polytheism vs. monotheism

[Darth Gojira]

I like a lot of the ancient creation myths; they're so very colourful and bizarre, like Minerva bursting out of Zeus' forehead or giant turtles carrying the Earth on their backs, some sky god vomiting us out (presumably after a drinking binge), etc.

I'm sure there's one about a god throwing his father's nads into the sun. Or something.

Are you thinking of the Greek myth in which Cronus(or Zeus) cuts off Uranus'(or Cronus') balls, they fall into the ocean, and create Aphrodite?

[SirNitram]

I like a lot of the ancient creation myths; they're so very colourful and bizarre, like Minerva bursting out of Zeus' forehead or giant turtles carrying the Earth on their backs, some sky god vomiting us out (presumably after a drinking binge), etc.

I'm sure there's one about a god throwing his father's nads into the sun. Or something.

Are you thinking of the Greek myth in which Cronus(or Zeus) cuts off Uranus'(or Cronus') balls, they fall into the ocean, and create Aphrodite?

There we go. That's a real creation myth right there, balls, ocean, hot naked chick.

[Darth Gojira]

I'm sure there's one about a god throwing his father's nads into the sun. Or something.

Are you thinking of the Greek myth in which Cronus(or Zeus) cuts off Uranus'(or Cronus') balls, they fall into the ocean, and create Aphrodite?

There we go. That's a real creation myth right there, balls, ocean, hot naked chick.

I doesn't get any better than this. And my folks wonder why I consider Thesodious a ratbastard...

[ArmorPierce]

Monotheism is not better than polytheism, it is just more likely to survive longer because people are united under one all powerful god rather than many vague gods. Because they are united under one all powerful god that is the only god and think that all other people are wrong, they work hard to subjugate people into believeing their god is the one true one while people that believes in multiple gods are much less likely to give a shit in what you believe including a one all powerful god..., they'd just assume that you are worshipping one of the many gods.

[Peregrin Toker]

Monotheism is not better than polytheism, it is just more likely to survive longer because people are united under one all powerful god rather than many vague gods. Because they are united under one all powerful god that is the only god and think that all other people are wrong, they work hard to subjugate people into believeing their god is the one true one while people that believes in multiple gods are much less likely to give a shit in what you believe including a one all powerful god..., they'd just assume that you are worshipping one of the many gods.

Yes - this might be an explanation why monotheism has become so widespread - it is a good way to unite people under the same banner, provided that they aren't too irreligious.

[Howedar]

Consider that the pagan Greeks, Romans, Celts, Norse, indeed every pagan, polytheistic culture of Europe that I am aware of, was almost entirely lacking in missionary spirit, and were all thus quite tolerant of other religions - at times even assimilating the gods of other cultures into their own pantheons. Polytheistic religions apparently never regarded themselves as the "one true path".

Just for the sake of completeness, the Romans did enjoy watching Christians be tortured. Really, at some level or another every religion and religious system is intolerant.

[Perinquus]

Consider that the pagan Greeks, Romans, Celts, Norse, indeed every pagan, polytheistic culture of Europe that I am aware of, was almost entirely lacking in missionary spirit, and were all thus quite tolerant of other religions - at times even assimilating the gods of other cultures into their own pantheons. Polytheistic religions apparently never regarded themselves as the "one true path".

Just for the sake of completeness, the Romans did enjoy watching Christians be tortured. Really, at some level or another every religion and religious system is intolerant.

It wasn't the fact that the Christians were Christians, they were singled out because they refused to venerate the emperor and were also regarded as seditious. Early Christians were regarded in much the same way that we regard Muslim extremists today - as dangerous fanatics. There were lots of other religions practiced in the Empire, some monotheistic, some not, and the Romans did not go out of their way to persecute them. The Romans also cheered just as loudly to see criminals executed and gladiators kill each other.

There was rather more to it than Romans being intolerant of another faith.

[Arrow]

Furthermore, the Romans attempted to use the Jewish faith to halt the spread of Christanity. If I remember correctly, the Jews declared the Christans to be heretics. Too bad Christanity had a great sales pitch - join us and we'll help you provide for yourself and your family.

[lgot]

ArmorPierce:

are united under one all powerful god rather than many vague gods. Because they are united under one all powerful god that is the only god and think that all other people are wrong, they work hard to subjugate people

You are messing up the way for example, Catholic Church did. When religion is used as a political and cultural factor of domination, like Western Europe did with Catholic Church it is like this. It was irrelevant the monoteism or polytheism factor.
For example, the early judaism was monetheist, but they have no intention of conversion (in the other way, they are rather "exclusive") so, they accepted the other gods, just the other gods are inferior to the Only God they followed.


You seem to think the Polytheists systems are not as united or well structured, which they are.


Perinquus:

It wasn't the fact that the Christians were Christians, they were singled out because they refused to venerate the emperor and were also regarded as seditious.

There is many reasons besides the "sadism" of Roman society, but this one just does not make any sense.
Venerate the emperor ? Its a religious position. So you are just claiming the christians are killed because refusing to follow some religious act and yet there is nothing to do with them being Christians ?
The Christians are actually more adapted to the roman society (no wonder they ended turning to be part of it) than for example Judaism which have always a rebelious and violent element of roman domination. The proverbial tendencies to be a martyr of early christians probally helped much more to make then scapegoats than religious bigotony of both sides.

Arrow Mk84

Furthermore, the Romans attempted to use the Jewish faith to halt the spread of Christanity.

I do not know what you mean. The romans basically destroyed the jewish faith when the rebelion in the 50's happened and Jerusalem was turn to dust. All major factions of Jews are scattered and some are just killed like Zealots or the Essenicus (Sp?). The Christians melted quite easily in the roman society and they are much less rebelious than the hebrews for example.

If I remember correctly, the Jews declared the Christans to be heretics.

of course they are heretics. The Early christians are quite reformists. And basically what gave them bigger survival under Romans is they are much more open to conversions. (Which adds some degree of tolerance, hence unlike the Middle Age Christians they are in the lower side of the power).
But that have nothing to do with what Romans did. They gave a good damn about internal conflicts of the hebrews and actually, getting apart of the hebrews was more a benefict than a bad thing that time...

[Perinquus]

There is many reasons besides the "sadism" of Roman society, but this one just does not make any sense.
Venerate the emperor ? Its a religious position. So you are just claiming the christians are killed because refusing to follow some religious act and yet there is nothing to do with them being Christians ?
The Christians are actually more adapted to the roman society (no wonder they ended turning to be part of it) than for example Judaism which have always a rebelious and violent element of roman domination. The proverbial tendencies to be a martyr of early christians probally helped much more to make then scapegoats than religious bigotony of both sides.

The Romans conquered all throughout the Mediterranean basin, up into central and western Europe, and over half of the largest of the British Isles. In all that vast scope of territory, with a staggering array of religious persuasions, there were only three faiths the Romans ever actively suppressed. One was the druidic faith of the Celts, and this was due partly to the fact that the Celts practiced human sacrifice, and the high degree of political influence druids wielded in Celtic society - which led the Romans to view the druids as a threat to their government.

The second group was the Jews, who also would not venerate the emperor. The Romans freely tolerated all the multifarious other religions of the peoples in the territories they conquered because those peoples were willing to respect the cult of the diefied emperors, and this was a prop to Roman power. The Jews' refusal to do this led to their faith being seen by the Romans as being inimical to Roman temporal power, and the Romans clamped down on them in response to it.

The third group was the Christians, who refused to revere the emperor as divine for the same reasons the Jews did, and they incurred the Romans anger because of that. But they were not extended even the same limited toleration the Jews got, because their faith was not a centuries or millenia old religion; it was a newly arisen cult, and lacked that aura of legitimcay that great age can confer. It was also a rapidly spreading faith because (again, unlike Judaism) it was a proselytizing faith, and a rapidly expanding population of people who refused to pay proper respect to the emperor was seen by the Roman authorities as a threat. It was the fact that the Christians were viewed as dangerous, fanatical seditionists that brought the anger of the Roman government down on them, not the mere fact that they had a different religions. As I said, there were scores of different faiths followed throughout the Empire until the Emperor Constantine finally converted, and made Christianity the official state religion. If the Romans were an intolerant people, how do you explain the fact that the Roman government never persecuted them on religious grounds?

The only times that the Romans singled out another religion for termination was when they regarded that religion as a threat to their government. Before they became Christians themselves, they simply were not disposed to regard other religions as threats to their faith.

[lgot]

The third group was the Christians, who refused to revere the emperor as divine for the same reasons the Jews did,

you still do not understand and you still make no sense. The romans asking other to REVERE the emperor are asking for converstion, because they REVERE the emperor as a part of the religous system of rome.
You cannt claim the romans have tolerance if they suppress any group that Does not Revere (And please, You should remember You used VENERATE) One of their "gods" (the emperor). That is about the samething as Catholic Church killing those that does not Revere God and saying that have no religious reason.
You could live very well in the Roman empire , with Veneration of The Emperor if you payied your taxes, the tribute to rome and followed their law. Which was the cause. The Celtic Group openly chalenged the empire in militar action. The Jews open used "terrorism" and civil rebelion. Until they come to the limite in the 50's the did not "Venerate" the emperor, but the leading groups of the religious payed the tributes and accepeted the roman's laws (with one or another problem, but minor). it was the Open Rebelion and Civil Military action that Made the Romans destroy Jerusalem, not to do with Reverence of Religious reasons.
The Same goes for the Christians.

But they were not extended even the same limited toleration the Jews got, because their faith was not a centuries or millenia old religion;

It is the Christians that are more open to the Romans than the Hebraism was. It is not open to argument. Hebrews are so intolerant of the Romans that Rome ended with them. Christians are so open to Rome that they turned to be Rome.
The Paul-Peter argument is all about this, Paul is openly - smarter than Peter - Creating a religion that have a lot of elements easy to be accepted by Romans and at same time a religion that would accept easily the Romans.

It was the fact that the Christians were viewed as dangerous, fanatical seditionists that brought the anger of the Roman government down on them, not the mere fact that they had a different religions.

And where I have said they did because of Different religions ? you are the one doing this when you say Roman supressed them because they did not VENERATE the Emperor, which is a religious notion.
The Christians are fanatical, yes. But nowhere violents and rebelious was many other cults the romans had. They are very adapted to the roman society and kickly found space in the lower classes. Their way to contest was much more argumentative and the martyr way than open and rebelious oposition and they are used as scapegoats in the same sense many still use the lower and less powerful classes.
You can see clearly the difference, When the romans did not wanted a religion, they destroyed it. The christians they tryied to control, cutting off those who are not "acceptable" and allowing those more "socialble". That is why the christians remained at the point to be soo popular.

If the Romans were an intolerant people, how do you explain the fact that the Roman government never persecuted them on religious grounds?

You claimed they did when You said The persecuted them because lack of VENERATION. I said that was wrong, exactly because the Romans are very tolerant.

[Darth Wong]

you still do not understand and you still make no sense. The romans asking other to REVERE the emperor are asking for converstion, because they REVERE the emperor as a part of the religous system of rome.

The religious system of Rome employed Hellenic gods for its deities, not the Emperor.

You cannt claim the romans have tolerance if they suppress any group that Does not Revere (And please, You should remember You used VENERATE) One of their "gods" (the emperor). That is about the samething as Catholic Church killing those that does not Revere God and saying that have no religious reason.

Bullshit. All empires demand that their subjects pay tribute and respect to the emperor, but a religious tolerant empire doesn't care if you worship, say, Megatron the Galactic Overlord. The Catholics, on the other hand, would execute you if you do anything which deviates from their single path. You don't see a distinction?!?!?!?

[Kurgan]

Actually, the Roman coins bear the inscription "son of god" (in latin of course) with the face of the Emperor.

In addition, many Roman Emperors were worshipped as gods (Caesar Augustus for example) though it was unusual (at least in the early years of the Empire) to worship a LIVING Emperor (though his fans may have done so anyway, much to his displeasure), which is why Caligula was considered insane to declare himself a deity while alive (the incarnation of Zeus/Jupiter), which may have contributed to his eventual assasination (in addition to his other strange acts).

The adopted Greek pantheon were not the only deities worshipped under the pagan system, there were household and ancestral minor deities as well.

For example, one might have a stone statue of your "ancestor" in your home that you made sacrafices to. In the case of the Emperor, its no different, but after all, he's a big guy, so he's far more important.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, the Roman coins bear the inscription "son of god" (in latin of course) with the face of the Emperor.

In addition, many Roman Emperors were worshipped as gods (Caesar Augustus for example) though it was unusual (at least in the early years of the Empire) to worship a LIVING Emperor (though his fans may have done so anyway, much to his displeasure), which is why Caligula was considered insane to declare himself a deity while alive (the incarnation of Zeus/Jupiter), which may have contributed to his eventual assasination (in addition to his other strange acts).

The adopted Greek pantheon were not the only deities worshipped under the pagan system, there were household and ancestral minor deities as well.

For example, one might have a stone statue of your "ancestor" in your home that you made sacrafices to. In the case of the Emperor, its no different, but after all, he's a big guy, so he's far more important.

Right, but as I said, there's a big difference between saying "worship our deities in addition to yours" and "stop worshipping any deity but ours or we'll kill you".

[Kurgan]

The Romans were about as tolerant as the Empire in Star Wars, they killed tens of thousands of people, employed all manner of torture and expanded through aggressive military conquest and were ruled over by a virtual dictator (though he never called himself a King, because the idea of a monarchy was abhorrent to Romans.. go figure).

Sure, they had a love of learning and the arts, they had the "pax romana" and all those wonderful roads and architecture, and they allowed some autonomy with subjugated people's (so long as they learned latin and paid their taxes on time). When conquering a new group with different gods, it was not unprecedented to simply say "these gods are the same as our gods" or simply add them to the pantheon (this was done with Egypt, IIRC).

But that standards of Empires of the day, I'm sure they were pretty amazing.

[Kurgan]

Right, but as I said, there's a big difference between saying "worship our deities in addition to yours" and "stop worshipping any deity but ours or we'll kill you".

Glad you agree. Of course in the Jewish and Christian faiths, only one God exists (according to Paul, or else other gods are demons or some other interpretation), and you can only worship that deity.

If you refuse to worship the gods of Rome, and the Emperor(s) who are the rightful rulers, is that not treason?

And surely traitors must be put to death to keep the public order and as a deterant against rebellion.

The Christians and Jews, regardless of how they felt about "nonbelievers" (most pagan Romans didn't worship Jesus or YHWH that I know of) were called "atheists" (because they denied the pantheon of gods) and were hardly in a position to kill anyone, lest they be slaughtered wholesale by a state that already barely tolerated them (and this is exactly what happened when the Jews revolted).

That seems to be their rationale. I always interpreted the history as that the Christian sect was relatively small and minor, but was simply a convenient scapegoat (much as minority cults are in many parts of the world, like China). They simply didn't have the concepts of freedom of speech that we tend to hold as inalienable rights.

Now, as everybody knows, once the Empire became institutionalized as Christian, it became possible to reverse persecution (revenge?), which indeed was a sad turn of events. But it hardly sets a precedent.

[SirNitram]

I can't tell if Igot is employing a Strawman or just employing Christian thought on the matter(That is, if one can greatly respect and revere someone without him being a God), myself. Of course, he's probably hoping no one notices that a group which ignores a leader and spreads the idea the leader is not worth following(IIRC, the Christians, in their recruiting, said the Emperor was as nothing because of God), is technically called a Rebellion. And these are put down.

As for oppressing those who don't speak latin or pay their taxes, I can pretty firmly say every nation has not been too nice to those who don't pay their taxes or find some way to communicate with those in charge.

[Kurgan]

Well, to put it in perspective, would you say that somebody who criticizes your president or prime minister or says he's an unfit ruler, or that he's nothing before your god, is a traitor (and should be put to death)?

Surely not (unless you're insane), but to somebody who lived in Imperial Rome, it probably made perfect sense. These are people who thought torture, slavery, and keeping women subservient to men were all part of the natural order.

Hell, their idea of a good time was watching live people get torn apart by animals or fight each other to the death! But by the standards of their day, they were probably considered highly civilized... and they looked down their noses at the "barbarians" that lived outside their borders.

As for oppressing those who don't speak latin or pay their taxes, I can pretty firmly say every nation has not been too nice to those who don't pay their taxes or find some way to communicate with those in charge.

Granted, although there are always what we'd call "interpretors" which were probably used in those days as well (almost impossible without them until people learn the language). As to paying taxes, the Roman idea would probably be to use violence until the people were forced to pay the tribute. Nowadays, tax evasion lands you in jail after its been legally proven (at least in the US).

[Darth Wong]

Well, to put it in perspective, would you say that somebody who criticizes your president or prime minister or says he's an unfit ruler, or that he's nothing before your god, is a traitor (and should be put to death)?

Actually, while "bleeding-heart liberals" would agree that this would be absurd, there are plenty of Americans since 9/11 who seem to believe that criticizing the government makes you a traitor and should be punished.

Surely not (unless you're insane), but to somebody who lived in Imperial Rome, it probably made perfect sense. These are people who thought torture, slavery, and keeping women subservient to men were all part of the natural order.

There were editorials in national newspapers after 9/11 asking whether the use of torture would be acceptable on Al-Quaeda members. And we turned a blind eye when surrendering Taliban were tortured and executed en masse by our allies in Afghanistan. That mentality is not as alien as you might want to believe.

As for female subservience and slavery, that's been a problem in many societies for a long time. We can look back today and say that the Romans were bastards, but on the specific issue of religious tolerance, they were better than the monotheists.

Hell, their idea of a good time was watching live people get torn apart by animals or fight each other to the death! But by the standards of their day, they were probably considered highly civilized... and they looked down their noses at the "barbarians" that lived outside their borders.

We're much more civilized today because we just simulate our public spectacles of gore and butchery

[Arrow]

I think Kurgan and Igot are simplifying the matter too much. With regards to religion, the Romans expected everyone to pay service to the state cult. Other than that, they didn't give a shit who you prayed to. The main exception to that being anything involving human scarifice. Since the Jews resisted/rebelled and refused to acknowledge the state cult, they got a Roman style smack down. Now, if consider Roman imperialism, you'll find two chief causes: 1) fear for their own survival (Monarchy, earily to mid Republic) and glory (late Republic until Christan times). Neither of these are religious. While the Romans could be extremely brutal, it was rarely over religion. Now, when the Christans came to power, you'll find that the reverse is true, as they ruthlessly and thoroughly purged every vestiage of paganism from the empire.

[lgot]

Darth Wong:

The religious system of Rome employed Hellenic gods for its deities, not the Emperor.

like it was pointed the figure of emperor had one or another time, divine status, as it was usual in such old empires to create ties between emperor and the gods. Tiberius for example liked to be called divine.
But that is irrelevant, I did not claimed the romans asked to Venere the Emperor, which would be a act with religious meaning. I was exactly talking that made not sense.

SirNitram:

I can't tell if Igot is employing a Strawman or just employing Christian thought on the matter(That is, if one can greatly respect and revere someone without him being a God), myself. Of course, he's probably hoping no one notices that a group which ignores a leader and spreads the idea the leader is not worth following(IIRC, the Christians, in their recruiting, said the Emperor was as nothing because of God), is technically called a Rebellion. And these are put down.

I wish you would point out the Christian thought.
Anyone sayind that someone is killed because he does not Venerate something and them in the same paragraph saying that shows religious tolerance is pretty much falling under deep contradiction.
And all this nice thing about ignore a leader...
The hebrews did not ignored the Emperor and Roman Authority. And at sametime they did not payied reverence to their leaders. They had a background of confusions and confrotations because the figure of the emperor. Roma cared little for this and it was only the revolts in the 50's , when they openly chalenged roma with armed revolt and refusing to pay the tributes Roma got pissed. When The City was destroyed they did not asked for veneration.
For years the Sacudeus (sorry, I do not remember how they are called in english) and Fariseus obeyed roma and had no love for the Emperor and doing that they are left alone.
The same goes for the early christians, the majority of them are under legality of the roman society. They did not open chalenged the empire and only some mad radical emperor such Caligula could kill someone because they do not worship him in his house and because they claim that after death they would be free of the roman domination (when they are pretty much tolerant with other sects that claimed to be free when still alive).
Nero for example used them as scapegoats in the fire, because their marginal sittuation, like it was easy to claim the homessexual to be blamed for the AIDS. Not because they are illegal.

Arrowmk84:

I think Kurgan and Igot are simplifying the matter too much.

sorry, but either you agree with me or not, i did not simplificated anything...
I think the simplification is the afirmation the christians are killed because they did not venerate the emperor, when there is so much more factors that had nothing to do with such veneration.

Btw, When I say the chritians are tolerant, more adapted to romans, I am not making reference to the Catholic Church. It is very different in any institution how you behave in the period of formation and then in the period of power.

[SirNitram]

I pointed out the Christian thought, or what I perceived as either the Strawman or the Christian point of view. That is, if you're respecting and bowing to the Emperor, you must be worshipping him as a God. You, of course, twist and twine this so you can claim 'Look! Intolerence! It's not just my religion that does it!'.

Your spelling is such that I can barely make sense of this next paragraph. Did you mean they did respect the Roman government? Or did they not? Confusions and confrontations continues to bodge whatever you're trying to say here. Did they respect Rome's authority? I don't know whether it's some natural handicap or what, but your writing here makes zero sense.

In short, I repeat my statement from research: The Christians were an open threat to the authority of Rome. They were possibly treasonous, definately infectious.

[lgot]

I pointed out the Christian thought, or what I perceived as either the Strawman or the Christian point of view. That is, if you're respecting and bowing to the Emperor, you must be worshipping him as a God.

Its funny how you transfor Veneration in simple and formal respect. Actually even the original poster did not corrected this mistake, which at beast is a nitpick, far away from strawman or any nice name you like to call it.

You, of course, twist and twine this so you can claim 'Look! Intolerence! It's not just my religion that does it!'.

I could twist and call you biased at extremes, But I will accept the claim that I am hard to be understood. Even if you first come with accusations then to first claim this. I would love to see Where I claim Intolerance of anyone. Actually I would love to see where I justify any religion since I have not done judgement of vallue. And I would love to death to see you pointing me out where I showed my religion. That would be a wonder.

I don't know whether it's some natural handicap or what, but your writing here makes zero sense

and yet make sense enough for you to figure my religion, uh ?
I accept the blame, my english is far from good and I have often been senseless. If this is the situation then I can only say sorry and try to explain again any point you found not to be understood. You can just tell me which one are.

Now what I have said: The Hebrewish authorithy did respected the Roman authority. They obeyed for years the roman law and even some of the high classes even tryied to keep the zealots, for example, under control to avoid the Roman wraith.
And yet, at same time, they did not payed reverence to the emperor or his figure. There is backgroud of huge confusion between the hebrewish rulers and roman's representatives. Their despite for the idea of the Emperor as such important was so big that they even refused the use roman coins inside the temple. If the romans are such worried with reverence to the figure of the emperor they would send the old moses law to hell and command them to use without any excuse the figures, in name of respect of the emperor. But this one and other small contents the romans let go, as long there was respect to basic laws.
it was only those laws are challenged in the figure of the armed rebellion the romans got pissed and turned Jerusalem to dust.
That is it. To give a example the Roman's care for "veneration" and how they deal with that.

The Christians were an open threat to the authority of Rome. They were possibly treasonous, definately infectious.

yeah, a open threat that romans cared so little that only for few periods and much later they really did something against them. They either did not saw this threat as having such importance as others or either, took them a long time to perceive it...

[Kurgan]

Actually, while "bleeding-heart liberals" would agree that this would be absurd, there are plenty of Americans since 9/11 who seem to believe that criticizing the government makes you a traitor and should be punished.

I know. And if you read forums like this or say Fark (a usual bastion of social conscience) you regularly see people extoling the virtues of torture and mass genocide (ie: "nuke the middle east to hell" etc). That doesn't mean that those people are considered sane. ; )

So yes, there are some people with the apparent civility at heart as the ancient Romans, but that should come as no surprise. I never said that mankind had evolved passed barbarity, only that legally, these sort of things are not supposed to be tolerated anymore as natural.

And how many people who feel you shouldn't criticize your government feel the death penalty is in order for people who protest? Even if it was 50% of people, that wouldn't make mob rule an ideal situation.

There were editorials in national newspapers after 9/11 asking whether the use of torture would be acceptable on Al-Quaeda members. And we turned a blind eye when surrendering Taliban were tortured and executed en masse by our allies in Afghanistan. That mentality is not as alien as you might want to believe.

I can still condemn it as immoral, something that might not have even been possible back then. That was more my point. Genocides (attempted at least) have occured in the last few decades, and people still spout hate speech at every corner.

As for female subservience and slavery, that's been a problem in many societies for a long time.

Sure, like the slavery debate, there's still slavery in Africa, but some people feel that all whites should pay reparations to all blacks in America, for slavery a century ago. Obviously these people are suffering or feel slighted, but it sounds like a simple political opportunity. Its impossible to ignore the political angle.

We can look back today and say that the Romans were bastards, but on the specific issue of religious tolerance, they were better than the monotheists.

Hardly proven, but that's more comfortable a position I'm sure. They were a theocratic state (by definition, if the Emperor is a religious figure, and past Emperors are gods, the pantheon are the official gods, etc) and a person can be tried and killed in a gruesome fashion for denying the state religion. I don't see atheists being tortured to death in the US for denying Christianity, do you?

Or did you mean the Christians of Rome? What difference was there? It was wrong either way.

We're much more civilized today because we just simulate our public spectacles of gore and butchery

Of course. There's a huge moral difference between putting on a show where you portray somebody being hurt/killed (and its all make-believe) and actually killing somebody. Surely football or american football (maybe even hockey, but I have my doubts) is more civilized than having the participants fight to the death or be torn apart by wild animals.

Now, where it gets closer to the line might be in the so-called "extreme sports" and bull fighting. However, even in these cases, the deck is still stacked in favor of the human participant(s). People went to the arena games expecting to see DEATH of human beings. When we watch these modern sports, we expect to see apparent "brushes" with death, but these guys are highly skilled (like stuntmen) or there's tricks involved, so that the survival rate is much in their favor, unlike the gladiator contests or beast brawls. Then you have robot arena/wars/battle bots and all that.

Now I'm sure we don't consider the United Federation of Planets a paragon of moral virtue (despite their own rhetoric) but surely we can't consider them barbaric savages because they still enjoy reading and putting on shakespear (which is chock full of murder, suicides, death, and gore). Heck, if fictional violence = barbarity, then we're all a bunch of blood-stained savages here for worshipping two science fiction franchises that portray planet-destroying weapons and galactic wars. ; )

If you want an answer to your question, are we more moral today than the ancient romans? Yes and no. Some of us are more moral in some ways, and not so in others. Though, if you're a hardcore relativist then it may actually have been moral for them then (in which case Romans killing Christians was okay, and later Christians killing other people was okay) and today, for us its wrong (though I wouldn't agree).

[Perinquus]

We can look back today and say that the Romans were bastards, but on the specific issue of religious tolerance, they were better than the monotheists.

Hardly proven, but that's more comfortable a position I'm sure. They were a theocratic state (by definition, if the Emperor is a religious figure, and past Emperors are gods, the pantheon are the official gods, etc) and a person can be tried and killed in a gruesome fashion for denying the state religion. I don't see atheists being tortured to death in the US for denying Christianity, do you?

Or did you mean the Christians of Rome? What difference was there? It was wrong either way.

The Roman Empire was not really a theocracy you know. True, they did have a state religion, but then, so does Great Britain to this day. The state religion was something that most people gave public reverence to, but there was a high degree of tolerance for various faiths throughout the Empire until Constantine turned the whole Empire toward Christianity. Basically, as long as you were willing to acknowledge the authority (semi-divine) of the Empire, the Romans really didn't give a damn what you worshipped.

This is a far cry from a theocracy as we define it - a government by a priest caste, who rule according to religious law, with no separation in public life between religious and secular matters.

Now the Byzantine Empire fits the definition of a theocracy much better, since the Emperor was held to be Christ's appointed vicar on earth, had the power to appoint the patriarch of the Orthodox Church, presided at councils of bishops, etc.