The Myth of Persecution

[reformedgator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

What about all the pagans that were denied promotion and political positions in the post-Constantine Roman empire?

Due to the paganism that made its way into the church during that time period, it wasn't exactly a time to be proud of. Mixing church & state harmed the church more than the state.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

FYI: I do too. But bear in mind the secularist knee-jerk reaction more along the lines of Christians hardly being inconvenienced, never mind persecuted.

It was stupid and shallow on her part, but I'm guessing she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer either. IMO, this is a perfect example of what's wrong with our current system. No Respect.

I've never been afraid or intimidated to talk to Christians about religion, provided the dialogue is civil. I'm not too prideful to admit that I don't know the answer to the great question(s) in life which is why I'm interested in other views. What a cowardly loser of a person this woman is.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

It was stupid and shallow on her part, but I'm guessing she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer either. IMO, this is a perfect example of what's wrong with our current system. No Respect.

I've never been afraid or intimidated to talk to Christians about religion, provided the dialogue is civil. I'm not too prideful to admit that I don't know the answer to the great question(s) in life which is why I'm interested in other views. What a cowardly loser of a person this woman is.

I'd be happy just to see secularists stand-down from the religious notion that they're being oppressed by religious people. THAT, in my view, is the REALLY lazy claim.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Once Christianity became the state religion, pagans were "persecuted" for lack of a better term. This included the destruction of temples and the removal of pagans from position of power and influence. There was a brief revival of paganism and the old ways when Julian the Apostate became emperor (who was secretly a pagan until he assumed power), but he died in battle (possibly murdered by a Christian), and a Christian emperor reversed all his policies.

My focus was more Republican and Early Imperial Rome. Thanks. Makes sense. If you're going to truly maximize it as the political tool it would be (and much more "sellable" than the Cult of the Emperor), guess you would need to make such showings.

Still, my guess it it was done where it could afford to be done. In otherwords, if a competent commander likes to sacrifice a goat or two (and continues to win), he probably got a pass.

I've always believed that Constantine saw Christianity as more of an opportunity to consolidate (his power) an Empire that had become more disperate and splintered than it had ever been. Worked too!

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by reformedgator

Due to the paganism that made its way into the church during that time period, it wasn't exactly a time to be proud of. Mixing church & state harmed the church more than the state.

The Catholic Church might beg to differ.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

I guess I follow a more extreme definition of the word persecution.

It does seem the bar has been set pretty low.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

I think the article/author tries to clarify something that people want to harp about.

This is not to deny that some Christians were executed in horrible ways under conditions we’d consider grotesquely unjust. But it’s important, Moss explains, to distinguish between “persecution” and “prosecution.” The Romans had no desire to support a prison population, so capital punishment was common for many seemingly minor offenses; you could be sentenced to be beaten to death for writing a slanderous song. Moss distinguishes between those cases in which Christians were prosecuted simply for being Christians and those in which they were condemned for engaging in what the Romans considered subversive or treasonous activity. Given the “everyday ideals and social structures” the Romans regarded as essential to the empire, such transgressions might include publicly denying the divine status of the emperor, rejecting military service or refusing to accept the authority of a court. In one of her most fascinating chapters, Moss tries to explain how baffling and annoying the Romans (for whom “pacifism didn’t exist as a concept”) found the Christians — when the Romans thought about them at all.

This is interesting, too:

It didn’t help that early Christians developed a passion for martyrdom. Suffering demonstrated both the piety of the martyr and the authenticity of the religion itself, and besides, it earned you an immediate, first-class seat in heaven. (Ordinary Christians had to wait for Judgment Day.) There were reports of fanatics deliberately seeking out the opportunity to die for their faith, including a mob that turned up at the door of a Roman official in Asia Minor, demanding to be martyred, only to be turned away when he couldn’t be bothered to oblige them.

But I've heard the standards for heaven have slipped a bit. You don't have to wish death upon yourself anymore. You basically get your ticket stamped these days for losing your job, getting expelled, or for being accosted at a Target when you ask for Christmas tree.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

My focus was more Republican and Early Imperial Rome. Thanks. Makes sense. If you're going to truly maximize it as the political tool it would be (and much more "sellable" than the Cult of the Emperor), guess you would need to make such showings.

Still, my guess it it was done where it could afford to be done. In otherwords, if a competent commander likes to sacrifice a goat or two (and continues to win), he probably got a pass.

I've always believed that Constantine saw Christianity as more of an opportunity to consolidate (his power) an Empire that had become more disperate and splintered than it had ever been. Worked too!

The military still had a lot of secret pagans. The cult of Mithras was big among generals and career military types in the Christian era through the 4th century. That's how Julian became a pagan.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by GuyWhiteyCorngood

I think the article/author tries to clarify something that people want to harp about.



This is interesting, too:



But I've heard the standards for heaven have slipped a bit. You don't have to wish death upon yourself anymore. You basically get your ticket stamped these days for losing your job, getting expelled, or for being accosted at a Target when you ask for Christmas tree.

"Looks like heaven is easier to get into than Arizona State."

- Ned Flanders

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by GuyWhiteyCorngood

I think the article/author tries to clarify something that people want to harp about.



This is interesting, too:



But I've heard the standards for heaven have slipped a bit. You don't have to wish death upon yourself anymore. You basically get your ticket stamped these days for losing your job, getting expelled, or for being accosted at a Target when you ask for Christmas tree.

So, basically she's acknowledging that Christians were persecuted. That's what I'm getting from her "Christians were not persecuted" stance.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

So, basically she's acknowledging that Christians were persecuted. That's what I'm getting from her "Christians were not persecuted" stance.

I think her argument is that they werent dealt with any differently than other petty criminals who commited similar offenses. Calling that persecution is like calling a mass killing "genocide" when there was no clear intent to single out a particular ethnic group.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

So, basically she's acknowledging that Christians were persecuted. That's what I'm getting from her "Christians were not persecuted" stance.

But not because they were obese. That apparently was not the key metric for tracking for tracking their mortality rates.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

I mean, we wouldn't want to base our most precious beliefs on faulty correlations, would we?

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I think her argument is that they werent dealt with any differently than other petty criminals who commited similar offenses. Calling that persecution is like calling a mass killing "genocide" when there was no clear intent to single out a particular ethnic group.

Sure, but petty criminals were arrested for stealing stuff, whereas early Christians were arrested for talking about Jesus. I appreciate the clarification from Ms. Moss as I didn't realize this.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by GuyWhiteyCorngood

I mean, we wouldn't want to base our most precious beliefs on faulty correlations, would we?

Apparently we do. Witness the 'obesity crisis.'

See what I did there ?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Sure, but petty criminals were arrested for stealing stuff, whereas early Christians were arrested for talking about Jesus. I appreciate the clarification from Ms. Moss as I didn't realize this.

No, they werent. "Talking about Jesus" wasnt an offense or subversive. Saying the emperor wasnt divine or refusing military service was. There is a difference, you see.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

No, they werent. "Talking about Jesus" wasnt an offense. Saying the emperor wasnt divine or refusing military service was. There is a difference, you see.

Right, because all they were saying is "Jesus wants to be your friend."

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Apparently we do. Witness the 'obesity crisis.'

See what I did there ?

As long as we pick the most conveniently self-serving correlations, I think we're all good. After all, some of us cherish freedom above all else...freedom to whine.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by GuyWhiteyCorngood

I think the article/author tries to clarify something that people want to harp about.



This is interesting, too:



But I've heard the standards for heaven have slipped a bit. You don't have to wish death upon yourself anymore. You basically get your ticket stamped these days for losing your job, getting expelled, or for being accosted at a Target when you ask for Christmas tree.

And the most aggregious example (if sources are to be believed) was simply for political cover (Nero). A convenient scapegoat for his "neighborhood improvements."

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Right, because all they were saying is "Jesus wants to be your friend."

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?