From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: References of Christianity
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:47:47 GMT
 <1992Jul21.024807.1509@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> <1992Jul22.000559.6807@pimacc.pima.edu> <1992Jul24.024750.4417@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>

In article <1992Jul24.024750.4417@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>, markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU writes:
> PHIL wrote:
> 
>>>Well how about the way that you've just twisted the early history of Christi-
>>>anity? FYI, The HOLY WAR (I assume you mean the First Crusade here) occured
>>>more than 1000 years AD! Blamimg the christians for the Dark Ages is ludi-
>>>crous. Contemporary Romans like Nero etc. preferred to make the Christians
>>>scapegoats for the collapse of the Roman Empire when it would've been much
>>>more productive to reform the corruption of the Empire itself. There is cer-
>>>tainly ALOT more historical evidence for religion than a "small shattered
>>>tablet". Guess you haven't heard of all the non-christian religions , some
>>>of which, like Hinduism, have recorded histories much longer than Christian-
>>>ity. But then, like you said, people, like you, are always twisting things
>>>around to suit themselves.
>>
> I replied 
>> Before you talk about such things, why don't you try and find out what
>> really happened. Nero died long before the Roman Empire in the west
>> collapsed. Nero tried to commit suicide in A.D. 68. He was eventually
>> killed by one of his guards when he couldn't take his own life. The 
>> first persecution of the christians happened in A.D. 64 after the fire
>> of Rome. The christians were probably not distinguished from judaism at
>> that point, and provided convenient scapegoats when people started
>> accusing him of starting the fire. (Itself a vacuous charge). The
>> persecution is recorded in Tacitus' Annals", who notes that the christians
>> aroused sympathy for the cruelty of their punishment. They were torn apart
>> in the arena by wild dogs (Not thrown to the lions), and used as torches 
>> to light the spectacle. 
> PHIL replied:
>>>Why don't YOU try to find out what YOU'RE talking about? Historians have
>>>been writing for years about how contemporary Romans considered Christians
>>>to be a bad influence on the Empire. I believe that Gibbon addresses this
>>>in his writings. The attitude was present before any systematic persecu-
>>>tion began & probably facilitated the persecution. The fact remains that
>>>Christians *were* persecuted for centuries in any case.
> 
> 
> I DO know what I am talking about! You stated that the Roman Empire under
> Nero persecuted Christians, rather than reform the collapsing empire. That 
> is absolute crap. As I stated above, Nero lived long before the collapse
> of the Empire. The Neronian persecutions, which seem to have been confined
> to Italy, and probably Rome itself, were related to the great fire. 

Speaking of crap , you should re-read what you posted! There's the real
crap! I said that Nero persecuted Christians. You disputed that by stating
that nero dies in 68AD & the 1st persecutions started in 64AD. Golly, 
that seems to me as though Nero was in charge when it started. Guess that
detail slipped right by you didn't it? FYI the Roman Empire had been declin-
ing since the death of Tiberius. The reign of Caligula was notorius for
it's debauchery & corruption. The Empire revived under Claudius but be-
gan slipping again under Nero. The contemporary Romans had noted a decline
, especially in public morality, for years before Nero came to the throne.
Nero was the first to direct official blame towards the Christians though
a number of prominent Romans had already expressed their displeasure with
what they termed a "new cult". 

> 
> The reasons for the periodic persecution of Christians in the Empire 
> were extremely complex. At least part of the reason is that Emperors at
> various times could not permit the christian flouting of Imperial authority
> over all things. Much ink has been spilt over this topic and we are hardly
> going to resolve the controversy over the net.

Well, they could *always* come up with *some* excuse to divert the public's
attention & though Nero was the first one to do it,he was hardly the last. 
Neither were the Romans the last to engage in this practice either.

> 
> It is also true that Gibbons, whose views are long out of date, believed
> that a part of the reason for the collapse of the Empire was due to the 
> adoption of christianity as the official religion. The attitudes of the 
> population of the Empire is impossible to characterise in simple terms.
> Contemporary Romans were very superstitous, and very curious about new
> religions including christianity. Some Romans such as Tacitus despised 
> christianity-witness the famous statement in the annals that christians
> deserved punishment because of their detestable practices. (Oddio Humani 
>Generis). In fact their is considerable evidence that various gnostic christian
> cults engaged in orgiastic rites, which would have greatly offended 
> the average Roman. The Romans were sexually quite prudish, which is why
> people such as Tacitus were offended by the behaviour of certain Emperors.
> 
Gibbon is indeed somewhat out-of-date. I mentioned him particularly to note
the length of time that scholars have written about the practice of 1st cen-
tury Romans making the Christians scapegoats for the decline of their so-
ciety. You rmention of Tacitus is interesting as it supports my contention
that the Roman Empire was declining before the first persecutions began.
I believe Tacitus certainly felt that way.

>> 
>> The last serious persecution of christians was under the Emperor Diocletian.
>> The Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity as his religion after claiming
>> to have seen a sign from god promising him victory in the civil war if
>> he adopted the religion. By the time the Empire fell in A.D. 476, the 
>> official religion of the Empire had been christianity for more than
>> one hundred years. It is a sad irony of history that the church which had 
>> been so savagely persecuted, became an even worse persecutor. 
>                                >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
>                                >>sounds like personal opinion to me
>                                >>----------------------------------
> No, an historical fact. The centuries of persecutions of other cultures
> religions, and so called heretical forms of christianity is hard to dispute.
> 

The opinion is in labelling it even worse. You can hardly claim to have
objective evidence for that. You are simply making the subjective assertion
that since it went on longer it *must* be worse, which is not necessarily
true.

>> a persecutor, but an instrument for the suppression of knowledge. Witness
>> the destruction of the library of Alexandria by the mob, incited by the 
>> Christian Saint Cyril.
>>
> i 
> 
>>>(The history books I've studied always credit the destruction of the Library 
>>>of Alexandria to the moslems who conquered the city in 642AD) 
>                        ^^^^^^^
> I believe they prefer the term "Muslims". 
Most reference books regard the two words as equally correct english lang-
uage interpretations of the Arabic script. Muslim is currently the more
fashionable term.
 
> The final destruction of the Library was indeed under the Muslims. However
> the Library was burned to the ground around 440. Parts of the library survived
> and were finally finished off by the invaders.
> 

The Great Library was burned a number of times over the years, as I've enum-
erated in another post. It's impossible at this time to ascertain how much
damage each fire actually did. The existence of 'annexes' some of which were
housed in pagan temples also clouds the issue. The one fact that is indisput-
able is that the Library disappeared from history only after the muslim con-
quest.

>>>Such "sad ironies" encompass virtually every ascendant culture &/or religion
>>>the world has ever seen. Nothing extraordinary there. No doubt future his-
>>>torians will discover many 'sad ironies' associated with contemporary cul-
> <<ture as well.
> 
> Yes but surely if Christianity is so wonderful it should be different?

Christians are human beings & subject to all the shortcomings attendant
to that. If you *really* knew anything about christianinty you would know
that. The fact that you single out christianity for this statement (should-
n't every culture/religion be "wonderful"?) simply illustrates the depth
of your bias in this matter.

PHIL
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho