Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: decimon
He's saying the gospel was subtly subversive to Roman rule.

On one hand "duh!" On the other, "not really bub."

The place were Rome and Christianity came into conflict was the same place that Rome and Judaism came into conflict, both refused to worship the state as god. However Judaism was a established religion so while the Romans often scratched their heads in puzzlement over it they mostly understood that it was nothing personal. However in the case of Christianity once it split off from Judaism and became a spreading popular religion the refusal to worship the state was seen as dangerously subversive.

He would be more correct to say that Rome saw it as subversive, not that it actually was. If Roman had still be a republic rather then a quasi-theocracy headed by a god/emperor I dare say the conflict would have been minimal.

7 posted on 12/13/2011 8:13:23 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (*Philosophy lesson 117-22b: Anyone who demands to be respected is undeserving of it.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Harmless Teddy Bear

You’d have considerable benefit in reading Chesterton. He explains why not.

Same reason why Akhenaten was defiled.


8 posted on 12/13/2011 9:21:43 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson