been ascribed to other people and used as a justification for massacre.... this sounds like a justification for "blood libels". By the way, this has nothing to with the "Gaelic" culture- I think you're confusing it with Gallic.

Alright, I'll concede that one. How about the Mayans?/QUOTE]

Sorry, the Mayans also participated in human sacrifice, especially child sacrifice. The Mayan civilisation was, however, already a thing of the past in terms of its grander days, by the time the Spanish arrived.

[QUOTE=manic expression;2263304]You do know it's common practice for historians to not take those numbers literally, right? We all know that 300,000 Arabs didn't die at the Battle of Tours, even though Frankish chronicles would like us to think so.

But we are not talking about the Arabs at the Battle of Tours. We are talking about the historical records we have, and those figures are cited in works by modern historians too. But even if the numbers were lower, the facts would remain the same.

Oh, please. He was "playing off the Jews and the Christians" by offering to pay for the reconstruction of Judaism's most sacred temple? Offending the sensibilities of some is no cause for objection. It's about the intent.

It was part of his general policy to weaken Christianity by strengthening any other religion that wasn't Christianity. If he had fully appreciated the sacredness of Judaism's Temple he would have also understood why he, Julian, could never reconstruct it- as I believe Rabbi Hilkiyah pointed out. It could be seen as just a cheap political move- and one that failed miserably.

I'd be cool with Christians funding a reconstruction of any one of the pagan temples they destroyed.

Of course you are forgetting how many temples the Romans had sacked and destroyed, including the Temple of Jerusalem.

Of course it affected them, but they weren't targeted for destruction like you keep insisting. Constantine's tax breaks and government preference for Christians affected pagans.

So instead of attacking Constantine we attack ordinary people.... :rolleyes:

As for mockery, that was due to the facts of the social dynamics of Christianity. For some time, it was a religion of the outcasts, the uneducated. Christianity didn't make sense to the pagans of the Roman world...of course they would mock it.

So the don't allege that the pagans were tolerant when they weren't. The roots of intolerance are often ignorance but that is not an excuse. On that basis you could justify or excuse the persecution of any minority/newcomer group with a different religion.

Diocletian was trying to right the ship of the Roman world..

Hitler thought he was helping to make Germany strong too....

How do you figure that when cults such as that of Mithras became very popular in some of the most central Roman institutions? When Romans remarked with admiration of a Hindu convert who immolated himself at the Olympic Games? So long as you showed loyalty to the empire itself and didn't step over certain lines (ie human sacrifice), the Romans would tolerate just about any religious belief you could offer up. Compare that with what Ambrose set into play.

Loyalty to the empire.... but that meant loyalty to the Divine Emperor, i.e. the Roman Emperor of the Roman State was to you a "god" and thus the Roman Empire by default was divine. It was exactly this that had caused trouble in Jerusalem under Caligula.

Also Mythraism, and the other "mysteries" were not so much religions as mystery schools. A Roman soldier in the cult would still have sacrificed to his Roman household gods and so on. Also, we don't know all that much about how widespread and what amount of following it may or may not have had.

Zostrianos

15th October 2011, 22:46

The Arians were not exactly the most tolerant bunch...

That I agree with. AFAIK, the Arians were basically just Catholics who didn't believe Jesus became the son of God until his baptism, and therefore was inferior to the Father. If I'm not mistaken, they were otherwise identical to the Catholic\Orthodox Church, including in their fanatical missionary zeal and intolerance. A lot of the crimes committed against Pagans by Christians were by Arians.

Theodosius took off his cloak and knelt down before Ambrose himself in penance...this was Christmas 390. That moment was the moment in which the church triumphed.

Ambrose was a skilled manipulator. Theodosius originally had no intention of further restricting the rights of Pagans, but after the emperor put down the Thessalonica revolt and killed some 7000 people, Ambrose excommunicated him, thereby forcing him to ask for penance. After that, Theodosius became Ambrose's puppet. This was Ambrose's intention all along, and he set out to pressure the emperor to demolish the temples and make Christianity the only legal religion of the empire.
A particularly repulsive example of "saint" Ambrose's meddling is the Callinicum incident, when a mob of Christians destroyed a synagogue and a Valentinian gnostic sanctuary in Callinicum (near Mesopotamia). The emperor, who still had a sense of justice despite his recent dedication to Ambrose, immediately declared that the offenders should pay for rebuilding the synagogue and the temple. Ambrose intervened on behalf of the Christians, to leave the fanatic's crimes unpunished. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose#Ambrose_and_Jews)

I'd be cool with Christians funding a reconstruction of any one of the pagan temples they destroyed.

I would love to see that :D

As for Julian's alleged killing of Basil, I'm still very skeptical of that, because it's not consistent with Julian's policies and behaviour. Julian wanted no martyrs, not only because he was a just emperor, but he knew very well that the fanatics would seize any opportunity to play the persecution card.

manic expression

15th October 2011, 23:44

That's an assumption until you provide evidence or a source. To say that Arianism died out is also not quite the case, non-Trinitarian denominations, perhaps "semi-Arianism" exist to this day.
Show me one church that accepted Arian's teachings as of 1000 CE.

What exactly? We don't know all that much about him. Have you got a source or a reference that says what he said or did?

Basil was also a Semi-Arian anyway. According to what few historical sources remain I have read that Basil was trying to seek a compromise. Basil was gagged by the Arians for daring to speak his opinion against them. So much for free-speech.
Even the Greek Orthodox Church admits it. (http://home.iprimus.com.au/xenos/frbasil.html)

Basil was preaching hatred. The Roman authorities were certainly being reasonable in telling him to cut it out.

No, you can try to "spin" it however you want. At the end of the day, gladiatorial contests involved killing for entertainment.
Wrong. "At the end of the day", it was about highly trained professionals engaging in refereed duels, not to the death but until one was unable to continue. Again, the only blows that were prohibited were those directed at a gladiator's vital organs. Watching Spartacus doesn't substitute for what actually went down in the arena.

But you seem to be justifying the Roman extermination of Druid culture and religion based solely on the "propaganda" of err.... the Romans.
You seem to be ignoring how the Romans genuinely saw the practices of the Druids.

That falls apart too. Think about in history what has been ascribed to other people and used as a justification for massacre.... this sounds like a justification for "blood libels". By the way, this has nothing to with the "Gaelic" culture- I think you're confusing it with Gallic.
So I take it the fact that non-Roman gods were openly worshiped with minimal problems throughout the empire, including those of the Gallic peoples (thanks for the correction)...means nothing to you? If it's going to be "well we don't know much about the Druids so the Romans were just making stuff up and doing the same thing that anti-Semitic mobs did", then that won't do.

But we are not talking about the Arabs at the Battle of Tours. We are talking about the historical records we have, and those figures are cited in works by modern historians too. But even if the numbers were lower, the facts would remain the same.
With the incredulity by which you're taking the casualty figures, we might as well be talking about the Battle of Tours. Ancient historians are notorious for exaggerating numbers to make events seem more epic than they were. Like I said, it's usually a matter of moving the decimal point a few times before you get to a more realistic picture of things.

It was part of his general policy to weaken Christianity by strengthening any other religion that wasn't Christianity. If he had fully appreciated the sacredness of Judaism's Temple he would have also understood why he, Julian, could never reconstruct it- as I believe Rabbi Hilkiyah pointed out. It could be seen as just a cheap political move- and one that failed miserably.
So any policy of Julian's that strengthened anything other than Christianity is tantamount to anti-Christian conspiracy? How does that make any sense?

Of course you are forgetting how many temples the Romans had sacked and destroyed, including the Temple of Jerusalem.
And which of these temples were sacked and destroyed out of religious hatred? Conflating conquest with religious persecution is incredibly incorrect.

So instead of attacking Constantine we attack ordinary people.... :rolleyes:
You're running away from your own logic. "Diocletian's policies affected Christians (adversely)". Well, OK, fine...Constantine's policies did the same to pagans. The only difference is that the Christians capitalized on that and went much further in going after entire traditions.

So the don't allege that the pagans were tolerant when they weren't. The roots of intolerance are often ignorance but that is not an excuse. On that basis you could justify or excuse the persecution of any minority/newcomer group with a different religion.
That's funny. So since Christian communities, which were greatly uneducated outcasts in the early days, were mocked...the pagans were intolerant! I think you have "tolerance" confused with "being nice to everyone and never saying anything mean".

The pagans let the Christians, in all their eccentricities, do what they wanted to...with the very rare exception like Nero. Christianity never returned the favor.

Hitler thought he was helping to make Germany strong too....
...which doesn't have much to do with the price of tea in China...

...or with what we're talking about...

Loyalty to the empire.... but that meant loyalty to the Divine Emperor, i.e. the Roman Emperor of the Roman State was to you a "god" and thus the Roman Empire by default was divine. It was exactly this that had caused trouble in Jerusalem under Caligula.
Caligula caused trouble in more ways than that, and with many other peoples to boot (hehe get it?! :tt2:).

Also Mythraism, and the other "mysteries" were not so much religions as mystery schools. A Roman soldier in the cult would still have sacrificed to his Roman household gods and so on. Also, we don't know all that much about how widespread and what amount of following it may or may not have had.
If you apply the definition of "religion" in the Christian sense, then sure, but that's my whole point. Lines between "religions" were incredibly fluid for pagans...you can worship this or that god and also worship other gods at the same time without having someone declare you a heretic. Pretty neat idea, right? Well, it all went out the window with Christianity's ascent. And that, right there, is what this is all about.

Zostrianos

16th October 2011, 00:03

It was part of his general policy to weaken Christianity by strengthening any other religion that wasn't Christianity. If he had fully appreciated the sacredness of Judaism's Temple he would have also understood why he, Julian, could never reconstruct it- as I believe Rabbi Hilkiyah pointed out. It could be seen as just a cheap political move- and one that failed miserably.

Actually, Christianity was like a spoiled brat, who wanted everything for itself. Julian's policy aimed at creating equality, like a parent telling his kids to behave and share with their siblings. Oftentimes when misbehaved kids are asked to be good and share, they throw temper tantrums, which is what Christianity did by demonizing Julian. The unprovoked attacks on Pagan temples by fanatics are also characteristic of the childish cruelty of organized Christianity, when it claimed that having to live side by side with other faiths was a form of persecution. To quote Augustine:

The heretics themselves also, since they are thought to have the Christian name and sacraments, Scriptures, and profession, cause great grief in the hearts of the pious, both because many who wish to be Christians are compelled by their dissensions to hesitate, and many evil-speakers also find in them matter for blaspheming the Christian name, because they too are at any rate called Christians. By these and similar depraved manners and errors of men, those who will live piously in Christ suffer persecution, even when no one molests or vexes their body; for they suffer this persecution, not in their bodies, but in their hearts. (Sermon 359B)

Revolution starts with U

16th October 2011, 00:36

Excellent discussion so far chums :lol:

ComradeMan

16th October 2011, 09:35

Actually, Christianity was like a spoiled brat, who wanted everything for itself. Julian's policy aimed at creating equality

He aimed at equality by discriminating against Christians? That won't work... If he had passed an Edict like the original Constantinian edict and pursued intolerance rigorously you could say that- but his "equality" was equality for everyone except Christians....

The flaws of early Christians are not an exculpation or exhoneration of Justinian or Diocletian.

ComradeMan

16th October 2011, 11:02

Show me one church that accepted Arian's teachings as of 1000 CE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Arianism_resurfaces_after_the_Reformation .2C_16th_century

Even the Greek Orthodox Church admits it. (http://home.iprimus.com.au/xenos/frbasil.html)
Basil was preaching hatred. The Roman authorities were certainly being
reasonable in telling him to cut it out.
Admits what? That article says that he was persecuted because he preached against Arianism? You've conveniently inserted "preaching hatred". I thought freedom of expression was "holy". When the Emperor, conniving to divide and play off Chrisitan groups against each other pressured Basil and Basil refused he was brutally tortured and murdered.

Wrong. "At the end of the day", it was about highly trained professionals engaging in refereed duels, not to the death but until one was unable to continue. Again, the only blows that were prohibited were those directed at a gladiator's vital organs. Watching Spartacus doesn't substitute for what actually went down in the arena.
You're just making this up aren't you?

At the end of the day, well-fed, popular, rich even... their legal status was as slaves.

Blows against vital organs were messy, ruined the fight, provoked a slow death in many cases and ruined the show. Then the gladiatorial school had to put up with a dying gladiator- however they got around this with the sinisiter officer of the masked official of the gladiatorial school who would deal a behind the scenes death blow to the throat or hammer blow to the skull to put the severely injured and dying out of their misery.

"Few gladiators survived more than 10 matches or lived past the age of 30. One (Felix) is known to have lived to 45 and one retired gladiator lived to 90. George Ville calculated an average age at death at 27 for gladiators (based on headstone evidence), with mortality "among all who entered the arena" around the 1st century CE at 19/100. A rise in the risk of death for losers, from 1/5 to 1/4 between the early and later Imperial periods, seems to suggest missio was granted less often.[169] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator#cite_note-168) Marcus Junkelmann disputes Ville's calculation for average age at death; the majority would have received no headstone, and would have died early in their careers, at 18–25 years of age.[170] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator#cite_note-169)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator

You can try to sanitise it all you like... According Dio Cassius, on Marcus Aurelius

"Marcus, indeed, was so averse to bloodshed that he even used to watch the gladiators in Rome contend, like athletes, without risking their lives; for he never gave any of them a sharp weapon, but they all fought with blunted weapons like foils furnished with buttons. And so far was he from countenancing any bloodshed that although he did, at the request of the populace, order a certain lion to be brought in that had been trained to eat men...." Dio Cassisus: Roman History Epitome of Book LXXII : 29
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/72*.html

You seem to be ignoring how the Romans genuinely saw the practices of the Druids.
But that's not a justification... unless you are then going to argue that the Christians were also justified because of how they viewed paganism.

Nevertheless, on the subject of druids- some historians have called into question the extent to which the Romans may have demonised the druids in order to justify their persecution of them. It's hard to know the exact extent of human sacrifice- even though I do not doubt it happened, unlike what some modern "druids" and "pagans" will have you believe.

Not all classical sources paint such a "barbaric" image of the druids either but one thing seems to be common to all of them, the druid "philosophers" were the supreme authority in Celtic/Gallic/British tribal society, not the kings.... hmmm.... I wonder why the Romans wanted to get rid of them?

So I take it the fact that non-Roman gods were openly worshiped with minimal problems throughout the empire, including those of the Gallic peoples (thanks for the correction)...means nothing to you? If it's going to be "well we don't know much about the Druids so the Romans were just making stuff up and doing the same thing that anti-Semitic mobs did", then that won't do.
*Note the correction was not to be smart- it's just that there's a lot ahistorical rubbish on the net etc when it comes to the subject of Druids, Celts etc and I have seen this confusion before. ;)

To the point, I feel you are missing the point. Tolerance is hardly tolerance if it's based on the sole premise of bowing utterly to my authority and will as a Roman and elevating me to divine status as the Emperor of this sacred Empire- but if you don't like the idea I'll cut your balls off.

With the incredulity by which you're taking the casualty figures, we might as well be talking about the Battle of Tours. Ancient historians are notorious for exaggerating numbers to make events seem more epic than they were. Like I said, it's usually a matter of moving the decimal point a few times before you get to a more realistic picture of things.
Because some ancient causalty figures were exaggerated all are? Anyway it's not a numbers game and the statistics were taken from citations in works by modern historians.

So any policy of Julian's that strengthened anything other than Christianity is tantamount to anti-Christian conspiracy? How does that make any sense?
Because he was not trying to build any kind of religious equality, at the same time he was "strengthening" other religions in a cynical ploy to divide and rule he was weakening Christianity by law. If he hadn't done the latter they may have been an argument in favour of your position.

And which of these temples were sacked and destroyed out of religious hatred? Conflating conquest with religious persecution is incredibly incorrect.
Sorry, but you know full well that in the ancient world the temple, shrine or cult centre of the ethnos was part and parcel of the national identity. Conquest by Rome meant that the gods of Rome had defeated your gods and had to submit. The druidic cult centre of Anglesey was destroyed, in the Boudiccan revolt a cult centre was also destroyed, according to sources, the Temple of Jerusalem was desecrated, pillaged and destroyed and so on...

You're running away from your own logic. "Diocletian's policies affected Christians (adversely)". Well, OK, fine...Constantine's policies did the same to pagans. The only difference is that the Christians capitalized on that and went much further in going after entire traditions.
Err... what did Diocletian do? And what was Constantine a result of?

Sorry, but the precedent for religious intolerance and violence was well-established in previous non-Christian Rome by the Romans, as far back as the Republic with the persecution of the Dionysian mysteries.

That's funny. So since Christian communities, which were greatly uneducated outcasts in the early days, were mocked...the pagans were intolerant! I think you have "tolerance" confused with "being nice to everyone and never saying anything mean".

There are two problems with your argument. The first is that there is no evidence that by the time we are talking about the Christians were all uneducated outcasts at all. The edict of Valerian in 257 and then harsher in 258 CE talk of Christian senators, equites, and "ladies" being punished with exhile, property confiscation and death for being Christians- these are hardly the uneducated outcasts of Roman society.

The second problem is that your defense of pagan intolerance would condemn hysterical pagan reaction towards the early Christians and your accusation of "preaching hatred" against Basil of Ancyra.

The pagans let the Christians, in all their eccentricities, do what they wanted to...with the very rare exception like Nero. Christianity never returned the favor.
More ahistorical distortion. Persecution and discrimination enshrined in law under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Severus, Gaius Maximinus, Decius, Valeirus, Diocletian and Galerius. We have to remember that up until the time of Severus the Romans didn't so easily distinguish between Jews and Christians either so the earlier stuff could have included both groups... now, what exactly were these favours? Oh the persecution and discrimination was rather desultory so, err, remember all the times that we had better things to do than persecute you and forget about the rest?

...which doesn't have much to do with the price of tea in China...or with what we're talking about...
Of course it does, you are defending Diocletian's persecution of a group, that would be classed as a crime against humanity by today's standards, on the basis that he was doing it for the good of the state. Most authoritarian/totalitarian regimes have used and continue to use that kind of justification and Hitler was no exception.

Caligula caused trouble in more ways than that, and with many other peoples to boot (hehe get it?! :tt2:.
Yes "little boots" was a maniac by anyone's standards. But it doesn't change the issue of what happened.

If you apply the definition of "religion" in the Christian sense, then sure, but that's my whole point. Lines between "religions" were incredibly fluid for pagans...you can worship this or that god and also worship other gods at the same time without having someone declare you a heretic. Pretty neat idea, right? Well, it all went out the window with Christianity's ascent. And that, right there, is what this is all about.
That's absolute nonsense too and not borne about the historical facts. The Romans tolerated anything as long as it was not in conflict with the Roman religion or could be "romanised"- otherwise it was wiped out. When the Romans did come into contact with peoples for whom this was impossible, druids, Jews and Christians and so on they showed just how intolerant their tolerant religion was.

"Religio" in Latin is ultimately derived from the concept of "that which binds" or "ties"- it was not as "fluid" as you think. And if it has been so fluid and enlightened why then the refusal to acknowledge that some peoples may have not recognised the gods of Rome and the Divine Emperor as supreme?
----

I blame Edward Gibbon and later 19th century romanticism for creating this "myth" of these wonderful stoic, enlightened and wise Romans in their togas and white marble halls. Undoubtedly the Roman Empire did have its achievements but....

manic expression

16th October 2011, 11:56

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Arianism_resurfaces_after_the_Reformation .2C_16th_century
Yep, it says right there that Arianism was successfully suppressed.

Admits what? That article says that he was persecuted because he preached against Arianism? You've conveniently inserted "preaching hatred". I thought freedom of expression was "holy". When the Emperor, conniving to divide and play off Chrisitan groups against each other pressured Basil and Basil refused he was brutally tortured and murdered.
"Conniving to divide"...that's a funny way of putting it, when the authorities are trying to stop one group for preaching hatred (yes, hatred...what the hell do you think Basil would have been saying? "Oh, those Arians are such nice guys, but their Christology is a bit off"...yeah, right) against another.

How about you face your apologetics for orthodox Christians in their campaign to liquidated anyone who disagreed with them. The Arians got the business end of your "freedom of expression"...as in they ceased to exist by the 7th Century.

And as Azaran has so well pointed out, the actions ascribed to Julian make no sense when you study his motivations; couple this with the fact that Christians seem to be saying how Basil died, and it's beyond suspect. I highly doubt it went down like that.

You're just making this up aren't you?

At the end of the day, well-fed, popular, rich even... their legal status was as slaves.

Blows against vital organs were messy, ruined the fight, provoked a slow death in many cases and ruined the show. Then the gladiatorial school had to put up with a dying gladiator- however they got around this with the sinisiter officer of the masked official of the gladiatorial school who would deal a behind the scenes death blow to the throat or hammer blow to the skull to put the severely injured and dying out of their misery.

"Few gladiators survived more than 10 matches or lived past the age of 30.
Their legal status was as slaves because that was the only legal category that could accommodate the whole thing. Their lives were in great danger at all times, the only way injury and death could be legal was that way. You'll notice that some historians put voluntary gladiators at upwards of 50% of the participants at some point (especially the golden age of the art, before the economic collapse).

Yes, blows against the vital organs ruined the whole thing...which pokes a huge hole in your "omg they wur sloturrd fur fun" argument of Spartacus and Gladiator provenance.

You can try to sanitise it all you like... According Dio Cassius, on Marcus Aurelius

"Marcus, indeed, was so averse to bloodshed that he even used to watch the gladiators in Rome contend, like athletes, without risking their lives; for he never gave any of them a sharp weapon, but they all fought with blunted weapons like foils furnished with buttons. And so far was he from countenancing any bloodshed that although he did, at the request of the populace, order a certain lion to be brought in that had been trained to eat men...." Dio Cassisus: Roman History Epitome of Book LXXII : 29
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/72*.html
I already told you that lions eating people had nothing to do with the gladiatorial games. They were completely different events, and the participants weren't gladiators.

But that's not a justification... unless you are then going to argue that the Christians were also justified because of how they viewed paganism.

Nevertheless, on the subject of druids- some historians have called into question the extent to which the Romans may have demonised the druids in order to justify their persecution of them. It's hard to know the exact extent of human sacrifice- even though I do not doubt it happened, unlike what some modern "druids" and "pagans" will have you believe.

Not all classical sources paint such a "barbaric" image of the druids either but one thing seems to be common to all of them, the druid "philosophers" were the supreme authority in Celtic/Gallic/British tribal society, not the kings.... hmmm.... I wonder why the Romans wanted to get rid of them?

*Note the correction was not to be smart- it's just that there's a lot ahistorical rubbish on the net etc when it comes to the subject of Druids, Celts etc and I have seen this confusion before. ;)
No, that's not a blanket justification for anyone to do anything as you say, but it is an explanation to the motivations of the Romans. To ignore that would be to toss aside any hope of understanding what happened.

Could the Romans have gone after the Druids because they inspired resistance against their rule? Sure. Could the Romans have gone after the Druids because they worshiped gods other than their own? Not really...the Romans permitted a whole smorgasbord of gods that weren't Roman or Hellenistic, so we know that wasn't their intention.

In fact, Gallic gods were worshiped freely in Roman society, so we know even more securely that the Druids weren't persecuted because they had other gods.

To the point, I feel you are missing the point. Tolerance is hardly tolerance if it's based on the sole premise of bowing utterly to my authority and will as a Roman and elevating me to divine status as the Emperor of this sacred Empire- but if you don't like the idea I'll cut your balls off.
You're missing the point that in the Roman world, after Augustus, political loyalty took on religious overtones. All it meant was that people had to show reverence for the emperor...that's it. You could pray to whatever deity you could possibly come up with as long as you did that.

Compare that to the Christian "don't worship anything other than what we say or you're dead...and don't consider Jesus anything else than what we say or you're also dead...and don't be a Jew or you're dead too".

Clearly, paganism, even at its most demanding, beats out Christianity all day.

Because some ancient causalty figures were exaggerated all are? Anyway it's not a numbers game and the statistics were taken from citations in works by modern historians.
Most are. But sure, we can say it's not a numbers game.

Because he was not trying to build any kind of religious equality, at the same time he was "strengthening" other religions in a cynical ploy to divide and rule he was weakening Christianity by law. If he hadn't done the latter they may have been an argument in favour of your position.
He should have weakened Christianity by law, since Christianity had hitherto held a strong official advantage over all other religions. You don't seriously think that Christianity spread just because it was "true", do you? Don't be silly, official backing from various emperors was the culprit.

Julian was simply removing that...making the religions more equal in the process.

And again, you're basically saying that if Julian promoted anything other than Christianity, he was guilty of "intolerance". Well, by your pretty ridiculous standard, unless he was actively supporting Christianity he was "intolerant", so it's a false charge.

Lastly, Julian did see Christianity as wrongly robbing Jewish tradition, he saw it as an apostasy from Judaism. He didn't think Judaism was the best thing ever, but he did see it as a coherent religion that was limited by its own tribal boundaries. Nowhere have you justified that Julian was rubbing his hands together, trying to "use" the Jews for his own ends. He was proposing to fund the rebuilding of the Temple, and you're accusing him of intolerance. Hilarious.

Sorry, but you know full well that in the ancient world the temple, shrine or cult centre of the ethnos was part and parcel of the national identity. Conquest by Rome meant that the gods of Rome had defeated your gods and had to submit. The druidic cult centre of Anglesey was destroyed, in the Boudiccan revolt a cult centre was also destroyed, according to sources, the Temple of Jerusalem was desecrated, pillaged and destroyed and so on...
It was also in the middle of places that Romans were attacking generally. We've already been over Romans and rebellions. The Temple of Jerusalem was not ordered to be burned by Titus, he didn't want it damaged...apparently someone set adjacent buildings on fire while the Zealots were inside it and then it caught flame.

But we both know full well that if a people submitted, they would largely be allowed to worship as they wished.

Err... what did Diocletian do? And what was Constantine a result of?
Diocletian went after the priesthood. Constantine, the result of a civil war, gave Christians tax breaks and imperial favor.

Sorry, but the precedent for religious intolerance and violence was well-established in previous non-Christian Rome by the Romans, as far back as the Republic with the persecution of the Dionysian mysteries.
Periodic and half-hearted stuff. No comparison.

There are two problems with your argument. The first is that there is no evidence that by the time we are talking about the Christians were all uneducated outcasts at all. The edict of Valerian in 257 and then harsher in 258 CE talk of Christian senators, equites, and "ladies" being punished with exhile, property confiscation and death for being Christians- these are hardly the uneducated outcasts of Roman society.

The second problem is that your defense of pagan intolerance would condemn hysterical pagan reaction towards the early Christians and your accusation of "preaching hatred" against Basil of Ancyra.
Celsus pointed out how uneducated the assertions of the Christians were. It's also common historical knowledge that Christianity grew in the margins of society first and then went elsewhere.

There's not a bit of conflict here, as you would like to think. Pagan "persecutions" of Christianity usually went so far as to target the priesthood and little else. Their concern was loyalty to the empire, something that you cannot deny would have been cause for concern when an association of people was refusing to follow civic duties. This has no comparison to what the Christians did, which was wholesale slaughter of any religious tradition not their own.

More ahistorical distortion. Persecution and discrimination enshrined in law under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Severus, Gaius Maximinus, Decius, Valeirus, Diocletian and Galerius. We have to remember that up until the time of Severus the Romans didn't so easily distinguish between Jews and Christians either so the earlier stuff could have included both groups... now, what exactly were these favours? Oh the persecution and discrimination was rather desultory so, err, remember all the times that we had better things to do than persecute you and forget about the rest?
You use the words without any sense for what was actually done. In the worst of the pagan "persecutions", a Christian could (and did) simply give right-of-attorney to their sibling, who would then do the sacrifice in court for the Christian, and the Christian would be let go.

What a horrifying persecution we have here! That someone could just get someone else to do the requisite sacrifice for them, and go unpunished! Oh, the humanity! :rolleyes:

And what did Christianity do when it got an inch of power? Yeah, exactly.

As I originally said, you're desperate to look for any hint of equivalency when the plain fact is that there was none.

Of course it does, you are defending Diocletian's persecution of a group, that would be classed as a crime against humanity by today's standards, on the basis that he was doing it for the good of the state. Most authoritarian/totalitarian regimes have used and continue to use that kind of justification and Hitler was no exception.
Then I suppose you'll be so kind as to compare the present illegalization of Scientology as a "crime against humanity" and the same thing as Adolf Hitler.

Sorry, but are you drunk? The Christian communities were refusing to show civic support for the empire...the crime they were accused of was treason. Comparing this to Hitler(!) and then actual Christian genocide of paganism is insane.

Yes, it's simply crazy. You're so desperate to find any trace of equivalency that you're tossing every bit of sense out the window. Next you're going to accuse Julian, who wanted to fund the rebuilding of the Temple, to the Nazis.

Yes "little boots" was a maniac by anyone's standards. But it doesn't change the issue of what happened.
I think it does. We can't boil down paganism to Caligula or Nero...they were maniacal rulers who oppressed pagan and Jew alike.

That's absolute nonsense too and not borne about the historical facts. The Romans tolerated anything as long as it was not in conflict with the Roman religion or could be "romanised"- otherwise it was wiped out. When the Romans did come into contact with peoples for whom this was impossible, druids, Jews and Christians and so on they showed just how intolerant their tolerant religion was.
You mean the Jews who were accorded the most tolerant policies in the whole of the empire, Druids who we can't really say why they were persecuted one way or the other and Christians who refused to show loyalty to the empire? You're not just stretching the facts, you're snapping them in half and rearranging them as you please.

"Religio" in Latin is ultimately derived from the concept of "that which binds" or "ties"- it was not as "fluid" as you think. And if it has been so fluid and enlightened why then the refusal to acknowledge that some peoples may have not recognised the gods of Rome and the Divine Emperor as supreme?
Now you're really grasping at straws. The etymology of the word couldn't be less relevant: Roman religion was extremely fluid, you could worship any number of gods from any number of lands and peoples and traditions in any number of temples...and there wouldn't be any problems.

Lots of people refused to recognize anything Roman as supreme, and they had hard fighting ahead of them. But this was as much political as anything else, that much is for sure. Once submitted to Roman authority, they could pray to whatever deity they wished.

I blame Edward Gibbon and later 19th century romanticism for creating this "myth" of these wonderful stoic, enlightened and wise Romans in their togas and white marble halls. Undoubtedly the Roman Empire did have its achievements but....
Let's do a little exercise. Pray to one god in the morning and another in the evening.

Now, under which religion would you be declared a threat? Paganism? Nope, not at all. Christianity? Oh hell yes. There you go.

Zostrianos

16th October 2011, 12:01

And as Azaran has so well pointed out, the actions ascribed to Julian make no sense when you study his motivations; couple this with the fact that Christians seem to be saying how Basil died, and it's beyond suspect. I highly doubt it went down like that.

They are irreverent to the gods and disobedient to our edicts, lenient as they are. For we allow none of them to be dragged to the altars unwillingly... It is therefore my pleasure to announce and publish to all the people by this edict, that they must not abet the seditions of the clergy ... They may hold their meetings, if they wish, and offer prayers according to their established use ... and for the future, let all people live in harmony ... Men should be taught and won over by reason, not by blows, insults, and corporal punishments. I therefore most earnestly admonish the adherents of the true religion not to injure or insult the Galilaeans in any way ... Those who are in the wrong in matters of supreme importance are objects of pity rather than of hate ... - From Julian's Tolerance Edict

ComradeMan

16th October 2011, 14:40

Yep, it says right there that Arianism was successfully suppressed.
Look, if you're not prepared to read through the sources and only choose to read what you want there's not much point discussing things. It also talks about the resurfacing of Arian ideas after the Reformation and their continuity in some aspects of modern non-Trinitatian Christianity.

"Conniving to divide"...that's a funny way of putting it, when the authorities are trying to stop one group for preaching hatred (yes, hatred...what the hell do you think Basil would have been saying? "Oh, those Arians are such nice guys, but their Christology is a bit off"...yeah, right) against another.
Where's your evidence? You have no evidence other than your speculation and your argument becomes completely hypocritical with your other positions? The burden of proof is on you to prove that Basil was "preaching" hatred. He denounced and preached against Arianism just like some today denounce Christianity- are they preaching hatred?

How about you face your apologetics for orthodox Christians in their campaign to liquidated anyone who disagreed with them. The Arians got the business end of your "freedom of expression"...as in they ceased to exist by the 7th Century.
I'm not forming apologetice for anyone, I'm trying to base things on facts and sources, not just speculation.

And as Azaran has so well pointed out, the actions ascribed to Julian make no sense when you study his motivations; couple this with the fact that Christians seem to be saying how Basil died, and it's beyond suspect. I highly doubt it went down like that.
More speculation.... where are the facts?

Their legal status was as slaves because that was the only legal category that could accommodate the whole thing. Their lives were in great danger at all times, the only way injury and death could be legal was that way. You'll notice that some historians put voluntary gladiators at upwards of 50% of the participants at some point (especially the golden age of the art, before the economic collapse).
Slavery was also voluntary in the ancient world, usually because of debt. Does that make it all right then? Did you ever not thinkt that people might have been fairly desperate- like people who sell their organs in the modern world? :rolleyes:

Yes, blows against the vital organs ruined the whole thing...which pokes a huge hole in your "omg they wur sloturrd fur fun" argument of Spartacus and Gladiator provenance.
Not at all.... basically you don't what you're talking about.

I already told you that lions eating people had nothing to do with the gladiatorial games. They were completely different events, and the participants weren't gladiators.
Did you even read the quote? Marcus' action of bringing in a lion is secondary to the point about how appalling he found the spectacle of gladiators in general. We are not talking about bestiarii, "technically" not gladiators here.

Could the Romans have gone after the Druids because they worshiped gods other than their own? Not really...
Yes if that worship, those gods, or whatever refused to submit to the conquering gods of Rome.

In fact, Gallic gods were worshiped freely in Roman society, so we know even more securely that the Druids weren't persecuted because they had other gods.
Which Gallic gods? The ones we only really know about from the Roman period who were all romanised? :rolleyes:

Of course the rest of your assertion is weak. Augustus banned druidical rites and forbidden Roman citizens to be involved with them- it's a bit hard to worship your "deity" or pursue your mysticism if your rites are banned. Under Tiberius druidism was suppressed and Claudius completely banned the druid religion in 54CE- druidarum religionem dirae immanitatis.

According to Suetonius, he, Claudius: "...utterly abolished the cruel and inhuman religion of the Druids among the Gauls, which under Augustus had merely been prohibited to Roman citizens;" (Suetonius, Lives of the XII Caesars, Claudius, 25:5)

You're missing the point that in the Roman world, after Augustus, political loyalty took on religious overtones. All it meant was that people had to show reverence for the emperor...that's it. You could pray to whatever deity you could possibly come up with as long as you did that.
Nonsense, it was the supreme power of the emperor, and on occasion his wife. Not only did the Imperial cult marginalise the Roman Senate and any vesitges of non-authoritarian (limited I appreciate) rule in Rome it also forced you to acknowledge the divine authority of the emperor and worship former emperors as gods in the temple to the divine emperor and sacrfice/burn incense to the emperor. Of course these Romans had their di parentes and in turn these were the deities of Rome. Your "god(s)" were by default inferior to the authority of those of Rome.

It's interesting to note that when the British tribal leader Boudicca rebelled against Roman brutality one of the major targets was the Temple to the Deified Claudius; archaeologists found what they believe to be the head of this "god" dumped into a nearby river. I believe, although I may be mistaken, that no Roman ever built an imperial cult temple again in Britain.

Compare that to the Christian "don't worship anything other than what we say or you're dead....
That's a rather silly simplification really. Compare that to the Roman, unless you acknowledge our emperor as divine with his divine right from the gods of Rome you're dead.

Clearly, paganism, even at its most demanding, beats out Christianity all day.
Only if you choose to ignore the actual historical facts of this paganism, that was not even one "religion" in the first place. Blasphemy laws, punishable by death, are to be found in Ancient Greece for example. One of the trumped up charges against Socrates was this. Alcibiades was also found guilty of blasphemy, also Anaxagoras who was spared death by Pericles. The Romans also had blasphemy laws too. Plato defined three different kinds of blasphemy and warned how this could damage society. Our word blasphemy is ultimately derived from the Greek which origins go back to the legend of Prometheus... the primordial man.

Most are. But sure, we can say it's not a numbers game.
So even if we think the numbers are inaccurate you acknowledge a Roman "holocaust" in Judaea that was aimed at eradicating a people and their religion or smashing them so hard they could not assert their right to self-determination again?

He should have weakened Christianity by law, since Christianity had hitherto held a strong official advantage over all other religions.
For all of 50 years or so. :rolleyes: But what he should have done is irrelevant, it's counter-factual- we are discussing what he did.

You don't seriously think that Christianity spread just because it was "true", do you? Don't be silly, official backing from various emperors was the culprit.
Where do I say that? Although Constantine may well have thought this, and certainly to the ancient mindset these arguments would have carried far more weight than they may today.

Julian was simply removing that...making the religions more equal in the process.
By making one religion less equal. Sorry the argument falls to the ground. If he removed privileges alone to Christians then maybe, but he didn't- he actively discriminated against them and so the equality argument falls to the ground. Could you also explain what "more equal" means? Either something is equal or it isn't.

And again, you're basically saying that if Julian promoted anything other than Christianity, he was guilty of "intolerance". Well, by your pretty ridiculous standard, unless he was actively supporting Christianity he was "intolerant", so it's a false charge.
No, I'm basically not saying anything of the sort. He either actively supported all religions as equal to be tolerant, or played one off against the other and discriminated to be intolerant- he did the latter not the former.

Lastly, Julian did see Christianity as wrongly robbing Jewish tradition, he saw it as an apostasy from Judaism. He didn't think Judaism was the best thing ever, but he did see it as a coherent religion that was limited by its own tribal boundaries. Nowhere have you justified that Julian was rubbing his hands together, trying to "use" the Jews for his own ends. He was proposing to fund the rebuilding of the Temple, and you're accusing him of intolerance. Hilarious.
Bearing in mind that Julian was baptised, born and raised a Christian and did study religion extensively he would have, or at least should have known, that no gentile can rebuild the Temple. Secondly, in his attempt to rebuild the Temple it could be argued, that he was perhaps presenting himself as a "messiah figure", thus he would rule over the Jews and deal a huge theological blow to the Christians. ;)

It was also in the middle of places that Romans were attacking generally. We've already been over Romans and rebellions. The Temple of Jerusalem was not ordered to be burned by Titus, he didn't want it damaged...apparently someone set adjacent buildings on fire while the Zealots were inside it and then it caught flame.
You've completely misrepresented it. Titus laid seige to Jerusalem and offered terms, Josephus was the mediator, when the negotations broke down Josephus reports "...as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done), [Titus] Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and Temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as they were of the greatest eminence"
Flavius Josephus. The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem. Containing The Interval Of About Three Years. From The Taking Of Jerusalem By Titus To The Sedition At Cyrene. Book VII. Chapter 1.1

If you look at the Arch of Titus it shows Roman soldiers marching with the spoils from the Temple. It seems they spared the treasure though. ;) You also need to remember that Josephus had to be careful what he wrote and how he portrayed the Romans.
But we both know full well that if a people submitted, they would largely be allowed to worship as they wished.
And why should they have been forced to submit in the first place, if these Romans were so tolerant and wise as you seem to portray them? And again you miss the point, "worship as they wished" but with the built in inferiority to Rome as part of the "worship". ;)

Diocletian went after the priesthood.

Err... no he didn't....

"The key targets of this piece of legislation were, as they had been during Valerian's persecution, Christian property and senior clerics.[133] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_note-Curran.2C_49-146) The edict ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures, liturgical books, and places of worship across the empire,[134] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_note-147)[notes 15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_note-149) and prohibited Christians from assembling for worship.[136] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_note-150) Christians were also deprived of the right to petition the courts,[137] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_note-ReferenceB-151) making them potential subjects for judicial torture;[138] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_note-152) Christians could not respond to actions brought against them in court;[139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_note-153) Christian senators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_the_Roman_Empire), equestrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_order), decurions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decurion_%28administrative%29), veterans, and soldiers were deprived of their ranks; and imperial freedmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Emancipation) were re-enslaved.[137] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_note-ReferenceB-151)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution

Periodic and half-hearted stuff. No comparison.
Could you explain how half-hearted these persecutions were? It doesn't make much difference if you are the one being persecuted, does it?

Celsus pointed out how uneducated the assertions of the Christians were. It's also common historical knowledge that Christianity grew in the margins of society first and then went elsewhere.
Celsus was a well-known anti-Christian, he wasn't going to say they were anything else, just like the Romans before him portrayed the "barbarians" and the "druids" as a mass of bloodthirsty savages.... :rolleyes: However it's interesting you quote Celsus because his appeal was far more tolerant than anything to come later and he would have been appalled by Diocletian's actions. It's also interesting that you quote Celsus on a leftist site here, because one of his main objections to Jesus was that he couldn't possibly have been "divine" because he was a peasant, the whole polemic is classist from top-to-bottom. He also thought that Christianity was a danger to the Empire because of the necessity to enforce the Roman religion as expressed in the Imperial Cult.

Getting back to the point, you are also shifting the timeframe backwards conveniently too. By the time we are talking about there were Christian senators, equites and high-ranking Romans too... :rolleyes:

There's not a bit of conflict here, as you would like to think. Pagan "persecutions" of Christianity usually went so far as to target the priesthood and little else. Their concern was loyalty to the empire, something that you cannot deny would have been cause for concern when an association of people was refusing to follow civic duties. This has no comparison to what the Christians did, which was wholesale slaughter of any religious tradition not their own.
I notice you need to insert the word "usually" here. If you actually look at the history the persecutions affected all Christians- persecution is not just about martyrdom. If you have had your writings burned, your church burned, and your priest executed, your role in society limited and your rights removed then you could say that you've been persecuted against- even though you weren't thrown to the "proverbial" lions.

You use the words without any sense for what was actually done. In the worst of the pagan "persecutions", a Christian could (and did) simply give right-of-attorney to their sibling, who would then do the sacrifice in court for the Christian, and the Christian would be let go. What a horrifying persecution we have here! That someone could just get someone else to do the requisite sacrifice for them, and go unpunished! Oh, the humanity! :rolleyes:
Source- evidence please. I'd like you to present a confirmed source that shows that happened.

By the way, there was no "right to attorney" in Roman Law, Roman Law basically said that a citizen of Rome (only) had the right to be heard in court and defend himself (and not be tortured etc). Christians were denied the basical Roman rights as citizens of being able to petition the courts and respond in court. This meant that before "your sibling" could perhaps defend you you would probably have been tortured judicially. Of course, if "your sibling" ever even reached the court they were in effect "defending a Christian" which would was to defend someone of an "illegal religion" in the eyes of the Roman state.

And what did Christianity do when it got an inch of power? Yeah, exactly.
Tu quoque argument here. I am not forming apologetics for Christian excesses unlike you who are basically forming apologetics for state-sanctioned Roman brutality and intolerance. Furthermore, they say that a dog that is kicked grows up to bite people- I've already pointed out where the precedents for a lot of Roman Christian nastiness are to be found.

As I originally said, you're desperate to look for any hint of equivalency when the plain fact is that there was none.
According to you and your made up facts about Roman law and history? :laugh:

Then I suppose you'll be so kind as to compare the present illegalization of Scientology as a "crime against humanity" and the same thing as Adolf Hitler.
Crimes against humanity cover a number of things. But if we take the basic definition of Crimes Against Humanity as defined by the Rome Statute, i.e. and apply them to these wonderful Roman emperors of yours, especially Diocletian you'll see that they actuall fit. Let's see we have, murder, enslavement, extermination, deportation, persecution based on religion and ethnicity and discrimination of a civilian population... :crying:

The present illegalisation of Scientology as a crime against humanity? You're making that up too. A few web-campaigns.... :rolleyes:

Sorry, but are you drunk? The Christian communities were refusing to show civic support for the empire...the crime they were accused of was treason. Comparing this to Hitler(!) and then actual Christian genocide of paganism is insane.
The Christians, like the Jews and also the Manichaeans did not recognise the Emperor as a man, as being a "god" and therefore having the "divine right" to do what he wanted. The first thing Hitler did against the Jews, the majority of whom were German citizens, was to deprive them of their rights as citizens and show how they were not true Germans. Diocletian denied the Christians their rights as Roman citizens and therefore placed them outside the circle of being true Romans.
I notice you use the word "actual" Christian genocide of paganism, but when it's the actual pagan genocide of Christians and Jews/Christians it doesn't count? Hypocrisy.

Yes, it's simply crazy. You're so desperate to find any trace of equivalency that you're tossing every bit of sense out the window. Next you're going to accuse Julian, who wanted to fund the rebuilding of the Temple, to the Nazis.
Can you read? I've said all the way through I am not trying to find equivalencies or exculpate anyone from any acts of intolerance. Unlike you of course who seeks to form an apologetic line on the brutality and intolerance of the Romans which relies on a blatant lack of understanding of Roman history and basically making things up and/or presenting your speculation as historical fact.

I think it does. We can't boil down paganism to Caligula or Nero...they were maniacal rulers who oppressed pagan and Jew alike.
oh...well... then we'll have to think about Hadrian, Trajan, Decius, Domitian.... etc etc etc instead. Hitler was also a maniacal leader who oppressed many Germans...:rolleyes: I suppose we can let him off, can we?

You mean the Jews who were accorded the most tolerant policies in the whole of the empire,
You mean the Jews who were left after the Roman "holocaust" and had to pay a tax for being Jewish.... :rolleyes:

Druids who we can't really say why they were persecuted one way or the other
Other than by examining the historical facts....:rolleyes:

and Christians who refused to show loyalty to the empire? You're not just stretching the facts, you're snapping them in half and rearranging them as you please.
Show loyalty to the empire. What kind of authoritarian, statist bullshit is this? The fact of the matter, as is borne about by the very edicts themselves, is that leading military figures, senators, and high-ranking Romans- who were probably quite loyal to Rome, were persecuted. This wasn't about Rome, it was about the Emperor's power in Rome and over it.

Now you're really grasping at straws. The etymology of the word couldn't be less relevant: Roman religion was extremely fluid, you could worship any number of gods from any number of lands and peoples and traditions in any number of temples...and there wouldn't be any problems.
The etymology of the Latin word is entirely relevant given that we are speaking of the Roman Empire and the Roman religion. Roman law from the earliest days was tied to notions of (Roman) religion- note the word tied, i.e. bound and the fact that the Latin words for religion and law are both etymologically related the concpet of "to tie" or "bind" and Roman priestly offices also overlapped with legal jurisdiction, notably the office of pontifex- sacer esto!

The second point is nonsense too, because this so-called fluidity only extended insomuch as the de facto and de jure acceptance of the Roman gods as superior and the emperor as divine. It would be like saying today a state were tolerant if it allowed Buddhists to practise on the proviso they went to Church every Sunday.... :rolleyes:

Now, under which religion would you be declared a threat? Paganism? Nope, not at all. Christianity? Oh hell yes. There you go.
More nonsense, Roman "paganism" was pretty much of a threat if you happened not to be a Roman... for example a druid.

You've fallen into a trap here basically. You automatically assume that in trying to analyse the historical facts and refuting certain claims that people are formulating apologetics for one particular group, which is not the case. I've said right from the beginning that I am not trying exculpate anyone- in my opinion they were a pretty damn vile bunch all of them, but anyway. In seeking to attack early Christianity the best you can come up with is distortions of Roman history, speculation, making things up, double-standards when it comes to sources and trying to justify the actions of those who cannot be justified by the very same modern standards you use to attack those whom you obviously disdain.

Zostrianos

17th October 2011, 10:23

In all fairness, the Roman crackdown on the Dyonisian mysteries was motivated by reports of rape, murder, fraud and other criminal activity which took place under the cover of those mysteries and orgies. From Livy's History of Rome, 39 (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy39.html):

Nor was the mischief confined to the promiscuous intercourse of men and women; false witness, the forging of seals and testaments, and false informations, all proceeded from the same source, as also poisonings and murders of families where the bodies could not even be found for burial. Many crimes were committed by treachery; most by violence, which was kept secret, because the cries of those who were being violated or murdered could not be heard owing to the noise of drums and cymbals.

While I don't condone the persecution of Christians pre-Constantine, it's noteworthy that up until the Constantinian era, the Christians who were targeted were the more orthodox\catholic wing of the bunch, and one of the reasons (not the only one, but an important one) for this persecution was the very intolerance of those Christians, who insulted other religions and referred to Pagan Gods as demons. In fact, the catholics hated other factions, not only because they disagreed with them, but also because the others didn't suffer persecution, and they considered that a crime in itself:

Justin concludes his second Apology ("Defense" for the Christians) saying that he has written it for the sole purpose of refuting "wicked and deceitful" gnostic ideas. He attacks those who, he says, are "called Christians," but whom he considers heretics— followers of Simon, Marcion, and Valentinus. "We do not know," he says darkly—combining admission with insinuation—whether they actually indulge in promiscuity or cannibalism, but, he adds, "we do know" one of their crimes: unlike the orthodox, "they are neither persecuted nor put to death" as martyrs.(The Gnostic Gospels, 84)

ComradeMan

17th October 2011, 10:42

In all fairness, the Roman crackdown on the Dyonisian mysteries was motivated by reports of rape, murder, fraud and other criminal activity which took place under the cover of those mysteries and orgies. From Livy's History of Rome, 39 (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy39.html):

There is another reason too... the Bacchanalia had "plebeian" support and there were worries of this becoming a threat to the patrician order- however they left the Lupercalia alone, it was too Roman. It's funny how the Roman ruling classes always found a "moral outrage" reason to suppress something.... ;)

...Christians who were targeted were the more orthodox\catholic wing of the bunch, and one of the reasons (not the only one, but an important one) for this persecution was the very intolerance of those Christians, who insulted other religions and referred to Pagan Gods as demons.

I'm not sure we can say that with certainty.

However, we also need to look at what was being attacked by whom and why. The "pagans" weren't all the gentle neoplatonist philosophers that we are sometimes led to believe, they were not all Hypatias. We have to think about what paganism was on the street level of the Roman slums... temple prostitution, pederasty, "witchcraft", superstition, paying money to quacks for curses, dangerous remedies, poison, manipulation by fear and superstition, belief in demons and spirits and so on.... there was a very dark side to this.

This is not the image of "paganism" many modern pagan reconstructionists, wiccans and other new-age people like to promote, or even do promote- and they certainly weren't new-age hippy types selling crystals and herbal incense either.

ericksolvi

17th October 2011, 18:16

It's interesting to me that they murdered a Platonic philosopher, then proceeded to steal much of the philosophy and bastardise it into their faith.
Much the way that they stripped the Pantheon of all metal adornment and used it to build this god awful giant alter thing in the Vatican. I've scene it in person, not pretty.

ComradeMan

17th October 2011, 20:27

It's interesting to me that they murdered a Platonic philosopher, then proceeded to steal much of the philosophy and bastardise it into their faith.

Is philosophy copyright? I didn't know that you could steal an idea or philosophy so to speak... :rolleyes:

ericksolvi

17th October 2011, 21:51

Is philosophy copyright? I didn't know that you could steal an idea or philosophy so to speak... :rolleyes:

I will clarify. The early church adopted pre-Christian ideas, holidays, to make itself more palatable. The school of thought founded by Plato lent itself to such incorporation, having a stronger moral emphasis then some of it's counter parts. Greek philosophy was in vogue in the Mediterranean at the time. Matters where not helped when Emperor Constantine moved the capital to the Greek city of Byzantium (Later to be called Constantinople) for trade reasons. The original ideas of Greek philosophy got devoured by the Christians, turned and twisted to suite their ideology, and they destroying old copies that contradicted their new interpretation. Much classical Greek philosophy may have been lost forever had it not been preserved by Arab scholars.

ComradeMan

17th October 2011, 22:16

I will clarify. The early church adopted pre-Christian ideas, holidays, to make itself more palatable. The school of thought founded by Plato lent itself to such incorporation, having a stronger moral emphasis then some of it's counter parts. Greek philosophy was in vogue in the Mediterranean at the time. Matters where not helped when Emperor Constantine moved the capital to the Greek city of Byzantium (Later to be called Constantinople) for trade reasons. The original ideas of Greek philosophy got devoured by the Christians, turned and twisted to suite their ideology, and they destroying old copies that contradicted their new interpretation. Much classical Greek philosophy may have been lost forever had it not been preserved by Arab scholars.

Where did the Greeks get their ideas from?

Thales was most probably a Phoenician, from whom the Greeks got their alphabet too. Later on they were also influenced by other peoples, notably the Egyptians (who they didn't consider barbarians).

OMG OMG they stole their ideas from N.Africans and Middle Eastern people... :rolleyes:

ericksolvi

18th October 2011, 00:07

Where did the Greeks get their ideas from?

Thales was most probably a Phoenician, from whom the Greeks got their alphabet too. Later on they were also influenced by other peoples, notably the Egyptians (who they didn't consider barbarians).

OMG OMG they stole their ideas from N.Africans and Middle Eastern people... :rolleyes:

Early Christians used the parts of philosophy they liked then actively tried to destroy the parts they didn't like. How many philosophies they managed to destroy we have no idea. They effectively robbed the world of ideas.
There is a difference between sharing ideas, and the appropriation/destruction of ideas.

You must understand at the time information had a more fragile existence, there where few written copies of things. What the early Christians did to Plato's work. Would be like someone rounding up all the copies of the Communist Manifesto in the world, writing a version they liked better, then destroying all the originals. That would be intellectual theft, stealing.

If you still don't understand the difference between sharing and stealing ideas, then I don't know what to say.

ComradeMan

18th October 2011, 07:13

Early Christians used the parts of philosophy they liked then actively tried to destroy the parts they didn't like.

Err... every philosophy has influences and uses the bits it "likes".... Modern pagans do the same....

How many philosophies they managed to destroy we have no idea. They effectively robbed the world of ideas.

So you're admitting here that your accusation is based on no historical fact or evidence as such and mere speculation?

There is a difference between sharing ideas, and the appropriation/destruction of ideas.

Which ideas were destroyed? Oh wait... you can't actually say can you? But the last time I looked a hell of a lot of "ideas" were still around from ancient times that aren't necessarily Judaeo-Christian.

You must understand at the time information had a more fragile existence, there where few written copies of things. What the early Christians did to Plato's work. Would be like someone rounding up all the copies of the Communist Manifesto in the world, writing a version they liked better, then destroying all the originals. That would be intellectual theft, stealing.

Err... Plato's works were preserved, mostly by the Byzantine "Christians". :rolleyes:

Could you explain exactly what "Christians" did to the works of Plato- with references and sources too? ;)

If you still don't understand the difference between sharing and stealing ideas, then I don't know what to say.

The question remains as to whether you knew what to say in the first place since most of what you have posted is baseless speculation and nonsense.:(

Zostrianos

18th October 2011, 07:36

Actually, as I have demonstrated in several posts, Christians zealously destroyed lots of literature that they deemed heretical or contrary to Christianity. Not a single refutation of Christianity (that some Pagans wrote, e.g. Celsus, Julian, etc) has survived. Why do you think that is? Similarly, had it not been for the discoveries of Gnostic texts buried in Egypt in the late 18th century (Pistis Sophia, Bruce Codex), and in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, all we would have today would be descriptions of Gnosticism in heresiological literature. In fact, the policy at the time in the 4th to 6th centuries, especially relating to literature deemed heretical, was to destroy and eradicate every trace of it. This happened dozens of times. Christians did copy some texts of classical philosophy and history that were considered to be useful for educational purposes, but a lot of these writings lost prestige and were forgotten until the Renaissance. Others survived because they were copied in secret by scribes who were interested in those subjects.
And when you compare the thousands of Christian books written in late Antiquity, entire encyclopedias by the church fathers, 99% of which have survived to this day, to the meagre quantity of non-Christian works from that time (and this is not only because Christians were more prolific writers), you realize that the Church deprived the rest of humanity of a good part of its heritage. And every scholar I've read who addressed this issue has stated that not only many, but most non Christian works from classical Antiquity have been lost. And before you point the finger at the other book burnings by Diocletian, etc., those were sporadic and localized; when Christians decided to eradicate a particular set of writings, they cracked down hard and were extremely thorough in their destruction.

ComradeMan

18th October 2011, 08:31

manic expression

18th October 2011, 17:08

Look, if you're not prepared to read through the sources and only choose to read what you want there's not much point discussing things. It also talks about the resurfacing of Arian ideas after the Reformation and their continuity in some aspects of modern non-Trinitatian Christianity.
Your own link says Arianism ceased to exist within a few centuries after the period we're talking about. You can convince yourself that Arians weren't persecuted to the point of disappearance if you wish, but you'll be wrong.

Where's your evidence? You have no evidence other than your speculation and your argument becomes completely hypocritical with your other positions? The burden of proof is on you to prove that Basil was "preaching" hatred. He denounced and preached against Arianism just like some today denounce Christianity- are they preaching hatred?
What's your evidence he was killed the way he was?

I'm not forming apologetice for anyone, I'm trying to base things on facts and sources, not just speculation.
Right, which is why we should take all the Christian sources on their word on Basil.

Where are your facts and sources?

Slavery was also voluntary in the ancient world, usually because of debt. Does that make it all right then? Did you ever not thinkt that people might have been fairly desperate- like people who sell their organs in the modern world? :rolleyes:
It's not about what's "alright", those are judgments we can make or not make (what happened to Mr. Facts and Sources?). It's about what actually happened, how the games actually worked. You should understand that, going by what you seem to claim about your positions here.

Not at all.... basically you don't what you're talking about.
So there weren't judges who refereed the events?

Did you even read the quote? Marcus' action of bringing in a lion is secondary to the point about how appalling he found the spectacle of gladiators in general. We are not talking about bestiarii, "technically" not gladiators here.
It's not secondary, it's entirely unrelated...which was my point.

Yes if that worship, those gods, or whatever refused to submit to the conquering gods of Rome.
When were Jews forced to worship Artemis?

Which Gallic gods? The ones we only really know about from the Roman period who were all romanised? :rolleyes:
Well imagine that...gods might change depending upon what cultural influences are at work around them. Perish the thought...religions shouldn't evolve, merge, incorporate new things!

Of course the rest of your assertion is weak. Augustus banned druidical rites and forbidden Roman citizens to be involved with them- it's a bit hard to worship your "deity" or pursue your mysticism if your rites are banned. Under Tiberius druidism was suppressed and Claudius completely banned the druid religion in 54CE- druidarum religionem dirae immanitatis.

According to Suetonius, he, Claudius: "...utterly abolished the cruel and inhuman religion of the Druids among the Gauls, which under Augustus had merely been prohibited to Roman citizens;" (Suetonius, Lives of the XII Caesars, Claudius, 25:5)
Which brings us back to their major concern about the whole affair...human sacrifice. Romans really didn't like it and they saw those rites as part of that. It doesn't mean those gods were banned...we see how the religion evolved under Roman rule.

Nonsense, it was the supreme power of the emperor, and on occasion his wife. Not only did the Imperial cult marginalise the Roman Senate and any vesitges of non-authoritarian (limited I appreciate) rule in Rome it also forced you to acknowledge the divine authority of the emperor and worship former emperors as gods in the temple to the divine emperor and sacrfice/burn incense to the emperor. Of course these Romans had their di parentes and in turn these were the deities of Rome. Your "god(s)" were by default inferior to the authority of those of Rome.
Yeah, but it's a sight better than "worship this book and this god with this son or you're dead meat".

That's a rather silly simplification really. Compare that to the Roman, unless you acknowledge our emperor as divine with his divine right from the gods of Rome you're dead.
Disagree all you like, but it's far more tolerant than Christianity. Here, you just had to incorporate the imperial cult into your rites and practices...it's a matter of adding one more deity onto an altar and leaving the rest untouched.

Only if you choose to ignore the actual historical facts of this paganism, that was not even one "religion" in the first place. Blasphemy laws, punishable by death, are to be found in Ancient Greece for example. One of the trumped up charges against Socrates was this. Alcibiades was also found guilty of blasphemy, also Anaxagoras who was spared death by Pericles. The Romans also had blasphemy laws too. Plato defined three different kinds of blasphemy and warned how this could damage society. Our word blasphemy is ultimately derived from the Greek which origins go back to the legend of Prometheus... the primordial man.
Plato also wanted a small group of philosophers to rule the world...which no one really payed any attention to.

Socrates was killed because of the collective shame and hysteria following Athens' defeat in the war with Sparta.

Unless blasphemy meant praying to a deity other than the official ones (which we know wasn't the case), then I'm not sure what the importance of that is.

So even if we think the numbers are inaccurate you acknowledge a Roman "holocaust" in Judaea that was aimed at eradicating a people and their religion or smashing them so hard they could not assert their right to self-determination again?
No way in hell would I compare it to the Holocaust. And how would you say they were trying to "eradicate" Judaism when Titus wasn't even trying to damage the Temple?

For all of 50 years or so. :rolleyes: But what he should have done is irrelevant, it's counter-factual- we are discussing what he did.
Yes, half a century ain't much. :rolleyes: Face it: Christianity's rise came from backing from emperors, nothing else.

Where do I say that? Although Constantine may well have thought this, and certainly to the ancient mindset these arguments would have carried far more weight than they may today.
So admit it: it was official backing that pushed Christianity into the mainstream...meaning Julian was simply removing that official backing.

By making one religion less equal. Sorry the argument falls to the ground. If he removed privileges alone to Christians then maybe, but he didn't- he actively discriminated against them and so the equality argument falls to the ground. Could you also explain what "more equal" means? Either something is equal or it isn't.
Christians were given preferential treatment by emperors since Constantine and tax breaks. Even you admitted this above.

No, I'm basically not saying anything of the sort. He either actively supported all religions as equal to be tolerant, or played one off against the other and discriminated to be intolerant- he did the latter not the former.
OK, so trying to promote Judaism means intolerance. Interesting.

Bearing in mind that Julian was baptised, born and raised a Christian and did study religion extensively he would have, or at least should have known, that no gentile can rebuild the Temple. Secondly, in his attempt to rebuild the Temple it could be argued, that he was perhaps presenting himself as a "messiah figure", thus he would rule over the Jews and deal a huge theological blow to the Christians. ;)
A gentile can fund the rebuilding of the Temple.

Um, no, he wasn't trying to present himself as a messiah, he was trying to strengthen Judaism.

You've completely misrepresented it. Titus laid seige to Jerusalem and offered terms, Josephus was the mediator, when the negotations broke down Josephus reports "...as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done), [Titus] Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and Temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as they were of the greatest eminence"
Flavius Josephus. The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem. Containing The Interval Of About Three Years. From The Taking Of Jerusalem By Titus To The Sedition At Cyrene. Book VII. Chapter 1.1

Josephus reports (http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm#fire):

At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the Holy House, on the north side of it.

It wasn't on orders. Sorry, but that's just the fact.

If you look at the Arch of Titus it shows Roman soldiers marching with the spoils from the Temple. It seems they spared the treasure though. ;) You also need to remember that Josephus had to be careful what he wrote and how he portrayed the Romans.
And why should they have been forced to submit in the first place, if these Romans were so tolerant and wise as you seem to portray them? And again you miss the point, "worship as they wished" but with the built in inferiority to Rome as part of the "worship". ;)
Don't be so naive, it was propaganda to put that on the arch...the new Flavian Dynasty needed that kind of legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

They were forced to submit because the Romans wanted to expand, especially to protect the frontier of Egypt and the southern borders of Anatolia. Geopolitics is like that.

The fact that they were allowed to worship as they wished, even as subjects of Rome, proves my point entirely.

Err... no he didn't....

"The key targets of this piece of legislation were, as they had been during Valerian's persecution, Christian property and senior clerics.[133] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_note-Curran.2C_49-146)
Yep.

Could you explain how half-hearted these persecutions were? It doesn't make much difference if you are the one being persecuted, does it?
When someone could just have their brother do the requisite sacrifice for them in court and got off scott-free...then yeah, it's not exactly furious searching.

Celsus was a well-known anti-Christian, he wasn't going to say they were anything else, just like the Romans before him portrayed the "barbarians" and the "druids" as a mass of bloodthirsty savages.... :rolleyes: However it's interesting you quote Celsus because his appeal was far more tolerant than anything to come later and he would have been appalled by Diocletian's actions. It's also interesting that you quote Celsus on a leftist site here, because one of his main objections to Jesus was that he couldn't possibly have been "divine" because he was a peasant, the whole polemic is classist from top-to-bottom. He also thought that Christianity was a danger to the Empire because of the necessity to enforce the Roman religion as expressed in the Imperial Cult.

Getting back to the point, you are also shifting the timeframe backwards conveniently too. By the time we are talking about there were Christian senators, equites and high-ranking Romans too... :rolleyes:
So since he wasn't fully impartial he's wrong? Please.

No, I believe Celsus says that Jesus' miracles, even if true, aren't above-and-beyond what many magicians can pull off, so they don't prove he was any son of any god.

I notice you need to insert the word "usually" here. If you actually look at the history the persecutions affected all Christians- persecution is not just about martyrdom. If you have had your writings burned, your church burned, and your priest executed, your role in society limited and your rights removed then you could say that you've been persecuted against- even though you weren't thrown to the "proverbial" lions.

Source- evidence please. I'd like you to present a confirmed source that shows that happened.

^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_ref-352) Oxyrhynchus Papyri 2601, tr. J.R. Rhea, quoted in Barnes, "Constantine and the Bishops", 382; Lane Fox, 598.

Tu quoque argument here. I am not forming apologetics for Christian excesses unlike you who are basically forming apologetics for state-sanctioned Roman brutality and intolerance. Furthermore, they say that a dog that is kicked grows up to bite people- I've already pointed out where the precedents for a lot of Roman Christian nastiness are to be found.
No, you're not forming apologetics at all, just trying to absolve Christianity of any guilt pertaining to their elimination of all other religious traditions in the Mediterranean world! No apologetics, just apology.

And among all that Roman brutality, they were more tolerant than Christianity when it came to spiritual matters. How low a bar is it, when Christianity cannot step over it?

The Christians carried out persecutions to an unseen extent. This isn't a dog growing up to bite people, this is a beast that was let out of its cage.

According to you and your made up facts about Roman law and history? :laugh:
Says the poster who gets offended when someone contradicts his precious Kirk Douglas movies... :lol:

Crimes against humanity cover a number of things. But if we take the basic definition of Crimes Against Humanity as defined by the Rome Statute, i.e. and apply them to these wonderful Roman emperors of yours, especially Diocletian you'll see that they actuall fit. Let's see we have, murder, enslavement, extermination, deportation, persecution based on religion and ethnicity and discrimination of a civilian population... :crying:
Let's see...judging the past by the standards of today...the hallmark of a bad historian out for some good axe-grinding.

The present illegalisation of Scientology as a crime against humanity? You're making that up too. A few web-campaigns.... :rolleyes:
They were classified as a cult in Germany.

The Christians, like the Jews and also the Manichaeans did not recognise the Emperor as a man, as being a "god" and therefore having the "divine right" to do what he wanted. The first thing Hitler did against the Jews, the majority of whom were German citizens, was to deprive them of their rights as citizens and show how they were not true Germans. Diocletian denied the Christians their rights as Roman citizens and therefore placed them outside the circle of being true Romans.
I notice you use the word "actual" Christian genocide of paganism, but when it's the actual pagan genocide of Christians and Jews/Christians it doesn't count? Hypocrisy.
And yet the Jews were allowed to practice their religion and accorded the most tolerant policies in the whole of the empire. Compare that to the medieval practice of massacring Jewish populations because someone said they poisoned the well...

Oh, so Diocletian is Hitler because he recognized the fact that Christian communities were neglecting and defying civic duties...OK...if you say so. :laugh:

Just so you know, Hitler was wrong...Jews were acting as full citizens in Germany, he was just a racist dirtbag.

Can you read? I've said all the way through I am not trying to find equivalencies or exculpate anyone from any acts of intolerance.
Then you are doing so inadvertently.

oh...well... then we'll have to think about Hadrian, Trajan, Decius, Domitian.... etc etc etc instead. Hitler was also a maniacal leader who oppressed many Germans...:rolleyes: I suppose we can let him off, can we?
I wouldn't ascribe the characteristics of Hitler to all Germans and moustache-wearers just because Hitler happened to be both.

Basic logic, here. Basic logic.

You mean the Jews who were left after the Roman "holocaust" and had to pay a tax for being Jewish.... :rolleyes:
The same treatment was dealt to dozens of peoples...it wasn't exceptional and it wasn't about religion.

Other than by examining the historical facts....:rolleyes:
Like the ones found in Spartacus, right?

Show loyalty to the empire. What kind of authoritarian, statist bullshit is this? The fact of the matter, as is borne about by the very edicts themselves, is that leading military figures, senators, and high-ranking Romans- who were probably quite loyal to Rome, were persecuted. This wasn't about Rome, it was about the Emperor's power in Rome and over it.
That's how it was in those days. Show loyalty to the empire or be viewed as its enemy.

And this is a curious notion...that all senators and military figures were always loyal to Rome. I wonder where those innumerable civil wars came from, then.

Again, you keep projecting the morals of the present to the past...which is what people do when they can't formulate an effective argument.

The etymology of the Latin word is entirely relevant given that we are speaking of the Roman Empire and the Roman religion.
It's inconsequential. You might as well declare that the Romans hated left feet.

The second point is nonsense too, because this so-called fluidity only extended insomuch as the de facto and de jure acceptance of the Roman gods as superior and the emperor as divine. It would be like saying today a state were tolerant if it allowed Buddhists to practise on the proviso they went to Church every Sunday.... :rolleyes:
Under Roman rule, it was expected that people make offerings to the emperor alongside their other practices and rites.

How intolerant! Unless, of course, you're not married to the monotheistic concepts of religious "purity". Most religions didn't have a problem with making offerings to the imperial cult because it wasn't a problem. That's the fluidity I'm talking about, and you can't help but spurt protest because you keep projecting your values onto the past.

More nonsense, Roman "paganism" was pretty much of a threat if you happened not to be a Roman... for example a druid.
What if you happened to worship Mithras? No problems there.

You've fallen into a trap here basically. You automatically assume that in trying to analyse the historical facts and refuting certain claims that people are formulating apologetics for one particular group,
Anyone who objectively reads the thread can tell you that that assumption is quite accurate.

ericksolvi

18th October 2011, 18:25

Err... every philosophy has influences and uses the bits it "likes".... Modern pagans do the same....

So you're admitting here that your accusation is based on no historical fact or evidence as such and mere speculation?

Which ideas were destroyed? Oh wait... you can't actually say can you? But the last time I looked a hell of a lot of "ideas" were still around from ancient times that aren't necessarily Judaeo-Christian.

Err... Plato's works were preserved, mostly by the Byzantine "Christians". :rolleyes:

Could you explain exactly what "Christians" did to the works of Plato- with references and sources too? ;)

The question remains as to whether you knew what to say in the first place since most of what you have posted is baseless speculation and nonsense.:(

Arguing with you is pointless. You've already decided to be contrary to anything I have to say. I will not track down sources, this is not a paper for history class. Everything I've said I learned in the past.
I know you'll look upon this as admitting defeat. However I was never in any competition with you, so I can't be defeated.
From what I can tell about you, based on your other posts, you come here to argue. Argumentativeness for it's own sake is counter productive. So what you do here is bad for the revolution, and if you are aware of that, then you are consciously sabotaging the revolution.

ComradeMan

18th October 2011, 20:00

Arguing with you is pointless. You've already decided to be contrary to anything I have to say. I will not track down sources,
Because you can't perhaps...? :laugh:

...this is not a paper for history class. Everything I've said I learned in the past..
So? I learnt stuff in the past too and later I found out it was bullshit.

I know you'll look upon this as admitting defeat. However I was never in any competition with you, so I can't be defeated.
Circular argument.

From what I can tell about you, based on your other posts, you come here to argue. Argumentativeness for it's own sake is counter productive. So what you do here is bad for the revolution, and if you are aware of that, then you are consciously sabotaging the revolution.

Cry me a river!!! It's called debate and discussion and if you are not prepared to back up your assertions with evidence, source and reference your claims or base your argumentation on historical fact then don't start crying..

Your own link says Arianism ceased to exist within a few centuries after the period we're talking about. You can convince yourself that Arians weren't persecuted to the point of disappearance if you wish, but you'll be wrong.
Look further down the link at "Arianism resurfaces after the Reformation, 16th century" and think about the idea of being able to kill a tree but not being able to kill the idea of a tree. I never said Arians weren't pesecuted, nor tried their persecution, I said their ideas were not completely destroyed- as is the case.

What's your evidence he was killed the way he was?
The sources, now what's your evidence he was "preaching hatred"?

Right, which is why we should take all the Christian sources on their word on Basil.
Do you(we have other sources? Why should we take the Christian sources on their word about Julian either and so on and so on. But the difference is that my argument at least attempts to use sources...

It's not about what's "alright", those are judgments we can make or not make (what happened to Mr. Facts and Sources?). It's about what actually happened, how the games actually worked. You should understand that, going by what you seem to claim about your positions here.
But you can stand in judgement if they are Christians and not cuddly pagans though.... LOL!!!

So there weren't judges who refereed the events?
Is this a game of football? Do you think a Roman court was like an episode of Judge Judy?

It's not secondary, it's entirely unrelated...which was my point.
No it isn't, it (along with all the other historical evidence and archaeological record) shows you are talking nonsense about this sanitised version of gladiators you have.

When were Jews forced to worship Artemis?
So the Divine Emperor's image being placed in the Holy Temple of Jerusalem was not an act of religious tyranny? Was not the later forbidding of Jewish religious practice a subtle way to get people to abandon their religion?

Well imagine that...gods might change depending upon what cultural influences are at work around them. Perish the thought...religions shouldn't evolve, merge, incorporate new things!
Cultural influences at the point of a sword.... after your own culture has been smashed and your leader strangled as part of a sacrife to Roman Mars.... yeah, cool story bro'.

Which brings us back to their major concern about the whole affair...human sacrifice. Romans really didn't like it and they saw those rites as part of that. It doesn't mean those gods were banned...we see how the religion evolved under Roman rule.
What gods? We know next to nothing about pre-Roman Celtic "gods" anyway, sure the Romans hated human sacrifice despite having it in their own religion, only making it illegal less than half-a-century before the Gallic Wars and continuing to enslave people and use killing as a form of ritual entertainment.... cool moral highground bro'.

Yeah, but it's a sight better than "worship this book and this god with this son or you're dead meat".
Is it? Worship our leader as a god or will burn your village to the ground, kill you and sell your people into slavery.... and of course our "spirituality" doesn't even give you the benefit of an afterlife or hope for redemption unless you are a rich patrician.... come off it!

Disagree all you like, but it's far more tolerant than Christianity. Here, you just had to incorporate the imperial cult into your rites and practices...it's a matter of adding one more deity onto an altar and leaving the rest untouched.
Yeah you're right.... unless you ignore the intolerance that is.... :rolleyes: you know witch hunts actually are first recorded in pagan Rome and may have been on a scale greater than anything that was seen in medieval and later Europe.

Plato also wanted a small group of philosophers to rule the world...which no one really payed any attention to.
Despite the fact that Platonists and subsequent Neoplatonists have an influence lasting to this day... Hypatia was a neoplatonist you know?

Socrates was killed because of the collective shame and hysteria following Athens' defeat in the war with Sparta.
Socrates was accused of blasphemy and leading the your astray from the gods. Xenophon "Socrates is guilty of a crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."

Unless blasphemy meant praying to a deity other than the official ones (which we know wasn't the case), then I'm not sure what the importance of that is.
Greek- blaptein- it meant causing an insult and/or to demean or hurt the reputation of the gods.

No way in hell would I compare it to the Holocaust. And how would you say they were trying to "eradicate" Judaism when Titus wasn't even trying to damage the Temple?
Sure, until he changed his mind and gave orders for it to be destroyed. as stated by Josephus, as it was, by troops under his command. Those are the facts from Josephus, who also had to try not to be too anti-Roman either.

Yes, half a century ain't much. :rolleyes: Face it: Christianity's rise came from backing from emperors, nothing else.
Why were those emperors Christians? :rolleyes:

So admit it: it was official backing that pushed Christianity into the mainstream...meaning Julian was simply removing that official backing.
But who was arguing against that in the first place? Which religion didn't depend on "offical backing"?

Christians were given preferential treatment by emperors since Constantine and tax breaks. Even you admitted this above.
And... ?

OK, so trying to promote Judaism means intolerance. Interesting.
Was he going to give back Judaea to the Jews then? Lol... trying to promote Judaism by means which are anti-Judaic, as was pointed out by some Jews at the time.

A gentile can fund the rebuilding of the Temple.
Sorry.... but no they can't.

Um, no, he wasn't trying to present himself as a messiah, he was trying to strengthen Judaism.
By doing something heretical to Judaism... yeah sure...

At which time one of the soldiers,....It wasn't on orders. Sorry, but that's just the fact.
So why does Josephus also report that Titus did give orders?

Don't be so naive, it was propaganda to put that on the arch...the new Flavian Dynasty needed that kind of legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
Because a Roman Emperor would have had an arch built celebrating a victory that didn't occur and portraying things that didn't happen and maintain credibility.... who's being naive?

They were forced to submit because the Romans wanted to expand, especially to protect the frontier of Egypt and the southern borders of Anatolia. Geopolitics is like that.
So that makes the Romans tolerant?

The fact that they were allowed to worship as they wished, even as subjects of Rome, proves my point entirely.
Except they weren't really though, were they? As later Roman edicts and laws show...

When someone could just have their brother do the requisite sacrifice for them in court and got off scott-free...then yeah, it's not exactly furious searching.
So that's what happened everywhere and in every case? See below.

So since he wasn't fully impartial he's wrong? Please.
Double-standards, you scorn the Christian version because they were Christians etc, but we have to accept the anti-Christian version because and ignore impartiality because..... of what exactly?

No, I believe Celsus says that Jesus' miracles, even if true, aren't above-and-beyond what many magicians can pull off, so they don't prove he was any son of any god.

Well let's see what our surviving sources say:

..... and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God...... It was improbable that the god would entertain a passion for her [Mary], because she was neither rich nor of royal rank, seeing no one, even of her neighbours, knew her.

He doesn't seem to refute the "magic powers" here either ;)

Oxyrhynchus Papyri 2601
Well done. A souce at last- literally a source, i.e. one. However that one instance that does not really tell us (it seems) is hardly proof that this was the norm. One Chrisitian Chopres, managed to escape. There were people who also managed to get round the Nazi racial laws and "escape" that does not exhonerate the Nazis. It also shows how desperate people were too. Other sources mention bribery and people fleeing.... great justice system.

No, you're not forming apologetics at all, just trying to absolve Christianity of any guilt pertaining to their elimination of all other religious traditions in the Mediterranean world! No apologetics, just apology.
Lol.... by presenting facts, acknowledging excesses and pointing out the historical inaccuracies in your argument whilst you seek to portray Diocletian as some kind of Mandela figure and excuse the Romans of all their brutality and intolerance.

And among all that Roman brutality, they were more tolerant than Christianity when it came to spiritual matters. How low a bar is it, when Christianity cannot step over it?
If you ignore genocide, slavery, intolerance, "imperialism", classism and brutality- great, go for it. But as you pointed out, who are we to judge those people by our standards?

The Christians carried out persecutions to an unseen extent. This isn't a dog growing up to bite people, this is a beast that was let out of its cage.
A beast trained by a pagan Roman master it seems.

Says the poster who gets offended when someone contradicts his precious Kirk Douglas movies... :lol:
Stop being arrogant... I haven't presented one thing here from a "Kirk Douglas" movie and it seems your knowledge of ancient Rome and Latin is lacking to a great extent.

Let's see...judging the past by the standards of today...the hallmark of a bad historian out for some good axe-grinding.
Ah.... but aren't you talking about Christians being the "beasts let out of the cage"? Why even bother talking about tolerance because the ancient mindset would have probably found our ideas bizarre? Double standards again.

They were classified as a cult in Germany.
And.... where are the being prosecuted for crimes against humanity as you claimed? Since 2000 many countries, most recently Spain I believe, have recognised them officially as a religion. What's your point?

And yet the Jews were allowed to practice their religion and accorded the most tolerant policies in the whole of the empire. Compare that to the medieval practice of massacring Jewish populations because someone said they poisoned the well...
Even the language you use is revealing "they were allowed to practise their religion"- but of course only if they paid a fucking tax to do so and ignoring all the other stuff too. We aren't talking about the Middle-Ages, and like you say it's ahistorical to compare different times and sets of values so I don't want to be accused of that. :)

Oh, so Diocletian is Hitler because he recognized the fact that Christian communities were neglecting and defying civic duties...OK...if you say so. :laugh:
Where did I say "Diocletian is Hitler"?
What were these civic duties that Christians, senators, equites and high ranking Romans among them, were neglecting?

Just so you know, Hitler was wrong...Jews were acting as full citizens in Germany, he was just a racist dirtbag.
Well, those Christian senators were probably acting as full citizens of Rome- to be senators and all that. Yet again you miss the point, the first thing people do when they want to discriminate against any group is try and find a way to strip them of their full rights or deny their citizenship or access to those rights.

Then you are doing so inadvertently.
By not accepting your pitiful cherrypicked histories of the Roman Empire of which you seem to know very little.

The same treatment was dealt to dozens of peoples...it wasn't exceptional and it wasn't about religion.
Who else paid the fiscus judaicus then, did non-Jews pay the Jewish tax?

That's how it was in those days. Show loyalty to the empire or be viewed as its enemy.
Does that make them tolerant?

And this is a curious notion...that all senators and military figures were always loyal to Rome. I wonder where those innumerable civil wars came from, then.
Conflicts about what loyalty to Rome meant, that's why Caesar was killed and that's why both he and Sulla were despised for their "treacherous" marching on Rome itself with Roman legions. Where did I say, ffs, that every last Roman patrician that ever existed wasn't possibly corruptable or self-centred etc? It didn't stop them from being Romans.

Again, you keep projecting the morals of the present to the past...which is what people do when they can't formulate an effective argument.
But that's what your argument is- otherwise you wouldn't be attacking the Roman Christians, would you?

AIt's inconsequential. You might as well declare that the Romans hated left feet.
That's just an ignorant argument... sorry.

Under Roman rule, it was expected that people make offerings to the emperor alongside their other practices and rites.
And that's tolerance..... that's okay is it? Especially if you were a slave brought to Rome against your will and had a family who became freedmen... by the time of the Empire Rome was full of non-Romans too...

How intolerant! Unless, of course, you're not married to the monotheistic concepts of religious "purity". Most religions didn't have a problem with making offerings to the imperial cult because it wasn't a problem. That's the fluidity I'm talking about, and you can't help but spurt protest because you keep projecting your values onto the past.
Yet again, you are projecting yours onto the past. You can't change the meaning of concepts and twist things to suit your argument which is what you do.

What if you happened to worship Mithras? No problems there.
Yes, a secret mystery religion for initiates that never had such a huge following outside the military as such and withered out and died... next example please...

Your whole argument is sound only on shifting goal-posts, being selective with sources, applying your interpretation on facts and building up subtle little strawman arguments and/or poisoning the well tactics. Barring the one source, well done, you've been factually inaccurate, wrong or distorted on just about everything and you deliberately ignore other relevant concepts and ideas. I'm sorry if the fact that the Romans were basically ancient "facsists" as far as their state goes upsets you when you are playing Total War or something....

Aeneid VI : 851 "remember, Roman, it is for you to rule the nations with your power"

ericksolvi

18th October 2011, 22:41

Because you can't perhaps...? :laugh:

So? I learnt stuff in the past too and later I found out it was bullshit.

Circular argument.

Cry me a river!!! It's called debate and discussion and if you are not prepared to back up your assertions with evidence, source and reference your claims or base your argumentation on historical fact then don't start crying..

Look further down the link at "Arianism resurfaces after the Reformation, 16th century" and think about the idea of being able to kill a tree but not being able to kill the idea of a tree. I never said Arians weren't pesecuted, nor tried their persecution, I said their ideas were not completely destroyed- as is the case.

The sources, now what's your evidence he was "preaching hatred"?

Do you(we have other sources? Why should we take the Christian sources on their word about Julian either and so on and so on. But the difference is that my argument at least attempts to use sources...

But you can stand in judgement if they are Christians and not cuddly pagans though.... LOL!!!

Is this a game of football? Do you think a Roman court was like an episode of Judge Judy?

No it isn't, it (along with all the other historical evidence and archaeological record) shows you are talking nonsense about this sanitised version of gladiators you have.

So the Divine Emperor's image being placed in the Holy Temple of Jerusalem was not an act of religious tyranny? Was not the later forbidding of Jewish religious practice a subtle way to get people to abandon their religion?

Cultural influences at the point of a sword.... after your own culture has been smashed and your leader strangled as part of a sacrife to Roman Mars.... yeah, cool story bro'.

What gods? We know next to nothing about pre-Roman Celtic "gods" anyway, sure the Romans hated human sacrifice despite having it in their own religion, only making it illegal less than half-a-century before the Gallic Wars and continuing to enslave people and use killing as a form of ritual entertainment.... cool moral highground bro'.

Is it? Worship our leader as a god or will burn your village to the ground, kill you and sell your people into slavery.... and of course our "spirituality" doesn't even give you the benefit of an afterlife or hope for redemption unless you are a rich patrician.... come off it!

Yeah you're right.... unless you ignore the intolerance that is.... :rolleyes: you know witch hunts actually are first recorded in pagan Rome and may have been on a scale greater than anything that was seen in medieval and later Europe.

Despite the fact that Platonists and subsequent Neoplatonists have an influence lasting to this day... Hypatia was a neoplatonist you know?

Socrates was accused of blasphemy and leading the your astray from the gods. Xenophon "Socrates is guilty of a crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."

Greek- blaptein- it meant causing an insult and/or to demean or hurt the reputation of the gods.

Sure, until he changed his mind and gave orders for it to be destroyed. as stated by Josephus, as it was, by troops under his command. Those are the facts from Josephus, who also had to try not to be too anti-Roman either.

Why were those emperors Christians? :rolleyes:

But who was arguing against that in the first place? Which religion didn't depend on "offical backing"?

And... ?

Was he going to give back Judaea to the Jews then? Lol... trying to promote Judaism by means which are anti-Judaic, as was pointed out by some Jews at the time.

Sorry.... but no they can't.

By doing something heretical to Judaism... yeah sure...

So why does Josephus also report that Titus did give orders?

Because a Roman Emperor would have had an arch built celebrating a victory that didn't occur and portraying things that didn't happen and maintain credibility.... who's being naive?

So that makes the Romans tolerant?

Except they weren't really though, were they? As later Roman edicts and laws show...

So that's what happened everywhere and in every case? See below.

Double-standards, you scorn the Christian version because they were Christians etc, but we have to accept the anti-Christian version because and ignore impartiality because..... of what exactly?

Well let's see what our surviving sources say:

He doesn't seem to refute the "magic powers" here either ;)

Well done. A souce at last- literally a source, i.e. one. However that one instance that does not really tell us (it seems) is hardly proof that this was the norm. One Chrisitian Chopres, managed to escape. There were people who also managed to get round the Nazi racial laws and "escape" that does not exhonerate the Nazis. It also shows how desperate people were too. Other sources mention bribery and people fleeing.... great justice system.

Lol.... by presenting facts, acknowledging excesses and pointing out the historical inaccuracies in your argument whilst you seek to portray Diocletian as some kind of Mandela figure and excuse the Romans of all their brutality and intolerance.

If you ignore genocide, slavery, intolerance, "imperialism", classism and brutality- great, go for it. But as you pointed out, who are we to judge those people by our standards?

A beast trained by a pagan Roman master it seems.

Stop being arrogant... I haven't presented one thing here from a "Kirk Douglas" movie and it seems your knowledge of ancient Rome and Latin is lacking to a great extent.

Ah.... but aren't you talking about Christians being the "beasts let out of the cage"? Why even bother talking about tolerance because the ancient mindset would have probably found our ideas bizarre? Double standards again.

And.... where are the being prosecuted for crimes against humanity as you claimed? Since 2000 many countries, most recently Spain I believe, have recognised them officially as a religion. What's your point?

Even the language you use is revealing "they were allowed to practise their religion"- but of course only if they paid a fucking tax to do so and ignoring all the other stuff too. We aren't talking about the Middle-Ages, and like you say it's ahistorical to compare different times and sets of values so I don't want to be accused of that. :)

Where did I say "Diocletian is Hitler"?
What were these civic duties that Christians, senators, equites and high ranking Romans among them, were neglecting?

Well, those Christian senators were probably acting as full citizens of Rome- to be senators and all that. Yet again you miss the point, the first thing people do when they want to discriminate against any group is try and find a way to strip them of their full rights or deny their citizenship or access to those rights.

By not accepting your pitiful cherrypicked histories of the Roman Empire of which you seem to know very little.

Who else paid the fiscus judaicus then, did non-Jews pay the Jewish tax?

Does that make them tolerant?

Conflicts about what loyalty to Rome meant, that's why Caesar was killed and that's why both he and Sulla were despised for their "treacherous" marching on Rome itself with Roman legions. Where did I say, ffs, that every last Roman patrician that ever existed wasn't possibly corruptable or self-centred etc? It didn't stop them from being Romans.

But that's what your argument is- otherwise you wouldn't be attacking the Roman Christians, would you?

That's just an ignorant argument... sorry.

And that's tolerance..... that's okay is it? Especially if you were a slave brought to Rome against your will and had a family who became freedmen... by the time of the Empire Rome was full of non-Romans too...

Yet again, you are projecting yours onto the past. You can't change the meaning of concepts and twist things to suit your argument which is what you do.

Yes, a secret mystery religion for initiates that never had such a huge following outside the military as such and withered out and died... next example please...

Your whole argument is sound only on shifting goal-posts, being selective with sources, applying your interpretation on facts and building up subtle little strawman arguments and/or poisoning the well tactics. Barring the one source, well done, you've been factually inaccurate, wrong or distorted on just about everything and you deliberately ignore other relevant concepts and ideas. I'm sorry if the fact that the Romans were basically ancient "facsists" as far as their state goes upsets you when you are playing Total War or something....

Aeneid VI : 851 "remember, Roman, it is for you to rule the nations with your power"

Do you really expect anyone to read through something as long, detailed, and nakedly aggressive as that? I admit I couldn't get through the whole thing. This is not a debate for me. It's more like chatting with someone you just met and found that you share an interest with. Your working harder on your arguments then I'm willing to work on mine.
I was going to send you this in a private message, but decided that you wouldn't be able to appreciate tact.

"You use the multi quote feature to get around the one liner prohibition. Just because I'm not willing to argue with you, and there is a difference between argument and debate, don't act superior. Your arguments demand that people back up there thoughts (and they are just thoughts and opinions) but I have scene no sources from you. When you have nothing better to criticize you resort to insults. You're like Glenn Beck, and if you consider that anything other than an insult, then we are to far apart ideologically to find common ground.
Just so you know I'm not anti christian. I'm not opposed to any religion, and unlike some communists I'm not an atheist.
What I am is really bad with computers. I don't know how to embed (if that's the right word) a link or a video. Any time you see anything I've written it will just be my opinion. I'm not interested in adversarial contests of wits, and facts.
I'm writing this to you privately because I don't want to see my words ripped apart and criticized in minuet detail. You might think that that's what debate is, but to me it's just rude.
So I admit that I am incapable of, and am unwilling to, argue as vigorously as you can. I'm just not that competitive.
Since you've made this a competition, you win. You may celebrate my defeat. As I put you on my ignore list."

manic expression

19th October 2011, 00:07

Look further down the link at "Arianism resurfaces after the Reformation, 16th century"
Thanks for proving my point once more.

The sources, now what's your evidence he was "preaching hatred"?
What sources? And you already have the source for his preaching intolerance.

Do you(we have other sources? Why should we take the Christian sources on their word about Julian either and so on and so on. But the difference is that my argument at least attempts to use sources...
So you have none worth taking seriously? OK.

But you can stand in judgement if they are Christians and not cuddly pagans though.... LOL!!!
Too bad you didn't notice that according to the standards of the time (set by Roman policy), exterminating a religion merely because it's not your own is unethical.

Back to the apologetic drawing board you go!

Is this a game of football? Do you think a Roman court was like an episode of Judge Judy?
There were judges who refereed events. You need to do more research, apparently.

No it isn't, it (along with all the other historical evidence and archaeological record) shows you are talking nonsense about this sanitised version of gladiators you have.
It's not sanitized, it's realistic. Gladiators were far too valuable to be paraded to their deaths...anyone who says otherwise is too busy watching Kirk Douglas to notice. And the mid-day executions are entirely irrelevant to what gladiators did.

So the Divine Emperor's image being placed in the Holy Temple of Jerusalem was not an act of religious tyranny? Was not the later forbidding of Jewish religious practice a subtle way to get people to abandon their religion?
It was an act of epic stupidity, and one that is a marked exception.

Cultural influences at the point of a sword.... after your own culture has been smashed and your leader strangled as part of a sacrife to Roman Mars.... yeah, cool story bro'.
Not entirely. Romanization wasn't always at the point of a sword...much of it was gradual and non-violent. The people of Briton, for instance, found that they enjoyed three-course meals instead of having a big pot of soup every day. Others really liked bathhouses. Others liked that you could communicate with much of the known world if you learned Latin or Greek.

What gods?
Try this (http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/epona2.gif).

Is it? Worship our leader as a god or will burn your village to the ground, kill you and sell your people into slavery.... and of course our "spirituality" doesn't even give you the benefit of an afterlife or hope for redemption unless you are a rich patrician.... come off it!
Of course, not many had much of a problem with it. Just add one deity to the altar and it's all good.

If you really think Boudicca was rebelling over that, then you're more blinded by pro-Christian rage than I thought.

Yeah you're right.... unless you ignore the intolerance that is.... :rolleyes: you know witch hunts actually are first recorded in pagan Rome and may have been on a scale greater than anything that was seen in medieval and later Europe.
Prove it.

Despite the fact that Platonists and subsequent Neoplatonists have an influence lasting to this day... Hypatia was a neoplatonist you know?
Neoplatonism didn't incorporate everything the man wrote.

Socrates was accused of blasphemy and leading the your astray from the gods. Xenophon "Socrates is guilty of a crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."

Greek- blaptein- it meant causing an insult and/or to demean or hurt the reputation of the gods.
Yes, it was all about religion...forget about the fact that Athens had just been defeated and humiliated and was salivating for any scapegoat. Yep, that whole war with Sparta meant nuthin'. :lol:

Sure, until he changed his mind and gave orders for it to be destroyed. as stated by Josephus, as it was, by troops under his command. Those are the facts from Josephus, who also had to try not to be too anti-Roman either.
False. Josephus explicitly says that it was burned without any orders to that effect. I already posted the passage.

Why were those emperors Christians? :rolleyes:
They had parents who were, Constantine included.

But who was arguing against that in the first place? Which religion didn't depend on "offical backing"?
Who was? Counteracting the effects of official discrimination is now intolerance? You have a funny way of looking at things...always through the Christian lens.

And... ?
And...Julian was simply doing away with those privileges. You scream intolerance because of it, and then excuse Christianity's extermination of paganism. Real cute.

Was he going to give back Judaea to the Jews then? Lol... trying to promote Judaism by means which are anti-Judaic, as was pointed out by some Jews at the time.
He was going to fund the Temple so that the Jews could have a grand place of worship to call their own. To this, you cry that the Christians were being treated badly...again, real cute.

Sorry.... but no they can't.
Apparently they can.

By doing something heretical to Judaism... yeah sure...
"Heretical to Judaism", you basically summed up all of Christianity in one phrase. :laugh: Until you prove it, you're just scrambling for some reason to slander Julian.

So why does Josephus also report that Titus did give orders?
Whatever the case, the burning happened without any orders from him or from any superior officer.

Because a Roman Emperor would have had an arch built celebrating a victory that didn't occur and portraying things that didn't happen and maintain credibility.... who's being naive?
The victory did occur...but the glorification of it was certainly propaganda for credibility for a new dynasty (the first without any direct links to Augustus).

So that makes the Romans tolerant?
It makes them an empire. A religiously tolerant empire, but an empire nonetheless.

Except they weren't really though, were they? As later Roman edicts and laws show...
Only when Christian communities turned their backs on all civic duties and obligations.

So that's what happened everywhere and in every case? See below.
I note your lack of an argument.

Double-standards, you scorn the Christian version because they were Christians etc, but we have to accept the anti-Christian version because and ignore impartiality because..... of what exactly?
:lol: They were observing legal facts. Nice try.

Well let's see what our surviving sources say:
He's alluding to the fact that Mary is an unlikely vehicle for the son of god...why her? The church has never answered this because it's a silly story and you know it.

He doesn't seem to refute the "magic powers" here either
His whole point is that "magic powers" can be done by any cheap magician.

Well done. A souce at last- literally a source, i.e. one. However that one instance that does not really tell us (it seems) is hardly proof that this was the norm.
Ah, yes, it's just an exception...done in the middle of the Roman legal system. Right...

Lol.... by presenting facts, acknowledging excesses and pointing out the historical inaccuracies in your argument whilst you seek to portray Diocletian as some kind of Mandela figure and excuse the Romans of all their brutality and intolerance.
Uh, no. By ignoring historical evidence, by ascribing false motivations, by projecting your own moral system back 2,000 years on the pagans while cheerfully dancing around the plain extermination of paganism at the hands of Christianity. This, surely enough, is your version of "good news". :lol:

If you ignore genocide, slavery, intolerance, "imperialism", classism and brutality- great, go for it.
Hilariously enough, all that was more spiritually tolerant than your holy book boys.

A beast trained by a pagan Roman master it seems.
By being the opposite of what had come before it? Christianity can't even learn lessons properly.

Stop being arrogant... I haven't presented one thing here from a "Kirk Douglas" movie and it seems your knowledge of ancient Rome and Latin is lacking to a great extent.
Yeah, even though you've been trying to tell yourself gladiators fought the way they did in Hollywood movies.

Ah.... but aren't you talking about Christians being the "beasts let out of the cage"? Why even bother talking about tolerance because the ancient mindset would have probably found our ideas bizarre? Double standards again.
Tolerance, in the spiritual realm, was applied by Roman society, even if there wasn't the concept of tolerance in the modern sense. You have your gods, we have ours. Maybe I'll adopt your gods, maybe you'll adopt mine. Maybe they're basically the same with different rites and stories behind them. Maybe I'll go find new gods.

That's really how it worked in paganism. Far more tolerant than what humanity has known under the crucifix.

And.... where are the being prosecuted for crimes against humanity as you claimed? Since 2000 many countries, most recently Spain I believe, have recognised them officially as a religion. What's your point?
My point? That obstructing a religion seen as unhealthy for society is hardly the Hitler-esque crime you call it.

Even the language you use is revealing "they were allowed to practise their religion"- but of course only if they paid a fucking tax to do so and ignoring all the other stuff too. We aren't talking about the Middle-Ages, and like you say it's ahistorical to compare different times and sets of values so I don't want to be accused of that.
We aren't talking about the middle ages, because the middle ages knew no sense of religious tolerance. Roman times did.

Oh, wait, that's the whole point! Isn't that funny? :lol:

Where did I say "Diocletian is Hitler"?
See where I quoted you in my last post.

Well, those Christian senators were probably acting as full citizens of Rome- to be senators and all that. Yet again you miss the point, the first thing people do when they want to discriminate against any group is try and find a way to strip them of their full rights or deny their citizenship or access to those rights.
Is this a question of individual practitioners or is it a question of a collective? That's really the point, what Christianity meant as a religion to the Roman world.

By not accepting your pitiful cherrypicked histories of the Roman Empire of which you seem to know very little.
"Cherrypicked", says the guy focusing in on what Titus did or didn't say in the span of a few days.

Who else paid the fiscus judaicus then, did non-Jews pay the Jewish tax?
You mean the one imposed after the revolts (read: not religious but political)?

Does that make them tolerant?
In a political sense or a religious sense?

Conflicts about what loyalty to Rome meant, that's why Caesar was killed and that's why both he and Sulla were despised for their "treacherous" marching on Rome itself with Roman legions. Where did I say, ffs, that every last Roman patrician that ever existed wasn't possibly corruptable or self-centred etc? It didn't stop them from being Romans.
So I don't see why waving about a few senators who were Christians means anything.

But that's what your argument is- otherwise you wouldn't be attacking the Roman Christians, would you?
They were intolerant by the standards of their day.

That's just an ignorant argument... sorry.
It should be...it's a reiteration of yours.

And that's tolerance..... that's okay is it? Especially if you were a slave brought to Rome against your will and had a family who became freedmen... by the time of the Empire Rome was full of non-Romans too...
It's world-class tolerance compared to Christianity. And furthermore, even if you were a freedman you could choose which gods you wanted to make offerings to.

Yet again, you are projecting yours onto the past. You can't change the meaning of concepts and twist things to suit your argument which is what you do.
It's plain to see that paganism was far more tolerant than Christianity, of which we can hardly ascribe the adjective at all.

Yes, a secret mystery religion for initiates that never had such a huge following outside the military as such and withered out and died... next example please...
It went out of style...but the pagans never suppressed it. Plenty more examples of that.

There's a church in Rome that's literally built on a mithraeum, just so you know.

Your whole argument is sound only on shifting goal-posts, being selective with sources, applying your interpretation on facts and building up subtle little strawman arguments and/or poisoning the well tactics. Barring the one source, well done, you've been factually inaccurate, wrong or distorted on just about everything and you deliberately ignore other relevant concepts and ideas. I'm sorry if the fact that the Romans were basically ancient "facsists" as far as their state goes upsets you when you are playing Total War or something....

Aeneid VI : 851 "remember, Roman, it is for you to rule the nations with your power"
:lol: Yeah, OK, tell me again where Titus tapped the guy on the shoulder and told him to set fire to the Temple.

Zostrianos

19th October 2011, 05:56

I'm too tired to address all the points raised in the previous posts, but I'll do my best to clarify things.
First, Christian intolerance was an aberration that was alien to Roman society. Yes, Pagan Rome had periods of persecution, but overall roman society was tolerant of most faiths. And as for the persecution of Christians, the only one that has been clearly established was that of Diocletian, which was apparently a monstrous and brutal persecution, but it was brief. Some scholars don't even accept the accounts that Nero had persecuted Christians; according to P. Chuvin (A Chronicle of the last Pagans pg 17) the only persecutions ever inflicted on Christians took place between 250 and 312 AD. And these were more often than not sporadic; the most thorough and intense ones were under Diocletian, but aside from that they were localized and sparse. I remember reading more than once that aside from Diocletian's, the other persecutions were often officially decreed by the Emperors, but rarely enforced aside from a few episodes, hence Christianity's stubborn resistance.
The persecutions of non Christians by the church, however, were much more thorough. There were churches in almost every city, and the clergy and monks, much more than imperial officials, were instrumental in effecting the repression of Pagan and "heretical" movements. Although up until Theodosius' time the death penalty was rarely applied, the Church progressively stripped other religions of their civil rights, funding, and places of worship, so as to gradually take over, like a virus. And a curious fact, most legislation against non Christians was not initiated by the emperors themselves, but was urged by Catholic (or Arian depending on the emperor) bishops who pushed to enact repressive laws (q.v. Ambrose).
And what's important to keep in mind is that despite the Diocletianic et al. persecutions, Christian violence and intolerance had nothing to do with Christians taking revenge on Pagans for having persecuted them; it was purely motivated by intolerance, and Christians would even redefine "persecution" to encompass having to tolerate other faiths. Whereas, after Constantine, most violence by Pagans against Christians was either in self defence or in retribution for Christian aggression (q.v. The Last Pagans of Rome, 799).

And as proof that the Church was responsible for the cultural decay of the empire, when you look at the spiritual richness and diversity of the 1st to the 4th centuries, the crises and upheavals of the pre-Constantian era had no significant negative effect on the growth of philosophies, cults, and spiritual diversity. After the church took power, however, there was a progressive decline, as various gnostic schools were crushed, philosophical and educational institutions were destroyed, and rights were denied to non Christians, culminating in Justinian's closing of the Academy. In fact, there was a direct correlation between the rise of superstition and the growing power and hegemony of Christianity (for which, see Macmullen, Christianity & Paganism, 74ff, "Superstition").

Zostrianos

19th October 2011, 06:09

Just an addendum: Diocletian's persecution of Manicheanism was motivated primarily by the religion's Persian roots, since the empire was at war with Persia.

And formerly, when scholarship was dominated by Christians, it was a common assumption that Christianity's early success (pre-Constantine) owed to the social benefits it offered to women, slaves and the downtrodden, but this is in fact untrue. Christianity was indeed popular and grew by positive means early on, but mostly by its loud promises of miracles (exorcisms and healing primarily) which gave it a certain appeal. There were also miracles in Pagan temples, but Christians were more outspoken in this regard (see Macmullen, Christianity & Paganism 11). Contrary to popular assumptions, both women and slaves were treated better in the Pagan cults than they were in the church. Women could become priestesses in most cults, and there were many Goddesses they could turn to. Whereas in the church, they weren't even allowed to speak. With regard to slaves, in spite of the social strata excluding them from the rest of society, they were allowed access to nearly all temples, worshipping side by side with the free, and many went on to create their own congregations (Macmullen 7). Also, “Christian leaders….looked down on those beneath them with the same hauteur as their non-Christian equivalents” In addition, regarding the hardships endured by slaves under Pagan emperors, they may have been harsh, but “nothing indicates that they were made easier by Christian masters” (Macmullen 7). Furthermore, in the 5th century, pope Leo forbade the admission of slaves to the priesthood, because their “vileness” would pollute the holy office.
Now, on the plus side, the church was more charitable to the poor than other religions, but you have to wonder if their charity wasn't just a ploy to trick more people into converting (like it is today among evangelicals)

ComradeMan

19th October 2011, 10:21

These "quoted" posts are getting very long and protracted and difficult to follow- as is often the case in these threads, so I'll try and put forward some ideas and arguments here without it involving a page full of quotes.

Let's go back to the beginning.

Tolerance? We are all using the word tolerance and intolerance here- but what is meant by this word? If we are going to defend and accuse various groups of being either tolerant and intolerant in terms of religious freedom we have to look at this.

Do we mean the tolerance of indifference? The tolerance of "we'll leave them alone" as long as it doesn't conflict with our interests? Or do we mean Voltaire's ideas of tolerance, in that we recognise that people have a right to practise their religion freely- as we would understand it today?

Firstly we are dealing with the Roman State- so to present this as "pagans" versus "others" is misleading. Yes, the Roman State was made up of "pagans" and yes the Roman State was connected to the "religio" of Rome, the Roman laws were considered sacred by the fact they were the laws of Rome and so on. However the various laws and edicts of suppression, persecution or granting of liberties etc were not necessarily done in the name of paganism but in the pragmatic interests of the Roman State. It is interesting to note that the first "tolerant" laws that the Romans did indeed pass to protect the Jews in the Empire, were passed not because the Romans liked the Jews particularly- indeed we have comments from the ancient authors to the contrary- but because the Greek pagans were causing religious (yes, some "intolerance" here) problems with the Jewish community in Greece, Asia Minor and the Middle East. It is also worthy of note that these edicts were the result of a Jewish "lobby" on the Senate protesting about this "intolerance" - they were not the acts of some Roman senatorial philanthropist; we are talking about a senatus consulta (acta pro judaeis) that was taken to restore order resulting from what we today might call "intolerance" by err... Greek pagans.

To present the Romans, or worse "pagans" (as one monolith), as "tolerant" is misleading and ahistorical- they were indifferent and there were sporadic outbursts of what could be argued as "intolerance". However desultory those outbursts were fairly nasty and oppressive by anyone's standards. Although most probably invented, it's interesting that Tacitus puts these words into the mouth of "Galgacus" the British leader:

"Tacitus Agricola: 29-36: auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant: "
trans. thttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0081%3Achapter%3 D30

The famous quote "where they make a desert they call it peace".

So were the Romans tolerant/intolerant? To say they were tolerant would be to imply that they were proactive in promoting tolerance conjuring up ideas of modern equality laws and so on- unfortunately they are pretty absent or lacking. Were they intolerant? Well- we are covering a long time span here. Stretching from c380 BCE to c350 CE- thats over 700 years. Rome was by no means static during that period at all. The only constant is that there were very few constants. Let's say we have a "general" indifference marked by episodes of "intolerance" or "persecution" in the name of the state, the Dionysian rites, the Druids, the Isis cult (expelled from Rome), the various Jewish conflicts and wars, the Christians., the persecution of "witchcraft" too. We can't ignore these if we are going to argue that "Rome was tolerant". Furthermore to argue that because the Roman state was tolerant, "paganism was tolerant" is a bit of a jump too.

To present history as a dichotomy, to argue that we have "tolerant" pagans on one side and "intolerant" Christians/others on the other is not only problematic in terms of the very definition of tolerance but also the timescale and the motivations we are dealing with.

Manic has presented the argument, a defense of the Imperial Cult and Roman order that works on the basis of Rome protecting itself and maintaing order. Let's explore that: the religion of Rome was supreme, the Emperor was divine and the Romans had a "manifold destiny" to rule. There was no compromise on this. The argument that certain groups, namely Christians, were subversive and disloyal to the Roman state can, therefore, perhaps be made- but then that leaves us with another problem: when the Emperor decided that Rome should be Christian, and this was a Roman emperor at the end of the day, then the same accusation of "disloyalty" to the Emperor or the Roman State could be made against the subversive "pagans".:crying: Hence my comment previously, was this "intolerance" by Roman pagans and Roman Christians because they were pagans/Christians or because they were Romans?

Contrary to what I have been "accused"- I am under no illusions about how "intolerant" by today's standards early Roman Christians and Christian emperors may have been, nowhere have I sought to exculpate any acts of bigotry or violence- albeit that this is perhaps de facto anachronistic in itself. I also pointed out, re Hypatia, how brutal it was and how a notable Christian writer who was contemporary also thought so. I think I said earlier that they were all a pretty "vile bunch" without exception.

On the other hand what I do find objectionable is presenting Rome as a "pagan" state in some sense of a modern defined state religion at all levels, the portrayal of this said Roman "pagan" state as proactively tolerant- which is not supported by historical evidence, the ignoring of the various cases of "intolerance" by this state and also the portrayal of the "pagans" as one homogenous group throughout the empire who were "tolerant"- indifference marked by periods of intolerance is not what we call tolerance.

manic expression

19th October 2011, 12:07

ComradeMan

19th October 2011, 13:12

What we have here is someone clutching to the relatively few examples of "pagan intolerance", which were themselves almost always the product of political and social motivations, or else individual vanity (Caligula), and not anything intertwined with the pagan traditions.

So how much so then were the actions of Roman Christians NOT the product of the political and social motivations of the time or perhaps the individual vanity of the emperors in question.

"Relatively few" examples.... so that makes it okay then?

As for Caligula... he wasn't using the Imperial Cult as part of his vanity, did not his own religion teach him to revere his ancestors, who in the case of the Julian dynasty, were directly descended from the Trojan founders and the goddess Venus? In which case, insane as he was, he did have a "pagan" basis on which to create his insanity.

We also have hair-splitting: "Oh, it's not tolerance since it wasn't active tolerance per se, but more official indifference". None of this, though, can do anything to avoid the overwhelming truth of the matter: pagan religions have a long record of tolerance to other religions, polytheist and monotheist alike.

No, "pagans" of various groups have a long record- mixed with periods of indifference, intolerance and perhaps tolerance.

But you haven't actually said what you mean by "tolerance". Was there any Roman law that guaranteed equality of religion before the law? Constantine passed this edict although he didn't really follow it through. Ironic eh?

Oh, and just in case anyone was keeping score...would someone venture to guess who was the Roman leader who is cited as doing away with the fiscus judaicus? Yeah, that "intolerant" Julian. How intolerant of him!

"Some historians credit..." is not an established fact. Yet another example of the confirmational bias in your analysis. You're presenting a speculation as as "more or less" a fact. The fact is, we don't know. The emperor that altered the fiscus was Nerva (d.98 CE) this was commemorated with fisci judaici calumnia sublata- in exempting "Christians" from this tax he also recognised Christianity as a religion separate to, and not a sect of, Judaism. He did not abolish the tax but just reformed it from its harshness under Domition and applied it to those who practised the religion of Judaism and not all Jews by default. So this was quite religious in its application then. ;)

Both are forms of tolerance, to be sure. Even ignoring the inevitably positive comparison with Christian behavior, saying "we'll leave them alone" so long as they are loyal to the political apparatus is tolerant, and it is a matter of allowing peoples the right to practice their religion freely. There's only the added detail of political reality, something all states have known in some form or another.

Seems like your shifting the goals now. Indifference does not guarantee rights. Was there a Roman law that allowed people to practise their religion freely (or without a tax)?

Your version of "tolerance" is if the Romans said "hey, you're disloyal to us? That's great! Just wonderful! Be more disloyal, we beg you!" :laugh: Of course, this would have had less to do with religion than abject insanity, but there you go.

Do you realise that if this were in any other context than Ancient Rome- it would seem almost like rightwing nationalism?

In what ways were the people within the Empire who practised a different faith, in conflict with Roman "paganism", directly disloyal to the state? Could you explain please?

To the contrary, the Roman state's political interests inherently indicate incisive deviations from the matter of tolerance in the religious realm. In other words, the imperial cult being a mandatory object of offerings is a political act, one that was quite easily absorbed by pagan faiths because they had little problem adding one more deity to their altars.

...and little choice. You're also forgetting that this "Imperial Cult" was imposed in places that had been taken over by the Romans with little regard for the native populations- this came to a head in Jerusalem for example. You seem to work from the premise that the Romans were justified because the Romans were acting in the interests of the Roman imperial state without actually calling into question whether or not that state had a justification in the first place! Apart from that, there is also evidence that a lot of Romans may have found it rather silly but probably knew what was best for them... ;)

"Vespasian appears to have approached his own impending cult with dry humour – according to Suetonius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius), his last words were puto deus fio ("I think I'm turning into a god"). Vespasian's son Titus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus) reigned for two successful years then died of natural causes. He was deified and replaced by his younger brother, Domitian.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_%28ancient_Rome%29

We could also look at Dio Cassius on Seneca the Younger's (attributed) satire on Claudius, Apocolocyntosis (divi) Claudii- the "pumpkinification of the divine Claudius". Seneca's satire points out how ridiculous the whole thing was and also how it could lead to a total breakdown in traditional religion, i.e. that of the gods.

When faced with Judaism, though, the Romans made an exception to this and tried to accommodate the beliefs of their subjects.

In attempt to maintain order in the Aegean area and Middle-East the Roman senate passed a consulta at the behest of the Jewish community to stop them being harassed by the Greek pagans. Later Roman "tolerance" included, as we know a tax on being Jewish, then reformed to a tax on being a practising Jew- a long history marred with incidents of expulsion and expressions of contempt. See Cicero Pro Flacco (accuses Jews of belonging to a dark and sinister force and forming secret lobbies to exercise power of people as well as being a nation of liars and cheats) Dio Cassius Roman History (accuses Jews of being cannibals), Seneca (L.Anneaus) De Superstitione (descrbes Jews as a nation of criminals), Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica (accuses Jews of misanthropy and being haters of mankind), Tacitus Histories (describes the customs of the Jews as abominable and accuses them of exclusivism) and the list goes on of tolerant "pagans".

It's interesting, as a side note, to see how many of the same old stereotypes and hatreds against Jews have their roots in this wonderful "pagan" Roman Empire of tolerance. :rolleyes:

Now, how was Ambrose doing something similar? He wanted the church to be the only game in town, and to this end he actively suppressed all other religions aside from his own. If you want to play "active vs passive tolerance" with me, you had better deal with this little subtlety. I'll take what you erroneously deem "passive tolerance" over active persecution any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. So would anyone who happened to worship anything else than orthodox Christianity.

But Ambrose was only acting in the what he perceived to be the material and political interests of the Emperor and the Roman state which has been your major source of justification for the "pagan" Romans. :rolleyes: By the way, I wasn't forming apologetics for the Christian Romans- as I have said repeatedly, unlike your apologetics for the pagans in the Roman Empire.

manic expression

20th October 2011, 13:20

So how much so then were the actions of Roman Christians NOT the product of the political and social motivations of the time or perhaps the individual vanity of the emperors in question.
It was an act of vanity on the part of Theodosius? Are you drunk? The entire situation was that of the emperor being dictated to like a child by Ambrose.

"Relatively few" examples.... so that makes it okay then?
It makes it relatively few, which is the whole point. Pagans were more tolerant than Christians were. All your heeing and hawing does nothing to change this.

"Some historians credit..." is not an established fact.
Some historians credit Lenin with leading the October Revolution.

Nice try, but you'll have to show historians who disagree with that in order to make an argument, something you seem to be allergic to.

Seems like your shifting the goals now. Indifference does not guarantee rights.
Nothing is guaranteed in this world. What is guaranteed is that pagans were more tolerant than Christians. Have fun moving the goalposts. :laugh:

It's interesting, as a side note, to see how many of the same old stereotypes and hatreds against Jews have their roots in this wonderful "pagan" Roman Empire of tolerance. :rolleyes:
Yes, because pagans were the ones who massacred Jews during the First Crusade.... :laugh: How many more intellectual contortions are you going to put yourself through?

But Ambrose was only acting in the what he perceived to be the material and political interests of the Emperor and the Roman state which has been your major source of justification for the "pagan" Romans. :rolleyes: By the way, I wasn't forming apologetics for the Christian Romans- as I have said repeatedly, unlike your apologetics for the pagans in the Roman Empire.
Um, no. He was acting in what he perceived to be the interests of the church. Apologists for brutal intolerance such as yourself probably don't understand that.

ComradeMan

20th October 2011, 13:34

It was an act of vanity on the part of Theodosius? Are you drunk? The entire situation was that of the emperor being dictated to like a child by Ambrose.

Didn't say that- strawman.

It makes it relatively few, which is the whole point. Pagans were more tolerant than Christians were. All your heeing and hawing does nothing to change this.

If you ignore the examples that test the rule.. and the rule then collapses. But fine, if you want to discuss history and ignore historical facts... go ahead. To take a crude example, 1 + 1 = 2 in arithmetic only because it always does, otherwise it's not a valid statement. ;)

Some historians credit Lenin with leading the October Revolution.

Think about the difference.;)

Nice try, but you'll have to show historians who disagree with that in order to make an argument, something you seem to be allergic to.

Shifting the burden of proof I see.. you made the assertion, you need to prove it.

Nothing is guaranteed in this world. What is guaranteed is that pagans were more tolerant than Christians. Have fun moving the goalposts. :laugh:

See above. You say "more" tolerant- but you haven't explained what you mean by tolerant... :rolleyes:

Yes, because pagans were the ones who massacred Jews during the First Crusade.... :laugh: How many more intellectual contortions are you going to put yourself through?

Non sequitur- we aren't talking about the First Crusade over 500 years later- we're talking about classical expressions of anti-semitism.

Um, no. He was acting in what he perceived to be the interests of the church. Apologists for brutal intolerance such as yourself probably don't understand that.

Yes, the Roman Church of the Roman State- just like the Imperial Cult of Old. ;)

Like I said before, I'm not the one forming apologetics- you are. Apologetics is de facto justifying things, I haven't sought to justify one act of intolerance, unlike you.

manic expression

20th October 2011, 13:47

Didn't say that- strawman.
Nice try.

So how much so then were the actions of Roman Christians NOT the product of the political and social motivations of the time or perhaps the individual vanity of the emperors in question.

Emphasis mine. So not only do you ignore history, you ignore your own words.

If you ignore the examples that test the rule..No, I analyze exceptions for what they were. You ignore the dynamics behind them because you want to imagine a false equivalency in order to pardon Christian brutality.

Think about the difference.Still not providing any historians that disagree? Of course you wouldn't.

Shifting the burden of proof I see.. you made the assertion, you need to prove it.lol

"Fiscus Judaicus", Encyclopedia Judaica

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/julian-jews.asp

In a famous Greek letter to the Jews, (selection one below), he abolished the special taxes paid to the Roman government and sought also to stop the payment of a tax paid by Jews for the support of the Jewish patriarchate in Palestine.

Have fun.

See above. You say "more" tolerant- but you haven't explained what you mean by tolerant..."Live and let live".

Non sequitur- we aren't talking about the First Crusade over 500 years later- we're talking about classical expressions of anti-semitism.Oh, right...Christians murdering Jews over religious fervor doesn't matter because...you said so.

Yes, the Roman Church of the Roman State- just like the Imperial Cult of Old.And why was it "the Roman Church of the Roman State"? What did it do?

Like I said before, I'm not the one forming apologeticsOf course you are, you're so angered by anyone who says a word against monsters like Ambrose that you've excused them from even their own actions.

ComradeMan

20th October 2011, 22:38

So how much so then were the actions of Roman Christians NOT the product of the political and social motivations of the time or perhaps the individual vanity of the emperors in question.

LOL!!! Trying to make me argue a point that wasn't even mine in the first place to avoid answering your own. I pointed out that what you use in defense of the pagan Romans could also be used in defense of the Christian Romans. The difference is, I am not trying to defend people- unlike you. ;)

No, I analyze exceptions for what they were. You ignore the dynamics behind them because you want to imagine a false equivalency in order to pardon Christian brutality.

Again, I am not forming apologetics- you are. Your whole line of argument is basically that the "pagan Romans were tolerant, if we ignore all the acts of intolerance".

Still not providing any historians that disagree? Of course you wouldn't.
"Fiscus Judaicus", Encyclopedia Judaica
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/julian-jews.asp
In a famous Greek letter to the Jews, (selection one below), he abolished the special taxes paid to the Roman government and sought also to stop the payment of a tax paid by Jews for the support of the Jewish patriarchate in Palestine.

Firstly, that single and often "interpreted" letter does not prove he actually abolished it. There is no watertight evidence that he did. If you look through the various sources they vary in wording, from "abolished", "seems to have abolished" "may have abolished" to "there is no indisputable evidence that he abolished" and so on. We don't have any of Julian's laws, they haven't come down to us. It's not therefore an historical fact as you presented- yet it again, we don't know, we can only speculate. Maas, M., Readings in Late Antiquity: A sourcebook (2000) ISBN-10: 0415159881: p199 gives the letter in which Julian "admonishes" his "brother Iulus" that the tax should be abolished- it doesn't provide any definitive proof that it was. :rolleyes: The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 4 The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period (2006)
edited S.Katz, ISBN-10 0521772486 p137 documents four centuries of Jewish-Roman history and refers to Julian's "claim" that he abolished the fiscus. Perhaps you should have read the letter first and considered the other opinions of other historians too.... :blushing: Ooops.

Interestingly Maas also seems to be of the opinion that Julian's pro-Judaism was not out of any love for the Jews but more in seeking to embarass the Christians, in order to prove that the Christians' beliefs about the Temple and the Messianic restoration were wrong (Maas p199). In Katz et al (2006:p796) it is also suggested that Julian's whole pro-Judaism stance was also political in that he intended to lure the Jews back to the Holy Land from Babylon in order to undermine the Persian Sassanids. ;)

It's interesting to see how you pick and choose with which historian's interpretation to accept as "fact" and which as not....:rolleyes:

Oh, right...Christians murdering Jews over religious fervor doesn't matter because...you said so.

Of course it does, but it was almost seven centuries after the peiod we are talking about- however it is interesting to note that the typical "racial" accusations that accompany anti-semitism in the Medieval period, i.e. Christian period, have their origins in the "pagan" world of Classical Rome and Greece. :rolleyes:

And why was it "the Roman Church of the Roman State"? What did it do?

Theodosius made Catholic Christianity the official form of Christianity in the Empire, although many pagan officials remained. He was the Emperor of Rome, the last of both the Western and Eastern Empires. His other edicts and laws effectively made the Church of Rome the state religion as such. Although many mistake this in the Thessalonika Edict, which is not really accurate either.

Of course you are, you're so angered by anyone who says a word against monsters like Ambrose that you've excused them from even their own actions.

Err... where have I done that? I was parodying your hilarious double-standards. :rolleyes:

The fact is that your whole argument for pagan tolerance relies only on pointing out "Christian" intolerance and completely ignoring 6-7 centuries of diverse examples from many sources to the contrary. The fact that early Roman Christians were intolerant does not make the pagans "more" tolerant- whatever that means, nor excuse what was done under the pagan Emperors and even Republic.

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 23:15

I actually enjoy Comrademan's contrarianism. And I don't think he does it insincerely. But it has always made for good debates with me.

Zostrianos

21st October 2011, 08:09

Ultimately, whether Roman tolerance was just indifference, or something more similar to what we have in modern times, is irrelevant. And while Pagan Rome had its share of savagery, barbaric games and slavery, it rarely used violence as a tool to stamp out beliefs. The fact remains that Roman Paganism was more likely to leave other faiths alone to practice as they wished, and the result remains the same. And whether Julian's actions were motivated by tolerance and philosophical wisdom (as I believe), or by a desire to divide Christianity, again the results remain the same. A good example of wild speculation regarding Julian is in G. Bowersock's biography "Julian the Apostate". Despite being a scholar, Bowersock absolutely despises Julian for some reason, and in his book tried as much as possible to make the emperor look bad, for instance, by claiming that if he had a longer reign he would have launched brutal persecutions, and his tolerance was just a ruse. You can make up all kinds of things through speculation. The results remain the same however. In Pagan Rome, if you were a Christian, there was a remote possibility that you might get persecuted, but it was very unlikely, given the sporadic and localized nature of anti-Christian persecutions even in Diocletian's time. Whereas after Constantine's accession (and especially after Nicea) if you were a Pagan, Jew or "heretic" you had to live in fear of the local bishop, who might decide one day to bring a gang of monks to your temple or synagogue to vandalize it and rob it, or even kick you out completely and turn it into one of his churches. And of course you could have your revenues confiscated by the emperor and transferred to the Church at any moment.

And Byzantine emperors, starting with Justinian, took savagery to a whole new level, with thorough persecutions (unlike the sporadic bursts in Pagan Rome). Justinian made sure to send his troops into the furthest regions of the empire, and one of his most brutal persecutions declared a deadline of 3 months to convert the whole eastern empire; mass resources were deployed to accomplish this, and contemporary historians like Procopius and John Malalas (both Christian) speak of his reign as a period of extreme terror throughout, where hundreds of thousands of people were massacred or tortured by Justinian's order on the slightest suspicion of heresy or Paganism. His successors were even more brutal.

Tiberios Constantine, who dealt with riots in Constantinople over accusations of Pagan conspiracies by high officials, decided to quell these riots by blaming Jews and Samaritans for the ruckus. He emptied the jails of all Christians, and had Jews and Samaritans rounded up, most of them flogged, and a few tortured and crucified. As for those actually responsible for enticing the riots and causing trouble (who were all Christians), they were arrested, their backs were painted red to simulate flogging, and they were then freed.

Around the same time he learned that Baalbek in Phoenicia had escaped the previous conversion campaigns, and Pagans still outnumbered Christians in the region. He took care of the problem by sending an army division to massacre the local Pagans.

And to sum up, Paganism never had a monopoly on truth. Organized Christianity did and based its persecutions on this tenet.

No, you're not forming apologetics at all, just trying to absolve Christianity of any guilt pertaining to their elimination of all other religious traditions in the Mediterranean world! No apologetics, just apology.

I don't think he's defending Christianity, but he's trying to show that its intolerance was not unique. I still disagree.

ComradeMan

21st October 2011, 11:05

I don't think he's defending Christianity, but he's trying to show that its intolerance was not unique. I still disagree.

I'm not defending "Christianity"- like I said before Roman Christians were a pretty nasty lot too and the Byzantine Empire was pretty vicious and corrupt as well.

However my contention is that the roots of this so-called "Christian" intolerance are also to be found in the classical period and the mechanism that created the theocratic states and later warrior popes etc, if we want to continue into medieval history, are to be found in non-Christian Rome- even some of the "offices" were carried over such as pontifex.

manic expression

21st October 2011, 22:47

LOL!!! Trying to make me argue a point that wasn't even mine in the first place to avoid answering your own.
Your words, not mine. Blame yourself for making such an indefensible statement.

Again, I am not forming apologetics- you are. Your whole line of argument is basically that the "pagan Romans were tolerant, if we ignore all the acts of intolerance".Uh, no. I'm saying that pagan "intolerance" was never nearly as vicious, far-reaching, unequivocal and absolute as that of Christianity. Compared to Christianity, even the most intolerant pagan emperors were more tolerant. That says a lot.

This is the real crux of the matter: why did virtually all pagan traditions cease to exist in the Mediterranean world after the ascension of Christianity? How could this come about when non-Christian pagan religions had tolerated (or, as you so negatively put it, "were indifferent to") a vast variety of different spiritual trends for centuries? Why did Christianity find itself unwilling to do the same?

You've never come close to touching any of these issues, and instead have been splitting hairs over terms (no, it's not tolerance, it's indifference!), not paying attention to sources (no, Titus ordered the Temple burned, even though Josephus clearly stated the opposite!) and other such point-dodging tactics. From this post on, I'll repeat those queries and others like them until you address them.

If you look through the various sources they vary in wording, from "abolished", "seems to have abolished" "may have abolished" to "there is no indisputable evidence that he abolished" and so on. We don't have any of Julian's laws, they haven't come down to us. It's not therefore an historical fact as you presented- yet it again, we don't know, we can only speculate. Maas, M., Readings in Late Antiquity: A sourcebook (2000) ISBN-10: 0415159881: p199 gives the letter in which Julian "admonishes" his "brother Iulus" that the tax should be abolished- it doesn't provide any definitive proof that it was.Oh, this is real rich. First, we're supposed to deny any possibility that Julian abolished the tax, just because there isn't full, complete, watertight evidence that he did. Genius. Too bad most evidence points to the conclusion that he did, but that's your problem, and you certainly didn't rid yourself of that here.

Next, ComradeMan tells us that even though he admits that Julian disapproved of the tax and admonished his brother over opposing its abolition...we should consider Julian to be intolerant!

All this is hopelessly dancing around the evidence already presented, even by ComradeMan himself. I'll wait until he addresses said evidence satisfactorily instead of running away from it.

Interestingly Maas also seems to be of the opinion that Julian's pro-Judaism was not out of any love for the Jews but more in seeking to embarass the Christians,Wait, so because Julian showed some support for Judaism...Christians were the victims? Are you out of your mind? In what universe does that make any sense?

Of course it does, but it was almost seven centuries after the peiod we are talking about-So do those Christians bear responsibility or not?

Theodosius made Catholic Christianity the official form of Christianity in the Empire, although many pagan officials remained.Paganism was suppressed out of existence because of those policies...and you're trying to tell us they weren't that bad?

Err... where have I done that?Your entire purpose is trying to make equal that which is not equal. Thus, we're supposed to believe that Ambrose's policies were no less tolerant than Julian's, which is ludicrous.

The fact is that your whole argument for pagan tolerance relies only on pointing out "Christian" intolerance and completely ignoring 6-7 centuries of diverse examples from many sources to the contrary.Like...all the examples that I discussed and then showed to be not at all comparable? Those ones?

ComradeMan

22nd October 2011, 10:35

Your words, not mine. Blame yourself for making such an indefensible statement.
Not really....

Uh, no. I'm saying that pagan "intolerance" was never nearly as vicious, far-reaching, unequivocal and absolute as that of Christianity. Compared to Christianity, even the most intolerant pagan emperors were more tolerant. That says a lot.

Yet again, only if you ignore the instances of when it was pretty vicious, far-reaching and unequivocal. You could also take into consideration the material conditions and the differences between the historical periods we are dealing with.

How do you define tolerant? Until you can do this you can make claims based on a vague notion...

This is the real crux of the matter: why did virtually all pagan traditions cease to exist in the Mediterranean world after the ascension of Christianity? How could this come about when non-Christian pagan religions had tolerated (or, as you so negatively put it, "were indifferent to") a vast variety of different spiritual trends for centuries? Why did Christianity find itself unwilling to do the same?
Well if we are to accept a Marxist interpretation we could also add that the social dynamics and material conditions of the Mediterranean world/Roman Empire had changed. You seem to be conveniently missing the point though.... why is it that Christianity, within this context, attracted so many adherents and why is it that ultimately "paganism" as you put it, failed to maintain it's position. Why would a Roman emperor choose Christianity over the traditional religious structures of Rome?

Another point you are missing, is that certainly within the European framework, despite varying names and differences in cult, the Romans, the Greeks, the "Celts" and the "Germans" had to greater or lesser extents versions of the "Indo-European" religion. As I have stated before, it wasn't particularly difficult to equate Jove with Zeus, or Vesta with Hestia and so on. However you also ignore a lot intolerance in Ancient Greece and Greece in the later period and under Rome too.

You've never come close to touching any of these issues, and instead have been splitting hairs over terms (no, it's not tolerance, it's indifference!), not paying attention to sources (no, Titus ordered the Temple burned, even though Josephus clearly stated the opposite!) and other such point-dodging tactics. From this post on, I'll repeat those queries and others like them until you address them.
Except Josephus doesn't state that if you bother to read on, and you are I suppose aware of the fact that Josephus, due to his circumstances, had to be as pro-Roman as he could possibly be- all the more surprising that he then states (my bold):

The Wars of the Jews- Book VII: 1:1[/I]]"Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done), [Titus] Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and Temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as they were of the greatest eminence; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne;"
Now the rampaging Roman soldiers "disobeying Caesar's" orders etc are indeed mentioned, but there are some things to note here i) Josephus had to be careful how he portrayed "Caesar" ii) how believable is it that disciplined Roman troops would directly flout orders- punishable by flogging, decimation and death in the Roman army iii) even if this is the case the soldiers who did the looting and burning were Roman soldiers, i.e. pagan Romans, iv) ultimately the whole operation was under the command of Titus and the buck stops with the commander. Titus seemed quite happy to accept the treasure though....;)

Oh, this is real rich. First, we're supposed to deny any possibility that Julian abolished the tax, just because there isn't full, complete, watertight evidence that he did. Genius. Too bad most evidence points to the conclusion that he did, but that's your problem, and you certainly didn't rid yourself of that here.
Sorry, but you can't pass speculation and circumstancial evidence off as historical fact. One letter "suggesting" the tax be abolished and Julian's disapproval of it is indeed noteworthy- but it's not conclusive as the varying opinions of scholars demonstrates. Most evidence? What evidence? We only have a letter and a vague reference. The fact that the fiscus did continue in areas where codified Roman law continued, notably Visigothic Spain is also telling. However, even if we are to accept the "possibility" at Julian abolished it, do we ignore three centuries of its imposition under your "tolerant" pagan Emperors? :rolleyes:

Next, ComradeMan tells us that even though he admits that Julian disapproved of the tax and admonished his brother over opposing its abolition...we should consider Julian to be intolerant!
Playing to the forum I see. I don't admit anything- the fact is the fact. Julian wrote a letter in which he admonishes that the tax should be abolished. That's it.

All this is hopelessly dancing around the evidence already presented, even by ComradeMan himself. I'll wait until he addresses said evidence satisfactorily instead of running away from it.
Except you haven't chosen to accept, deal with or even acknowledge all of the instances in which "pagan" "intolerance" has been demonstrated, backed up by numerous sources and plenty of evidence.

Wait, so because Julian showed some support for Judaism...Christians were the victims? Are you out of your mind? In what universe does that make any sense?
You do understand what significance it would have had for Christian theology and also Judaism, had Julian been the one to restore the Temple- even though he couldn't according to either sets of theologies? :rolleyes:

You do also realise that Julian was concerned with undermining the stability of the Sassanids too, don't you? :rolleyes:

So do those Christians bear responsibility or not?
Whoever said they didn't? But let's look at where this was coming from too.

Paganism was suppressed out of existence because of those policies...and you're trying to tell us they weren't that bad?
What kind of paganism? Why wasn't there a mass revolt of pagans against this?

Your entire purpose is trying to make equal that which is not equal. Thus, we're supposed to believe that Ambrose's policies were no less tolerant than Julian's, which is ludicrous.
Strawman- my entire "purpose" if there is one, is to show that you can't seriously argue that the pagan Romans were particularly tolerant and portray them all as these "wise" and "tolerant" "pseudo-neoplatonist" sages as you are subtely attempting to do.

Like...all the examples that I discussed and then showed to be not at all comparable? Those ones?
Your saying something is not comparable because you say so is not really a demonstration of fact is it? :rolleyes:

manic expression

22nd October 2011, 12:45

Not really....
Want me to post your words again so you can run away from them once more? Fine.

So how much so then were the actions of Roman Christians NOT the product of the political and social motivations of the time or perhaps the individual vanity of the emperors in question.

Have fun.

Yet again, only if you ignore the instances of when it was pretty vicious, far-reaching and unequivocal.Except I've shown that that wasn't the case. You're the one ignoring the historical record in favor of silly and incorrect myths about Roman "intolerance" toward Christian communities.

How do you define tolerant? Until you can do this you can make claims based on a vague notion...I already answered this, seems as though you're incapable of reading what I write. "Live and let live".

Well if we are to accept a Marxist interpretation we could also add that the social dynamics and material conditions of the Mediterranean world/Roman Empire had changed. You seem to be conveniently missing the point though.... why is it that Christianity, within this context, attracted so many adherents and why is it that ultimately "paganism" as you put it, failed to maintain it's position. Why would a Roman emperor choose Christianity over the traditional religious structures of Rome?So you're saying that the new wave of religious intolerance that coincided with the rise of Christianity is all down to social dynamics? I'd love to hear this...go ahead, tell me exactly why that makes any sense. If not, then don't pretend to be materialist.

Why did xianity attract new adherents? Well, it appealed to the uneducated, and it was a doomsday cult...in the crises of the empire, especially in the 3rd Century, that was quite appealing to some.

It's not that paganism "failed to maintain its position", it's that paganism was violently suppressed out of existence. It's hilarious how you're so afraid to give Christians any guilt that you rephrase the liquidation of a religion by Christians as "failing to maintain its position". Absolutely hilarious.

Another point you are missing, is that certainly within the European framework, despite varying names and differences in cult, the Romans, the Greeks, the "Celts" and the "Germans" had to greater or lesser extents versions of the "Indo-European" religion. As I have stated before, it wasn't particularly difficult to equate Jove with Zeus, or Vesta with Hestia and so on. However you also ignore a lot intolerance in Ancient Greece and Greece in the later period and under Rome too.You could say that about most pagan traditions. It's not particularly difficult to equate Pachamama with Gaia, either. That's why paganism is markedly more civilized than Christianity: there's almost always a way to bridge the gap between cultures and peoples.

Except Josephus doesn't state thatOops (http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm#fire):

At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the Holy House, on the north side of it.

Once again, you don't want to look at the historical record.

Sorry, but you can't pass speculation and circumstancial evidence off as historical fact. One letter "suggesting" the tax be abolished and Julian's disapproval of it is indeed noteworthy- but it's not conclusive as the varying opinions of scholars demonstrates. Most evidence? What evidence?The evidence you're patently ignoring. Here, let me help you out again (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/julian-jews.asp):

In times past, by far the most burdensome thing in the yoke of your slavery has been the fact that you were subjected to unauthorized ordinances and had to contribute an untold amount of money to the accounts of the treasury. [Ever since Vespasian, about 72 CE, the Jews had been paying the Romans special Jewish taxes, like the Fiscus Judaicus.] Of this I used to see many instances with my own eyes, and I have learned of more, by finding the records which are preserved against you. Moreover, when a tax was about to be levied on you again I prevented it, and compelled the impiety of such obloquy to cease here; and I threw into the fire the records against you that were stored in my desks; so that it is no longer possible for anyone to aim at you such a reproach of impiety.

Damn, it sucks when facts disagree with you. Like always, have fun dancing around the historical record. I'll enjoy it thoroughly.

Playing to the forum I see. I don't admit anything- the fact is the fact. Julian wrote a letter in which he admonishes that the tax should be abolished. That's it.Except that's not it, and if you read the link that I posted earlier you wouldn't make such an elementary mistake.

Except you haven't chosen to accept, deal with or even acknowledge all of the instances in which "pagan" "intolerance" has been demonstrated, backed up by numerous sources and plenty of evidence.You mean when I showed you the actual extent of the persecutions to be leveled principally at the priesthood and rarely much beyond that? You mean when you're depending on old, tired Christian propaganda myths and not the historical record? Right.

You do understand what significance it would have had for Christian theology and also Judaism, had Julian been the one to restore the Temple- even though he couldn't according to either sets of theologies?He was attempting to fund the rebuilding of it...restoration in the religious sense doesn't boil down to that.

You do also realise that Julian was concerned with undermining the stability of the Sassanids too, don't you?How dare he, being leader of the Roman Empire. :rolleyes:

Whoever said they didn't?You never said they did. I await your answer on this.

What kind of paganism? Why wasn't there a mass revolt of pagans against this?Um, every type of paganism within the reach of the Christians in Rome.

Why wasn't there a mass revolt of Christians against Diocletian's policies? Silly, irrelevant argument.

Strawman- my entire "purpose" if there is one, is to show that you can't seriously argue that the pagan Romans were particularly tolerant and portray them all as these "wise" and "tolerant" "pseudo-neoplatonist" sages as you are subtely attempting to do.Then you're doing a pretty bad job there. All we've seen is that paganism was more tolerant than Christianity, its rare exceptions were not nearly as intolerant as the standard rule for Christians.

Your saying something is not comparable because you say so is not really a demonstration of fact is it? :rolleyes:Or if the historical record says so...over and over and over again. :cool:

ComradeMan

22nd October 2011, 16:36

Want me to post your words again so you can run away from them once more? Fine.

So how much so then were the actions of Roman Christians NOT the product of the political and social motivations of the time or perhaps the individual vanity of the emperors in question.
Have fun.Easy.... I was asking you a question.... :rolleyes: that is a question, is it not?.... and one you didn't answer very well either in my opinion. Furthermore my question was based on your assertions about the non-Christian/pagan Romans/Emperors.

Except I've shown that that wasn't the case. You're the one ignoring the historical record in favor of silly and incorrect myths about Roman "intolerance" toward Christian communities.
Which myths? Sorry, all backed up by sources (imperfect as they may be). Furthermore I wasn't only talking about Christians either. :rolleyes:

I already answered this, seems as though you're incapable of reading what I write. "Live and let live".
:laugh: You haven't defined anything without qualfication as such because you have the major problem that concepts of tolerance are fairly modern anyway- post-Voltaire perhaps? Therefore your application of tolerance relies totally on ethymemic shifting.

So you're saying that the new wave of religious intolerance that coincided with the rise of Christianity is all down to social dynamics? I'd love to hear this...go ahead, tell me exactly why that makes any sense. If not, then don't pretend to be materialist.
So if there was a new wave, you are now admitting that there were "old waves", and thus those old waves were, I presume, non-Christian? :rolleyes: Are you completely rejecting the idea that material social conditions affect religious development?

Why did xianity attract new adherents? Well, it appealed to the uneducated, and it was a doomsday cult...in the crises of the empire, especially in the 3rd Century, that was quite appealing to some.
So why were there Christian senators, equites and high ranking members of the Roman elite who were Christians?

It's not that paganism "failed to maintain its position", it's that paganism was violently suppressed out of existence. It's hilarious how you're so afraid to give Christians any guilt that you rephrase the liquidation of a religion by Christians as "failing to maintain its position". Absolutely hilarious.
Err... if there had been say, half-a-dozen Christians in the entire empire would they have had the influence they had? The fact is that at everyday societal level Christianity was gaining ground whilst the old cults were withering. Why is that? We are talking about before the Edict of Milan too and in spite of the persecutions and darker periods of Roman history in those 250 years or so. Is it not perhaps that Christianity offered people a different kind of spirituality with the an afterlife and a hope for resurrection? Something that was not so clearly defined in the other belief systems of the time? Is it perhaps that were as pagan religions and belief systems had a measure of elitism and social class involved Christianity did not?

The fact is that by the time of the edict of Milan, and before Christianity had the chance to become an oppressor and wipe out pagan cults etc as you assert, it was already widespread- so much so that the Tertullian c200 CE (Apology) wrote, most pobably exaggerating, that most of the people in the empire were Christians or converting, the fact that he could make such a bold statement shows we are dealing with sizable numbers here even if the exact numbers are impossible to determine.

You could say that about most pagan traditions. It's not particularly difficult to equate Pachamama with Gaia, either.
Except what have those examples got to do with the period of history we are talking about? You know full well that there was a common Indo-European "religious" heritage that these groups shared, blended with local cultures and variation, and you know full well that we are dealing with peoples who were "related" linguistically and shared much cultural common ground. Think about it.... ;) All the more surprising then to see how certain groups that came out of this heritage were persecuted and discriminated against by the Romans and Greeks.

That's why paganism is markedly more civilized than Christianity: there's almost always a way to bridge the gap between cultures and peoples.
Yeah, temple prostitution and human sacrifice are just great! :rolleyes: The fact that you are making value judgements based on non-material criteria shows how weak your argumentation is.

Oops (http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm#fire):
At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the Holy House, on the north side of it. Once again, you don't want to look at the historical record.
So what about my Josephus quote that you keep ignoring? Or is your quote somehow valid because it backs your argument up but mine not valid because it suggests something to the contrary? :rolleyes: It seems like you don't want to look at the historical record. :sneaky:

The evidence you're patently ignoring....Damn, it sucks when facts disagree with you. Like always, have fun dancing around the historical record. I'll enjoy it thoroughly.
What facts? The only FACT in the matter is that there is no evidence to prove that Julian abolished that tax and that there is no consensus amongst historians either- unless you only want to look at the historians whose position agrees with yours or what you've found pasted on websites, and I think you'll find that those historians who think it was abolished would probably still admit that it's speculative at best.

Furthermore, the letter to which you refer uses the Greek word ἀποστολή (apostolé) referring to those who collected taxes levied for Palestine. He does not refer to the fiscus judaicus (Ιουδαϊκός φόρος). The beginning of the letter talks of "unauthorised" impositions. I am not sure a "legal" Roman tax would have been described as such. Some have suggested that the tax had died out anyway before due to inflation in the empire. In addition the authenticity of the letter itself is not without some doubts.

See: Jones, A.H.M. 1964, The Later Roman Empire 284-602. A social, economic and Administrative survey. Vol. II. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1658-apostole-apostoli
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9078-julian-the-apostate-flavius-claudius-julianus
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6157-fiscus-judaicus

Except that's not it, and if you read the link that I posted earlier you wouldn't make such an elementary mistake.
What that you have no historical proof to back up your assertions? :laugh:

You mean when I showed you the actual extent of the persecutions to be leveled principally at the priesthood and rarely much beyond that? You mean when you're depending on old, tired Christian propaganda myths and not the historical record? Right.
And when I showed you other examples that you ignored..... :laugh:

He was attempting to fund the rebuilding of it...restoration in the religious sense doesn't boil down to that.
How dare he, being leader of the Roman Empire. :rolleyes:
Well, the scholarly sources seem to look at it the way I do. Also the Jewish response was ambivalent. Nearly all the scholarly sources I have read see this as an attempt to play the Jews off against the Christians and undermine Christian theology. Furthermore, if you knew anything about Judaism you would know why a gentile cannot restore the temple- especially by ordering a pagan to carry out the work. :rolleyes: See also Yohannan Ben Zakai (c30-90 CE).
So how do you think Julian viewed Judaism by the way?

You never said they did. I await your answer on this.
Well start a thread on the First Crusade and we can discuss it instead of trying to derail this thread that is concerned with the Roman Empire, especially the Later Roman Empire and not the dynamics of events approximately seven centuries later! :rolleyes:

Um, every type of paganism within the reach of the Christians in Rome.
And whay were those paganisms?

Why wasn't there a mass revolt of Christians against Diocletian's policies? Silly, irrelevant argument.
Well there are documented cases of resistance in Phrygia for example and some historians have attributed the loss of Numidia to this too. Of course, Diocletian, in an almost Stalinist manner, had made sure to purge the army, government and officialdom of Christians before he started the main persecutions. ;)

Then you're doing a pretty bad job there. All we've seen is that paganism was more tolerant than Christianity, its rare exceptions were not nearly as intolerant as the standard rule for Christians.
"rare exceptions".... Keep on with your pseudo-history and ignoring the historical record of considering the other evidence. :rolleyes:

manic expression

22nd October 2011, 17:09

Easy.... I was asking you a question.... :rolleyes: that is a question, is it not?.... and one you didn't answer very well either in my opinion. Furthermore my question was based on your assertions about the non-Christian/pagan Romans/Emperors.
And your assumption lodged within that question, the one I pointed out to you, is that Christian emperors who persecuted paganism were in it for vanity. Theodosius alone shows this to be utterly nonsensical, and thus your record of getting proven wrong by the facts continues.

Which myths? Sorry, all backed up by sources (imperfect as they may be). Furthermore I wasn't only talking about Christians either. :rolleyes:
The myth that the persecutions of Christians were aimed principally at the entire Christian population, as the Christian persecutions of paganism were. The myth that pagans didn't tolerate Christians for most of the history of their coexistence.

:laugh: You haven't defined anything without qualfication as such because you have the major problem that concepts of tolerance are fairly modern anyway- post-Voltaire perhaps? Therefore your application of tolerance relies totally on ethymemic shifting.
The concept of not trying to destroy another religion because it worships gods that aren't yours is post-Voltaire? You're drunk.

So if there was a new wave, you are now admitting that there were "old waves",
That's not what I was saying at all. Nice try, but you need to go back and address what I said instead of dancing around.

So why were there Christian senators, equites and high ranking members of the Roman elite who were Christians?
Name them and the dates they converted.

At any rate, the appeal of a doomsday cult in times of crisis can be quite uniform. However, it's accepted fact that Christianity grew at the margins of society first and foremost, only reaching the middle and upper classes in significant numbers after imperial backing (and tax breaks).

Err... if there had been say, half-a-dozen Christians in the entire empire would they have had the influence they had? The fact is that at everyday societal level Christianity was gaining ground
When did I dispute that? It has just about nothing to do with the point at hand. Try to stay on topic.

Except what have those examples got to do with the period of history we are talking about? You know full well that there was a common Indo-European "religious" heritage that these groups shared, blended with local cultures and variation, and you know full well that we are dealing with peoples who were "related" linguistically and shared much cultural common ground. Think about it.... ;) All the more surprising then to see how certain groups that came out of this heritage were persecuted and discriminated against by the Romans and Greeks.
Um, it's not that hard to comprehend...Pachamama and Gaia are quite compatible in spite of not having a shared Indo-European religious locus, which proves that your assertion that the common Indo-European sources of paganism in that period (and thus region) were the causes of paganism being more tolerant (thanks for admitting that, by the way, very nice of you).

So I proved your assertion wrong, and you protest that it's not relevant because it's outside of the scope that you hold is the reason for the matter at hand. Which means that you've lost the plot completely.

Moreover, non-Hellenistic religious trends were not suppressed, and we know this because of what I already posted and what you already ignored.

Yeah, temple prostitution and human sacrifice are just great! :rolleyes: The fact that you are making value judgements based on non-material criteria shows how weak your argumentation is.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Human sacrifice was the reason the Romans went after the Druids, and yet you complained about that as an example of ghastly "pagan intolerance"...while you're now saying that human sacrifice can be blamed entirely on the "intolerant" pagans who were against the practice in the first place! Hilarious. Go make your mind up about what you're arguing, maybe you'll be worth taking seriously.

As for temple prostitution, many societies practice prostitution, the fact that it was connected with religion shows us how not every religion fears and despises sexuality as your Christians do (especially female sexuality).

So what about my Josephus quote that you keep ignoring?
The fact that the Temple was not burned on his orders. Keep running.

What facts? The only FACT in the matter is that there is no evidence to prove that Julian abolished that tax
Other than Julian writing to the Jews and saying "remember that tax that you no longer have to pay...yeah that was me"? What, was he lying? Why would he lie to the very people who would know for a fact when they stopped having to pay the tax? Why would he admonish his brother over his opposition to its abolition if he didn't support its abolition?

One and two and one and two. Dance around the facts because you have no argument.

Furthermore, the letter to which you refer uses the Greek word ἀποστολή (apostolé) referring to those who collected taxes levied for Palestine. He does not refer to the fiscus judaicus (Ιουδαϊκός φόρος). The beginning of the letter talks of "unauthorised" impositions. I am not sure a "legal" Roman tax would have been described as such. Some have suggested that the tax had died out anyway before due to inflation in the empire. In addition the authenticity of the letter itself is not without some doubts.
:lol: You got nothing. From your second link:

In this epistle Julian alludes to his abolition of the heavy taxes which had been imposed upon the Jews and to his desire to treat them amicably.

Even when you try to come up with sources, they disagree with you. It must suck when history isn't on your side.

What that you have no historical proof to back up your assertions?
What do you mean? Your sources are my historical proof. :laugh:

And when I showed you other examples that you ignored.....
Nope, I pointed out how you're entirely without any basis. You can only repeat the same line over and over with nothing else to add.

Well, the scholarly sources seem to look at it the way I do. Also the Jewish response was ambivalent.
Moving toward amelioration with a community usually follows such a path. Of course the Christians wouldn't know much about that.

Well start a thread on the First Crusade and we can discuss it instead of trying to derail this thread
Yes, Christian cruelty and intolerance has NOTHING to do with this topic. :laugh:

And whay were those paganisms?
They were religious traditions.

Well there are documented cases of resistance in Phrygia for example and some historians have attributed the loss of Numidia to this too. Of course, Diocletian, in an almost Stalinist manner, had made sure to purge the army, government and officialdom of Christians before he started the main persecutions. ;)
Oh, very historically sensitive. First Diocletian is Hitler, now he's Stalin. :rolleyes: There's evidence that the persecution of pagans that you're trying to rationalize caused turbulence in parts of the empire, so your point means nothing.

"rare exceptions".... Keep on with your pseudo-history and ignoring the historical record of considering the other evidence. :rolleyes:
You mean the historical record that says my points make sense and that you're engaging in cheap equivocation?

Yes, rare exceptions. Prove me wrong. Oh, right, you tried and you can't.

ComradeMan

22nd October 2011, 19:47

And your assumption lodged within that question, the one I pointed out to you, is that Christian emperors who persecuted paganism were in it for vanity. Theodosius alone shows this to be utterly nonsensical, and thus your record of getting proven wrong by the facts continues.
No not really because you made the assumption originally about non-Christian emperors... so I was asking you the question.
Do you have a source, or PROOF that these non-Christian emperors were "in it for vanity". LOL!!!

The myth that the persecutions of Christians were aimed principally at the entire Christian population, as the Christian persecutions of paganism were. The myth that pagans didn't tolerate Christians for most of the history of their coexistence.
What myth? Who's talking about myths other than you?

You still have defined what you mean by tolerance adequately and what this may have meant in the ancient world.

The concept of not trying to destroy another religion because it worships gods that aren't yours is post-Voltaire? You're drunk.
What are you blabbing about now? The fact that you are asserting the words "tolerance" and "intolerance" in your arguments without being able to define what you mean, or what that would have meant in the ancient contexts shows your argument has feet of clay.

That's not what I was saying at all. Nice try, but you need to go back and address what I said instead of dancing around.
You said there was a "new wave"- if there is a "new" wave, then there must be an "old wave"- your words bit you in the ass of your argument there.:laugh:

Name them and the dates they converted.
Nice try- but look at the laws that were passed. Laws weren't passed by the Romans against things that didn't exist. :confused:

"Christian senators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_the_Roman_Empire), equestrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_order), decurions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decurion_%28administrative%29), veterans, and soldiers were deprived of their ranks; and imperial freedmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Emancipation) were re-enslaved.[137] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#cite_note-ReferenceB-151)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution
Citation 137 Clarke, 650–51; Potter, 337; de Ste Croix, "Aspects", 75–76.

At any rate, the appeal of a doomsday cult in times of crisis can be quite uniform.
and....?

However, it's accepted fact that Christianity grew at the margins of society first and foremost, only reaching the middle and upper classes in significant numbers after imperial backing (and tax breaks).

Manius Acilius Glabrio consul, executed by Domitian in 91CE.
"According to Suetonius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius), the emperor caused several senators and ex-consuls to be executed on the charge of conspiring against the empire -- quasi molitores rerum novarum, "as contrivers of revolution" (Domit., c. x), which in Glabrio's case was adhering to the Christian religion. Xiphilinus, speaking of the executions of AD 95, says that some members of the imperial family and other persons of importance were condemned for atheism, as having embraced the Christian faith. After his death, his body was brought to Rome, and buried on the Via Salaria, in the catacomb of Priscilla."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manius_Acilius_Glabrio_%28consul_91%29

Titus Flavius Clemens, consul and great nephew, of the Emperor Vespasian may have converted to either Judaism or Christianity- confusing in the early period, and was put to death for "atheism" by Domitian. Another name mentioned is a consul "Liberalis" but it is unclear as there were a couple who it could apply to. Looking through the epigraphic evidence of Christian tombs, i.e. basing this on archaeology we find Pomponius Grecinus, possibly related to Pomponia Grecina, wife of senator Aulus Plautius during the reign of Nero. Quinitus Caecilius Maximus, clarrissimo puero (youth of senatorial rank), Septimus Praetextatus Caecilianus, senatorial rank, and so on. :laugh:

At the beginning of the3rd century CE we find Christians in the senate, clarissimi viri and clarissimae foeminae.

Even if we are not sure of much about the people, given the Roman system of nomenclature we find very early epigraphic evidence suggesting that high-ranking Romans of noble families, i.e. patricians, were Christians too. It is even argued that Tertullian was a lawyer, so not necessarily ignorant and uneducated.;).... and all before Constantine it seems... :rolleyes:

When did I dispute that? It has just about nothing to do with the point at hand. Try to stay on topic.
Why were all those pagans, including quite senior and high ranking Roman pagans all becoming Christians at such an alarming rate? If Christianity had had no appeal it could never have gained a foothold in the empire and would not have arrived at the position it did. :rolleyes:

Um, it's not that hard to comprehend...Pachamama and Gaia are quite compatible in spite of not having a shared Indo-European religious locus, which proves that your assertion that the common Indo-European sources of paganism in that period (and thus region) were the causes of paganism being more tolerant (thanks for admitting that, by the way, very nice of you).
Proves what? Is there some Pachamama-Gaia syncretic cult? There is an association with the Virgin Mary though, but that's another thread.

Tolerance is thus tolerating that which is the same as you or more or less similar? Thanks for showing how "shallow" this pagan tolerance may have been.

So I proved your assertion wrong, and you protest that it's not relevant because it's outside of the scope that you hold is the reason for the matter at hand. Which means that you've lost the plot completely.
Where exactly? Repeating ad nauseam that you have proved this and demonstrated that is not really proof of anything other than your own delusions of actually knowing what you are talking about. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Moreover, non-Hellenistic religious trends were not suppressed, and we know this because of what I already posted and what you already ignored.
Like the Isis Cult that Juvenal ranted against and was suppressed under the reign of Augustus and is attested to by Josephus, Dio Cassius and Tertullian amongst others. I believe Tiberius had some Isis followers crucified and statues of the deity thrown into the Tiber.

Human sacrifice was the reason the Romans went after the Druids, and yet you complained about that as an example of ghastly "pagan intolerance"...while you're now saying that human sacrifice can be blamed entirely on the "intolerant" pagans who were against the practice in the first place! Hilarious. Go make your mind up about what you're arguing, maybe you'll be worth taking seriously.
Except the evidence for the human sacrifice, although I don't doubt it in its entirety, is generally accepted to be largely exaggerated in order to serve Roman propaganda, and the fact that it had only been outlawed in Rome within living memory- plus the fact that we have killing for entertainment in that same Rome too. Temple prostitution on the other hand... By the way, you were the one who introduced value judgements into the argument... see the problem?

As for temple prostitution, many societies practice prostitution, the fact that it was connected with religion shows us how not every religion fears and despises sexuality as your Christians do (especially female sexuality).
Strange, it was one of the reasons that Augustus, a pagan Emperor, may have wanted to suppress the "pornographic" Cult of Isis in order to restore Roman values. He must have been a 19th century baptist..... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I suppose you are going to argue who wonderful shrine prostitution was in the ancient world now... LOL!!! Strange, the Romans did not actually share your view, that's why these girls/women were known as infames in Latin and considered "impure"- the Latin word means disreputable. Of course there were also the pueri lenonii too- you might care to look it up. Even the taxes on prostitution were considered "impure" Alexader Severus and used for public works and not the state treasury. Outside of the religious cults prostitution was generally a result of abject poverty and slavery.

The fact that the Temple was not burned on his orders. Keep running.
So why does Josephus state what he does? Namely: "[Titus] Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and Temple"- answer me that?

Seems like you're running away from the facts....

Other than Julian writing to the Jews and saying "remember that tax that you no longer have to pay...yeah that was me"? What, was he lying? Why would he lie to the very people who would know for a fact when they stopped having to pay the tax? Why would he admonish his brother over his opposition to its abolition if he didn't support its abolition?
Other than that's not exactly what he said, is it?

Sorry, but your evidence is pretty damn weak at best- according to most historians I have looked at, and a reading of the Greek words he used! I am not saying it's 100% impossible, all I am saying is there is no concrete evidence to support your assertion and until such evidence appears it remains at best speculation or rewording the translation....:lol:

Why do all those historians seem to hold a similar "cautious" viewpoint, including those quoted in a Jewish encyclopaedia and a leading scholar on the Roman fiscal administration- who basically refutes the idea?

Can you tell me why? Perhaps because they read the Greek first and thought about what the words meant. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

You got nothing. From your second link:
In this epistle Julian alludes to his abolition of the heavy taxes which had been imposed upon the Jews and to his desire to treat them amicably.

Damn.... but, no, wait........

From the first link.... "In the letter—the genuineness of which is not unimpeached—written by Emperor Julian" (see quoted source above)

From the third link....(Fiscus Judaicus) "It is not known when it was formally abolished." (see quoted source above)

Funny that he "alludes" and does not "refer"..... :laugh:

Even when you try to come up with sources, they disagree with you. It must suck when history isn't on your side.
So.... what are the two quotes from the first and third links? Oh dear... and what about those pesky historians who refute the idea, or those who are cautiously doubtful?

It must suck when your "bombshell" evidence, the only evidence you have, is so demonstrably weak.

Oh, very historically sensitive. First Diocletian is Hitler, now he's Stalin. :rolleyes: There's evidence that the persecution of pagans that you're trying to rationalize caused turbulence in parts of the empire, so your point means nothing.
Where did I say Diocletian was Hitler or Stalin?

Anyway, who's trying to "rationalise" the persecution of pagans? You're the one who's trying to do this in terms of Christians and other religions persecuted in non-Christian antiquity.

Well, if you have some facts- present them, with sources. (Make sure you check though before just in case there are conflicting theories ;)).

You mean the historical record that says my points make sense and that you're engaging in cheap equivocation?

Where does this historical record say that.... oh yeah, the historical record minus the bits you choose to ignore, the speculation you pass off as hard and fast fact and the bits you decide to interpret in order to confirm your own thesis a priori. :laugh:

By the way, what do you think Julian's opinion of Judaism was? Interesting that he was a kind of "monotheist" too....:laugh:

manic expression

23rd October 2011, 00:50

No not really because you made the assumption originally about non-Christian emperors... so I was asking you the question.
And I pointed out how your question is fallacious and irrelevant. As usual.

Do you have a source, or PROOF that these non-Christian emperors were "in it for vanity". LOL!!!
LOL cause that has nothing to do with any point that I've made. Well done.

What myth? Who's talking about myths other than you?
Kind of like the ones you got from your favorite Kirk Douglass movie. :lol: What mastery of history when you get your cues from Hollywood. :lol:

You still have defined what you mean by tolerance adequately and what this may have meant in the ancient world.
I still have, indeed.

What are you blabbing about now? The fact that you are asserting the words "tolerance" and "intolerance" in your arguments without being able to define what you mean, or what that would have meant in the ancient contexts shows your argument has feet of clay.
I've told you what tolerance means. You're trying to split hairs because you lack a substantive argument.

You said there was a "new wave"- if there is a "new" wave, then there must be an "old wave"- your words bit you in the ass of your argument there.:laugh:
Is something that happens for the first time "new"?

Oh, right, it is. It's actually as "new" as "new" can be.

You're one to talk about getting bit in the ass by reality. :laugh::laugh::laugh: Go read a dictionary.

Manius Acilius Glabrio consul, executed by Domitian in 91CE.
You can't even read your own links:

He slew the animal, and was greeted with so much applause, that he roused the jealousy of the emperor, who first banished, and then put him to death on some false pretext

Titus Flavius Clemens, consul and great nephew, of the Emperor Vespasian may have converted to either Judaism or Christianity- confusing in the early period, and was put to death for "atheism" by Domitian.
Nice references. And by "nice", I mean "nonexistent". :laugh:

[QOTE]At the beginning of the3rd century CE we find Christians in the senate, clarissimi viri and clarissimae foeminae.[/QUOTE]
And they grew because... ta-da.

Even if we are not sure of much about the people, given the Roman system of nomenclature we find very early epigraphic evidence suggesting that high-ranking Romans of noble families, i.e. patricians, were Christians too. It is even argued that Tertullian was a lawyer, so not necessarily ignorant and uneducated.;).... and all before Constantine it seems... :rolleyes:
And when did I argue that Christians in high ranks didn't exist before Constantine? Hmmm? Oh, right, you made it up...just like you do with all your arguments.

Why were all those pagans, including quite senior and high ranking Roman pagans all becoming Christians at such an alarming rate? If Christianity had had no appeal it could never have gained a foothold in the empire and would not have arrived at the position it did.
Which doesn't contradict my argument. Onward, soldier of misrepresentation.

Proves what? Is there some Pachamama-Gaia syncretic cult?
Do try to pay attention for once in your life. You said that pagan affinity across religious traditions was due to Indo-European common roots. I proved this to be incorrect. So you're wrong, and your retreat here shows it. Thanks a bunch!

Tolerance is thus tolerating that which is the same as you or more or less similar? Thanks for showing how "shallow" this pagan tolerance may have been.
No, tolerance is being able to recognize similarities in that which may be at first different. Thus, one goddess isn't another goddess, but they're both goddesses of something and can be reconciled.

Your precious Christians, though, can't seem to do that with anyone, unless (as in the case of Pachamama) the conquered find a way to trick dumb churchmen into thinking it's about this or that saint (or else it would be prohibited).

That's why paganism is more civilized...it rarely tries to suppress that which is different, and far more often finds similarities. You could learn a thing or two from that.

Where exactly? Repeating ad nauseam that you have proved this and demonstrated that is not really proof of anything other than your own delusions of actually knowing what you are talking about.
Nice argument...too bad it means nothing, and concedes the point to me.

Trying to ignore history won't get you very far.

Like the Isis Cult that Juvenal ranted against and was suppressed under the reign of Augustus and is attested to by Josephus, Dio Cassius and Tertullian amongst others. I believe Tiberius had some Isis followers crucified and statues of the deity thrown into the Tiber.
And how many non-Isis followers did Tiberius crucify? Saying stuff doesn't mean much when just about all your previous points are objectively wrong.

Except the evidence for the human sacrifice, although I don't doubt it in its entirety, is generally accepted to be largely exaggerated in order to serve Roman propaganda,
Exaggerated? Yeah probably. Irrelevant? Nope. The point stands.

Strange, it was one of the reasons that Augustus, a pagan Emperor, may have wanted to suppress the "pornographic" Cult of Isis in order to restore Roman values. He must have been a 19th century baptist.....
Augustus was busy suppressing almost everything that was "lewd"...but for political reasons. Too bad you're too numb to history to figure that out.

I suppose you are going to argue who wonderful shrine prostitution was in the ancient world now...
Not really...care to make up anything else?

So why does Josephus state what he does? Namely: "[Titus] Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and Temple"- answer me that?
Show me the passage and context, then we'll talk.

Other than that's not exactly what he said, is it?
Here you go (http://unix.luc.edu/%7Eavande1/jerusalem/sources/julian-epist-25.htm), since you keep running away from it:

In times past, by far the most burdensome thing in the yoke of your slavery has been the fact that you were subjected to unauthorised ordinances and had to contribute an untold amount of money to the accounts of the treasury. Of this I used to see many instances with my own eyes, and I have learned of more, by finding the records which are preserved against you. Moreover, when a tax was about to be levied on you again I prevented it, and compelled the impiety of such obloquy to cease here; and I threw into the fire the records against you that were stored in my desks; so that it is no longer possible for anyone to aim at you such a reproach of impiety.

Cue all the usual revisionist BS. "No, that's not what he meant, it was a typo! It's really just a practical joke! It's actually Constantine secretly controlling Julian from beyond the grave!" :laugh::laugh::laugh:

From the first link.... "In the letter—the genuineness of which is not unimpeached—written by Emperor Julian" (see quoted source above)

From the third link....(Fiscus Judaicus) "It is not known when it was formally abolished." (see quoted source above)
So, first, we're supposed to believe that it's fake, just because you want to believe that. Second, we're supposed to believe that Julian was just making stuff up. Genius stuff, what will you come up with next? Nothing to do with history, that's for sure. :lol:

So.... what are the two quotes from the first and third links? Oh dear... and what about those pesky historians who refute the idea, or those who are cautiously doubtful?

It must suck when your "bombshell" evidence, the only evidence you have, is so demonstrably weak.
You mean the ones who note the remote possibility that it wasn't genuine, something you're trying to say is full 100% evidence that it's a fake?

:lol: Like I said, it must suck when reality doesn't agree with you.

Where did I say Diocletian was Hitler or Stalin?
Wow, you really are clueless. Here's what you wrote IN YOUR LAST POST:

Diocletian, in an almost Stalinist manner

You compared him to Hitler in one of your posts a few pages back, I'm not going to find it just because you're a habitual contrarian.

Anyway, who's trying to "rationalise" the persecution of pagans?
That's your whole point here. You're trying to tell us that the suppression of paganism wasn't so bad after all.

Well, if you have some facts- present them, with sources.
I have, and you run away from them. It's a very funny game.

Where does this historical record say that....
It says it in those things called "history books". You should crack one open sometime. This thread has already proved it, you just can't accept facts because you're a hack.

By the way, what do you think Julian's opinion of Judaism was?
Go ahead, tell me. First, let me guess what you're going to say...you think he's Stalin! :lol::lol::lol:

ComradeMan

23rd October 2011, 09:32

In times past, by far the most burdensome thing in the yoke of your slavery has been the fact that you were subjected to unauthorised ordinances and had to contribute an untold amount of money to the accounts of the treasury. Of this I used to see many instances with my own eyes, and I have learned of more, by finding the records which are preserved against you. Moreover, when a tax was about to be levied on you again I prevented it, and compelled the impiety of such obloquy to cease here; and I threw into the fire the records against you that were stored in my desks; so that it is no longer possible for anyone to aim at you such a reproach of impiety.

Where does that say he abolished the fiscus judaicus?

Most scholars agree that he abolished the special tax that went to the Jewish Patriarchate in Palestine.

But you miss the next part were seems to make up excuses and say:

"...My brother [cousin] Constantius of honored memory [in whose reign, 337-361, severe laws were enacted against the Jews] was not so much responsible for these wrongs of yours as were the men who used to frequent his table, barbarians in mind, godless in soul. These I seized with my own hands and put them to death by thrusting them into the pit, that not even any memory of their destruction might still linger amongst us.
Source here (http://books.google.it/books?id=VFhwknlb_FAC&pg=PA588&lpg=PA588&dq=were+the+men+who+used+to+frequent+his+table,+ba rbarians+in+mind,+godless+in+soul&source=bl&ots=fReafcustw&sig=vr3zM-wOq_1efmInPZulXzxlKLw&hl=it&ei=bdCjTv3eGOTQ4QTPs6DnBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=were%20the%20men%20who%20used%20to%20frequent%20 his%20table%2C%20barbarians%20in%20mind%2C%20godle ss%20in%20soul&f=false)
"
Interesting how he completely tries to absolve Constantius II of blame for the harsh restrictions that were placed on the Jewish communities, that were in reality "business" interests it seems. Is it not perhaps these severe laws that were abolished by Julian? Also interesting how that source names the fact that the letter's authenticity is not 100% guaranteed either. :rolleyes:

Still no mention of the fiscus judaicus though.

As far as your "bombshell" evidence about Glabio, yet again you "miss" the next part...

"According to Suetonius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius), the emperor caused several senators and ex-consuls to be executed on the charge of conspiring against the empire -- quasi molitores rerum novarum, "as contrivers of revolution" (Domit., c. x), which in Glabrio's case was adhering to the Christian religion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manius_Acilius_Glabrio_%28consul_91%29

If you care to visit the Catacombs in Rome you'll actually find the epigraphic evidence of the tombs of Christians show Roman names that indicate the deceased belonged to quite powerful Roman patrician families- consular/senatorial rank individuals and even those connected to the imperial house, notably the Flavians. You might consider visiting the tomb of the Manii Acilii Glabriones.

Your contention was that all the Christians in the early centuries before Constantine I were poor and uneducated, the epigraphic and archaeological evidence doesn't support this. Poor and uneducated they may have been, but there are plenty of other non-poor and non-uneducated Christians, Romans of high rank to be found. It seems like you may have inadvertently fallen into the trap of early Catholic propaganda that deliberately sought to emphasise the little church of the "poor" perhaps..? :laugh:

----

There is really no point trying to debate something with someone who refuses to look at the sources and is dishonest with them too. It's telling that you always stop before the next damning line. Your basically dishonest with your use of sources and your own arguments and you can't even define that which you are asserting.

The fact that you start to "rant" and "shout" and become insulting basically shows you have no argument. Your whole approach is dishonest, despite your patronising little quips and uses of "humour" you have actually made the mistake of allowing your confirmational bias lead you into traps all over the place- like picking only the sources that agree with you and presenting them as determined fact- when unfortunately they are not. Desperately trying to prove how "tolerant" Julian was, when all the historical evidence seems to indicate that everything he did was motivated out of hatred for Christianity and political manipulation in addition to its having little to do with sincere attempts to create any kind of "tolerance".

I'd love to know where your own irrefutable proof that Julian abolished the fiscus judaicus is, because no other known historian or scholar seems to go that far as to deem it beyond doubt. Even the letter itself may be a problem, but we'll take it at face value for now--- in which case, what do you think of Julian's Letter to Arsacius?
:rolleyes:

manic expression

23rd October 2011, 12:13

Where does that say he abolished the fiscus judaicus?

Most scholars agree that he abolished the special tax that went to the Jewish Patriarchate in Palestine.
I've already posted this. You're nit-picking and running away from the opinions of historians because you want to believe the worst about pagans and the best about Christians.

Schäfer, for instance, disagrees with you and credits the abolition of the tax to Julian. Even your own sources are only slightly doubtful about that conclusion. Since you haven't dealt with any of that, I'll wait for you to do so, if you can.

There is really no point trying to debate something with someone who refuses to look at the sources and is dishonest with them too. It's telling that you always stop before the next damning line. Your basically dishonest with your use of sources and your own arguments and you can't even define that which you are asserting.
Except I have. You've ignored it.

The fact that you start to "rant" and "shout" and become insulting basically shows you have no argument. Your whole approach is dishonest,
Please. I call you out for ignoring my points and my sources and you get offended. All the while, your entire schtick is to scream that other people are doing exactly what you're doing. Sorry, but I'm not falling for it.

I'd love to know where your own irrefutable proof that Julian abolished the fiscus judaicus is, because no other known historian or scholar seems to go that far as to deem it beyond doubt. Even the letter itself may be a problem, but we'll take it at face value for now--- in which case, what do you think of Julian's Letter to Arsacius?
He complained that while the traditional rituals had been restored, the Christians continued to gain converts. This angered Julian because he considered Christians atheists. Julian went on to demand that the priests in Galatia put their beliefs into positive social action, such as copying Christian charity, care for the dead, and a holy lifestyle. He then proceeded to lay down a series of prohibitions. No priest was to go to a tavern, frequent the theatre, or engage in a base profession. Julian then commanded that Arsacius set up hostels for charity in every city in Galatia. Furthermore, 1/5 of 30,000 modii of wheat and 60,000 pints of wine allocated to Galatia were to be used for charity distribution. Julian told Arsacius that the helping of the community by the priests was the way of the forefathers, with such practices dating back to the time of Homer.

Lyk OMG (http://www.roman-emperors.org/julian.htm), what a mean guy! :rolleyes: Anything else you'd like to erroneously cite?

ComradeMan

23rd October 2011, 14:48

I've already posted this. You're nit-picking and running away from the opinions of historians because you want to believe the worst about pagans and the best about Christians.

According to whom....? I've said all the way through that I don't exculpate anyone. That's the difference, and it's quite revealing too, I'm not picking sides....;)

Schäfer, for instance, disagrees with you and credits the abolition of the tax to Julian. Even your own sources are only slightly doubtful about that conclusion. Since you haven't dealt with any of that, I'll wait for you to do so, if you can.

And Jones disagrees, and another person is doubtful and yet another one is not sure... and so on. The fact is, if it were definitive as historical fact then there would be no speculation. As it remains it's not

He complained that while the traditional rituals had been restored, the Christians continued to gain converts. This angered Julian because he considered Christians atheists. Julian went on to demand that the priests in Galatia put their beliefs into positive social action, such as copying Christian charity, care for the dead, and a holy lifestyle. He then proceeded to lay down a series of prohibitions. No priest was to go to a tavern, frequent the theatre, or engage in a base profession. Julian then commanded that Arsacius set up hostels for charity in every city in Galatia. Furthermore, 1/5 of 30,000 modii of wheat and 60,000 pints of wine allocated to Galatia were to be used for charity distribution. Julian told Arsacius that the helping of the community by the priests was the way of the forefathers, with such practices dating back to the time of Homer.

What were Julian's exact words, if we are to accept the authenticity of the letter? Why have you conveniently left out the first part? :laugh:

"The Hellenic religion does not yet prosper as I desire, and it is the fault of those who profess it; for the worship of the gods is on a splendid and magnificent scale, surpassing every prayer and every hope. May Adrasteia 2 pardon my words, for indeed no one, a little while ago, would have ventured even to pray for a change of such a sort or so complete within so short a time. Why, then, do we think that this is enough, why do we not observe that it is their benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism?1 I believe that we ought really and truly to practise every one of these virtues.2 And it is not enough for you alone to practise them, but so must all the priests in Galatia, without exception.": Source:http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_letters_1_trans.htm

Note (2) is especially interesting: In the Fragment of a Letter, Vol. 2, Julian admonishes priests to imitate Christian virtues, cf. especially 289-290; it is the favourite theme of his pastoral letters; for a fuller account of his attempt to graft Christian discipline on paganism, see Gregory Nazianzen, Against Julian, Oration 3, and Sozomen 5. 16.

So whilst the "evil" Christians were caring for the poor and looking after strangers etc the others were not and this so irritated Julian that he has to order a pagan priest to copy the Christians....:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yet more "intellectual" dishonesty from someone posting here eh? Deliberately ignoring the awkward bits at the beginning, like how you also ignored Julian's contempt for Judaism as a religion too- because that might undermine your other point of contention.

From the same letter you also omit this part:

For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galilaeans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us.1

Franz Fanonipants

24th October 2011, 20:38

Antiquity is historically specious y'all.

manic expression

24th October 2011, 22:00

According to whom....?
Already been posted. Keep dancing.

And Jones disagrees, and another person is doubtful and yet another one is not sure... and so on. The fact is, if it were definitive as historical fact then there would be no speculation. As it remains it's not
It's not...what? Not reasonable for you to insist that it's inadmissible because one historian disagrees and another is "doubtful". :laugh: I see...obviously the fact is that you're just trying to excuse Christians and condemn pagans with no regard for a sensible review of evidence.

What were Julian's exact words, if we are to accept the authenticity of the letter? Why have you conveniently left out the first part?
Ooo, you really got me there:

The Hellenic religion does not yet prosper as I desire, and it is the fault of those who profess it; for the worship of the gods is on a splendid and magnificent scale, surpassing every prayer and every hope.

Oh no! How intolerant! How hateful!

Buy a clue.

So whilst the "evil" Christians were caring for the poor and looking after strangers etc the others were not and this so irritated Julian that he has to order a pagan priest to copy the Christians....
What's your point? That Christians are better at charity, therefore they have the right to suppress pagans? Come on, apologist, spit it out, tell me what you're actually arguing.

Yet more "intellectual" dishonesty from someone posting here eh? Deliberately ignoring the awkward bits at the beginning, like how you also ignored Julian's contempt for Judaism as a religion too- because that might undermine your other point of contention.
Julian's policies are in question here. Please try to stay on topic, I know it's tough for you but give it a shot.

From the same letter you also omit this part:
You mean the part where he admits pagans need to do better? Is this your evidence of ghastly pagan "intolerance"? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: What a joke.

ComradeMan

25th October 2011, 10:26

Already been posted. Keep dancing.
dolium volviter.... :lol:

It's not...what? Not reasonable for you to insist that it's inadmissible because one historian disagrees and another is "doubtful". :laugh:
Can you even read? I didn't say it's inadmissable, I said it's debatable and does not even provide any concrete evidence that Julian abolished the fiscus judaicus. The fact that most historians are cautious with the evidence of this letter, whose authenticity has been called into question, is also telling. The fact that you are trying to "prove" something with such weak evidence in terms of ancient history just goes to show you have now idea about ancient histiorography and how to interpret sources and evidence that are, at best, partial, biased, fragmentary and problematic when dealing with that period of history.

I see...obviously the fact is that you're just trying to excuse Christians and condemn pagans with no regard for a sensible review of evidence.
For the millionth time.... I am not trying to excuse or condemn anyone- you are the one who is so keen to cherrypick sources and "evidence" in order to prove your hypothesis which is probably the most amateurish and sophomoric way to discuss history, especially ancient history, conceivable.

The Hellenic religion does not yet prosper as I desire, and it is the fault of those who profess it; for the worship of the gods is on a splendid and magnificent scale, surpassing every prayer and every hope.
Oh no! How intolerant! How hateful!
Right so whereas the evil Christians were prospering, according to their enemy too, because of things like charity and helping marginalised people and so on, the "pagan" religion was not- and you don't see that there might be a connection with the popularity of Christianity and its rise at the time? Adversus solem ne loquitor....

What's your point? That Christians are better at charity, therefore they have the right to suppress pagans? Come on, apologist, spit it out, tell me what you're actually arguing.
Were these Christians directly oppressing pagans? Source, evidence- please?

Julian's policies are in question here. Please try to stay on topic, I know it's tough for you but give it a shot.
We will never really know then, will we? No records of his laws have survived- try to deal with evidence, I know it's tough for you.

You mean the part where he admits pagans need to do better? Is this your evidence of ghastly pagan "intolerance"? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: What a joke.
You mean that bit in which it shows that Julian's words, if we are to accept this letter as evidence, show that his aims were directly anti-Christian and designed to undermine the Christians as much as possible- far from the ideas of someone who was tolerant of all religions and creeds. Furthermore, his actions provoked reactions and:

"Jewish historian and theologian Jacob Neusner writes: "It was only after the near catastrophe of Julian's reversion to paganism that the Christian emperors systematically legislated against paganism so as to destroy it."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_and_tolerance_of_Paganism_from_Julian_ till_Valens#cite_note-8)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_and_tolerance_of_Paganism_from_Julian_ till_Valens
Cited: R. Kirsch, "God against the Gods", Viking Compass, 2004.

The fact is that you casu consulto constantly omit, cut and delete bits of the very evidence that you present. This is not how one discusses history or narrates those events. The fact is that you dismiss every bit of evidence that doesn't fit with your hypothesis and conveniently choose to interpret your own interpretations as historical fact.

The fact that you showed yourself to be completely ignorant of the motivations behind Julian's attempted restoration of the Temple is also telling- basically it tells us you don't have a clue.

By the way, you keep skipping this point, what was Julian's position on Judaism as a whole?

manic expression

25th October 2011, 18:53

dolium volviter....
I accept your concession of the point.

Can you even read? I didn't say it's inadmissable, I said it's debatable
Except you're not debating it. Instead, you're refusing to consider the strong evidence because it goes against your point.

For the millionth time.... I am not trying to excuse or condemn anyone-
Then stop trying to excuse Christians and condemn pagans.

Right so whereas the evil Christians were prospering, according to their enemy too, because of things like charity and helping marginalised people and so on,
I pointed that out as a contributor to Christianity's growth before.

Were these Christians directly oppressing pagans? Source, evidence- please?
lol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_paganism_under_Theodosius _I)

We will never really know then, will we? No records of his laws have survived- try to deal with evidence, I know it's tough for you.
But we do have these letter things that tell us a great deal of his tolerance for non-pagans. Dealing with evidence is fun when it agrees with me.

You mean that bit in which it shows that Julian's words, if we are to accept this letter as evidence, show that his aims were directly anti-Christian and designed to undermine the Christians as much as possible- far from the ideas of someone who was tolerant of all religions and creeds. Furthermore, his actions provoked reactions and:
Supporting Judaism undermines Christians who hate anyone who isn't Christian. True, true.

He provoked reactions...big deal, just about anything progressive in this world will do the same. Nothing close to justification, though, so you better try again.

The fact is that you casu consulto constantly omit, cut and delete bits of the very evidence that you present. This is not how one discusses history or narrates those events. The fact is that you dismiss every bit of evidence that doesn't fit with your hypothesis and conveniently choose to interpret your own interpretations as historical fact.

The fact that you showed yourself to be completely ignorant of the motivations behind Julian's attempted restoration of the Temple is also telling- basically it tells us you don't have a clue.
Oh, right, you're supposed to misrepresent and ignore anything you can in order to make Christians look good. Yes, that's the way to discuss history! :laugh:

We've already been over Julian's motivations, and it's very clear that you condemn him for daring to lend support to any religion but Christianity. How tolerant of you.

By the way, you keep skipping this point, what was Julian's position on Judaism as a whole?
I've dealt with this...he didn't love it but he saw it as at least basically consistent, especially as a religion based on a tribal identity. I await your citation of letters you've already declared to be null and void. :lol:

ComradeMan

25th October 2011, 20:35

I accept your concession of the point.
:laugh: ignoramus et ignorabimus?

Except you're not debating it. Instead, you're refusing to consider the strong evidence because it goes against your point.
What strong evidence? One letter whose authenticity is not guaranteed
and whose interpretation is open to debate.

Sure....

Then stop trying to excuse Christians and condemn pagans.
What does "I do not exculpate anyone..." mean?

I pointed that out as a contributor to Christianity's growth before.
Where exactly?

lol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_paganism_under_Theodosius _I)
Source, evidence please? :rolleyes: Because Theodosius' actions were somehow known to Julian twenty years before the event so to speak.... :rolleyes: Yes, Julian based his actions on what he foresaw in some prophetic vision of Theodosius' actions to come two decades later.... Hey perhaps the Romans made war on the Germani because they had predicted Hitler.... :laugh:

But we do have these letter things that tell us a great deal of his tolerance for non-pagans. Dealing with evidence is fun when it agrees with me.
Really-? We have a couple of letters, again with authenticity as a problem, and a whole weight of scholarship that sees his so-called tolerance as nothing more than cynical political manipulation to play one group off another, use people as political pawns in his ill-fated anti-Sassanid/Persian politics and undermine Christians.

Supporting Judaism undermines Christians who hate anyone who isn't Christian. True, true.
Supporting Judaism? What- to create a "buffer" between the Empire and Persian? Using the Jews to indirectly attack the Christians? Rebuilding the Temple to prove that Christianity was wrong and also place yourself as a "messiah" to the Jews?- This is of course also in the light of the inferiority and contempt with which Justine held Judaism, as expressed by his own words....

Splendidus narratio frater!

He provoked reactions...big deal, just about anything progressive in this world will do the same. Nothing close to justification, though, so you better try again.
Progressive... sure, he was progressive- a theocratic Roman emperor who discriminated against groups in his empire.... your argument is just getting ridiculous here...

Oh, right, you're supposed to misrepresent and ignore anything you can in order to make Christians look good. Yes, that's the way to discuss history! :laugh:

Like what exactly? Like all the quotes and citations you've conveniently cut and edited before pasting them? Like your bombshell evidence that falls to the ground as definitive because you didn't read the original in Greek....:rolleyes:

φανταστική ιστορία Ω αδελφέ μου!

We've already been over Julian's motivations, and it's very clear that you condemn him for daring to lend support to any religion but Christianity. How tolerant of you.
Who's condemning? Stop inventing strawmen and projecting your own biases onto the discussion.

I've dealt with this...he didn't love it but he saw it as at least basically consistent, especially as a religion based on a tribal identity. I await your citation of letters you've already declared to be null and void. :lol:
More strawmen... who declared them null and void? Being cautious with sources means neither scrapping them nor accepting them outright. Now, what was Julian's actual opinion of Judaism.....? :rolleyes:

manic expression

25th October 2011, 20:49

:laugh: ignoramus et ignorabimus?
Romanus ite domum? :sneaky:

When you think up a reasonable argument, let me know.

What strong evidence? One letter whose authenticity is not guaranteed
and whose interpretation is open to debate.
Um, no, one letter that is accepted by historians as genuine and whose interpretation is not even debated by you.

What does "I do not exculpate anyone..." mean?
In your case, it means "I can't even figure out what I'm arguing". :cool:

Where exactly?
When discussing reasons for the rise of Christianity. Do please pay attention.

Source, evidence please?
It's all there. You're welcome. :D

Really-? We have a couple of letters, again with authenticity as a problem, and a whole weight of scholarship that sees his so-called tolerance as nothing more than cynical political manipulation to play one group off another, use people as political pawns in his ill-fated anti-Sassanid/Persian politics and undermine Christians.
More of this "waaaah he supported a religion other than Christianity he's intolerant! waaah"..... hahaha sorry but you got nothing.

Supporting Judaism? What- to create a "buffer" between the Empire and Persian? Using the Jews to indirectly attack the Christians?
So you're not going to deal with his policies because you'd rather engage in mind-reading back 18 centuries. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Splendidus narratio frater!
Cool! Google translate makes your argument better! :lol:

Progressive... sure, he was progressive- a theocratic Roman emperor who discriminated against groups in his empire....
Kind of funny when your precious Christians can't even get over that bar.

Like what exactly? Like all the quotes and citations you've conveniently cut and edited
And how else am I supposed to post his quotes? Is there another style of cut-and-paste that doesn't involve cutting something? Don't be a clown.

The quotes are valid. You don't want to deal with them because it gets in the way of your petty apologist nonsense.

φανταστική ιστορία Ω αδελφέ μου!
Oh man! You're "smart" because you posted something in Greek! lolz! :laugh::lol::laugh::lol::laugh::lol:

Again, I accept your concession.

Who's condemning?
a theocratic Roman emperor who discriminated against groups in his empire....

Oh, let me guess...you're going to complain that I "cut" and "edited" that quote. aaaahahahahahaha

More strawmen... who declared them null and void?
You did, do try to keep up.

ComradeMan

25th October 2011, 21:09

Romanus ite domum? :sneaky:
domi.

Um, no, one letter that is accepted by historians as genuine and whose interpretation is not even debated by you.Romanus ite domum? :sneaky:
So what about this scholar here (http://books.google.it/books?id=VFhwknlb_FAC&pg=PA588&lpg=PA588&dq=julian+apostate+letters+authenticity&source=bl&ots=fReaheovmu&sig=aGMw998Gi2JqpL9C9Gk-M4PKtfI&hl=it&ei=QRWnTqOuAYbDswaQkqjODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=julian%20apostate%20letters%20authenticity&f=false) ? Or the quote from the Jewish encycolpaedia online? Even if we accept the letter as authentic, it does not actually prove beyond doubt what you assert and most historians/scholars are cautious with it, hence words like "may" and "claims" etc.... :rolleyes: etc etc etc

Oh man! You're "smart" because you posted something in Greek! lolz!
It helped me understand your source too... what's the matter? Inferiority complex or something? Seems like someone is feeling "butthurt". Poor little baby.... notwithstanding puerile attempts at humour and ranting and shouting.....

Listen, if the only argument you can come up with is to repeat ad nauseam that you are right and spam/toll the posts with inane bullshit, refuse to discuss things and deliberately misrepresent, misquote, build strawman and show a profound ignorance of the source material then why do you bother?

Or do you just like making an ignorant prick of yourself over and again?

manic expression

25th October 2011, 21:40

domi.
Congrats.

So what about this scholar here (http://books.google.it/books?id=VFhwknlb_FAC&pg=PA588&lpg=PA588&dq=julian+apostate+letters+authenticity&source=bl&ots=fReaheovmu&sig=aGMw998Gi2JqpL9C9Gk-M4PKtfI&hl=it&ei=QRWnTqOuAYbDswaQkqjODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=julian%20apostate%20letters%20authenticity&f=false) ? Or the quote from the Jewish encycolpaedia online? Even if we accept the letter as authentic, it does not actually prove beyond doubt what you assert and most historians/scholars are cautious with it, hence words like "may" and "claims" etc.... :rolleyes: etc etc etc
Can't read that scholar. The Jewish Encyclopedia passingly mentions that it might not be genuine but treats it as a serious piece of evidence (something you can't do).

It helped me understand your source too... what's the matter? Inferiority complex or something? Seems like someone is feeling "butthurt". Poor little baby.... notwithstanding puerile attempts at humour and ranting and shouting.....

Listen, if the only argument you can come up with is to repeat ad nauseam that you are right and spam/toll the posts with inane bullshit, refuse to discuss things and deliberately misrepresent, misquote, build strawman and show a profound ignorance of the source material then why do you bother?

Or do you just like making an ignorant prick of yourself over and again?
What, no Greek? Shame...you could've made your argument seem more learned.

ComradeMan

25th October 2011, 21:45

Can't read that scholar.
Have you ever read one?

The Jewish Encyclopedia passingly mentions that it might not be genuine
Why does it do that? Enyclopaedias don't mention things in passing....

but treats it as a serious piece of evidence (something you can't do).
If I hadn't treated it as evidence, I wouldn't have discussed it.

What, no Greek? Shame...you could've made your argument seem more learned.
That's the difference... I'm not trying to seem anything.... ;)

Zostrianos

26th October 2011, 06:02

He stopped Christians from teaching and using classical texts- (which implies that before they had been learned in the classical world and used non-Christian authors) in order to separate them from society. There is already ample evidence that Christian writers during this period took a lot of scholarship from the works of antiquity, not merely to denigrate them. As far as textual criticism is concerned- well, the philosophers had been denigrating each other in one sense or another for centuries. Let's not forget that one of the charges against Socrates has been a trumped up charge of blasphemy.

From Julian's edict on Christian teachers (http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/julian_rescript_on_christian_teachers.htm):
Therefore, when a man thinks one thing and teaches his pupils another, in my opinion he fails to educate exactly in proportion as he fails to be an honest man. And if the divergence between a man’s convictions and his utterances is merely in trivial matters, that can be tolerated somehow, though it is wrong. But if in matters of the greatest importance a man has certain opinions and teaches the contrary, what is that but the conduct of hucksters, and not honest but thoroughly dissolute men in that they praise most highly the things that they believe to be most worthless, thus cheating and enticing by their praises those to whom they desire to transfer their worthless wares.....I think it is absurd that men who expound the works of these writers should dishonour the gods whom they used to honour. Yet, though I think this absurd, I do not say that they ought to change their opinions and then instruct the young. But I give them this choice: either not to teach what they do not think admirable, or, it they wish to teach, let them first really persuade their pupils that neither Homer nor Hesiod nor any of these writers whom they expound and have declared to be guilty of impiety, folly and error in regard to the gods, is such as they declare.

While Julian's motivations may have been to exclude Christians from society as you think, his edict actually supports my belief that he was genuinely concerned about Christians ridiculing the Pagan classics, which was very common. And while there were indeed many disputes among different writers and philosophers, these became most common after the advent of Christianity, when Christian writers & heresiologists set out to attack and denigrate every single religion and philosophy of their time. This vicious Christian intolerance must have played a part in Julian's decisions, after seeing those fanatics persistently ridiculing other faiths.
It's also interesting to compare Pagan polemical works to Christian ones. Aside from the latter being several times more numerous, even when Christian writers are describing their opponents philosophies, they can't seem to help interspersing their writings with childish insults and mockery, more worthy of a kindergarten schoolyard than philosophical circles. Non-Christian writers were generally more civil.

So whilst the "evil" Christians were caring for the poor and looking after strangers etc the others were not and this so irritated Julian that he has to order a pagan priest to copy the Christians....:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I can find other reasons for Julian's charity laws, in addition to competing with Christianity. He may have simply been frustrated with the lack of virtue among his co-religionists, and wanted to rectify the situation.
And while Christians often delight in quoting Julian's charity to ridicule Paganism, like I mentioned before, I sincerely doubt the Church's "charity" was little more than a ruse to attract more converts. Nowadays, most Christian "charities" have as their aim to convert others by deceiving them, and this was probably the case back then as well, which would explain why they helped out Pagans as well.

obviously the fact is that you're just trying to excuse Christians and condemn pagans with no regard for a sensible review of evidence.

I might disagree with Comrademan, but he doesn't seem to be excusing Christians, but rather showing that Pagan tolerance may not have been genuine (or had ulterior motives behind it). Again, I can't agree with him, but he's been pretty fair so far in the debate.

o well this is ok I guess

26th October 2011, 06:06

As a general rule, this is behaviour to be expected of any organization pushing for strict orthodoxy.
Even the founders of christian orthodoxy had to be wary of the early orthodoxies of the time. If I recall correctly, before the conversion of Constantine Christians often found themselves in a reverse situation, where they would be brutally persecuted by Pagans.

Black_Rose

27th October 2011, 02:42

"It's also interesting to compare Pagan polemical works to Christian ones. Aside from the latter being several times more numerous, even when Christian writers are describing their opponents philosophies, they can't seem to help interspersing their writings with childish insults and mockery, more worthy of a kindergarten schoolyard than philosophical circles. Non-Christian writers were generally more civil."I indeed think it would be an interesting exercise.

Can you link a pagan anti-Christian polemic? I would like to read Porphyry's Against the Christians, but the Christians are like the Qin Legalists who burned 400 scholars and their books. Any other surviving works?

** Edit: They buried the Confucian scholars alive.

Zostrianos

27th October 2011, 05:36

I indeed think it would be an interesting exercise.

Can you link a pagan anti-Christian polemic? I would like to read Porphyry's Against the Christians, but the Christians are like the Qin Legalists who burned 400 scholars and their books. Any other surviving works?

None of the anti-Christian polemical works have survived in full, all we have are quotes from them from Christian refutations. The Church was very thorough in its destruction of works it deemed unacceptable.

Here is a reconstruction of Julian's Against the Galilean (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm)s, a compilation of quotes from bishop Cyril's refutation. It also shows that one of the concerns Julian had was against Christian violence and fanaticism, which he addresses thus, pointing out that neither Jesus nor Paul would have condoned such behaviour:

As for purity of life you do not know whether he so much as mentioned it; but you emulate the rages and the bitterness of the Jews, overturning temples and altars, and you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers, but also men who were as much astray as yourselves, heretics, because they did not wail over the corpse in the same fashion as yourselves. But these are rather your own doings; for nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands...

As for Christian polemical works, there are dozens, but one of the most disgusting was "saint" John Chrysostom's Adversos Judaeos (http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0386_chrysostom_adversus-judeaus.html) ("Against the Jews"), a revolting piece of hate literature targeting Jews. Here is a quote, where Chrysostom declares that Jews are beasts fit for killing:

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

Some other quotes:

Beware the Jews: *Therefore, flee the gatherings and holy places of the Jews. Let no man venerate the synagogue because of the holy books; let him hate and avoid it because the Jews outrage and maltreat the holy ones, because they refuse to believe their words, because they accuse them of the ultimate impiety.

On synagogues, and how Jews are demons: *For, tell me, is not the dwelling place of demons a place of impiety even if no god's statue stands there? Here the slayers of Christ gather together, here the cross is driven out, here God is blasphemed, here the Father is ignored, here the Son is outraged, here the grace of the Spirit is rejected. Does not greater harm come from this place since the Jews themselves are demons?

On Jewish wickedness:What else do you wish me to tell you? Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? the whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things. But do their festivals have something solemn and great about them? They have shown that these, too, are impure. Listen to the prophets; rather, listen to God and with how strong a statement he turns his back on them: "I have found your festivals hateful, I have thrust them away from myself".

Chrysostom was particularly odious, even by the Church's standards. He encouraged the faithful to physically assault unbelievers (“Chrysostom recommends, no doubt to applause, that his listeners should not hesitate to give a good punch in the face to misbelievers”, in Voting about God in early church councils, 63), and he funded gangs of armed monks who took part in forced conversion campaigns in the eastern empire, assaulting peasants and destroying pagan shrines.

ComradeMan

27th October 2011, 07:19

Zostrianos

27th October 2011, 10:46

And just an addition: many historians partly credit Chrysostom's work with the waves of antisemitism that swept Europe in the Middle Ages, and the Nazis reportedly used his book to justify their policies to German Christians

ComradeMan

27th October 2011, 14:01

None of the anti-Christian polemical works have survived in full, all we have are quotes from them from Christian refutations. The Church was very thorough in its destruction of works it deemed unacceptable.

A lot of other works have been lost too. ;)

Chrysostom was particularly odious, even by the Church's standards. He encouraged the faithful to physically assault unbelievers (“Chrysostom recommends, no doubt to applause, that his listeners should not hesitate to give a good punch in the face to misbelievers”, in Voting about God in early church councils, 63), and he funded gangs of armed monks who took part in forced conversion campaigns in the eastern empire, assaulting peasants and destroying pagan shrines.

Chrysotom's language is deplorable, but bear in mind he was ranting towards the so-called Judaizers, i.e. "Jewish" Christians, rather than directly attacking the Jews who probably would not have listened to him anyway. Unfortunately the two "Jewish" sects, i.e. Judaism and Christianity had been fighting an ideological battle for centuries and perhaps the people of those times did genuinely believe that Israel has spurned the Messiah. This is not a justification by modern standards, but you need to see the context. You also have to remember that in the first centuries "Judaism" was not always so tolerant the other way around. "May the minim perish in an instant; may they be effaced from the book of life and not be counted among the Just." Source Edward. H. Flannery

(http://books.google.it/books?id=J40gNC7cxfYC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=May+the+minim+%5Bheretics%5D+perish+in+an+insta nt;+may+they+be+effaced+from+the+book+of+life+and+ not+be+counted+among+the+Just.&source=bl&ots=mQb0kiDVRV&sig=sKtKaW7kC2DTNa2Mri1mrfWfDaI&hl=it&ei=NFSpTsbMGYLRhAfIm4DxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=May%20the%20minim%20%5Bheretics%5D%20perish%20in %20an%20instant%3B%20may%20they%20be%20effaced%20f rom%20the%20book%20of%20life%20and%20not%20be%20co unted%20among%20the%20Just.&f=false)Julian's philo-semitism was perhaps philo-semitism in the original sense of the word. It's quite clear from his writings that he regarded Judaism as inferior and it seems it's saving grace was that it was not Christianity.

They act as is right and seemly, in my opinion, if they do not transgress the laws; but in this one thing they err in that, while reserving their deepest devotion for their own god, they do not conciliate the other gods also; but the other gods they think have been allotted to us Gentiles only, to such a pitch of folly have they been brought by their barbaric conceit. But those who belong to the impious sect of the Galilaeans, as if some disease . Source: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_letters_1_trans.htm

Your founder was a god-fearing man, Alexander of Macedon, in no way, by Zeus, like any of these persons, nor again did he resemble any Hebrews, though the latter have shown themselves far superior to the Galilaeans. Nay, Ptolemy son of Lagus proved stronger than the Jews, while Alexander, if he had had to match himself with the Romans, would have made even them fight hard for supremacy. Source: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_letters_1_trans.htm

We should also be careful when speaking of anti-semitism and anti-judaism. The two are interconnected yet they are not the same. It is interesting to note that when the Nazis spoke of "Juden rein" it could have been describing the same events that Dio Cassius described. When I looked at early anti-semitic comments from pagan/classical writers it was shocking to see how familiar they were in terms of what we recognise today as "rightwing" or "Nazi"-style anti-semitism.

----

The trouble with all of this is that people start falling into the trap of ascribing collective guilt, just as the early Christians may have blamed the Jews for killing Jesus (which is not really the case anyway, but still)- now Christians today are being ascribed collective guilt for what was done in the past and said by people who lived so long ago.

Let's face the facts- "tolerance" as we understand it is a fairly modern concept and if we look at the ancient world the examples of tolerance are more like the exceptions that test the rule than any kind of norm.

Zostrianos

1st November 2011, 08:28

Chrysotom's language is deplorable, but bear in mind he was ranting towards the so-called Judaizers, i.e. "Jewish" Christians, rather than directly attacking the Jews who probably would not have listened to him anyway. Unfortunately the two "Jewish" sects, i.e. Judaism and Christianity had been fighting an ideological battle for centuries and perhaps the people of those times did genuinely believe that Israel has spurned the Messiah. This is not a justification by modern standards, but you need to see the context. You also have to remember that in the first centuries "Judaism" was not always so tolerant the other way around. "May the minim perish in an instant; may they be effaced from the book of life and not be counted among the Just." Source Edward. H. Flannery (http://books.google.it/books?id=J40gNC7cxfYC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=May+the+minim+%5Bheretics%5D+perish+in+an+insta nt;+may+they+be+effaced+from+the+book+of+life+and+ not+be+counted+among+the+Just.&source=bl&ots=mQb0kiDVRV&sig=sKtKaW7kC2DTNa2Mri1mrfWfDaI&hl=it&ei=NFSpTsbMGYLRhAfIm4DxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=May%20the%20minim%20%5Bheretics%5D%20perish%20in %20an%20instant%3B%20may%20they%20be%20effaced%20f rom%20the%20book%20of%20life%20and%20not%20be%20co unted%20among%20the%20Just.&f=false)

While the Jews may have been intolerant, outside of Palestine they never turned this intolerance into actions, and they were a persecuted minority by Chrysostom's day. Whereas Chrysostom and his coreligionists had political muscle, they were a majority, and were very prone to using violence to have their wishes enforced. Chrysostom often encouraged (and financed) violence:

In a sermon preached to his Antiochene congregation on the eve of the Riot of the Statues in 387, Chrysostom exhorted fellow believers to confront and rebuke those who blasphemed in public:

"I desire to ask one favour of you all . . . which is, that you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear anyone in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify thy hand with the blow". (Gaddis 258)

In the same text, he later declares that Jews and Pagans need to learn that it's Christians who run the show, and they'll face the consequences should they do anything to provoke their oppressors:

Let the Jews and Greeks learn, that the Christians are the saviours of the city; that they are its guardians, its patrons, and its teachers. Let the dissolute and the perverse also learn this; that they must fear the servants of God too; that if at any time they are inclined to utter such a thing, they may look round every way at each other, and tremble even at their own shadows, anxious lest perchance a Christian, having heard what they said, should spring upon them and sharply chastise them.
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/190101.htm)

And the saint sometimes engaged in violence himself as well:

When John Chrysostom reportedly struck a certain Memnon with his fist in the Church of the Apostles, and then forced him to take communion while still bleeding from the mouth, the incident appeared as one article of indictment among numerous other charges of misconduct brought against John at the Synod of the Oak. No explanation was offered as to what Memnon had done to provoke John’s anger; to John’s accusers, the mere fact of the incident was enough to demonstrate that he was unfit to hold episcopal office. (Gaddis 257)

While he also condemns "judaizers" in his work, his main target are Jews and he's very clear on that. He was resentful of Christians who tolerated Jews and socialized with them, and wanted to paint the Jews as unworthy of sympathy, or even life, saying that it was a Christian duty to hate Jews.
In his book, he also threatened Christians with violence, should they consort with Jews or observe Jewish practices:

If any of you, whether you are here present or not, shall go to the spectacle of the Trumpets, or rush off to the synagogue, or go up to the shrine of Matrona, or take part in fasting, or share in the Sabbath, or observe any other Jewish ritual great or small, I call heaven and earth as my witnesses that I am guiltless of the blood of all of you. (1:8)

Since his work was delivered to the faithful as a sermon in Church, the most likely possibility is that his intention was to encourage anti-Jewish violence.

We should also be careful when speaking of anti-semitism and anti-judaism. The two are interconnected yet they are not the same. It is interesting to note that when the Nazis spoke of "Juden rein" it could have been describing the same events that Dio Cassius described. When I looked at early anti-semitic comments from pagan/classical writers it was shocking to see how familiar they were in terms of what we recognise today as "rightwing" or "Nazi"-style anti-semitism.

Chrysostom's work is hard to beat though.

The trouble with all of this is that people start falling into the trap of ascribing collective guilt, just as the early Christians may have blamed the Jews for killing Jesus (which is not really the case anyway, but still)- now Christians today are being ascribed collective guilt for what was done in the past and said by people who lived so long ago.

Chrysostom's work was reportedly responsible for a huge portion of anti-semitic violence by Christians in the Middle Ages. Whether this was intended or not, the fact remains that the Church endorsed his hate propaganda and used it to besmirch Jews in medieval times.

Let's face the facts- "tolerance" as we understand it is a fairly modern concept and if we look at the ancient world the examples of tolerance are more like the exceptions that test the rule than any kind of norm.

Somehow, those exceptions were markedly less frequent when Christians were in power:rolleyes:

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 08:57

While the Jews may have been intolerant, outside of Palestine they never turned this intolerance into actions, and they were a persecuted minority by Chrysostom's day.

That's not quite true. Okay it pales in comparison most probably with later events but there were cases of violent and even fatal clashes between "Jews" and the "Jewish Christian" sects- see Flannery.

According to Flannery, pagan anti-semitism also penetrated the Christian (originally Jewish) movement with its gentile converts- this added to the, let's say, "theological" dispute. See p30-62 here (http://books.google.it/books?id=J40gNC7cxfYC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=jews+christians+flannery&source=bl&ots=mQcTekxSKW&sig=5mHFpwlYkpntsgU2ynGMn-c_Ego&hl=it&ei=86OvToXcFpKwhAemsZHYAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=violence&f=false)(Flannery) The Anguish of the Jews.

While he also condemns "judaizers" in his work, his main target are Jews and he's very clear on that.

Not that it makes much difference to the outcome, but I think it was the other way around.

Chrysostom's work was reportedly responsible for a huge portion of anti-semitic violence by Christians in the Middle Ages. Whether this was intended or not, the fact remains that the Church endorsed his hate propaganda and used it to besmirch Jews in medieval times.

I thought the anti-Christian polemics of Maimonides and some of the dubious stuff in the Talmud were also responsible, such as the infamous Toledot Yeshu. Now whether that refers to Jesus or not is a matter of debate within mordern scholarship.

Like I said before, this was not a world in which "tolerance" really existed as such and should serve as a valuable lesson to us now in what happens when you ascribe collective guilt to groups.

manic expression

4th November 2011, 21:38

Have you ever read one?
Well, your vapid posts are certainly devoid of them. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Why does it do that? Enyclopaedias don't mention things in passing....Yeah, they do, and yours just did. Why? Well, because there's very little to suggest that Julian's letter isn't genuine, and that some doubts do not mean we should throw it out entirely. Of course, none of this matters to you because, in your warped mind, anything Julian did for Jews was anti-Christian intolerance.

Like I said before, this was not a world in which "tolerance" really existed
Why, then, do you endeavor to argue that the pagans were intolerant? And beyond that, are you claiming that the concept of not destroying other people's religious traditions didn't exist? That it was made up by Voltaire, as you asserted earlier?

I might disagree with Comrademan, but he doesn't seem to be excusing Christians, but rather showing that Pagan tolerance may not have been genuine (or had ulterior motives behind it). Again, I can't agree with him, but he's been pretty fair so far in the debate.
I might disagree here. ComradeMan's first contribution to this thread was to try to deflect blame of Hypatia's murder away from Christians. Since then, CM has been seeking to create a false equivalency between pagan "intolerance" and the Christian-enforced liquidation of paganism (something CM denies actually happened). CM may claim that there is no excuse of Christian actions there, but what CM won't recognize is that every morsel of CM's argument is based entirely on that false equivalency, and further the patent, utterly inane denial that paganism was ever suppressed.

Zostrianos

4th November 2011, 21:58

I might disagree here. ComradeMan's first contribution to this thread was to try to deflect blame of Hypatia's murder away from Christians. Since then, CM has been seeking to create a false equivalency between pagan "intolerance" and the Christian-enforced liquidation of paganism (something CM denies actually happened). CM may claim that there is no excuse of Christian actions there, but what CM won't recognize is that every morsel of CM's argument is based entirely on that false equivalency, and further the patent, utterly inane denial that paganism was ever suppressed.

I think he's trying to show that all factions behaved the same way, and Pagans were as bad and intolerant as Christians (which is actually untrue if you look at the evidence). There's no equivalence between the sporadic violence of Pagan emperors, and the virulent intolerance of organized Christianity. The Byzantine emperors are the best example that demonstrates the brutal, religiously motivated, repression of Paganism

ComradeMan

4th November 2011, 22:01

I might disagree here. ComradeMan's first contribution to this thread was to try to deflect blame of Hypatia's murder away from Christians.

No it wasn't- it was a follow on from another thread in which a few issues were raised over the historical accuracy of the events and also in light of the film Agora. If we are going to discuss history, we need to get the facts accurate and place them within their context- read the words "I do not seek to exculpate anyone". Inserting weasel words like "sporadic" and conveniently ignoring the evidence or half-presenting it is "apologetics"- however I don't think I am the one who is guilty of that.

Since then, CM has been seeking to create a false equivalency between pagan "intolerance" and the Christian-enforced liquidation of paganism (something CM denies actually happened).

Simplistic analyses. About 1.5-2 centuries later Christians were admonished by other Christians for participating in Paternalia... :rolleyes:

CM may claim that there is no excuse of Christian actions there, but what CM won't recognize is that every morsel of CM's argument is based entirely on that false equivalency, and further the patent, utterly inane denial that paganism was ever suppressed.

No it isn't. We haven't really talked about the suppression of "paganism" anyway..... :rolleyes:

manic expression

4th November 2011, 22:16

I'd like to note that ComradeMan, true to form, answered none of these inquiries:

Why, then, do you endeavor to argue that the pagans were intolerant? And beyond that, are you claiming that the concept of not destroying other people's religious traditions didn't exist? That it was made up by Voltaire, as you asserted earlier?

No it wasn't- it was a follow on from another thread in which a few issues were raised over the historical accuracy of the events and also in light of the film Agora. If we are going to discuss history, we need to get the facts accurate and place them within their context- read the words "I do not seek to exculpate anyone".
Ah, yes, more of your empty claims.

Here are some choice words from your first post:

The saddest thing about the legacy of Hypatia, in my opinion, is that someone who was murdered because of politics, religious intolerance and racial incidents has been manipulated and used further throughout history as a tool in politicising, polemics and anti-tolerance.

Yes, you read that right. According to you, the saddest thing about Hypatia being murdered by Christians wasn't that it was the savage killing of a brilliant mind over religious fervor, and it wasn't that it was part of a period which saw Christianity exterminate all paganism under its control...it was that some people use it to point out how intolerant early Christians were! :crying:

Simplistic analyses. About 1.5-2 centuries later Christians were admonished by other Christians for participating in Paternalia... :rolleyes:
How is it simplistic? The suppression happened, it was perpetrated by Christians and it changed the face of the Mediterranean world forever. Oh, but you're right, John Paul II saying sorry 2,000 years after the fact makes it all hunky-dory. What an interesting concept of "tolerance" you have.

Of course, Christians are still causing problems for neo-pagan communities (and non-Christian communities in general) today, so not all that much has changed.

No it isn't. We haven't really talked about the suppression of "paganism" anyway..... :rolleyes:
Only because you've been trying to deny it ever happened. Wait, let me guess, you don't believe me. Well, I'll let you help you jog your memory (from post #65 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2271380&postcount=65), since I know you're intellectually bankrupt enough to deny your own words just to be contrarian and buy yourself some time):

What kind of paganism? Why wasn't there a mass revolt of pagans against this?

Ah, yes, of course. Because there wasn't a mass revolt of pagans, it means that there wasn't any suppression of paganism by Christian authorities! That would be neat if it wasn't entirely illogical!

ComradeMan

4th November 2011, 22:57

I'd like to note that ComradeMan, true to form, answered none of these inquiries: Why, then, do you endeavor to argue that the pagans were intolerant? And beyond that, are you claiming that the concept of not destroying other people's religious traditions didn't exist? That it was made up by Voltaire, as you asserted earlier?

Because Christians were intolerant does that mean pagans were tolerant? Derp....:rolleyes: I was asking you what your definition of tolerant was, seeing that our modern ideas are very much post-Voltaire's argumentation and it could be questioned how relevant, if not anachronistic, these arguments are when pushed back into a pre-Voltaire epoch.

Ah, yes, more of your empty claims.

It's hard to answer the question without seeming to form apologetics, and there is no justification for the horrible act of violence that led to Hypatia's gruesome death and nothing exculpates those "Christians" involved.
:rolleyes:

Here are some choice words from your first post:

The saddest thing about the legacy of Hypatia, in my opinion, is that someone who was murdered because of politics, religious intolerance and racial incidents has been manipulated and used further throughout history as a tool in politicising, polemics and anti-tolerance.

Yes, you read that right. According to you, the saddest thing about Hypatia being murdered by Christians....:crying:

I said the saddest thing about the legacy of Hypatia, I wasn't talking about the act of her death- learn to read...:laugh:

How is it simplistic? The suppression happened, it was perpetrated by Christians and it changed the face of the Mediterranean world forever. Oh, but you're right, John Paul II saying sorry 2,000 years after the fact makes it all hunky-dory. What an interesting concept of "tolerance" you have.

More strawman argumentation verging on the moronic.

Of course, Christians are still causing problems for neo-pagan communities (and non-Christian communities in general) today, so not all that much has changed.

Because there is a direct link between neo-pagans and ancient pagans, modern evangelical fundies and the ancient Catholic Church....... sure....:laugh:... talk about anachronistic.

Only because you've been trying to deny it ever happened. Wait, let me guess, you don't believe me. Well, I'll let you help you jog your memory (from post #65 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2271380&postcount=65), since I know you're intellectually bankrupt enough to deny your own words just to be contrarian and buy yourself some time):

No, haven't denied anything. What's that got to do with the suppression of paganism?

As usual, revert to name calling despite the fact that you don't actually seem to be able to read very well...

What kind of paganism? Why wasn't there a mass revolt of pagans against this?
Ah, yes, of course. Because there wasn't a mass revolt of pagans, it means that there wasn't any suppression of paganism by Christian authorities! That would be neat if it wasn't entirely illogical!

Well then answer what kind of paganism? And how so many pagans became Christians in the first place in order to later "suppress" the pagans.... LOL!!!

Learn to read.

manic expression

4th November 2011, 23:06

Because Christians were intolerant does that mean pagans were tolerant?
You're not answering the question. If this was all, according to you, at a time in which tolerance "didn't exist", then how can you apply the antonym of that very term to pagans? Why are you simultaneously arguing that "tolerance didn't exist" but that pagans were also "intolerant"?

I, again, will wait for you to deal with this issue in a straightforward manner. Highly doubtful, that.

:rolleyes:Great argument. By the way, stating something doesn't make it true. Just because you say that you don't want to excuse Christians means nothing. Try again.

I said the saddest thing about the legacy of Hypatia,Too bad that's still entirely illogical, if not outright insane. Of course, it might make sense if your only point here is to try to excuse Christians...which is what you've been doing this whole time.

More strawman argumentation verging on the moronic.It's not a strawman when it's your own (moronic) argument:

About 1.5-2 centuries later Christians were admonished by other Christians for participating in Paternalia...

Have fun excusing that one.

Because there is a direct link between neo-pagans and ancient pagans, modern evangelical fundies and the ancient Catholic Church....... sure....:laugh:... talk about anachronistic.There is a direct link between early Christians and modern Christians, so you're wrong there. As for neo-pagans, I never said anything about a direct link with ancient pagans, I said that they are pagans who are now facing trouble caused by intolerant Christians...just like before. But it's good to know you also excuse modern Christian intolerance, too.

No, haven't denied anything.Followed promptly by...

Well then answer what kind of paganism? And how so many pagans became Christians in the first place in order to later "suppress" the pagans.... LOL!!!An attempt to sidestep the idea that pagans were ever suppressed! It's a Christmas miracle! :laugh:

ComradeMan

5th November 2011, 11:02

You're not answering the question. If this was all, according to you, at a time in which tolerance "didn't exist", then how can you apply the antonym of that very term to pagans? Why are you simultaneously arguing that "tolerance didn't exist" but that pagans were also "intolerant"?
I didn't say tolerance didn't exist..... I asked what was tolerance in a pre-Voltaire world very distant from our own.
I, again, will wait for you to deal with this issue in a straightforward manner. Highly doubtful, that.

Great argument. By the way, stating something doesn't make it true. Just because you say that you don't want to excuse Christians means nothing. Try again.
Indeed it doesn't, but stating something that is untrue as you did does make it false. I also recall quoting Christians who found the death of Hypatia pretty disgusting and shocking... so well....?

Too bad that's still entirely illogical, if not outright insane. Of course, it might make sense if your only point here is to try to excuse Christians...which is what you've been doing this whole time.
Why is it illogical? What is the legacy of Hypatia?

By the way, stating something doesn't make it true

It's not a strawman when it's your own (moronic) argument:

By the way, stating something doesn't make it true

About 1.5-2 centuries later Christians were admonished by other Christians for participating in Paternalia...Have fun excusing that one.
Are you capable of discussing historical topics? The fact that one and a half century or more after the period we are discussing about, the Christians were still attending pagan festivals, that still existed, furthermore evidenced by how much syncretism and folkloric survival occurred- especially in rural areas (hint. paganus) indicates that a total eradication of paganism as you wish to present it did not occur. The times changed and the people changed with them.

There is a direct link between early Christians and modern Christians, so you're wrong there.
What is this direct link then? Because modern Catholics believe on the whole in exactly the same way as 4th century Romans. People who lived in an entirely different world and thought in an entirely different way? To compare modern Christians with ancient ones is just silly...

As for neo-pagans, I never said anything about a direct link with ancient pagans, I said that they are pagans who are now facing trouble caused by intolerant Christians...just like before. But it's good to know you also excuse modern Christian intolerance, too.
Intolerant and bigoted people exist in all times and all places. You try and deliberately say it is because they are Christian- can you back this up logically. Didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury become a druid a few years ago?

In attempt to sidestep the idea that pagans were ever suppressed! It's a Christmas miracle! :laugh:
You are the one who conveniently jumbs backwards and forwards in history without giving any attention to the material conditions or the contexts and basically seeks to deny that the Christians were ever victims in the Roman Empire.

...... *yawn.

manic expression

5th November 2011, 13:26

I didn't say tolerance didn't exist..... I asked what was tolerance in a pre-Voltaire world very distant from our own.
ComradeMan, ComradeMan From A Few Posts Ago disagrees with you:

Like I said before, this was not a world in which "tolerance" really existed

I suggest you take it up with ComradeMan From A Few Posts Ago, he really seems to hate your position. :lol:

Indeed it doesn't, but stating something that is untrue as you did does make it false. I also recall quoting Christians who found the death of Hypatia pretty disgusting and shocking... so well....?
What I'm stating is simply what you've been doing this entire thread. Don't blame me for calling a spade a spade. But the excuses continue...

Why is it illogical? What is the legacy of Hypatia?
The legacy of her murder, to put it briefly, was the end of antiquity. Your crocodile tears for Christian criminals ignores this. "Oh, woe is us! Those poor Christian mobs are so misunderstood! :crying:"

Are you capable of discussing historical topics? The fact that one and a half century or more after the period we are discussing about, the Christians were still attending pagan festivals, that still existed, furthermore evidenced by how much syncretism and folkloric survival occurred- especially in rural areas (hint. paganus) indicates that a total eradication of paganism as you wish to present it did not occur. The times changed and the people changed with them.
Haha, that's a good one. So because we still celebrate Christmas, which has its roots firmly in pagan traditions, there was no suppression of paganism! Astounding! I suppose that because we celebrate Thanksgiving no one did anything wrong to the Indians! :laugh:

More cheap apologism from a cheap apologist.

What is this direct link then?
They're both Christians, linked through the establishment of Nicene Christianity, which led to the Catholic Church as we know it and all the churches that split from it as a result of the Protestant Reformation.

Intolerant and bigoted people exist in all times and all places. You try and deliberately say it is because they are Christian- can you back this up logically. Didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury become a druid a few years ago?
More of your false equivalency. Wanton suppression of entire religious traditions does not "exist in all times and all places". Further, not all Christians are violent, bigoted lunatics...I freely admit that and I note it with appreciation. However, the plain fact is that intolerance finds its way into the policies of Christianity with exceeding frequency, far more than compared to less monolithic traditions.

You are the one who conveniently jumbs backwards and forwards in history
And you're the one who can't read history...backwards or forwards.

ComradeMan

6th November 2011, 09:05

ComradeMan, ComradeMan From A Few Posts Ago disagrees with you:

No "he" doesn't... if you bother to take note of things like err... the use of words, quite important for any kind of discussion.

Like I said before, this was not a world in which "tolerance" really existed

Nice try, but seeing as you failed to define what tolerance meant in an ancient context and seeing as our modern ideas of tolerance are post-Voltaire then it makes it difficult to speak of tolerance without being anachronistic- hence the " " .....:rolleyes:

The legacy of her murder, to put it briefly, was the end of antiquity. Your crocodile tears for Christian criminals ignores this. "Oh, woe is us! Those poor Christian mobs are so misunderstood! :crying:"Where? What crocodile tears for what Christian criminals? More strawmen I am afraid.

Furthermore there is no agreement to what is actually the "end" of antiquity either- but most of the "estimates" are far later- ranging from the late 5th century, especially in terms of the Western Empire, up to the Muslim conquests of the 7th century. The fact that the term "antiquity" itself is a rather modern invention is also problematic in that it asserts the idea of some kind of break whereas others have suggested a transformation seeing as most societes are not static but rather in a constant state of evolution anyway.

Haha, that's a good one. So because we still celebrate Christmas, which has its roots firmly in pagan traditions, there was no suppression of paganism! Astounding! I suppose that because we celebrate Thanksgiving no one did anything wrong to the Indians! :laugh:Except I didn't say that there was no suppression, did I? I said the evidence of syncretism and folkloric survival do not point to your "holocaust" type scenario that you seem to be trying to portray. :rolleyes: Interesting you mention Sol Invictus seeing as it had only been around since 274 AD and was instituted by the emperor Aurelian. Winter festivals are pretty ubiquitous anyway.

Learn to read and think about what is said before responding instantly. :laugh:

Zostrianos

7th November 2011, 05:36

Ah, yes, of course. Because there wasn't a mass revolt of pagans, it means that there wasn't any suppression of paganism by Christian authorities! That would be neat if it wasn't entirely illogical!

While there was no organized Pagan revolt against Christian aggression, there are widespread reports of Pagans fighting back against Christian attacks. When Chrysostom's monks were terrorizing the phoenician region, assaulting Pagan peasants and destroying temples, the locals fought back courageously against the gangs, and even managed to kill a few of them (see here (http://books.google.ca/books?ei=7eKoTvjUMojt0gHRoqS9Dg&ct=result&id=7XXYAAAAMAAJ&dq=chronicle+of+pagans&q=chrysostom#search_anchor)). One of the reasons that there was not a more widespread response by Pagans was that very often, especially in the urban centers, temple destructions were officially mandated by the emperors, and thus many stood by and watched their sacred places being destroyed without intervening for fear of reprisals by the government: Libanius, in his plea for the temples, describes the usual pattern of temple destruction, as monks arrive with tools and demolish the edifice, and the priests are forced to watch in silence, because they were threatened with death if they dared to complain.
Many temple destructions were followed by revenge by Pagans. There are reports during Julian's reign of many Pagans taking revenge on Christians for the widespread abuses they had suffered under Christian emperors.

A relevant example of Pagans fighting back took place in 386, when Marcellus, bishop of Apamea in Syria (still predominantly a pagan city with man temples), decided to demolish the temples to force the population to convert. He called on the emperor, who sent him some troops to destroy the temple of Zeus (the main temple of the city), and they destroyed it while a large crowd watched in silent horror, afraid of the imperial troops. But shortly thereafter the locals had enough of the bishop's antics: they seized him and burned him alive while he was trying to destroy another temple.

The authorities knew that Pagans often fought back, and this is why Justinian, in one of his conversion campaigns in Asia Minor, used a positive incentive for those who willingly converted, by paying each new convert 1\3 of a gold coin.

One of the reasons why there were sudden mass conversions, especially in the western empire, was that many Pagans, especially in rural areas, firmly believed that if their Gods' temples were desecrated, the Deity would immediately strike down the offenders. So when a bishop walked into a village, and told the locals that their Gods were false and that he'd prove it, then destroying their statues or desecrating their temples, the locals were oftentimes confused and shocked, and many subsequently converted to the new faith without coercion.

About 1.5-2 centuries later Christians were admonished by other Christians for participating in Paternalia...

Are you capable of discussing historical topics? The fact that one and a half century or more after the period we are discussing about, the Christians were still attending pagan festivals, that still existed, furthermore evidenced by how much syncretism and folkloric survival occurred- especially in rural areas (hint. paganus) indicates that a total eradication of paganism as you wish to present it did not occur. The times changed and the people changed with them.

There were many Church councils from the 4th century up to medieval times, that condemned Pagan practices and remnants of them, including singing, partying, hand-clapping, feasting with banquets, and dancing at weddings (Council of Laodicea), with bishop after bishop furiously condemning these "debauched" and sacrilegious activities that their parishioners engaged in. Many emperors (e.g. Arcadius, Honorius, Theodosius II) also passed laws urging bishops to suppress them in their regions. Justinian even made a law ordering the death penalty for Christians who participated in Pagan festivals and celebrations. The reason why many of these practices survived was that the people wanted festivals and parties, and thus most of them stubbornly ignored these laws. The authorities were also reluctant to repress these practices, since the participants were Christians, and those celebrations technically didn't constitute apostasy. Eventually, the Church gave up and finally grudgingly accepted those practices. Macmullen talks extensively about the assimilation and survival of Pagan practices, and the various councils condemning them, in his Christianity & Paganism book, where he states that unlike the laws against paganism, those against festivals and celebrations were rarely enforced.