Roman Historian admits Augustus was a Monarch

[C. Fabius Lupus]

The Roman priesthood had an organized structure: flamines, augures, haruspices, pontifices. And there were books that instructed new priests how to conduct the religious ceremonies, even for those had little experience in religious things before their clerical office. This unified order was what Constantine tried to achieve for Christianity too. Even the office of the pontifex maximus was soon taken over by the Christian bishop of Rome, the pope. And he holds it to the present day.

Constantine's religion became a Middle Eastern sperstition organized into a Roman structure and melted together with the Roman cult of Sol Invictus. We can still see this in the Sunday being the holy day of the week instead of the Jewish sabbath (Saturday/Saturn Day).

Yes, personal worship allowed great freedom. This comes necessarily with polytheism. But the official state cult followed strict rules, which were undisputed, whatever other personal beliefs one might hold besides it. I could mention a few examples, but probably everybody knows them (libations at the altar of Victoria before every session of the Senate, what a Vestal virgin was allowed to do and what she wasn't, closing the gate of the temple of Janus in peace time etc.)

[caldrail]

The difference between pagan ceremonbies and christian worship is one of involvement. Many pagan ceremonies were duties toward the community that did not involve the community directly, and people generally got involved via festivals - of which there were a considerable number. As long as the priests saw to their religious duties, the gods were happy, and life could go on. However, for the common person, the temple was akin to an atrium in which the worshipper sought favour by sacrifice and request. Christianity demanded civic duty at a klevel that the pagan did not, and also had the advantage of strengthening communal ties in this manner. It is wise to avoid too many modern parallels - christian Romans weres till Roman and lived in the same culture with more or less the same mindset.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

...christian Romans weres till Roman and lived in the same culture with more or less the same mindset.

This is what I seriously doubt. The rise of Christianity coincided with the fall of Rome. As soon as the Christians came to power, Rome ceased being the capital of the Empire.

The mindset of the Christians has always been Middle Eastern, not European and espcially not Roman.

A Roman mindset means pragmatism. A Middle Eastern mindset means fanaticism.

[caldrail]

Christianity is often credited with the 'fall of Rome' (I had a lengthy debate with someone on this sort of subject elsewhere) but that really doesn't cut it. Non christian faiths were still commonplace even after the adoption of christianity by the Roman state, which signified a preference rather than any legal requirement, and Rome was always tolerant of local faiths, though as religions became more organised and more inclusive of the common people in ritual obligations, so the bitterness increased among them. However, Rome was changing due to a number of factors and singling out christianity for all the causes is basically a tad too convenient (Bear in mind I'm a pagan, I don't like christianity, so I'm only defending it on historical contexts).. In fact, it might be realistically argued that the increasing popularity of christianity was because Rome was failing, in that the promise of salvation, an integral part of christian belief, offered something to look forward too as opposed to the distance and apparent fickleness of pagan belief. As for mindset, the idea it was middle eastern is nonsense, even though the faith originated there. The mindset of christians deopends on the culture that adopts it, not the other way around.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

Christianity is a mindset. It glorifies death. This is the reason why martyrs were worshiped like demigods. The symbol of Christianity is an executed man.

Christianity made the afterlife more important than life itself. This is typical Middle Eastern. People lost every interest in worldly affairs and preserving the Empire. To say it with the words of Edward Gibbons: "Entire legions were buried in monasteries."

 

The Western Empire collapsed, the Eastern part did not. This was because the West was more European than the East. The West could not stomach the alienation from the European mindset. The result was disorder and collaps. The East survived, because the people there had an Eastern mindset and the Christian concepts were not that alien to them, since they were already familiar with Zoroastrianism, Manichaeans, Judaism and the Egyptian cults, which also focused on death. No alienation, no collapse.

[caldrail]

Christianity isn't a mndset at al. Not even close. Even today there's no complete agreement on how christianity should be worshipped and cultural variations dominate. African christianity, for instance, only resembles that found in England at face value - note the behaviour/expectations of many african priests is simply transposed and watered down from their witch doctor predecessors (that was not intended as an insult - it's merely an observation of differnces in style and content).

 

If christianity conferred a middle eastern mindset on its worshippers, then you're asserting that religion changed the personality of its worshippers. It doesn't, and never has. Modern research has shown, rather interestingly, that moral standards between christians and non-christians are on average pretty well identical. But look more closely at the historical context and the legacy of the Roman world.

Firstly, our marriage customs. According to your hypothesis, they would be more or less Judaean in form. They aren't. They remain essentially pagan Roman. Exchanging rings, cutting the cake, confetti, carrying a bride across a threshold - these are all pagan Roman customs continued by christian Romans and passed down to us.

 

Secondly, the issue of gender. Under Judaean practices female christian priests were as acceptable as male. It's taken us around sixteen hundred years to return to that level of equality, and even then, with some controversy. Roman chauvanism has persisted for a very long time.

Thirdly, when the Romans wished to honour the departed, they sometimes made them gods. Under christian rules, there can only be one God. Therefore, the cultural desire to elevate the honoured to divine status inspired the establishment of the 'Saint'. The Roman Catholic church still raises chosen people to that status to this very day - two women were recently declared saints. But it remains a substitute for Roman deification, a practice the Judaeans would not have agreed with.

 

People maintain the same personalities whaever religion they worship, despite adopting a set of rules and practises. Christianity promulgates an image of conformity even though there are often specific differences in teachings vbetween various churches. These differences in teachings have caused conflicts since the Romans fostered the christian systems, not only because of what is taught and expected, but the interpretations of the people who declare themselves christian. One dark age writer described the Saxons as "a race hateful to God". Not just because he considered them a barbarian people - it was also because they worshipped christianity differently, itself because a Roman missionary decided it was easier to convert Saxons if he didn't have to change their ways too much.