The Myth of Persecution

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

You do realize there is a difference between say, being a Christian/Marxist/Muslim/etc and just talking or proseltizing about those things vs. advocating or engaging in the subversion of the American government based on those ideas, right? What makes the Romans any different WRT to Christians?

If you're talking about Jesus in any way that makes sense, as presumably the early Christians were ... you are being subversive. Hint: the Romans didn't arrest them for disturbing the peace.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

If you're talking about Jesus in any way that makes sense, as presumably the early Christians were ... you are being subversive. Hint: the Romans didn't arrest them for disturbing the peace.

No, but they didn't necessarily single them out (again: policy differed depending on who was Emperor at the time, political opportunity, etc.). In their eyes, they were grouped with the rest of the rabble for the most part.

[CHFG8R]

Think of it this way dream. The Romans saw them in a light very similar to how we view Hari Krisna's or those Sea Org drones that swarm the streets of Downtown Clearwater.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

No, but they didn't necessarily single them out (again: policy differed depending on who was Emperor at the time, political opportunity, etc.). In their eyes, they were grouped with the rest of the rabble for the most part.

Doesn't matter from the standpoint of what the Christians were doing at the time to get themselves arrested, imprisoned, executed, etc. Recall that Jesus was on the cross for an entirely different reason that the thieves on either side of him.

[Lawdog88]

So why are the drama-queen atheists whining about Christians whom they think are whining ?

You would think they had an investment in the issue, for crying out loud.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

So why are the drama-queen atheists whining about Christians whom they think are whining ?

You would think they had an investment in the issue, for crying out loud.

Just trying to find the truth, LD. For some of us, it matters.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by GuyWhiteyCorngood

Just trying to find the truth, LD. For some of us, it matters.

Wasn't trying to offend your delicate sensibilities, Whitey, nor quench your earnest desire to find and know the truth.

Carry on with your search, by all means.

[Lawdog88]

And Whitey, I do share your revulsion for whining, no matter the source.

[madgator]

Originally Posted by GatorAbe7

So she finds stats that do give evidence to Christian persecution and her argument holds because the statistics didn't have the magnitude of numbers as originally thought. In other words her claim is centered on downplaying, not actual refute.

there are some that say that this also applies to the jewish holocaust....that the 6 million figure is far from accurate

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Originally Posted by madgator

there are some that say that this also applies to the jewish holocaust....that the 6 million figure is far from accurate

Regardless of what people say, evidence matters, right?

Maybe an even better example is the Armenian genocide, which oddly enough, faces fairly systematic Jewish denial - largely due to politics.

Basically, the notion of persecution gets twisted into political capital, or as I'm beginning to call it, institutionalized whining.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by GuyWhiteyCorngood

Regardless of what people say, evidence matters, right?

Maybe an even better example is the Armenian genocide, which oddly enough, faces fairly systematic Jewish denial - largely due to politics.

Basically, the notion of persecution gets twisted into political capital, or as I'm beginning to call it, institutionalized whining.

I think I can agree with this. Case in point: if you speculate that The Holocaust might have killed 5,999,999 Jews ... prepare to be set upon.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by madgator

there are some that say that this also applies to the jewish holocaust....that the 6 million figure is far from accurate

Leave C&G out of this.

Reach any further and you might fall off the cliff.

[wargunfan]

"Nero punished a race of men who were hated for their evil practices. These men were called Christians. He got a number of people to confess. On their evidence a number of Christians were convicted and put to death with dreadful cruelty. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and left to be eaten by dogs. Others were nailed to the cross. Many were burned alive and set on fire to serve as torches at night."
Tacitus
Early Christians we called atheists because the only believed in one God.

[wargunfan]

The Annals passage (15.44), which has been subjected to much scholarly analysis, follows a description of the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD.[3]
The key part of the passage reads as follows:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
Tacitus then describes the torture of Christians. The exact cause of the fire remains uncertain, but much of the population of Rome suspected that Emperor Nero had started the fire himself.[3] To divert attention from himself, Nero accused the Christians of starting the fire and persecuted them, making this the first confrontation between Christians and the authorities in Rome.[3] Tacitus never accused Nero of playing the lyre while Rome burned - that statement came from Cassius Dio, who died in the 3rd century.[2] But Tacitus did suggest that Nero used the Christians as scapegoats.[12]

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by GuyWhiteyCorngood

Keeping your religious beliefs to yourself is a great idea. You wouldn't want to get persecuted by some godless, liberal bully.

Yeah, there you go. All this hoopla about Christians being persecuted is just poppycock and whatnot. If they don't want to get persecuted for their religious beliefs then why don't they just stop professing them? What the hell makes them think they have the right to freely express themselves, anyway?

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

"Nero punished a race of men who were hated for their evil practices. These men were called Christians. He got a number of people to confess. On their evidence a number of Christians were convicted and put to death with dreadful cruelty. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and left to be eaten by dogs. Others were nailed to the cross. Many were burned alive and set on fire to serve as torches at night."
Tacitus
Early Christians we called atheists because the only believed in one God.

Yes, but his reasoning was far more cynical. He made a good show of it with the Christians because he needed a lot of cover (burning down entire neighborhoods to build your new palace isn't a popular move), but it was completely self-motivated and had nothing to do with his "hate" of Christians. As we've seen throughout history with various minority groups, they were easy targets.

[reformedgator]

And you know Nero's motives? Was this by special revelation or did he leave you a note?
As we've seen through history, if people with an agenda don't like the actual events, they revise it to suit their fantasy.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by reformedgator

And you know Nero's motives? Was this by special revelation or did he leave you a note?
As we've seen through history, if people with an agenda don't like the actual events, they revise it to suit their fantasy.

It's pretty well documented by sources from the time. But you may be right. The fire may have been an accident (that the palace was built on the same site is just mere coincidence) and he did it soley because of his hate for Christians.

I would also refer you to war's last post/source quote: He wasn't even fooling many at that time.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

This seems to be a much better description, written by the author herself -> Link