Skip to main content

Why did the Romans mistreat the Christians?

First of all, we have to recognize that the Romans did not mistreat Christians at all times and all places.  There were many times and places when Christians could get along fine in the Roman Empire.  However, it is true that Christians were persecuted at times.  When they were, it was because A) their religion did not permit them to engage in traditional Roman religious rituals and B) because they were trying to spread their religion to other Romans.


The Roman Empire actually tolerated many religions.  The only thing was that they expected everyone of every religion to also make sacrifices to the Roman gods and to engage in Roman religious rituals.  They did not care if people worshipped other gods as long as they also did what the Roman gods wanted in terms of sacrifice and ritual.  They believed that their gods would get angry and harm Rome if its people did not participate in the right rituals.  Most religions were fine with this.  They believed in many gods and didn’t mind if their adherents participated in rituals for other gods.  The Christians, however, were different.  They refused to acknowledge any other gods but theirs and they refused to participate in rituals and sacrifices for the Roman gods.  Therefore, the Romans worried that the Christians would make the Roman gods angry and those gods would stop protecting and helping Rome.


Secondly, the Christians were trying to spread their religion.  This was not just a religion on the fringe of the empire, like Judaism (which also forbade its adherents to sacrifice to Roman gods).  Jews were not going around trying to convert Romans.  Instead, Christianity existed in the middle of the empire, and in all other parts as well.  Moreover, the Christians were trying to convert Romans to their faith.  Thus, the Christians were much more dangerous to Rome than the Jews ever were.  For these two reasons, Christians were persecuted at some times and places in the Roman Empire.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more