How Christianity Helped Rome.

[Fatboy]

Marcus ,

I certainly agree with your comparison between early Christianity and early Islam.

Christianity as practiced by its early adherents was definitely nothing like the repressive machine of the middle ages - the " Universal " church with claims of temporal power.

Islam is a different kettle of fish.These days it is fashionable to demonise Islam, and this has lead to a reaction from people claiming that Islam is a peaceful religion and its true doctrine is one of benevolent understanding.Not so, from the word go Islam launched an unparalleled military assault on the entire world - it was a very aggressive religion. People talk of the crusades as some sort of shameful act of aggression by the Christian world even though Christians had been on the recieving end of centuries of Islamic assaults by this time.

This of course is balanced by the fact that at the peak of Islamic civilisation, when the Baghdad caliphate was the worlds intellectual powerhouse, there was a respect and at times an affinity for the other great religions( " people of the book " ) unheard of in Europe.

Its all swings and roundabouts really, I guess it depends on the time, place, and who's calling the shots.

As for the less aggressive attitute of Christianity and Judaism well, Judaism has always been quite insular and not so inclined to attempts to impose their religion on others but the Catholic Church that developed from original Christianity definitely didn't take kindly to dissention, as in the fate of the Cathars etc.The Orthodox Church was never quite so ruthless with the likes of the Paulicians but wasn't far behind.

Also as time went on the church became quite strident in its aim of converting the whole globe to Christianity.

Monoatheisms certainly did introduce a set of ( very sensible ) moral laws but a lot of it was cobbled together from previous ideas. Ursus's mentioning of the similarities between Stoicism and Christianity brings up the point that great swathes of both the Bible and the Koran were simply lifted wholesale from pagan mythology/philosophy.

Hang on, his point seems to be that Monoatheisms are a natural progression from paganism, which seems to make sense so I'm demolishing my own argument ( which I vaguely remember was some sort of rant against the very existance of monoatheisms )...........ah well.

Anyway to your final point " Tolerance - its a myth altogether " Yeah, your right, its not the religions themselves which are so intolerant but the people who practice them - and people just aren't a very tolerant bunch generally.

So, my rash assault on monoatheism in general was a bit over the top, but I stand by my assertion that the exclusivity of the monoatheisms has caused a lot of bloodshed over the years for reasons that were alien to pagans, and that as they have accumulated dogma over the years have become more oppressive to the everyday lives of people than polyatheisms ever were.

 

To sum up : Tolerance IS a myth but monoatheims are less tolerant than most

[Primus Pilus]

But this is not true of Christianity or Judism -- they never forced someone to believe as they do they just shared a message.  But Caeser after Caeser tried to force Caeser worship down the Christians. 

Tolerence -- its a myth altogether, but I would say the Christians tolerated pagan Rome far better than pagan Rome tolerated them.

 

Its impossible to believe... knowing how the ancient Catholics pursued 'Christian' heretics... virtually destroying any non conforming sect of Christianity... that Pagans weren't treated in exactly the same manner. At least in some, if not many cases.

 

We know that Constantine, and his bishops, as well the Christian emperors that followed, destroyed Pagan temples, banned rituals, and essentially forced urban pagans to become Christian. The extent of the Pagan persecution that occurred is virtually unknown, thanks largely to the fact that the victor wrote the history and destroyed untold remnants of divergent evidence. Considering the behavior of men throughout history, including the often vicious church, one might say its naive to think that treatment wasn't brutal at times.

 

Sure the Muslim Arabs violently conquered the mideast, North Africa and parts of Spain.

The Christians returned the favor with several centuries of Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

Some conversions were assuredly peaceful, others were not.

The Native tribes of the Americas, especially South and Latin America might argue that their 'conversion' came with a hefty price.

[Marcus Regulus]

I was speaking primarily of the early church. The fact remains that the Chrsitians were put to death by the Romans not the other way around. If they were so tolerant, why the death penalty for a sect of people who had not really threatened the Empire at the time? It was Nero that used the christians as a scapegoat for his burning of Rome. I agree the Roman Catholic Church has commited many atrocities which as a Chrsitian I would decry. The Early Chruch was not Catholic in the sense of the Middle ages.

 

This was religious based persecution on the charge that Christians were pagans themselves -- it was religious persecution!

The charge they were always convicted on was that -- they were athiests because they would not worship Caeser. It was a religious charge.

 

Pagan societies love bloodshead as much if not more than monotheistic ones -- they kill people for sport -- remember the gladiators. These were religious rites. Pagans hold life (especially of others) very cheep.

 

Celsus' charge was typical and was answered by the early Church Fathers. The Romans had a lot of misconceptions about Christianity. Misconceptions that lead to a lot of misunderstandings. As time went by they were cleared up, but the persecutions didn't stop.

 

I don't know guys your beef seems to be with the Catholic Church not so much Chrisitanity. There are many of us who beleive the Catholic Chruch is a curruption of original Christianity which was not aggressive. In fact one of the chrages leveled against the church was that they wouldn't fight for the empire, but current research indicates that there were soldiers in the legions of Rome who were Christian. But the conception was they were pacifists.

 

So if Rome had been ruled for centuries, including in its heydey, by people whose philosophical code was fairly similar to Christianity, then how can the collapse of the Western empire be blamed exclusively on Christianity?

 

 

Excellent point. I don't think Rome fell becasue of the Christians, it fell because of its own leaders who were incompitent and corrupt.

 

Hang on, his point seems to be that Monoatheisms are a natural progression from paganism,

 

 

If you subscripe to the evolutionary theory of religion, but I don't I think all types have been around all the time. The fact is that history tells us that pagans do not naturally become monotheists -- the only one who tried was Socrates and he paid for it. There was one Pharoah too , but he was killed and the people went back to the old gods. I guess you would have ot show me acase of a monotheisit religion developing from paganism -- I haven't run across one. Christianity developed as a result of the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ who was already a part of Judism and Judism has no history to show that it was ever not monotheisitic.

 

We know that Constantine, and his bishops, as well the Christian emperors that followed

 

 

That is my point -- it wasn't till Chrsitianity became empowered that they did this and maybe as reprisals for all the killing that had been done ot them. Wrong, but just as wrong as the Romans slaughter of the Chrsitians for religious reasons. The church has been different at different times, but in the case.

 

The Crusades were a reaction to assaults by Islam which as fdatboy rightly points out had been agreesively stamping out Christianity in Africa and Asia Minor. But once again is defending youself wrong. It became personal after a while and well just got worse.

 

Tolerance IS a myth but monoatheims are less tolerant than most

 

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree for now

[Primus Pilus]

Marcus, I agree with many of your points, as I have no personal gripe against Christianity. (I think the argument could be made that I'm not a big fan of Catholicism though ) One point will always maintain itself as a major point of contention though.

 

We know that Constantine, and his bishops, as well the Christian emperors that followed

 

 

 

That is my point -- it wasn't till Chrsitianity became empowered that they did this and maybe as reprisals for all the killing that had been done ot them. Wrong, but just as wrong as the Romans slaughter of the Chrsitians for religious reasons.

 

 

Isnt it hard to be the persecutor unless one is empowered in some way? Pagan emperors may have persecuted Christians (Nero notably to save his own hide, not out of some deep seated hatred, not that it made any difference to those who died), but they were in power. The reverse is true when the Christians came to power. Just semantics I suppose, but if its true for one, it must be the same for the other.

[Jimbow]

I need to point something out about the First Crusade being a reaction to the atrocities of Islam against Christianity. It wasn't. It was an overeaction to a simple request from Alexius of Constantinople to the Pope for some soldiers to help defend his borders, not for a horde of starving bloodthirsty pilgrims. The Pope saw it as a political chance for a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and a war for the sepulcher, and it all got out of hand. One of the major motivations for Urban's plea was that he wished to unite Europe, rather than see it continue to war with itself. This is a major factor, and gave him the chance to not only stop the constant warring, but to unite under HIS banner of the Catholic Church in Rome.

 

When the crusaders arrived Alexius was horrified, and wouldn't let more than a handful into the city at any one time. I think there is also a lot of mythologising coming from the other angle.

 

Also, when you speak of "Islam this" and "Islam that" I would be very careful of generalisations, and consider using the term Turks. Remember that the Egyptians held Jerusalem until 1070 before the Seljuk Turks took it from them. It was only then that Christians were banned from making pilgrimages to Jerusalem. To constantly refer to Christians and Muslims is to sink into broad historical generalisations, as much of what happened during the Crusades was just the usual business of political and territorial expansion by individual groups. The Christians also fought and competed with each other, not just the Muslims. They also had a big problem with Jews, as seen even in Europe before they even got near Jerusalem. What did the Jews have to do with it? And, for that matter, if they came across anyone not OBVIOUSLY Christian, the same fate awaited them.

 

No matter how you look at it, Christian atrocities predate Muslim ones, if only by the simple fact that there was no Islam until the 7th C. Even the Turks, up until one major point in the story of the Crusades, treated Christians and Jews with some respect, and it was actually local Arabs who came out worse as a rule. To use the difference between pre-empowered Christianity and Roman Imperialised Christianity as a means of stating Christians actually are pretty good guys historically, and then ignore the difference between Jerusalem under the Egyptian Muslims, and Jerusalem under the Turkish Muslims stating they were all bloodthirsty, etc, is pretty crass imho. As far as I'm concerned, a religion, like a political creed, is defined by the actions of its devotees, ESPECIALLY when they have power; that's where the true nature of the man and his creed will only be revealed. I don't care about the writings, I care about the actions.

 

Also, and this has been somehow overlooked during the conversation, isn't Islam a fine example of monotheism coming from polytheism?

 

Jim.

 

P.S., How on earth could any Roman soldier be a practising pacifist? I personally think that's complete nonsense.

[Fatboy]

QUOTE " isn't it hard to be the persecutor unless you are impowered in some way? "

very true, its easier to turn the other cheek when you have no option. Its when people are impowered that they show their true colours

The capacity for persecution seems to be a universal human trait.A good example is how Jews, sick of centuries of horrendus persecution in Europe, formed a state which has grown to become a persecutor of its palestinian subjects. Everybody does it. ( if the shoe was on the other foot Palestinian persecution of the Israeli's would be just as bad - if not much worse )

As an Irishman, we often complain about centuries of occupation and repression by the English, but the thing is, if we ever had the opportunity we probably would have done the same thing to them, not an isle of " saints and scholars ", we simply didn't have the capability to throw our weight around.

 

QUOTE " to constantly refer to Christians and Muslims is to sink into broad generalisations "

again, very true. You'll find that I specialise in broad generalisations.....

 

QUOTE " Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree for now "

No problemo, I'm sure we'll have ROUND 2 the next time I make an unprovoked assault on your belief system.

[Jimbow]

You'll find that I specialise in broad generalisations.....

 

 

Lol

[Silentium]

I would like to focus again on the main question of the thread trying to prove that Christianity did not help the empire. I'm going to post a few quotes, sorry for latin but that's the only way I can demonstrate what I want to say.

 

Si vis pacem para bellum

If you want peace prepare the war

 

With the barbarians, just to name one, diplomacy would have been useless (otherwise they wouldn't be barbarians), the "Galli"(for instance)already pillaged Rome in 390 B.C. The Romans defended the empire from them for centuries, what if they had "given the other cheek"...??That would have caused the immediate fall of the empire...

 

This is just a stupid example anyway, I could quote "Mors tua vita mea" too, which is also in antithesis with the traditional Christian values. Philosophy is a different matter, I mean, the Romans had a moral despite what people usually think or imagine, so it's quite obvious that there are common points between certain Christian views and stoicism/epicureism . The fact is the Romans were.."open minded", efficient, modern (which might sound like an oxymoron but that's what I think).

 

I will post another quote to clarify what I just posted:

Homo quisque faber ipse fortunae suae

Every man makes his fortune/destiny by himself.

 

Something like this would have been unacceptable in a doctrine preaching of a "pre-written" destiny...

 

To conclude, in my opinion Christianity was not the cause of the fall of the empire, or the only one cause, but it certainly did not help it in any way. =/

[Primus Pilus]

To the flaming poster... your posts have been deleted and your user name banned. Discussion and debate are welcomed, but obvious flame baits will be deleted and obscene or inflammatory user names removed.

[Fatboy]

Good call PP. I didn't get to read the post, but the user name said enough. Not worth replying to.

[PerfectimusPrime]

It is common misconseption that the emperors were worshiped as gods, no one acualy belived that the emperors were Gods.

 

The Emperors were very rarely worshiped, and the 'worship' was nothing else that a political gesture and it did not include anything else than offering insasnce (sp?) to the emperor.

 

just that you'd know...

[Northern Neil]

I think that christianity was rather incidental as regards the Roman Empire - the western bit fell, the eastern bit carried on a further 1000 years. My hunch is that, although it possibly helped - to a degree - the continuity of a recognisably Roman state in the east, it also hastened the death of its cultural roots - classical civilisation. The state that persisted until 1453 was the same one as was founded by Augustus, but its culture was radically different.

[longbow]

When the crusaders arrived Alexius was horrified, and wouldn't let more than a handful into the city at any one time

 

Im not surprised Godfrey the Duke of Boullon and his brother Prince Baldwin turned up with 40,000 troops,and they had attacked the Christian city of Selymbria!Alexius made them wait outside the city walls for 9days before he would receive them.And when he did see them he made them sign a "oath of loyalty"before he would let them depart into the Holy lands.Two more armys turned up commanded by Bohemond of Taranto and Raymond of Toulouse,when one of the lords(i think it was Godfrey)refused to sign the oath Alexius stopped supplying them with food and the Crusaders actually attacked Alexius's citizens!

L