[Servant of the 9]

True, but only Judaism, Christianity and Islam have ever believed in killing or forcibly converting the non-believer. Every other religion I know of has been satisfied with looking down on non-believers.

How about the state religion of Rome, which recognized Caesar as a god? I seem to recall that certain Christians, otherwise known as 'Martyrs', used to get fed to cute little animals like lions because they wouldn't acknowledge that Caesar was a god.

The difference is that Rome never required anyone to renounce their own Gods or do more than make nominal obeisance to Caesar. It was a matter of political loyalty, not faith.

So9

[cookcounty]

"The difference is that Rome never required anyone to renounce their own Gods or do more than make nominal obeisance to Caesar. It was a matter of political loyalty, not faith."

The Romans required the christians to abandon monotheism --under pain of death.

[Tennessee_Bob]

The difference is that Rome never required anyone to renounce their own Gods or do more than make nominal obeisance to Caesar. It was a matter of political loyalty, not faith.

So, I guess that means that Nero, Valerian and Diocletian have all been misrepresented?

Pliny the Younger told Emperor Trajan that he was executing those who refused to recant - and Trajan's reply?

You have taken the method which you ought in examining the causes of those that had been accused as Christians, for indeed no certain and general form of judging can be ordained in this case. These people are not to be sought for; but if they be accused and convicted, they are to be punished; but with this caution, that he who denies himself to be a Christian, and makes it plain that he is not so by supplicating to our gods, although he had been so formerly, may be allowed pardon, upon his repentance. As for libels sent without an author, they ought to have no place in any accusation whatsoever, for that would be a thing of very ill example, and not agreeable to my reign.

From Jesus to Christ. 1998, PBS.

[vbmoneyspender]

That's not true. If you were part of the Roman empire, you had to worship the emperor as a god. If you did not, then the Romans did bad things to you like crucifying you or throwing you to the lions. There are numerous other examples of this type of behaviour among other political elites because up until the American Revolution, political elites invariably attempted to cloak their political authority with religious authority. What that meant was that unless you accepted the state religion as your own, you became both a traitor and a heretic.

Where Christianity, Judaism and Islam are different from past religions is that they are monotheistic. As a result, adherents are not able to worship any additional gods beyond the one God that they recognize. Contrast this with pagans who can easily add new gods to their respective pantheons, and the effect of this importance difference becomes apparent. If you were a pagan living during the Roman Empire you could continue to worship your gods as long as you recognized that Caesar was a god as well. However, if for some reason your pagan religion was like Christianity and didn't allow you to worship Caesar as a god, then you would have been treated exactly like the Christians were treated - which meant you either had to convert to the belief that Caesar was a god or else you had to die.

The point is, the fault that you raise with respect to the great monotheistic religions is not inherent to those religions. Rather the fault is inherent to men who would seek to increase their worldly power by claiming a divine right to rule over others.