Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 04-16-2009, 09:34 PM

The principle of persecution was first infused
into the Roman law by Constantine.

Quote:

According to Renan:

"We may search in vain the whole Roman law before Constantine
for a single passage against freedom of thought, and the history
of the imperial government furnishes no instance of a prosecution
for entertaining an abstract doctrine." [18:9]

Christianity inaugurated a new era of mental slavery. By forcibly suppressing dissent and establishing an Inquisition for detecting heretics, she carried tyranny into the secret recesses of the mind. "She thus," as Draper says, "took a course which determined her whole future career, and she became a stumbling-block in the intellectual advancement of Europe for more than a thousand years." [18:1]

Constantine's policy manufactured Christians wholesale, for the masses of such an age were easily seduced or driven. The discreet Mosheim, while not attributing "the extension of Christianity wholly to these causes," allows that "both the fear of punishment and the desire of pleasing the Roman emperors were cogent reasons, in the view of whole nations as well as of individuals, for embracing the Christian religion." [19:2] Jortin likewise remarks that "along with those who were sincere in their profession there came a multitude of hypocrites and nominal Christians." [19:3] Gibbon tells us how the people were bribed:

"The hopes of wealth and honors, the example of an emperor, his exhortations, his irresistible smiles, diffused conviction among the venal and obsequious crowds which usually fill the apartments of a palace. The cities which signalised a forward zeal by the voluntary destruction of their temples were distinguished by municipal privileges and rewarded with popular donatives; and the new capital of the East gloried in the singular advantage that Constantinople was never profaned by the worship of idols. As the lower ranks of society are governed by imitation, the conversion of those who possessed any eminence of birth, of power, or of riches, was soon followed by dependent multitudes. The salvation of the common people was purchased at an easy rate, if it be true that in one year twelve thousand men were baptised at Rome, besides a proportionable number of women and children, and that a white garment, with twenty pieces of gold, had been promised by the emperor to every convert." [19:4]

Concurrently with these bribes, Constantine devoted much of his energy and wealth to increasing the power and splendor of the Church. "He gave to the clergy," says Schlegel, "the former privileges of the Pagan priests, and allowed legacies to be left to the churches, which were everywhere erected and enlarged. He was gratified with seeing the bishops assume great state; for he thought the more respect the bishops commanded, the more inclined the Pagans would be to embrace Christianity." [19:5] Jortin remarks that the Emperor was possessed with the building spirit, and spent immense sums on palaces and churches, which obliged him to burden his people with taxes. [19:6] Gibbon satirically says that "Constantine too easily believed that he should purchase the favor of Heaven if he maintained the idle at the expense of the industrious, and distributed among the saints the wealth of the republic." [20:7] He gave to the bishops the privilege of being tried by their peers, and their episcopal brethren were their judges even when they were charged with a capital crime. He originated the notion that clerical impunity was better than a public scandal, and declared that if he surprised a bishop in the act of adultery, he would cast his imperial mantle over the holy sinner. Montesquieu alleges that Constantine even ordained that, in the legal courts, the single testimony of a bishop should suffice, without hearing other witnesses. [20:8]

Constantine's penal laws in favor of Christianity were still more influential. He condemned those who should speak evil of Christ to lose half their estates. His laws against various heresies may be seen in the Justinian code. So far did he advance in true godliness, under the inspiration of the bishops and clergy, that he issued a decree for the demolition of all heretical temples in the following elegant strain:

"Know ye, Moravians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, and Cataphrygians, that your doctrine is both vain and false. O ye enemies of truth, authors and counsellors of death, ye spread abroad lies, oppress the innocent, and hide from the faithful the light of truth … That your pestilential errors may spread no further, we enact by this law that none of you dare hereafter to meet at your conventicles, nor keep any factious or superstitious meetings, either in public buildings or in private houses, or in secret places; but if any of you have a care for the true religion, let them return to the Catholic Church … And that our careful providence for curing these errors may be effectual, we have commanded that all your superstitious places of meeting, your heretical temples (if I may so call them), shall be, without delay or contradiction, pulled down or confiscated to the Catholic Church." [20:9]

Such is the language, and such are the acts, which made Constantine "a pattern to all succeeding monarchs." These oppressive acts were grateful to the Christian clergy; and Eusebius, as Lardner remarks, relates them "with manifest tokens of approbation and satisfaction." [21:1]

Let it also be noticed that the first great Council of the Christian Church resulted in the first promulgation of the death penalty against heretics.

Data sourced from here

We have no evidence whatsoever for the persecution of "christians".
There is ample evidence for the massive persecution by "christians".
What a strange ancient history we seem to have in common.

Toto · 04-16-2009, 10:13 PM

I think that no evidence whatsoever for the persecution of "christians" is a bit of an overstatement. There is evidence, some of which is not very credible, but some of which seems as reliable as would be expected.

The Romans might not have persecuted people for thought crimes per se, but they were no liberal democrats. They persecuted people for refusing to bow down to the emperor, or for unlawful congregation.

From Interpreting Christian History: The Challenge of the Churches' Past (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Euan Cameron, p.16:

Quote:

It is generally agreed that there was no organised, general, centrally directed persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire before the edict of Emperor Decius in 249, which then only remained in effect until 251 CE ... The only prolonged and very widespread "great persecution" of Christians was that initiated by Diocletian (puzzlingly, long into his reign) in 303 CE. It lasted until 305 in the West, but continued until 311 in the East.

More at google books site

mountainman · 04-17-2009, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think that no evidence whatsoever for the persecution of "christians" is a bit of an overstatement. There is evidence, some of which is not very credible, but some of which seems as reliable as would be expected.

How reliable is a forged banknote?
What evidence? (See below).

Quote:

The Romans might not have persecuted people for thought crimes per se, but they were no liberal democrats. They persecuted people for refusing to bow down to the emperor, or for unlawful congregation.

From Interpreting Christian History: The Challenge of the Churches' Past (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Euan Cameron, p.16:

Quote:

It is generally agreed that there was no organised, general, centrally directed persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire before the edict of Emperor Decius in 249, which then only remained in effect until 251 CE ... The only prolonged and very widespread "great persecution" of Christians was that initiated by Diocletian (puzzlingly, long into his reign) in 303 CE. It lasted until 305 in the West, but continued until 311 in the East.

More at google books site

Who are the sources upon which this agreement has been reached?
Let me guess. Eusebius, Gregory and Augustine. Who else?
More importantly what else corroborates the propaganda?

Which leading members of "New Testament Archaeological Studies"
are stepping forward with any iota of corroborating evidence?

We have no archaeology for "christians" and yet we appear
to be satisfied that Eusebius is telling us the historical truth
when he presents not only the history of the persecutions
but follows it up with extendible suppliments with the history
of the martyrdoms. Why should we believe any of this?

Because tradition says we must believe?
What does the C14 say we must believe?

WIKI

Quote:

Persecution under Decius Trajan

It was not until the reign of Decius that a persecution of Christian laity across the Empire took place. "History of the Franks", written in the decade before 594 by Gregory of Tours, glosses the persecutions:

"Under the emperor Decius many persecutions arose against the name of Christ, and there was such a slaughter of believers that they could not be numbered. Babillas, bishop of Antioch, with his three little sons, Urban, Prilidan and Epolon, and Xystus, bishop of Rome, Laurentius, an archdeacon, and Hyppolitus, were made perfect by martyrdom because they confessed the name of the Lord. Valentinian and Novatian were then the chief heretics and were active against our faith, the enemy urging them on. At this time seven men were ordained as bishops and sent into the Gauls to preach, as the history of the martyrdom of the holy martyr Saturninus relates. For it says: " In the consulship of Decius and Gratus, as faithful memory recalls, the city of Toulouse received the holy Saturninus as its first and greatest bishop." These bishops were sent: bishop Catianus to Tours; bishop Trophimus to Arles; bishop Paul to Narbonne; bishop Saturninus to Toulouse; bishop Dionisius to Paris; bishop Stremonius to Clermont, bishop Martial to Limoges."

The career and writings of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, throw light on the aftermath of the Decian persecutions in the Carthaginian Christian community.

The persecution under Decius was the first universal and organized persecution of Christians, and it would have lasting significance for the Christian church. In January of 250, Decius issued an edict requiring all citizens to sacrifice to the emperor in the presence of a Roman official and obtain a certificate (libellus) proving they had done so.

In general, public opinion condemned the government's violence and admired the martyrs' passive resistance, and the Christian movement was thereby strengthened. The Decian persecution ceased in 251, a few months before Decius' death. The Decian persecution had lasting repercussions for the church. How should those who had bought a certificate or actually sacrificed be treated? It seems that in most churches, those who had lapsed were accepted back into the fold, but some groups refused them admission to the church. This raised important issues about the nature of the church, forgiveness, and the high value of martyrdom. A century and a half later, St. Augustine would battle with an influential group called the Donatists, who broke away from the Catholic Church because the latter embraced the lapsed.

bacht · 04-17-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The principle of persecution was first infused
into the Roman law by Constantine.

There was the earlier example of Socrates, condemned to death for impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens.

What about the Cynics, didn't they face persecution from authorities around the Hellenistic world?

mountainman · 04-17-2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The principle of persecution was first infused
into the Roman law by Constantine.

There was the earlier example of Socrates, condemned to death for impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens.

What about the Cynics, didn't they face persecution from authorities around the Hellenistic world?

The Fourth Century: Widespread Christian persecution and intolerance

Although the many references in Tacitus suggest an historical reality of the possibility of torture of the upper classes, the reality is not described until Ammianus Marcellinus' account of the lese-majesty trials (literally against the majesty of the christian emperor) of the mid-fourth century. When a person was accused of treason, that person was stripped of citizenship and then could be legally tortured as a non-citizen. See the Theodosian Code 9.5 dated to 314 CE [Clyde Pharr, p.230] for those readers interested in a dated legal reference more commensurate with Constantine.

We should also be reminded that Ammianus' account of the rule of Constantine does not survive, nor does the account of any living historian from that era, except for the Christian Ecclesiastical "Historians", each of whom were merely continuators of Eusebius.

Note that the article I posted above is sourced as referenced from CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY BY G. W. FOOTE AND J. M. WHEELER.

arnoldo · 04-17-2009, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

We have no evidence whatsoever for the persecution of "christians".

So your basically stating that the Romans were tolerant of christianity beginning in the first century onwards and avoided persecuting them, right?

mountainman · 04-17-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

We have no evidence whatsoever for the persecution of "christians".

So your basically stating that the Romans were tolerant of christianity beginning in the first century onwards and avoided persecuting them, right?

I am basically saying we have no evidence for christianity
before its appearance under Constantine in the fourth century
at which point the evidence explodes. Hans Eusebius Anderson
invented the history of the christian church under sponsorship.
The Manichaeans appear before the christians, and the stories
of the christian persecutions are 4th century fictions based on
the political reality of the 3rd century persecution of the Manichaeans.

arnoldo · 04-18-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

So your basically stating that the Romans were tolerant of christianity beginning in the first century onwards and avoided persecuting them, right?

I am basically saying we have no evidence for christianity
before its appearance under Constantine in the fourth century
at which point the evidence explodes. Hans Eusebius Anderson
invented the history of the christian church under sponsorship.
The Manichaeans appear before the christians, and the stories
of the christian persecutions are 4th century fictions based on
the political reality of the 3rd century persecution of the Manichaeans.

Were Christians at any time ever accused of being "Atheists" by the Romans?

Quote:

But one accusation is repeated time and time again- "Atheism"; rejection of the tutelary deities of their communities. This was a very serious matter; deities were believed to bring good fortune to a town, and slighting them might bring down their wrath. According to Tertullian: "If the Tiber reaches the walls, if the Nile does not rise to the fields, if the sky doesn’t move or the earth does, if there is famine, if there is, plague, the cry is at once: "The Christians to the lion!"" Outbreaks of persecution often coincided with natural disasters. Earthquakes in Asia in 152, and an outbreak of plague in Alexandria at the time of Origen, were blamed on the Christians. Around 270, Porphry blamed the plague in Rome on the fact that the temple of Aesculapius had been abandoned for the Christian churches. This sort of accusation was persistent; as late 419, Augustine wrote "The City of God" to prove that Christians hadn’t caused the fall of Rome by slighting the old gods. The charges of atheism and immorality help explain the hatred of the mob for Christians, evidenced in the pogroms in places such as Smyrna and Lyons.

http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchh...rsecution.html

Von Bek · 04-18-2009, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The principle of persecution was first infused
into the Roman law by Constantine.

There was the earlier example of Socrates, condemned to death for impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens.

What about the Cynics, didn't they face persecution from authorities around the Hellenistic world?

I am probably misinterpreting what you have wrote here, but just for clarification, Socrates was Athenian and was convicted by the Athenians long before the Roman empire.

mountainman · 04-18-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Were Christians at any time ever accused of being "Atheists" by the Romans?

Accusations of "atheist" characterise the Arian controversy.
Emperor Julian considered the christians "atheists" and actually
legislated that they be renamed as "Galilaeans".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.