against pagans?

[crossfire]

Buddhism's stand is to reject doctrines that preach greed, hatred, or delusion as leading to long term harm, and accept teachings that teach a lack of greed, hatred, and delusion as beneficial. This applies to pagan and non-pagan religions. Buddhism also does not endorse animal or human sacrifice.

 

[Harel13]

In Jeremiah 35, pagans, the Rechabites, receive a blessing for adherence to their traditions

Where do you see that they were pagans?

 

[Augustus]

That is not quite true. Rome was very tolerant of religion, and would willingly include the abrahamic god.

"Very tolerant" is a massive overstatement. They were more tolerant than Christian Rome, but the idea of 'tolerant pagans' is somewhat of a myth.

Their acceptance was mostly to do with the degree to which the gods of the 'other' could be mapped on to the Roman gods and the degree to which they were seen as ancient (religio) or modern (superstitio). This is why you see 'modern' cults like Mithras being mapped on to the ancient Mithra to 'fake' legitimacy.

At times, the 'very tolerant' Romans conducted violent persecutions against Christians, Jews, Manichaeans, followers of Bacchus, and systematically wiped out the Druids.

It takes a fair amount of spin to say those who killed tens of thousand of people for following the wrong religion were 'very tolerant'. Pagan Romans were certainly less intolerant, but only because there were a wider range of legitimate religions that were sanctioned due to approximate similarity to Roman Religion.

The 'good' Pagans actually sound not too dissimilar to the 'bad' Christians here:

“You should not only worship the divine everywhere and in every way in accordance with our ancestral traditions, but also force all others to honour it. Those who attempt to distort our religion with strange rites you should hate and punish, not only for the sake of the gods … but also because such people, by bringing in new divinities, persuade many folks to adopt foreign practices, which lead to conspiracies, revolts, and factions, which are entirely unsuitable for monarch.” Dio Cassius - History of Rome

As you said, Christianity refused that tolerance and denied the Roman gods by insisting their god was the only god.

"In short, it was the fault of the Christians that they got tolerantly murdered for holding the wrong religious beliefs"

 

[ChristineM]

More rubbish 'with the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE when the Roman state declared him to be “divus” or divine. In some parts of the Empire it was acceptable to worship a living Emperor, but in Rome itself it was not.'

I suggest you do a course in roman history and don't rely on what satisfies your faith

 

[ChristineM]

"In short, it was the fault of the Christians that they got tolerantly murdered for holding the wrong religious beliefs"

No,as i have explained, they were executed for treason.

 

[ChristineM]

It takes a fair amount of spin to say those who killed tens of thousand of people for following the wrong religion were 'very tolerant'. Pagan Romans were certainly less intolerant, but only because there were a wider range of legitimate religions that were sanctioned due to approximate similarity to Roman Religion.

You are pretty good at spin yourself. Where did i say they followed the wrong religion?

 

[Augustus]

No,as i have explained, they were executed for treason.

The treason of having religious beliefs that were incompatible with the Roman religion.

The "very tolerant' Romans:

In Egypt, some Manicheans, followers of the prophet Mani, were denounced in the presence of the proconsul of Africa. On March 31, 302, in a rescript from Alexandria, Diocletian, after consultation with the proconsul for Egypt, ordered that the leading Manicheans be burnt alive along with their scriptures.[115] This was the first time an Imperial persecution ever called for the destruction of sacred literature.[116] Low-status Manicheans were to be executed; high-status Manicheans were to be sent to work in the quarries of Proconnesus (Marmara Island) or the mines of Phaeno. All Manichean property was to be seized and deposited in the imperial treasury.[115]

On February 23, 303, Diocletian ordered that the newly built Christian church at Nicomedia be razed, its scriptures burned, and its treasures seized.[127] February 23 was the feast of the Terminalia, for Terminus, the god of boundaries. It was the day they would terminate Christianity.[128] The next day, Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" was published.[129][notes 14] The key targets of this piece of legislation were senior Christian clerics and Christians' property, just as they had been during Valerian's persecution.[133] The edict prohibited Christians from assembling for worship,[134] and ordered the destruction of their scriptures, liturgical books, and places of worship across the empire.

Diocletian requested that the edict be pursued "without bloodshed",[144] against Galerius's demands that all those refusing to sacrifice be burned alive.[145] In spite of Diocletian's request, local judges often enforced executions during the persecution, as capital punishment was among their discretionary powers.[146] Galerius's recommendation—burning alive—became a common method of executing Christians in the East.[147] After the edict was posted in Nicomedia, a man named Eutius tore it down and ripped it up, shouting "Here are your Gothic and Sarmatian triumphs!" He was arrested for treason, tortured, and burned alive soon after, becoming the edict's first martyr.[148][notes 16] The provisions of the edict were known and enforced in Palestine by March or April (just before Easter), and it was in use by local officials in North Africa by May or June.[150] The earliest martyr at Caesarea was executed on June 7,[151] and the edict was in force at Cirta from May 19.[152] The first edict was the sole legally binding edict in the West;[153] in Gaul and Britain Constantius did not enforce this edict[154] but the East progressively harsher legislation was devised...

In 304, the fourth edict ordered all persons, men, women, and children, to gather in a public space and offer a collective sacrifice. If they refused, they were to be executed.

You are pretty good at spin yourself. Where did i say they followed the wrong religion?

I didn't. I said the Romans killed them for following the wrong religion: one that was incompatible with theirs, just like Christians did at times.

“You should not only worship the divine everywhere and in every way in accordance with our ancestral traditions, but also force all others to honour it. Those who attempt to distort our religion with strange rites you should hate and punish, not only for the sake of the gods … but also because such people, by bringing in new divinities, persuade many folks to adopt foreign practices, which lead to conspiracies, revolts, and factions, which are entirely unsuitable for monarch.” Dio Cassius - History of Rome

I'm guessing you wouldn't engage in apologetics to defend Christians if they were the oppressors rather than the victims. Funny that.

 

[Heyo]

I don't care if you crack your egg open at the round or the small side. I do care if you use force to indoctrinate others to your side. And while it has become rare for Christians to use physical force, there are still too many examples of Christians using political force, power in numbers and propaganda (lying for Jesus) to force their ways on others, especially pagans.
Why is that? Is there anyone here who wants to defend those practices? (E.g. banning of books, "In God we Trust" on school buildings, "right to discriminate", etc.)

 

[ChristineM]

The treason of having religious beliefs that were incompatible with the Roman religion.

The "very tolerant' Romans:

In Egypt, some Manicheans, followers of the prophet Mani, were denounced in the presence of the proconsul of Africa. On March 31, 302, in a rescript from Alexandria, Diocletian, after consultation with the proconsul for Egypt, ordered that the leading Manicheans be burnt alive along with their scriptures.[115] This was the first time an Imperial persecution ever called for the destruction of sacred literature.[116] Low-status Manicheans were to be executed; high-status Manicheans were to be sent to work in the quarries of Proconnesus (Marmara Island) or the mines of Phaeno. All Manichean property was to be seized and deposited in the imperial treasury.[115]

On February 23, 303, Diocletian ordered that the newly built Christian church at Nicomedia be razed, its scriptures burned, and its treasures seized.[127] February 23 was the feast of the Terminalia, for Terminus, the god of boundaries. It was the day they would terminate Christianity.[128] The next day, Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" was published.[129][notes 14] The key targets of this piece of legislation were senior Christian clerics and Christians' property, just as they had been during Valerian's persecution.[133] The edict prohibited Christians from assembling for worship,[134] and ordered the destruction of their scriptures, liturgical books, and places of worship across the empire.

Diocletian requested that the edict be pursued "without bloodshed",[144] against Galerius's demands that all those refusing to sacrifice be burned alive.[145] In spite of Diocletian's request, local judges often enforced executions during the persecution, as capital punishment was among their discretionary powers.[146] Galerius's recommendation—burning alive—became a common method of executing Christians in the East.[147] After the edict was posted in Nicomedia, a man named Eutius tore it down and ripped it up, shouting "Here are your Gothic and Sarmatian triumphs!" He was arrested for treason, tortured, and burned alive soon after, becoming the edict's first martyr.[148][notes 16] The provisions of the edict were known and enforced in Palestine by March or April (just before Easter), and it was in use by local officials in North Africa by May or June.[150] The earliest martyr at Caesarea was executed on June 7,[151] and the edict was in force at Cirta from May 19.[152] The first edict was the sole legally binding edict in the West;[153] in Gaul and Britain Constantius did not enforce this edict[154] but the East progressively harsher legislation was devised...

In 304, the fourth edict ordered all persons, men, women, and children, to gather in a public space and offer a collective sacrifice. If they refused, they were to be executed.




I didn't. I said the Romans killed them for following the wrong religion: one that was incompatible with theirs, just like Christians did at times.

“You should not only worship the divine everywhere and in every way in accordance with our ancestral traditions, but also force all others to honour it. Those who attempt to distort our religion with strange rites you should hate and punish, not only for the sake of the gods … but also because such people, by bringing in new divinities, persuade many folks to adopt foreign practices, which lead to conspiracies, revolts, and factions, which are entirely unsuitable for monarch.” Dio Cassius - History of Rome

I'm guessing you wouldn't engage in apologetics to defend Christians if they were the oppressors rather than the victims. Funny that.

The treason of denying the cult of emperor.

Rome was happy to accept a new religion if that new religion accepted Roman religion. Christianity and Judaism were not willing to accept Roman religion.

And i am not interested in modern religious biased history

 

[Terry Sampson]

One image that can be evoked is climbing a mountain

That image assumes that everybody is on the same mountain. I'm one who thinks we ain't.

 

[Darkforbid]

I suggest you do a course in roman history and don't rely on what satisfies your faith

Your view of the law of lex maiestatis and Roman history seems to be only repeating the cult of the emperor, constantly and ignoring anything than disagrees with your extremely narrow atheistic view.

 

[ChristineM]

Your view of the law of lex maiestatis and Roman history seems to be only repeating the cult of the emperor, constantly and ignoring anything than disagrees with your extremely narrow atheistic view.

I have previously mentioned other reasons, ignoring them does you no favours.
Nor does your ignorance of Atheism

 

[Darkforbid]

I have previously mentioned other reasons, ignoring them does you no favours.
Nor does your ignorance of Atheism

Like?

 

[ChristineM]

Like?

See my post #10, my first post on this subject

 

[shmogie]

It far too common for believers of one belief system to view others as perverted in one way or another. Based on the fallible nature of humans is problematic to decide which is true.

Nope, not at all. The Apostolic Church js the model, primitive Christianity. Variations from that, be they Catholic, Protestant, JW's, Mormons, whomever, are perversions of that model.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope, not at all. The Apostolic Church js the model, primitive Christianity. Variations from that, be they Catholic, Protestant, JW's, Mormons, whomever, are perversions of that model.

Like I said . . .

It far too common for believers of one belief system to view others as perverted in one way or another. Based on the fallible nature of humans is problematic to decide which is true.

 

[Augustus]

The treason of denying the cult of emperor.

Rome was happy to accept a new religion if that new religion accepted Roman religion. Christianity and Judaism were not willing to accept Roman religion.

When you are so biased you try to argue that it was "very tolerant" to burn otherwise law-abiding men, women and children at the stake for refusing to worship your god

"You must go against your religion or we will burn you at the stake" = Christians are evil
"You must go against your religion or we will burn you at the stake" = Romans are very tolerant

And i am not interested in modern religious biased history

Dio Cassius' History of Rome, an early 3rd C Pagan Roman text = "modern religion biased history"

Execution of Bacchanalians. The Neronian, Decian, Valerian, Diocletian and Galerian persecutions of Manichaeans, Jews and Christians, burnings at the stake, executions, destruction of places of worship, burning sacred texts and confiscations of property. Tiberius systematically exterminating the druids and their places of worship. Romans saying to force everyone to honour their religion and hate and punish those who follow strange foreign practices = "very tolerant"

 

[MikeDwight]

Orthodox Christians are against pagans and all other religions, in general. My question is: are the other Abrahamic religions against nonabrahamic religions?

Orthodox Christians say all other religions are cults and fakes.

The Catholic Church , or, Universal, the Universal Catholic Church claims to be the One True Church. The One Church that is True that by doctrine is headed by a man that is infallible, the Pope is a man that's "infallible". What he writes in this capacity is as good as scripture. Note for example that a Papal Bull against Queen Elizabeth I excommunicates this ruler from the Church and also for the rule of Calvin, so it may also remind of the excommunication of the rule of Calvin, Regnum in Excelsis.

Now, why would an Orthodox Church that pre-dates or simultaneously exists be excluded from a Universal Church? How is it that no one properly addresses this question? It seems like if a reasonable humanbeing took one look at the question, they would leave Catholicism entirely.
The Churches of East Orthodoxy were a parent of the Roman Bishop. The Pentarchy explains the plan of Synods of equals, who in conferring with each other in a Synod meeting, obviously aren't infallible. The plans of Constantine and others in The Pentarchy, similar to the administrative split of Rome and East Rome, totally administrative, had 5 districts of the Church or Pentarchy, such as Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria. Edessa?

The Muslims invaded and destroyed all Christian smybols in Africa and the East in 600 AD, So by the 800 ad the Pope now holds supreme power in the one Christian Church and uses it. The Holy Crusades of 1000 AD were made from the call of the Byzantine Emperor to the Pope for aid, but don't serve this direct purpose at all, the Barbarian races to the East are all that comes through. The Eastern Crusades go to Jerusalem, Edessa, the Lavant. Richard the Lionheart and his dirty crusaders would be a mockery to the clean Roman Baths in Constantinople, the decadence of a civilization they believed to last forever, East Byzantine Rome, as RIchard the Lionheart recaptured Jerusalem, and extended the Crusades another 200 years. Shortly afterward, the 4th Crusade served a totally different Master. The traders of Venice who are direct competitors with the sea power of Byzantium, including their coveted gateway port, as Constantinople is a gateway of the Mediterranean, sacked Constantinople instead of continuing to Any middle-eastern target whatsoever. There is loot and Byzantine Plunder in Venice today, pure War Trophy. This debacle is known as "Latin Empire" period in Byzantium.

In Conclusion, I watched all of the make pretend hand-shaking and the very Careful worded messages by these empty suits, and museums, that the Split of the Churches where the Orthodox hates the Pope more than Muslim occupation, by many accounts, modern even.

I've been a fan of the original Stravinsky "Rite of Spring", a prophecy, its a religious, well-connected, Imperial Russian Orthodox Prophecy of the unrest of the times and the emergent Communist. One need only imagine all the opera glasses to see it.

 

[ChristineM]

When you are so biased you try to argue that it was "very tolerant" to burn otherwise law-abiding men, women and children at the stake for refusing to worship your god

"You must go against your religion or we will burn you at the stake" = Christians are evil
"You must go against your religion or we will burn you at the stake" = Romans are very tolerant



Dio Cassius' History of Rome, an early 3rd C Pagan Roman text = "modern religion biased history"

Execution of Bacchanalians. The Neronian, Decian, Valerian, Diocletian and Galerian persecutions of Manichaeans, Jews and Christians, burnings at the stake, executions, destruction of places of worship, burning sacred texts and confiscations of property. Tiberius systematically exterminating the druids and their places of worship. Romans saying to force everyone to honour their religion and hate and punish those who follow strange foreign practices = "very tolerant"

Sheesh. Rome would accept any religion so long as those in that religion accepted that Rome also had other religions? Can you say the same for Christianity?

 

[shmogie]

Like I said . . .

It far too common for believers of one belief system to view others as perverted in one way or another. Based on the fallible nature of humans is problematic to decide which is true.

You don't get it. The model exists as given by God through his Apostles, period. People are free to choose any variation of that model they want.

Yet the Apostolic Church, it's doctrines, and all other aspects of it's operation were written in "concrete". Following it has nothing to do with human nature if you can read. No doubt human nature and needs influence the variations. Be they pomp and ceremony, concert level music, doctrinal quirks giving them only "the truth", prophets who guide them into practices totally alien to the Apostles.

I choose to adhere to that Biblical model.