On Friday, February 24, 2006 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-8, erl...@bredband.net wrote:   
   > The Roman Empire was religiously tolerant. The state allowed people   
   > from different parts of the empire to keep their own religions. Often,   
   > old and new cults from different parts of the empire were merged   
   > together, that is, there was a lot of _syncretism_ of religions.   
   >   
   > But there was one exception from this Roman tolerance against   
   > religions: Christianity. As I understand it, Christianity was illegal   
   > in the Roman Empire from its appearance in the 1st century A.D. until   
   > Emperor Constantine made it legal in the 4th century. There were many   
   > Christian martyrs that were executed during this period, and there were   
   > major waves of persecution about 250 A.D. during Emperor Decius and   
   > about 300 A.D. during Emperor Diocletian.   
   >   
   > Why? What was the difference between Christianity and other religions,   
   > that made the Romans feel it necessary to ban Christianity and to   
   > persecute and execute Christians?   
   > After all, most Christians were law abiding citizens that just wanted   
   > to mind their own business and, to some extent, convert others. Yet, to   
   > waste so much energy and resources in persecution of Christians, the   
   > Romans must have considered the Christians as a seriuos threat against   
   > society. What was that threat they perceived?   
   >   
   > One possible answer is that the Christians refused to worship the   
   > Emperor, a costum that was made mandatory by the state, and that most   
   > other religions accepted. But this can hardly be all of it, because the   
   > Jews didn't worship the Emperor either, and the Romans granted them an   
   > exception from that rule. Why couldn't the Christians get a similar   
   > exception?   
   >   
   > Could it be the apocalyptics of Early Christianity that was the   
   > problem? The Early Christians believed in a Second Coming of Christ in   
   > the _near_ future, when major upheavals would occur and the world as   
   > they knew it would be destroyed. Perhaps the Romans feared that the   
   > Christians would not just passively wait for this, but also actively   
   > try to cause these upheavals and destruction? If so, the Romans would   
   > naturally consider the Christians as very dangerous potential   
   > troublemakers. And perpaps this fear wasn't entirely unfounded.   
   > Couldn't there actually have existed fringe Christians that wanted to   
   > expedite the Second Coming of Christ in this way? If so, the blame cast   
   > upon the Christians by Emperor Nero for setting fire to Rome in 64 A.D.   
   > might have appeared as quite justified by the public...   
   >   
   > But that's only my own speculations. Does anybode have some more   
   > definite knowledge about this?   
   >   
   > Regards,   
   >   
   > Erland Gadde   
      
   Follow the money. The early Christians had issues with money in religious   
   belief. Remember why Christ was executed was because he challenged this   
   concept at the temple. I believe the church had a social system that was   
   working and posed a threat to Rome.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)