Before Constantine, was Christianity to Rome what communism was to America?
It depends on who youd ask. There were widespread persecutions against Christians in the East, but it wasnt so bad in the West.
A better comparison is probably that of Judaism to the world.
>>1422651
What about both the Jews and Christians to the Romans? Monotheists in general were subversive to the Roman system of government.
More like SJW + Islam alliance.
>>1422706
How so?
No. Christians supported the government (Romans 13) and weren't trying to overturn the social order (Ephesians 5:22, 6:5 )
>>1422719
>SJW
Is against human nature
Slave-morality
Guilt tripping
Strong should be ashamed
Rich will not enter heaven
Holier than thou
>Islam
Growing fringe cult
Zealots
Public displays of faith
Annoy everybody else
Refuse to assimilate
Preach love and tolerance (taqiyya, xtianity is the religion of peace xD)
As soon as their numbers reach a critical mass persecute all other religions
>>1422735
Yet one primary reasons the Christians were persecuted was their refusal to pay worship to the imperial cult, which was seen as a civic display of loyalty to the state.
>>1422743
Christianity says everyone should be remorseful for their sins, not just the strong. Hence the story Christ tells about the Publican and the Pharisee. The Publican is a collaborator with the oppressing force, whereas the Pharisee was a populist who wasn't a member of the elite (those were Sadducees). The Publican is ashamed before God, whereas the downtrodden Pharisee is proud (albeit grateful).
>>1422750
>The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished. Proverbs 16:5
That's slave morality dude, typical of a resentful and sneaky conquered race.
Anyway all the other points stand.
>>1422791
>muh nietzsche
>>1422803
Not an argument.
>>1422791
the Greeks considered hubris a moral failing as well.
>>1422809
He means your answer is a meme because no one except edgy Nietzsche teens really whines about master-slave duality in part because the alleged linguistic support for it in Genealogy of Morals are mostly accepted as not true (hence removing the dichotomy's credibility beyond appreciating that Nietzsche was a good poet). Also in part because even if Nietzsche knew his Bible fairly well quoting the Bible on this is just looking for confirmation bias, ignoring the rules and regulations for things which would defy this apparent duality like slave owning rules and then just paying closer attention to that which might agree with your point. Which is why you can play the Bible quoting game for hours with the retarded Orthodox tranny and still not accomplish anything rather than just admitting the Bible is too complex and heterogeneous to pass a single judgment upon an entire branch of religions with lots of different attitudes toward different things
>>1422860
> blah blah blah butthurt
Your religion was the Islamic-leftist alliance of the Roman Empire, deal with.
This is why it's so ironic that the Catholic right wing in France opposes mass Muslim immigration. They are only using the same tactics you yourselves used!
No. It was just another strange Eastern sect that was kept to private worship.
They were considered weird jews and were expected to pay their taxes.
>>1422749
Which was for a brief period of time and was not something consistent among the Christian community.
Christians after the fact had a crisis of what to do with the Christians who did pay worship to the imperial cult.
>>1422860
In Genealogy, Nietzsche quotes Tertullian and Aquinas rather than the Bible, iirc. Nietzsche doesn't actually have much against the Gospels except that he disagrees with them, but he doesn't see them as poison like he does with Paul.
Btw I'm not a tranny.
>>1422882
Christianity didn't take over Rome through mass immigration.
>>1422888
They weren't considered Jews after their majority became made up of former pagans. And that was really why they were persecuted, because they told pagans not to worship the emperor, which was something only allowed for Jews.
>>1422908
Christians weren't persecuted. That's a meme made to feed their victim complex. There are only a handful of cases in recorded history of persecution of Christians under the romans.
A brief stint under Nero, mainly as a way to deflect his own unpopular rule.
Decius' decree of sacrifice to prove loyalty, which wasn't intended to target Christians but rather to prove loyalty in a time of civil war.
And Galerius' persecutions under Diocletian which he ended towards the end of his life.
Stop spouting this persecution shit.
Read Houellebecq's novel Submission
>The novel, a political satire, imagines a situation in which a Muslim party upholding traditionalist and patriarchal values is able to win the 2022 presidential election in France, with the support of France's Socialist Party. The book drew an unusual amount of attention because, by a macabre coincidence, it was released on the day of the Charlie Hebdo shooting.[7]
>In an alliance with the Socialists, France's new Islamic party sweeps to power. Islamic law comes into force. Women are veiled, polygamy is encouraged, and François is offered an irresistible academic advancement--on the condition that he convert to Islam.
The left-wing-middle eastern untermensch religion alliance is nothing novel (pun unintended) though. The similarities are uncanny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel)
https://www.amazon.com/Submission-Novel-Michel-Houellebecq/dp/0374271577
>>1422938
The Christians exaggerated it, but don't be a jackass and say they weren't persecuted, they were.
People who notice people pushing an agenda and push it so far back in the other direction that they're just as dishonest are fucking stupid.
The Christians were politically inconvenient to Roman civic customs, it makes complete sense even from a secular standpoint that they'd be persecuted. Even reasonable emperors like Marcus Aurelius had a bone to pick with subversive sects like the Christians.
>>1422950
Post proof and a source other than what I mentioned.
Even in letters when asked what to do about Christians, Trajan very plainly said "Christians are a non factor as long as they pay their taxes. If they don't, do whatever the fuck you want."
>>1422938
>which wasn't intended to target Christians
But nonetheless ended up leading to mass persecution of Christains
>>1422966
Do contemporary Christian accounts suffice for proof?
>>1422966
Well there was the Decian persecution requiring all non-Jews (would you consider Christians Jews?) to do sacrifice to the Gods.
It is true that such persecutions were generally easy to avoid if you tried hard enough, but it doesn't mean they weren't persecuted.
Do you want proof of Christian persecution specifically, or do you want someone to prove that the Romans found people refusing to do worship to Roman Gods / the Imperial cult to be a politically subversive activity notwithstanding private beliefs? It's pretty well known that Roman religion was a public affair and that in broad strokes they didn't give a shit what people believed privately, but you had to do your dues.
>>1422965
A whole 6 years under Galerius. That's a fart in a hurricane compared to the hundreds of years of Roman rule.
>>1422974
Which technically wasn't a persecution of Christians for being Christian but rather because they refused to obey imperial law.
Now they refused to obey imperial law because they were Christian but not all Christians didn't make sacrifices. The ones that did were fine. So it's not exactly the same as the other two cases.
>>1422977
Sure depending on the validity of the account.
>>1422995
>The ones that did were fine.
Not really since they were apostates.
>>1422995
>Which technically wasn't a persecution of Christians for being Christian but rather because they refused to obey imperial law.
>Now they refused to obey imperial law because they were Christian but not all Christians didn't make sacrifices. The ones that did were fine. So it's not exactly the same as the other two cases.
That's the idea, though. Christians were considered subversive by virtue of the fact that their faith practically required them to break the law.
Romans didn't persecute Christians on theological grounds (IE "disown your God or we'll kill you"), but because Christian theology basically insisted that they disobey Roman laws (that is, "you refuse to accept the authority of the Roman gods / imperial cult").
>>1422995
>Now they refused to obey imperial law because they were Christian but not all Christians didn't make sacrifices. The ones that did were fine.
#notallchristians
>>1422648
It's difficult to tell since butthurt Christians promptly banned and destroyed any works that critized them or their faith once they were in a position to do so.
>>1422966
Right, and they often refused to pay those taxes because muh imperial cult. It's like if Muslims living in a country that prosletyzes Christianity to the non-Christian population with tax dollars refused to pay because fuck Jesus Allah #1. You also have to remember that many of them actively sought martyrdom at the hands of the Romans.
>>1423181
No, Christians had no problem paying taxes (Render unto Caesar and all that), it's the sacrifice they had an issue with.
>>1423202
Part of the dues.
Not really, it was more like Scientology, a kooky annoying cult some spoiled rich women were converting into, not really a major threat.
>>1423204
Unfortunately a religious part.
>>1423221
Yep, but still.
>>1423223
But still what? They had no problem paying taxes to the state even if they knew some of that money would be used to fund temples. They had a problem with taking part in pagan worship. Jews were the same way, that's why Romans didn't force them to make a sacrifice, just to pay taxes.
>>1422943
I don't think you actually read the book
>>1423251
But the important part here is that Jews didn't proselytize. If the Christians had a problem with going through the motions then the Romans probably would have let them get away with their bullshit just to avoid things getting ugly; the issue is that they were convincing others to do the same and completely and blatantly rejected the foundation of the state's authority.
>>1423736
>But the important part here is that Jews didn't proselytize
They normally did before, they just didn't want to piss off the Romans. But Jews had quite an ancient history of not only proselytizing, but even mass forced conversions.
> the issue is that they were convincing others to do the same
Well, yes, obviously this was the main issue, if they didn't then they would have all been Jews anyway. It's spreading the religion among others, outside the Jews, that the Romans took issue with
>and completely and blatantly rejected the foundation of the state's authority.
I suggest you read Romans 13. They rejected the pagan foundation of the state's authority, but they still saw the authority of the state as coming from a divine source.
>>1422882
Nice rebuttal you humongous fag.
>>1422966
>If they don't, do whatever the fuck you want."
I guarantee Trajan said nothing like this. Why is it impossible for you to write in a way that isn't flippantly vulgar and moronic?
>>1423744
>They normally did before, they just didn't want to piss off the Romans. But Jews had quite an ancient history of not only proselytizing, but even mass forced conversions.
So for the intents and purposes of this discussion, they didn't proselytize.
>I suggest you read Romans 13. They rejected the pagan foundation of the state's authority, but they still saw the authority of the state as coming from a divine source.
I don't want to quibble over scripture here, but that didn't stop them from doing things like refusing to recognize the Imperial Cult, destroying effigies, defacing places of worship and other such openly seditious behavior - despite all of that being very much against the law.
>>1422684
Well, not really. Hence the focus of emperors in the 3rd century on the cult of Sol Invictus, or under Elegabalus on Elegabal.
It is one theory that the reason for Constantine's switch to monotheism is that in theory, it provides a better platform for unity, and offers a vision of a celestial order that matches the terrestrial governmental order.
Neither monotheism or henotheism was particularly subversive - many Christians, Jews, Samaritans etc. were happy to offer token sacrifice to the imperial cult because it made life easier. It was those who didn't, and their willingness to be martyred, that were the problem - but these seem to have in reality been a minority. Of course, they were a conspicuous minority, and so tend to crop up more in the written record.
>>1422900
>iirc
You don't recall correctly because he talks shit about the idea of Jesus spent to pay a debt to God that people never had in the first place, among other things.
N knows his bible very well because he studied religion and is from a family of proddie pastors.
>>1422648
>Before Constantine, was Christianity to Rome what communism was to America?
Not communism to America, but ISIS to Syria and Iraq.
Savagery like Rome had never before seen.
>>1422750
Don't try to reasons the fedoras, they have all serious daddy issues and will stay forever anti christian.
>>1423867
Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the Early Christians and the Apostolic Fathers committed extreme acts of physical terrorism against Roman Forces without provocation?
