Atheism in Ancient Rome

[Adelais Valerius]

In his biography "Constantine and the christian empire" C.M. Odahl makes a pretty convincing case that he was openly a christian from the Milvian bridge onwords. The great churches he built in Rome and Jerusalem and the absence of any new temple in his new christian capital make this highly possible. When he entered Rome he had christian symbols on flag (labarum) and he made not sacrifices to the gods on the Capitoline hill.

 

It seems to me that this could be more of a statement to Christians, not necessarily a personal advocation of Christianity. By doing this, he was trying to create a more unified Rome, instead of the citizens squabbling between different religions. Since Christianity was already on the rise, it seems that he chose it because it was already organized and strong within itself, and with the help of a person in his position, it could flourish.With the Roman gods, not all people could be directly unified under one person because most people believed in many. christianity only had faith in one(or two if you count jesus, or three if you count the holy trinity, i guess it depends on your faith).

[AEGYPTUS]

And something that Zeke said in his opening post jarred with me a bit too. That the ancient polytheistic religions were all about control of the masses. Now, that is something I have always associated with monotheist religions - but others may disagree. Nor can I agree that people turned to Christianity to give them a warm, fuzzy feeling inside (I think you commented on this in one of your previous posts).

 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there Nephele. I would not attribute the control of the masses merely to monotheisitc religions, all religions has control over their aherents to a certain extent, regardless whether the religion in question preaches about many gods or only one. it is in my view a characterstic of all religions in general.

Edited May 7, 2009 by AEGYPTUS

[Nephele]

And something that Zeke said in his opening post jarred with me a bit too. That the ancient polytheistic religions were all about control of the masses. Now, that is something I have always associated with monotheist religions - but others may disagree. Nor can I agree that people turned to Christianity to give them a warm, fuzzy feeling inside (I think you commented on this in one of your previous posts).

 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there Nephele. I would not attribute the control of the masses merely to monotheisitc religions, all religions has control over their aherents to a certain extent, regardless whether the religion in question preaches about many gods or only one. it is in my view a characterstic of all religions in general.

 

Actually, Aegyptus, I also happen to be of the opinion that all religions exert control over their adherents. The person whom you should be addressing here, however, is The Augusta, and not me. At least, that was her posting (and not mine) that you quoted.

 

-- Nephele

[caldrail]

He's after my time - but I think Constantine got baptized on his deathbed - as an Arian. I'd assume that by the time you are eyeballing the grim reaper you tend to forget political considerations and go with whatever you imagine gives you your best shot in the hereafter.

An arian? Now that's the first time I've heard that, but then I suppose Constantine is 'christian property' if you understand what I mean.

 

Re ancient atheism, I did some lectures a year or two back on Roman religion (in Rome to an audience of priests -including one on why Christians should indeed be thrown to the lions)

You did? Really? I hereby make you an honourary citizen of the Independent Peanut Republic of Rushey Platt. Well done that man.