3 ms·

Declining religious tolerance was another effect - though what the practical effect of that was? hard to say.

by Aloha 3y ago

nyokodo 3y ago
> Declining religious tolerance was another effect Pagan Rome had centuries of persecution of Christianity not always and everywhere proactive but often brutal and widespread. The early Christians didn’t gather in the catacombs for the aesthetic! Whereas Christian Rome was highly tolerant of Pagans for centuries while Paganism naturally declined.
- Aloha 3y ago
  But what other sects was it tolerant of? Being intolerant of an insurgent monotheistic faith doesn't mean that it was not broadly tolerant of other faiths.
  - InTheArena 3y ago
    Have you ever read any classical period histories? Anything by the Persian Empire, the Assyrian Empire, etc., the Peloponnesian Wars, Carthage, The Mithrandatic Wars, The Galic Wars, and the Wu Hu in China. These were genocides/gendercides that had religious elements and were situations where all where non-monotheistic powers. Think about the Egyptian empires. And that's just genocides. Polythestic tolerance is mostly a noble savage style myth.
    - Aloha 3y ago
      I dont believe it to be an outrageous statement that late polytheistic roman empire was more tolerant than early christian monotheistic roman empire. As a parallel commenter noted however, the level of official tolerance varied by era, who was in charge and where. Another parallel commenter noted that the rituals of the official roman religion were considered ritual first, and religion second.
      - InTheArena 3y ago
        The goalposts have moved a lot from the original argument, but the only way that you can make an argument about tolerance within the historical record is simply by ignoring intolerance to Jews, Persians, Christians (generally all non-Italians) and the various barbarians that Rome contended with. In fact, the intolerance of Germans and migrants, in particular, by both "pagan" and "Christian" (neither label really fits), was a key reason for the eventual fall of the empire. That was not necessarily religious, but arguing that the martyrdom period, as well as the German wars, were somehow more religiously tolerant the late empire, is ... dubious in my point of view. You can make arguments that the Middle Ages crusading church (i.e., the Catholic Christendom church 500 years later) was less tolerant, but few things in the Middle or late Roman empire (or anywhere in the world) could ever be described as tolerant.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  The persecutions were caused by two conflicting views of religion. Christians saw religion a matter of belief, and they refused to participate in rituals that they considered incompatible with Christianity. To Romans, religion was all about rituals, while belief was more in the domain of philosophy. By rejecting Roman rituals, Christians were rejecting the ties that bound the society together. They were therefore rejecting Rome itself. When Christians were persecuted, they were persecuted less because of their religion and more because of their sedition.
  - jtbayly 3y ago
    One of the common charges that Christians were prosecuted for was atheism.
  - InTheArena 3y ago
    It's also worth noting that these rituals included worship of the Caesars themselves. The rejection of an imposed faith then, necessarily, also included a rejection of empire.
    - jltsiren 3y ago
      Imposed religion, not imposed faith. That difference between religion as a civic duty and religion as a matter of faith was the core issue.
      - InTheArena 3y ago
        I think that's a fair comment. Christianity being a matter of personal faith rather than government mandate was a core issue. Like many empires, Rome could not survive a world where the state itself was not the deity.
        nyokodo 3y ago
        > Rome could not survive a world where the state itself was not the deity. Except it could, and did for a thousand years depending on how you measure it.
- defrost 3y ago
  The successors to the classical Roman Empire shaped the surviving narrative, from the linked article: By putting a stop to its use as a quarry for building materials, Benedict’s intervention rescued the Colosseum, as Edward Gibbon recognised. Gibbon was somewhat sceptical about the centrality of the Colosseum, ‘a spot which persecution and fable had stained with the blood of so many Christian martyrs’, to early Christian history. Despite the stories of Christians thrown to the lions so often repeated there is no solid evidence that any Christian martyr actually died in Rome’s Colosseum. Or, putting it another way, there's a lot of writing from Roman times and not much evidence that Christians as a group were specifically singled out for persecution any more than any other group that was not the ruling elite.
  - InTheArena 3y ago
    Gibbon's writings are really not taken as gospel (hah!) truth anymore and are not really supported by any historical research more modern than the late 1800s. Gibbon's core thesis is that Christianity caused the downfall of the Roman Empire leads him to reject quite a lot of evidence that the Roman Empire was a nasty, nasty place well before the Huns sacked Rome.
    - Aloha 3y ago
      There is a good coherent argument that the conversion to Christianity added additional instability to a system that was already very unstable. It may not have been fatal, but it probably contributed to a process that was already happening. The Roman empire was already both politically and economically unstable by 150 AD - and was shrinking. I think attributing to Christianity as the sole cause of the downfall of the empire shows a lack of the complex (mostly, but not entirely) economic factors involved.
      - InTheArena 3y ago
        It certainly did add instability. The Roman Empire depended on god worship (Caeser's power as a religious leader in particular), depended on slavery, and was very ethnocentric - all anathema to early Christianity. Gibbon, on the other hand, had a thesis and let the thesis shape the facts, rather than the other way around. Mike Duncan's Roman history podcast is still an awesome way to see all of the forces involved.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
As someone who somewhat agrees with what you said, your one sentence makes it look like a terrible argument. Rome was fine with you worshiping pretty much any god, so long as you put them under Jupiter. In a way that's religious tolerance, yet it also led to them going terrible things to the Jews and later the Christians, plus many now largely forgotten cults. Christianity was actually somewhat similar for a while, they were fairly fine with you worshiping your pagan god if you could call them a saint and you accepted Jesus. And their acceptance of pagan rituals led to much of what we consider Christmas. Neither were truly tolerant, but both could be fairly lax if you dressed things up correctly. Plus both had periods of greater tolerance and intolerance.
- Aloha 3y ago
  No disagreement - my point was that the adoption of Christianity all at once as the state faith, reduced religious tolerance, particularly in the early years. But yeah that was part of what I was getting at - but I kinda just responded with my first thoughts off the cuff. My broader point was that its very hard to have a multi-language, multi-ethnic, continent spanning empire - while also having a nascent single religion that ignores local customs. Eventually tolerance under the new faith evolved to be similar to the old, but it was a process.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Declining religious tolerance was another effect - though what the practical effect of that was? hard to say.

by Aloha 3y ago

Declining religious tolerance was another effect - though what the practical effect of that was? hard to say.

> Declining religious tolerance was another effect Pagan Rome had centuries of persecution of Christianity not always and everywhere proactive but often brutal and widespread. The early Christians didn’t gather in the catacombs for the aesthetic! Whereas Christian Rome was highly tolerant of Pagans for centuries while Paganism naturally declined.

Aloha 3y ago
But what other sects was it tolerant of? Being intolerant of an insurgent monotheistic faith doesn't mean that it was not broadly tolerant of other faiths.
- InTheArena 3y ago
  Have you ever read any classical period histories? Anything by the Persian Empire, the Assyrian Empire, etc., the Peloponnesian Wars, Carthage, The Mithrandatic Wars, The Galic Wars, and the Wu Hu in China. These were genocides/gendercides that had religious elements and were situations where all where non-monotheistic powers. Think about the Egyptian empires. And that's just genocides. Polythestic tolerance is mostly a noble savage style myth.
  - Aloha 3y ago
    I dont believe it to be an outrageous statement that late polytheistic roman empire was more tolerant than early christian monotheistic roman empire. As a parallel commenter noted however, the level of official tolerance varied by era, who was in charge and where. Another parallel commenter noted that the rituals of the official roman religion were considered ritual first, and religion second.
    - InTheArena 3y ago
      The goalposts have moved a lot from the original argument, but the only way that you can make an argument about tolerance within the historical record is simply by ignoring intolerance to Jews, Persians, Christians (generally all non-Italians) and the various barbarians that Rome contended with. In fact, the intolerance of Germans and migrants, in particular, by both "pagan" and "Christian" (neither label really fits), was a key reason for the eventual fall of the empire. That was not necessarily religious, but arguing that the martyrdom period, as well as the German wars, were somehow more religiously tolerant the late empire, is ... dubious in my point of view. You can make arguments that the Middle Ages crusading church (i.e., the Catholic Christendom church 500 years later) was less tolerant, but few things in the Middle or late Roman empire (or anywhere in the world) could ever be described as tolerant.
jltsiren 3y ago
The persecutions were caused by two conflicting views of religion. Christians saw religion a matter of belief, and they refused to participate in rituals that they considered incompatible with Christianity. To Romans, religion was all about rituals, while belief was more in the domain of philosophy. By rejecting Roman rituals, Christians were rejecting the ties that bound the society together. They were therefore rejecting Rome itself. When Christians were persecuted, they were persecuted less because of their religion and more because of their sedition.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  One of the common charges that Christians were prosecuted for was atheism.
- InTheArena 3y ago
  It's also worth noting that these rituals included worship of the Caesars themselves. The rejection of an imposed faith then, necessarily, also included a rejection of empire.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    Imposed religion, not imposed faith. That difference between religion as a civic duty and religion as a matter of faith was the core issue.
    - InTheArena 3y ago
      I think that's a fair comment. Christianity being a matter of personal faith rather than government mandate was a core issue. Like many empires, Rome could not survive a world where the state itself was not the deity.
      - nyokodo 3y ago
        > Rome could not survive a world where the state itself was not the deity. Except it could, and did for a thousand years depending on how you measure it.
defrost 3y ago
The successors to the classical Roman Empire shaped the surviving narrative, from the linked article: By putting a stop to its use as a quarry for building materials, Benedict’s intervention rescued the Colosseum, as Edward Gibbon recognised. Gibbon was somewhat sceptical about the centrality of the Colosseum, ‘a spot which persecution and fable had stained with the blood of so many Christian martyrs’, to early Christian history. Despite the stories of Christians thrown to the lions so often repeated there is no solid evidence that any Christian martyr actually died in Rome’s Colosseum. Or, putting it another way, there's a lot of writing from Roman times and not much evidence that Christians as a group were specifically singled out for persecution any more than any other group that was not the ruling elite.
- InTheArena 3y ago
  Gibbon's writings are really not taken as gospel (hah!) truth anymore and are not really supported by any historical research more modern than the late 1800s. Gibbon's core thesis is that Christianity caused the downfall of the Roman Empire leads him to reject quite a lot of evidence that the Roman Empire was a nasty, nasty place well before the Huns sacked Rome.
  - Aloha 3y ago
    There is a good coherent argument that the conversion to Christianity added additional instability to a system that was already very unstable. It may not have been fatal, but it probably contributed to a process that was already happening. The Roman empire was already both politically and economically unstable by 150 AD - and was shrinking. I think attributing to Christianity as the sole cause of the downfall of the empire shows a lack of the complex (mostly, but not entirely) economic factors involved.
    - InTheArena 3y ago
      It certainly did add instability. The Roman Empire depended on god worship (Caeser's power as a religious leader in particular), depended on slavery, and was very ethnocentric - all anathema to early Christianity. Gibbon, on the other hand, had a thesis and let the thesis shape the facts, rather than the other way around. Mike Duncan's Roman history podcast is still an awesome way to see all of the forces involved.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

As someone who somewhat agrees with what you said, your one sentence makes it look like a terrible argument. Rome was fine with you worshiping pretty much any god, so long as you put them under Jupiter. In a way that's religious tolerance, yet it also led to them going terrible things to the Jews and later the Christians, plus many now largely forgotten cults. Christianity was actually somewhat similar for a while, they were fairly fine with you worshiping your pagan god if you could call them a saint and you accepted Jesus. And their acceptance of pagan rituals led to much of what we consider Christmas. Neither were truly tolerant, but both could be fairly lax if you dressed things up correctly. Plus both had periods of greater tolerance and intolerance.

Aloha 3y ago
No disagreement - my point was that the adoption of Christianity all at once as the state faith, reduced religious tolerance, particularly in the early years. But yeah that was part of what I was getting at - but I kinda just responded with my first thoughts off the cuff. My broader point was that its very hard to have a multi-language, multi-ethnic, continent spanning empire - while also having a nascent single religion that ignores local customs. Eventually tolerance under the new faith evolved to be similar to the old, but it was a process.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]