Where Did You Get Them?

[Spare_change]

I am adamantly, proudly, and vociferously Christian.

I know where my values come from. I know who established the rules of my moral code, and I know the punishment for non-compliance AND the reward for compliance.

I wonder, though ... for all others:

Where did your values come from? Who established your moral code?

 

[there4eyeM]

What Christians accept as a moral code was not invented by them. It exists elsewhere as well.

 

[Hossfly]

I am adamantly, proudly, and vociferously Christian.

I know where my values come from. I know who established the rules of my moral code, and I know the punishment for non-compliance AND the reward for compliance.

I wonder, though ... for all others:

Where did your values come from? Who established your moral code?

Ecclesiastes 12:13King James Version (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

 

[BluePhantom]

What Christians accept as a moral code was not invented by them. It exists elsewhere as well.

Well I guess it depends on what and where you are referring to. When we think of morality in a modern society we have to look at the historical influences upon that society. Christianity has has less of an impact in India and China for example than in Europe and the United States. It's not surprising that the moral standards of society are slightly different as a result. The United States was based strongly in Protestant Christianity. People fled Europe to come to the New World in order to freely practice their religion. They brought with them their moral codes which in many cases have been passed on to the present day. Over time the norms and mores of society evolved according to several factors and historical events but have remained generally Christian in nature. Even atheists, who often claim that their moral code is not based in religious belief, are subject to the definition of morality according to society and the Christian history of the United States. In other words, they may not believe in God, but their view of morality is still influenced by religious belief because it was religious belief that established the standards for moral behavior in society over the centuries.

 

[Foxfyre]

What Christians accept as a moral code was not invented by them. It exists elsewhere as well.

Well I guess it depends on what and where you are referring to. When we think of morality in a modern society we have to look at the historical influences upon that society. Christianity has has less of an impact in India and China for example than in Europe and the United States. It's not surprising that the moral standards of society are slightly different as a result. The United States was based strongly in Protestant Christianity. People fled Europe to come to the New World in order to freely practice their religion. They brought with them their moral codes which in many cases have been passed on to the present day. Over time the norms and mores of society evolved according to several factors and historical events but have remained generally Christian in nature. Even atheists, who often claim that their moral code is not based in religious belief, are subject to the definition of morality according to society and the Christian history of the United States. In other words, they may not believe in God, but their view of morality is still influenced by religious belief because it was religious belief that established the standards for moral behavior in society over the centuries.

Before Christianity, the Roman Empire was a brutal and ruthless society in which law enforcement engaged in the most horrendous acts and in which the people enjoyed the spectacle of people and animals being slowly tortured to death for sport.
The Jewish people did have a code of concern for the poor among them such as the more wealthy were commanded to allow the poor to glean what they could find from the fields, but among the Pagans charity was neither encouraged nor widely practiced. A fairly common theme reading through philosophical writings of that era shows the general consensus that mercy and pity were defects of character and not traits of rational people.

Pliny the Younger wrote his concern that charities that gave to the poor should probably not even exist. Even Plato said that a poor man who was no longer able to work because of sickness should be left to die. Plautus wrote: "you do a beggar bad service by giving him food and drink; you lose what you give and prolong his life for misery."

And Christianity, despite its own bad acts, changed all that--changed the culture. For the first time, active concern and ministry to the poor became not only socially acceptable, but exemplary. Compassion as a human emotion, and unrelated to currying favor or self-benefit, became a standard human trait for perhaps the first time in history.

And now I believe Americans from the most dogmatic Atheist to the most devout Christian believer shares pretty much the same sense of right and wrong because of the Christian influence over the centuries.

• 
  

 

[BluePhantom]

What Christians accept as a moral code was not invented by them. It exists elsewhere as well.

Well I guess it depends on what and where you are referring to. When we think of morality in a modern society we have to look at the historical influences upon that society. Christianity has has less of an impact in India and China for example than in Europe and the United States. It's not surprising that the moral standards of society are slightly different as a result. The United States was based strongly in Protestant Christianity. People fled Europe to come to the New World in order to freely practice their religion. They brought with them their moral codes which in many cases have been passed on to the present day. Over time the norms and mores of society evolved according to several factors and historical events but have remained generally Christian in nature. Even atheists, who often claim that their moral code is not based in religious belief, are subject to the definition of morality according to society and the Christian history of the United States. In other words, they may not believe in God, but their view of morality is still influenced by religious belief because it was religious belief that established the standards for moral behavior in society over the centuries.

Before Christianity, the Roman Empire was a brutal and ruthless society in which law enforcement engaged in the most horrendous acts and in which the people enjoyed the spectacle of people and animals being slowly tortured to death for sport.
The Jewish people did have a code of concern for the poor among them such as the more wealthy were commanded to allow the poor to glean what they could find from the fields, but among the Pagans charity was neither encouraged nor widely practiced. A fairly common theme reading through philosophical writings of that era shows the general consensus that mercy and pity were defects of character and not traits of rational people.

Pliny the Younger wrote his concern that charities that gave to the poor should probably not even exist. Even Plato said that a poor man who was no longer able to work because of sickness should be left to die. Plautus wrote: "you do a beggar bad service by giving him food and drink; you lose what you give and prolong his life for misery."

And Christianity, despite its own bad acts, changed all that--changed the culture. For the first time, active concern and ministry to the poor became not only socially acceptable, but exemplary. Compassion as a human emotion, and unrelated to currying favor or self-benefit, became a standard human trait for perhaps the first time in history.

And now I believe Americans from the most dogmatic Atheist to the most devout Christian believer shares pretty much the same sense of right and wrong because of the Christian influence over the centuries.

What I always find interesting is reading ancient pagan accounts of Christian rituals. Their misunderstanding of Christians concepts delves into the realm of absurd. One of my favorites can be found in the Octavius of Minucius Felix (link provided below) wherein the author refers to a letter written by an early 1st century CE teacher of Marcus Aurelius, named Marcus Cornelius Fronto. In chapter nine, Fronto describes that Christians only meet in secret late at night and identify each other with secret symbols and marks. They consider themselves all to be brothers and sisters and refer to each other that way. He then goes on to describe drunken incestuous orgies (if they accept themselves as brother and sister and engage in lustful activities it is incestuous). He describes an initiation ritual where a baby is covered in flour and beaten to death. The followers then drink the blood and eat its flesh and praise God in the process. They tempt a dog to overturn lamps extinguishing all light, and in the darkness they are free to engage in lustful activities without being held accountable since no one can see.

It's a great depiction because it really shows that Christians had one hell of an image problem in the first few centuries after Christ's death. Now of course, they met in secret because they were being persecuted. At times, not always, being Christian was a good way to get dead. So no shit they are going to meet in secret. The cannibalism charges are obvious misunderstandings of the Eucharist. Not sure where the charges of orgies come from, but many other pagan commentaries describe their shock that Christians kiss each other freely, even when they call themselves brother and sister or have just met for the first time, so it may have been an exaggeration of that.

Regardless, it's an interesting read that can really put some things into context as far as how Christians were viewed in antiquity.


Octavius of Minucius Felix Roberts-Donaldson

This version (below) is a bit more friendly as far as language, but not quite as faithful to the text, I think:

Full text of The Octavius of Minucius Felix

 

[Foxfyre]

What Christians accept as a moral code was not invented by them. It exists elsewhere as well.

Well I guess it depends on what and where you are referring to. When we think of morality in a modern society we have to look at the historical influences upon that society. Christianity has has less of an impact in India and China for example than in Europe and the United States. It's not surprising that the moral standards of society are slightly different as a result. The United States was based strongly in Protestant Christianity. People fled Europe to come to the New World in order to freely practice their religion. They brought with them their moral codes which in many cases have been passed on to the present day. Over time the norms and mores of society evolved according to several factors and historical events but have remained generally Christian in nature. Even atheists, who often claim that their moral code is not based in religious belief, are subject to the definition of morality according to society and the Christian history of the United States. In other words, they may not believe in God, but their view of morality is still influenced by religious belief because it was religious belief that established the standards for moral behavior in society over the centuries.

Before Christianity, the Roman Empire was a brutal and ruthless society in which law enforcement engaged in the most horrendous acts and in which the people enjoyed the spectacle of people and animals being slowly tortured to death for sport.
The Jewish people did have a code of concern for the poor among them such as the more wealthy were commanded to allow the poor to glean what they could find from the fields, but among the Pagans charity was neither encouraged nor widely practiced. A fairly common theme reading through philosophical writings of that era shows the general consensus that mercy and pity were defects of character and not traits of rational people.

Pliny the Younger wrote his concern that charities that gave to the poor should probably not even exist. Even Plato said that a poor man who was no longer able to work because of sickness should be left to die. Plautus wrote: "you do a beggar bad service by giving him food and drink; you lose what you give and prolong his life for misery."

And Christianity, despite its own bad acts, changed all that--changed the culture. For the first time, active concern and ministry to the poor became not only socially acceptable, but exemplary. Compassion as a human emotion, and unrelated to currying favor or self-benefit, became a standard human trait for perhaps the first time in history.

And now I believe Americans from the most dogmatic Atheist to the most devout Christian believer shares pretty much the same sense of right and wrong because of the Christian influence over the centuries.

What I always find interesting is reading ancient pagan accounts of Christian rituals. Their misunderstanding of Christians concepts delves into the realm of absurd. One of my favorites can be found in the Octavius of Minucius Felix (link provided below) wherein the author refers to a letter written by an early 1st century CE teacher of Marcus Aurelius, named Marcus Cornelius Fronto. In chapter nine, Fronto describes that Christians only meet in secret late at night and identify each other with secret symbols and marks. They consider themselves all to be brothers and sisters and refer to each other that way. He then goes on to describe drunken incestuous orgies (if they accept themselves as brother and sister and engage in lustful activities it is incestuous). He describes an initiation ritual where a baby is covered in flour and beaten to death. The followers then drink the blood and eat its flesh and praise God in the process. They tempt a dog to overturn lamps extinguishing all light, and in the darkness they are free to engage in lustful activities without being held accountable since no one can see.

It's a great depiction because it really shows that Christians had one hell of an image problem in the first few centuries after Christ's death. Now of course, they met in secret because they were being persecuted. At times, not always, being Christian was a good way to get dead. So no shit they are going to meet in secret. The cannibalism charges are obvious misunderstandings of the Eucharist. Not sure where the charges of orgies come from, but many other pagan commentaries describe their shock that Christians kiss each other freely, even when they call themselves brother and sister or have just met for the first time, so it may have been an exaggeration of that.

Regardless, it's an interesting read that can really put some things into context as far as how Christians were viewed in antiquity.


Octavius of Minucius Felix Roberts-Donaldson

This version (below) is a bit more friendly as far as language, but not quite as faithful to the text, I think:

Full text of The Octavius of Minucius Felix

Some of it was deliberate misinformation I think. Some of the Roman Emperors and probably some of the provincial governors who preceded Constantine almost certainly felt threatened by or maybe just personally resented a growing population who worshipped something other than the Emperor who ranked himself among the Roman gods. Or they needed a scapegoat to blame for problems within the Empire. And that would give them significant motive to accuse and demonize Christians and turn public focus on them and move the blame away from the Emperor himself.

Certainly Christian persecution was not uniform throughout the Roman Empire, but where it existed it was real and it was horrendous. Which of course often drove the Church underground. And what is done in secret always opens the door more widely for myth, speculation, conspiracy theories, and the such. (As is reflected in the materials you linked.)

But thanks to Constantine and, in my opinion the Holy Spirit, the Church was the influence that mostly changed the culture and perspective of the people in the Roman Empire. And I think that cultural shift and the morals and values included in it are still evident to this day.

 

[BluePhantom]

What Christians accept as a moral code was not invented by them. It exists elsewhere as well.

Well I guess it depends on what and where you are referring to. When we think of morality in a modern society we have to look at the historical influences upon that society. Christianity has has less of an impact in India and China for example than in Europe and the United States. It's not surprising that the moral standards of society are slightly different as a result. The United States was based strongly in Protestant Christianity. People fled Europe to come to the New World in order to freely practice their religion. They brought with them their moral codes which in many cases have been passed on to the present day. Over time the norms and mores of society evolved according to several factors and historical events but have remained generally Christian in nature. Even atheists, who often claim that their moral code is not based in religious belief, are subject to the definition of morality according to society and the Christian history of the United States. In other words, they may not believe in God, but their view of morality is still influenced by religious belief because it was religious belief that established the standards for moral behavior in society over the centuries.

Before Christianity, the Roman Empire was a brutal and ruthless society in which law enforcement engaged in the most horrendous acts and in which the people enjoyed the spectacle of people and animals being slowly tortured to death for sport.
The Jewish people did have a code of concern for the poor among them such as the more wealthy were commanded to allow the poor to glean what they could find from the fields, but among the Pagans charity was neither encouraged nor widely practiced. A fairly common theme reading through philosophical writings of that era shows the general consensus that mercy and pity were defects of character and not traits of rational people.

Pliny the Younger wrote his concern that charities that gave to the poor should probably not even exist. Even Plato said that a poor man who was no longer able to work because of sickness should be left to die. Plautus wrote: "you do a beggar bad service by giving him food and drink; you lose what you give and prolong his life for misery."

And Christianity, despite its own bad acts, changed all that--changed the culture. For the first time, active concern and ministry to the poor became not only socially acceptable, but exemplary. Compassion as a human emotion, and unrelated to currying favor or self-benefit, became a standard human trait for perhaps the first time in history.

And now I believe Americans from the most dogmatic Atheist to the most devout Christian believer shares pretty much the same sense of right and wrong because of the Christian influence over the centuries.

What I always find interesting is reading ancient pagan accounts of Christian rituals. Their misunderstanding of Christians concepts delves into the realm of absurd. One of my favorites can be found in the Octavius of Minucius Felix (link provided below) wherein the author refers to a letter written by an early 1st century CE teacher of Marcus Aurelius, named Marcus Cornelius Fronto. In chapter nine, Fronto describes that Christians only meet in secret late at night and identify each other with secret symbols and marks. They consider themselves all to be brothers and sisters and refer to each other that way. He then goes on to describe drunken incestuous orgies (if they accept themselves as brother and sister and engage in lustful activities it is incestuous). He describes an initiation ritual where a baby is covered in flour and beaten to death. The followers then drink the blood and eat its flesh and praise God in the process. They tempt a dog to overturn lamps extinguishing all light, and in the darkness they are free to engage in lustful activities without being held accountable since no one can see.

It's a great depiction because it really shows that Christians had one hell of an image problem in the first few centuries after Christ's death. Now of course, they met in secret because they were being persecuted. At times, not always, being Christian was a good way to get dead. So no shit they are going to meet in secret. The cannibalism charges are obvious misunderstandings of the Eucharist. Not sure where the charges of orgies come from, but many other pagan commentaries describe their shock that Christians kiss each other freely, even when they call themselves brother and sister or have just met for the first time, so it may have been an exaggeration of that.

Regardless, it's an interesting read that can really put some things into context as far as how Christians were viewed in antiquity.


Octavius of Minucius Felix Roberts-Donaldson

This version (below) is a bit more friendly as far as language, but not quite as faithful to the text, I think:

Full text of The Octavius of Minucius Felix

Some of it was deliberate misinformation I think. Some of the Roman Emperors and probably some of the provincial governors who preceded Constantine almost certainly felt threatened by or maybe just personally resented a growing population who worshipped something other than the Emperor who ranked himself among the Roman gods. Or they needed a scapegoat to blame for problems within the Empire. And that would give them significant motive to accuse and demonize Christians and turn public focus on them and move the blame away from the Emperor himself.

Certainly Christian persecution was not uniform throughout the Roman Empire, but where it existed it was real and it was horrendous. Which of course often drove the Church underground. And what is done in secret always opens the door more widely for myth, speculation, conspiracy theories, and the such. (As is reflected in the materials you linked.)

But thanks to Constantine and, in my opinion the Holy Spirit, the Church was the influence that mostly changed the culture and perspective of the people in the Roman Empire. And I think that cultural shift and the morals and values included in it are still evident to this day.

There was definitely a lot of scapegoatting going on. As I am sure you are aware, but others may not be, Christianity wasn't illegal in the Roman Empire, with a few exceptions of short time frames in certain areas. Romans had no problem with people worshiping Jesus. It was a polytheistic society. People could worship whomever they wanted. But it was expected that one would worship the state gods as well and Christians refused to do that. Jews got away with it but that was because their beliefs were ancient and Romans LOVED history and antiquity. So because Jews adhered to ancient beliefs they were given a pass on having to worship state gods. But the Romans saw the Christians as a new religion with no antiquity upon which to rely. Thus the Christian refusal to worship the state gods as well as Jesus and the Hebrew God was not seen the same way. So when something happened, a famine, or volcanic eruption, or whatever, Romans tended to look at Christians and blame them because the gods were clearly angry at their refusal to give proper sacrifice and worship. And of course a period of persecution would follow.

Hebrews is a great example of this. Whoever wrote Hebrews (it wasn't Paul as many people believe) was making an argument about sticking with the Christian faith instead of converting to Judaism due to persecutions. Christianity was experiencing a lot of apostasy because Gentiles and Jews were experiencing persecution and many of them realized that if they converted to, or back to, Judaism they could still worship the Hebrew God but avoid the oppression that came with Christianity. Hebrews is a sermon, therefore, intended to argue that such a strategy may work with man but it won't work with God. In the process, of course, the author blasts the heck out of Judaism which led to a lot of anti-Semitism in later centuries but I don't think that was the author's goal. I think he was just trying to point out to Christians why they should remain in the Christian faith regardless of the persecution they were facing from Romans and Jews alike.

Certainly after Constantine and Theodosius, the latter who made Christianity the official state religion of Rome and not Constantine as people often mistake, the Christian moral standards replaced the pagan standards. The later fall of Rome and survival of the Church led to those morals becoming absolute in Western society for centuries and eventually came to us in our present day. Thus, even those who do not believe in God but adhere to the norms and mores of our society are conforming to Judeo-Christian morals standards whether they realize it or not.

 

[RandomVariable]

Apparently a question easier answered for others than oneself. Personally I learned much from the evil of others. Probably a pretty general method. There was one time I was pondering the question of whether good or evil would be more advantageous. After exploring good I got half way through the sentence of looking at the evil aspect when God hit me with a swarm of gnats, literally. Fear God? You better believe it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What Christians accept as a moral code was not invented by them. It exists elsewhere as well.

Well I guess it depends on what and where you are referring to. When we think of morality in a modern society we have to look at the historical influences upon that society. Christianity has has less of an impact in India and China for example than in Europe and the United States. It's not surprising that the moral standards of society are slightly different as a result. The United States was based strongly in Protestant Christianity. People fled Europe to come to the New World in order to freely practice their religion. They brought with them their moral codes which in many cases have been passed on to the present day. Over time the norms and mores of society evolved according to several factors and historical events but have remained generally Christian in nature. Even atheists, who often claim that their moral code is not based in religious belief, are subject to the definition of morality according to society and the Christian history of the United States. In other words, they may not believe in God, but their view of morality is still influenced by religious belief because it was religious belief that established the standards for moral behavior in society over the centuries.

Before Christianity, the Roman Empire was a brutal and ruthless society in which law enforcement engaged in the most horrendous acts and in which the people enjoyed the spectacle of people and animals being slowly tortured to death for sport.
The Jewish people did have a code of concern for the poor among them such as the more wealthy were commanded to allow the poor to glean what they could find from the fields, but among the Pagans charity was neither encouraged nor widely practiced. A fairly common theme reading through philosophical writings of that era shows the general consensus that mercy and pity were defects of character and not traits of rational people.

Pliny the Younger wrote his concern that charities that gave to the poor should probably not even exist. Even Plato said that a poor man who was no longer able to work because of sickness should be left to die. Plautus wrote: "you do a beggar bad service by giving him food and drink; you lose what you give and prolong his life for misery."

And Christianity, despite its own bad acts, changed all that--changed the culture. For the first time, active concern and ministry to the poor became not only socially acceptable, but exemplary. Compassion as a human emotion, and unrelated to currying favor or self-benefit, became a standard human trait for perhaps the first time in history.

And now I believe Americans from the most dogmatic Atheist to the most devout Christian believer shares pretty much the same sense of right and wrong because of the Christian influence over the centuries.

What I always find interesting is reading ancient pagan accounts of Christian rituals. Their misunderstanding of Christians concepts delves into the realm of absurd. One of my favorites can be found in the Octavius of Minucius Felix (link provided below) wherein the author refers to a letter written by an early 1st century CE teacher of Marcus Aurelius, named Marcus Cornelius Fronto. In chapter nine, Fronto describes that Christians only meet in secret late at night and identify each other with secret symbols and marks. They consider themselves all to be brothers and sisters and refer to each other that way. He then goes on to describe drunken incestuous orgies (if they accept themselves as brother and sister and engage in lustful activities it is incestuous). He describes an initiation ritual where a baby is covered in flour and beaten to death. The followers then drink the blood and eat its flesh and praise God in the process. They tempt a dog to overturn lamps extinguishing all light, and in the darkness they are free to engage in lustful activities without being held accountable since no one can see.

It's a great depiction because it really shows that Christians had one hell of an image problem in the first few centuries after Christ's death. Now of course, they met in secret because they were being persecuted. At times, not always, being Christian was a good way to get dead. So no shit they are going to meet in secret. The cannibalism charges are obvious misunderstandings of the Eucharist. Not sure where the charges of orgies come from, but many other pagan commentaries describe their shock that Christians kiss each other freely, even when they call themselves brother and sister or have just met for the first time, so it may have been an exaggeration of that.

Regardless, it's an interesting read that can really put some things into context as far as how Christians were viewed in antiquity.


Octavius of Minucius Felix Roberts-Donaldson

This version (below) is a bit more friendly as far as language, but not quite as faithful to the text, I think:

Full text of The Octavius of Minucius Felix

Some of it was deliberate misinformation I think. Some of the Roman Emperors and probably some of the provincial governors who preceded Constantine almost certainly felt threatened by or maybe just personally resented a growing population who worshipped something other than the Emperor who ranked himself among the Roman gods. Or they needed a scapegoat to blame for problems within the Empire. And that would give them significant motive to accuse and demonize Christians and turn public focus on them and move the blame away from the Emperor himself.

Certainly Christian persecution was not uniform throughout the Roman Empire, but where it existed it was real and it was horrendous. Which of course often drove the Church underground. And what is done in secret always opens the door more widely for myth, speculation, conspiracy theories, and the such. (As is reflected in the materials you linked.)

But thanks to Constantine and, in my opinion the Holy Spirit, the Church was the influence that mostly changed the culture and perspective of the people in the Roman Empire. And I think that cultural shift and the morals and values included in it are still evident to this day.

There was definitely a lot of scapegoatting going on. As I am sure you are aware, but others may not be, Christianity wasn't illegal in the Roman Empire, with a few exceptions of short time frames in certain areas. Romans had no problem with people worshiping Jesus. It was a polytheistic society. People could worship whomever they wanted. But it was expected that one would worship the state gods as well and Christians refused to do that. Jews got away with it but that was because their beliefs were ancient and Romans LOVED history and antiquity. So because Jews adhered to ancient beliefs they were given a pass on having to worship state gods. But the Romans saw the Christians as a new religion with no antiquity upon which to rely. Thus the Christian refusal to worship the state gods as well as Jesus and the Hebrew God was not seen the same way. So when something happened, a famine, or volcanic eruption, or whatever, Romans tended to look at Christians and blame them because the gods were clearly angry at their refusal to give proper sacrifice and worship. And of course a period of persecution would follow.

Hebrews is a great example of this. Whoever wrote Hebrews (it wasn't Paul as many people believe) was making an argument about sticking with the Christian faith instead of converting to Judaism due to persecutions. Christianity was experiencing a lot of apostasy because Gentiles and Jews were experiencing persecution and many of them realized that if they converted to, or back to, Judaism they could still worship the Hebrew God but avoid the oppression that came with Christianity. Hebrews is a sermon, therefore, intended to argue that such a strategy may work with man but it won't work with God. In the process, of course, the author blasts the heck out of Judaism which led to a lot of anti-Semitism in later centuries but I don't think that was the author's goal. I think he was just trying to point out to Christians why they should remain in the Christian faith regardless of the persecution they were facing from Romans and Jews alike.

Certainly after Constantine and Theodosius, the latter who made Christianity the official state religion of Rome and not Constantine as people often mistake, the Christian moral standards replaced the pagan standards. The later fall of Rome and survival of the Church led to those morals becoming absolute in Western society for centuries and eventually came to us in our present day. Thus, even those who do not believe in God but adhere to the norms and mores of our society are conforming to Judeo-Christian morals standards whether they realize it or not.

You are correct. Christianity was not made the state religion until five decades after Constantine's death. But. . .it was Constantine that made that possible when he ended the persecutions and made Christianity the favored religion meaning Christians were able to live and worship openly without fear throughout the Roman Empire for the first time in almost 300 years of Christianity's existence.

And you are correct that Christianity was not illegal prior to the late Fourth Century A.D. but refusal to worship and sacrifice to the Roman gods was illegal. Actually the Christians enjoyed a protected status as just another Jewish sect who mostly enjoyed exemption from the requirement to worship Roman gods until the last Jewish uprising about 70 A.D. The militant Jews attempted to oust the Roman government from Jerusalem and lost. They were kicked out of Jerusalem and the Temple was razed never to be rebuilt. The Jews deeply resented the failure of the Christian Jews to come to their defense and that created the final permanent schism between Judaism and Christianity. And it ended the perception of Christianity as a Jewish sect.

But in the world of 'everything happens for a reason' that perhaps also required even more diligent and efficient Church organization that would merit Constantine's interest and appreciation on down the line.

It is said that God acts in mysterious ways and that he uses some of the most imperfect people to accomplish His purposes. There is no doubt that Constantine, whether or not he was actually a Christian, was instrumental in helping to make Christianity a force that would change the world and concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, forever..

 

[BluePhantom]

It is said that God acts in mysterious ways and that he uses some of the most imperfect people to accomplish His purposes. There is no doubt that Constantine, whether or not he was actually a Christian, was instrumental in helping to make Christianity a force that would change the world and concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, forever..

Absolutely. In fact, both the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin chasing Christians out of Jerusalem right after the death of Jesus, was really a blessing in disguise for Christianity because it forced Christians to go out from Jerusalem into the empire and gather converts there. In a way, the very acts that were intended to quell the spread of Christianity actually contributed to its rise.

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely. In fact, both the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin chasing Christians out of Jerusalem right after the death of Jesus, was really a blessing in disguise for Christianity because it forced Christians to go out from Jerusalem into the empire and gather converts there. In a way, the very acts that were intended to quell the spread of Christianity actually contributed to its rise.

Along those same lines, I wonder if it is simply a failure of the education system to teach real history and how important those ancient times were to our current reality? I am sure that those who think the world would be a better place without Christianity--those who rarely fail to take opportunity to insult and trash Christianity--have no real understanding of what the world was like before Christianity. What the world has been like in most places that Christianity has been banned or severely marginalized. What the world would be like if Christianity suddenly ceased to exist.

 

[BluePhantom]

Absolutely. In fact, both the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin chasing Christians out of Jerusalem right after the death of Jesus, was really a blessing in disguise for Christianity because it forced Christians to go out from Jerusalem into the empire and gather converts there. In a way, the very acts that were intended to quell the spread of Christianity actually contributed to its rise.

Along those same lines, I wonder if it is simply a failure of the education system to teach real history and how important those ancient times were to our current reality? I am sure that those who think the world would be a better place without Christianity--those who rarely fail to take opportunity to insult and trash Christianity--have no real understanding of what the world was like before Christianity. What the world has been like in most places that Christianity has been banned or severely marginalized. What the world would be like if Christianity suddenly ceased to exist.

Well in college that is obviously not a problem, but in high school or Jr. high I suppose it would depend on where it is. Bible belt schools would probably have little blowback in including religion from a historical aspect. In Portland OR, where I live, pfft....you might as well teach abstinence at a porn star convention. The public would be in an uproar, I think even if it was approached from a strictly historical basis.

t's a shame, of course, because Western history, in particular, IS religious history. Religion, as we have been discussing, has set the stage for the vast majority of how the world goes about their lives and their business. When someone ignores learning about religion, they completely ignore the influences that crafted the society they live in.

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely. In fact, both the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin chasing Christians out of Jerusalem right after the death of Jesus, was really a blessing in disguise for Christianity because it forced Christians to go out from Jerusalem into the empire and gather converts there. In a way, the very acts that were intended to quell the spread of Christianity actually contributed to its rise.

Along those same lines, I wonder if it is simply a failure of the education system to teach real history and how important those ancient times were to our current reality? I am sure that those who think the world would be a better place without Christianity--those who rarely fail to take opportunity to insult and trash Christianity--have no real understanding of what the world was like before Christianity. What the world has been like in most places that Christianity has been banned or severely marginalized. What the world would be like if Christianity suddenly ceased to exist.

Well in college that is obviously not a problem, but in high school or Jr. high I suppose it would depend on where it is. Bible belt schools would probably have little blowback in including religion from a historical aspect. In Portland OR, where I live, pfft....you might as well teach abstinence at a porn star convention. The public would be in an uproar, I think even if it was approached from a strictly historical basis.

t's a shame, of course, because Western history, in particular, IS religious history. Religion, as we have been discussing, has set the stage for the vast majority of how the world goes about their lives and their business. When someone ignores learning about religion, they completely ignore the influences that crafted the society they live in.

I can understand objection to teaching religious doctrine in a secular education setting. I would object to that myself.

But blowback against teaching the role of religion in our common history? That is as absurd as not teaching the history leading up to the establishment of America as a nation or how the nations of the world came to be what they are or not teaching the history of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation or the Magna Carta or the Reformation and Renaissance.

There isn't a whole lot of world history and certainly American history that has not been influenced or affected by religion in some way. To omit that from education is to completely distort all of history.

And it would certainly make it impossible to have a reasoned discussion on a message board about where we got our moral code and values.

 

[BluePhantom]

There isn't a whole lot of world history and certainly American history that has not been influenced or affected by religion in some way. To omit that from education is to completely distort all of history.

Well I think that's kind of the point. Atheists would love nothing more than to erase religion from society. We see it on these boards every single day. One way to do that is to erase it from history completely or preserve only the parts that are negative. My father, for some reason, kept his high school textbook for American history. When I was in high school he gave it to me to read as a basic for comparison. You would be quite astonished how history seems to change over time according to the current desires of society at any point in time. Similarly, when I was in high school I was friends with an exchange student from Germany and I asked him what they teach about WWII in Germany and he said they didn't teach about it at all. I am sure they do now, but apparently back then, they didn't. So in a liberal community, like Portland, teaching about religion and the historical impact is a reminder of the importance of religion throughout human history. That's not something they are particularly keen on advancing.