Roman attitudes to the past

[Skywatcher]

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter how historical those stories are. What was important was the message. Even from the little I have read it is very obvious that the Romans had very little respect for the sacredness of life. It says right in Genesis that we were created in God's image, and therefore are sacred. I am sure Caecilius could elaborate on that idea. I would not say that Christianity is perfect, but I do believe it planted a seed that has grown over time. Humanity is still far from perfect but at least we no longer are killing each other for sport.

[GhostOfClayton]

I would not say that Christianity is perfect, but I do believe it planted a seed that has grown over time. Humanity is still far from perfect but at least we no longer are killing each other for sport.

 

I disagree with your logic.

 

It's true that Christianity grew, and it's true that we have (largely) stopped killing each other for sport, but it would be tautological to assume that the one was a cause for the other. Equally feasible would be that the two are unrelated, or have some common cause. Because Christianity has affected a limited percentage of the world population, but the abatement of killing for sport is global, I would favour the 'unrelated' hypothesis.

 

Also, in countries like the UK, where Christianity is reducing, there has been no corresponding start up in killing for sport.

Edited January 27, 2012 by GhostOfClayton

[caldrail]

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter how historical those stories are. What was important was the message.

Message? In a religious context possibly, I wouldn't know. Each culture/sciety that has adopted christianity extracts whatever message it sees fit. However, in dealing with history (and this is a history site) the 'message' of christianity is only significant in that the worshippers use it, or in the nature of the message with regard to their actions.

 

Even from the little I have read it is very obvious that the Romans had very little respect for the sacredness of life.

The idea that life is 'sacred' is not universal, and in the context of your post, your own religious view, though I do personally have similar leanings if somewhat less floird ways of describing it. However I would point out that 'sacredness' is a very Roman tradition adoopted by christianity in its expansion. Perhaps not unique to the Romans, but remember that the judaeans - whose religions provided the prototype - had no shortage of zealots who were analogies of the modern terrorist. The middle ages were as stongly christian as it was possible to be but that did not prevent anti-semitism, territorial conquest, and outbreaks of cannablism from the crusaders.

 

It says right in Genesis that we were created in God's image, and therefore are sacred.

Now that's the Roman Empire talking. The idea that humanity and and the divine were essentially similar dates from the ancient mediterranean world largely from the association with rule by decree and the accumulation of absolute power by solitary kings/tyrants. In any case the Bible is not an absolute guide to life on Earth. It's a religious document intended to indoctrinate and educate, and even then is open to abuse by thiose with less benign motives of which christianity has always had its fair share.