The first question in this series comes from an American using Windows and Internet Explorer, and they ask “What religion did the People of the Roman Empire follow?” Well I’m glad you asked that… um…let’s call you Fred… while your search landed on a very popular article entitled Causes and Effects of the Popularization of Christianity in the Roman Empire, I’m afraid that it won’t answer your question entirely.

Yes, for a portion of its history the Roman Empire was Christian, but for most of its history Rome itself (including the period of the Republic and the Empire) followed a mythopoeic religion that was closely related the classical Greek religion. It wasn’t until Constantine realized that a single unified religion could revitalize the Roman empire that Christianity actually became a quasi-official religion. Prior to this the Roman Empire as a whole did not have an official religion: each culture was allowed to worship their own gods as long as they paid tribute to the gods of Rome and did not deny their existence. Even this requirement was ignored for a time and the Jewish peoples were allowed to live peaceably under Roman rule for many years. However, as the Roman economy degraded and the Empire spread to encompass many different cultures, it began to fracture and there was little to integrate the different groups or the classes. Read that article if you want to know more.)

For the rest of Roman history, the Romans followed a pagan religion and allowed people to believe whatever they wanted. That was the long way of saying: there was no one religion of the Roman empire, there were many.

My next question comes from … let’s say Sarah … who hails from Canada and also uses Windows and Internet Explorer. Sarah asks Did the church unite the Roman Empire?” Sarah landed on the same page as Fred and again the question is not fully answered. The real answer is both yes and no because individually the Eastern Empire and Western Empire were united through Christianity, but because they both had a slightly different view of Christianity (this is the divide between the Greek Orthodox and Catholic sects) the two parts of the empire slowly separate because of the religion.

You see Sarah, as Christianity spread in its early days, certain cities became the founding cities of the religion think Québec and Toronto or New York City and Boston, so they had a relatively large Christian population with widespread influence. However, in what was to become the Western Roman Empire, there was only one city: Rome, but in the Eastern Roman Empire there were several cities such as Jerusalem and Antioch.

Each of these major cities basically had someone, think a bishop, who was sort of a guide to the people under their influence, so while the Eastern Empire had several religious leaders to look up to, the Western Empire had only one: the Pope. As the two empires split the Western side looked only to their Pope for religious guidance and over time the two churches separated because the Western Pope was seen as the single most influential person in the religion by his own people, but the Eastern Empire was used to following several different religious leaders, so the religious structure of the two sides slowly separated.

So the short and sweet answer is yes, Christianity did unite the Roman Empire, but it united it in two slightly different styles.

Bookmark

While Thomas Paine was referred to as a “a dirty little atheist” by Theodore Roosevelt, he did not disbelieve in a supreme god as the creator of everything: he believed that man could not be trusted with religion; therefore, any religions texts written down by humans were also contaminated by them.² Paine also argued that “it is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand,” so rather than believing in adhering to a particular religious doctrine, he believed, as stated by Thomas Edison, “[that the] Bible was the open face of nature, the broad skies, the green hills.” Paine believed that “[his] own mind is [his] own church” and required no religious texts to indicate how he should live nor did he require four thousand year old scrawlings to dictate his morality. He believed that morality comes from within.³

We can see the rise of deism in western societies by taking America as a middle-of-the-road country.⁴ The majority of Americans today also tend towards these ideas— the recent Baylor Religion Survey conducted by the Gallup Organization found that 88% of those living in America believe in a God. Of that 88%, 75% absolutely believed totally and 13% believed that it was probable that a God exists; however, a Gallup poll in 2006 found that only 43% of residents actually attended religious services more frequently than “almost weekly.” While these numbers could be indicative of any number of causes, the most obvious is a lack of belief that attendance in religious services, as required in religious texts, is required to live a moral life. Americans are beginning to see that weekly church services and a devout belief in god does not make men infallible and those who profess themselves to be religious leaders can have flaws whose consequences reverberate within an entire religion. While many Americans profess to believe in God, or the concept of a god, most see rituals as meaningless and the countless stories in the bible as stories meant not literally, but as a way to demonstrate morals.

These new tenets are demonstrated by the continued relaxing of America’s attitude towards other religions⁵ and sects of Christianity, but the continued idea that atheism is the cause of most of societies ilks. The majority of Americans still value a belief in a god, but what god and how one worships the god is less important as long as the principles in the religion intersect with American cultural values and teach people moral behavior. The separation of religious morals from religion is not new: in the 1830’s Horace Mann argued, as part of the Board of Education for Massachusetts, that teaching religion in schools was not required to teach religious morals, but America’s separation of religious morals from religious belief has always had cycle and peaks and valleys based on events of that and the previous generation. However, it seems that religious doctrine is again giving way to scientific thought—evidenced by the continually changing tactics of those who want religion taught in classrooms—similarly to the way this occurred during the Age of Enlightenment.

Bookmark

Notes:

1. It was never accepted by the majority, but in certain intellectual circles it was.
2. “His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.”
3. “I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.”
4. Yes, I know that most of us consider America to be very religious, but it really isn’t 100% true.
5. Of course, we must exclude religious animosity caused by non-religious events.

( At the end of the post there are two videos: the first video is of a newscast from Al Jazeera English and the second is the actual full 26 minute speech which is rather hard to find and isn’t being distributed by the major video networks. Also, you can read the full text translation, download the the original PDF scan of the NBC transcript or view a up version here)

The odd thing is that most of his complaints are reasonable: for example he blames global warming on large corporations:

The life of all mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories the major corporations…and despite this brazen attack on the people [referring to global warming], the leaders of the West — especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown — still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of humans?

The sad thing is if he had started this way 6 years ago rather than killing thousands, people would have been more likely to listen, but since he decided to start with violence like a psychopath rather than act civilized, this message is far too little too late and just screams propaganda.

What major News organizations are saying

From CNN:

“We continue to see a very determined enemy who wants to plot, plan and kill Americans and act against American interests,” White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend told CNN.

“But I’d encourage Americans to keep in mind whenever we see these sorts of statements, they’re propaganda. And they’re the enemy’s propaganda. They’re meant to manipulate the American people and to frighten them,” she said.

From BBC News:

Gone is the straggly, unkempt beard that was heavily flecked with grey.

Instead, his beard appears dark, thick and trimmed, although analysts have suggested that rather than being dyed, it may be actually false, and that to help avoid detection he is clean-shaven these days.

The al-Qaeda leader’s face still looks tired and lined, as befits a fugitive who may well have to sleep in different locations almost every night, but it is not quite as gaunt or exhausted looking as it was three years ago.

Unlike some of the more psychopathic adherents of al-Qaeda, Bin Laden has often tried to sway the opinions of the Western public in the hopes of driving a wedge between them and their leaders, and between European countries and his most hated enemy, the US government.

From ABC

The Homeland Security Department was continuing to analyze the video to see if it includes any coded messages, department spokesman Russ Knocke said. But the department has found no credible information of an imminent threat to the homeland.

Also from ABC

Osama bin Laden’s latest message is a hodgepodge of anti-capitalist vitriol, impassioned Islamic evangelism and what can best be described as a twisted attempt at reconciliation: Join us, or we’ll kill you.

Whether the video will resonate on the Arab or Muslim street is not at all clear. In Iraq, where disillusionment with the United States runs high, most people voiced disgust with bin Laden’s latest message.

Al Jazeera English

The Speach

Cleaned up transcript images

(Click to see full images.)

Bookmark

Saint Augustine argues this idea by stating the difference between the two cities is in the goals of its inhabitants. According to Saint Augustine the inhabitants of the earthly city seek physical and financial wellbeing with their only goals being peace in wealth. (Just to stick my two sense in isn’t that a very good goal?) However, the inhabitance of the city of God do not seek peace but instead use peace to further the city of God. These people do not look for earthly peace or wealth, but rather look to the next life as their goal.

In general he says that the two cities are part of each other, but that the differences between them deal mainly with life goals and the important things in life.

Bookmark

Cyclical time is based on the idea that for everything there is a season, and that every outcome happens repeatedly. This theory is based on the ancient’s view of the cycle of the seasons and the cycle of life and death. For the ancient Greeks, Mesopotamians and Egyptians it seemed obvious that if the sun, moon, seasons, life, and history all have cycles, then time and the universe itself must also cycle in an endless loop of creation and destruction. The Greek festival of Demeter — the goddess of harvests — took place yearly to celebrate the changing of winter to spring; while in this case there is a reason for a yearly repeat — every fall Demeter’s daughter must descend into Hades for three months — other similar festivals such as the Egyptian celebration of the resurrection of Horus by Isis had no natural reason for the yearly repeat. While the Israelites (historically, the Jewish people are considered Israelites before they returned to the area after the Babylonian empire conquered Israel) also celebrated yearly events, these were considered anniversaries of the event itself rather than the mythopoeic view that the same event actually occurred over and over. This is revolutionary because it removed history from the cycles of nature, and declared that history is a single line from beginning to end. This had two major effects. History itself became far more important because events no longer happened in a cycle, and since they occurred only once individual events were worth remembering because — as the second effect — by remembering and studying one could then predict the future because all of history was controlled by one being, and by studying the past actions of this being one could predict the beings future actions.

As you can tell this leads us directly into Judaism’s second innovation: monotheism. (As an aside there is no direct evidence that Judaism itself is monotheistic (a single god) — many times it is considered to henotheistic (one god above all others.) This distinction is made because in the most well known parts of Torah — Judaism’s main religious texts — it never says that there are no other gods just that none should be held higher. Aside from the evidence in the texts themselves , at the time it was very common for there to be personal or familial gods; these two combined leave the distinction a little murky, but even still here we will assume the popular view.) Not only is the monotheism important in and of itself, but also, the Judaism’s god was theoretically perfect in all ways; unlike the gods of the mythopoeic religions which exhibited human like traits such as love, jealousy, anger, lust, and desire. Of course one can argue that Judaism’s god was also imperfect –as exhibited through acts of anger, but this is not how the Israelites themselves saw him. The Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians all saw their gods as slightly better versions of humans. In fact, in one of the Babylonian myths all of the gods worked together to destroy mankind and almost succeeded surprising even themselves of their own power; not only this, but the gods were also ashamed of what they did and regretted it later. Because the mythopoeic religions had human-like gods it showed that humans themselves are not that imperfect, and the separation beyond god and human was very thin; as a result, the gods were able to affect one’s life, but because of their human-like nature they were fickle which explained the seemingly randomness of life. In contrast, the Israelite’s god was much more powerful than a human being, which distanced them from his actions. The randomness in life was not explained as god being fickle, but rather that god has some plan that is beyond human understanding. This ties in with the single strand of time because every event that occurs was part of the Israelite’s god’s plan, and thus, by remembering past actions in this plan one could predict his future plans.

Finally, in mythopoeic religions the universe is animate or alive, and is a central tenet of most mythopoeic religions. Usually this idea evidences itself in the worship of animals and objects alongside gods because these animals and objects also have spirits that must be appeased. However, ancient Judaism declared that everything, aside from their god, is dead and nothing, aside from humans, has a spirit, and in doing so show that humans are meaningless beyond being puppets in gods show, but are still held above other creations because the are the only creation with a spirit.. This idea combined with the tenant that humans were created from the dirt contrasts with the mythopoeic view that all of creation were created from parts of the gods, and thus, humans are only slightly better than animals and slightly less than gods.

Overall ancient Judaism was revolutionary because it tied together all the facets of life, Unlike many cultures the Israelites saw their culture, history, laws, customs, and religion as one thing bound together making separation nearly impossible. This also worked to tie the group together in a whole because the cohesion of the parts made it impossible to be and Israeli without each of these parts which has made Judaism one of the most resilient religions in the world. in contrast the mythopoeic religions lasted for many generations in each of their cases, but each died out in time because in the end, unlike Judaism, they were not unified nor practical in the long term.

Bookmark

Christianity differed from the pagan religions, life philosophies and mystery cults in that it there was no monetary fee to join, it was absolute in its beliefs and provided an afterlife. In contrast the cults were expensive to join, they allowed you to join any other cult or religion ^&^, and did not provide a “real” afterlife only one that is better when compared with Hades. Because of these three things Christianity spread and eventually became the official religion because it is a unifying force and appealed to all levels of society. Of the three main difference between Christianity and the mystery cults the most influential is that it was free to join. Unlike the mystery cults where only the wealthy could join, Christianity was open to women, the poor and slaves who did not have access to large amounts of disposable income. Because it was absolute in its teachings gave Romans a stability that was lacking in Roman life, religion and politics. Because it taught it was the only religion it gave people relief knowing that they had chosen correctly. However, quite possible the most appealing aspect of Christianity was that it offered its followers a real after life. Promising that although this life is hard the next would be better. A final aspect of Christianity is that it valued its members and promoted charities and giving to Christians in need. Allowing the wealthy a chance to feel good and do good in the site of God and provided some measure of financial stability for its poorest members.
The religion continued to spread until it reached a point where 5 – 10% of Roman citizens were Christians and in some roman cities (mostly in the Greek cities like Antioch where Christianity had a long time to grow) the percentages were as high as 30%. Even more importantly it preached unity and loyalty to fellow members which was sorely lacking in other popular cults of the day. This unity was seen by Constantine as a way to reunite the Roman Empire and help to move the Romans from a collection of groups bound by money and the sword into a cohesive and unified Empire. Over time Christianity did succeed in tying the fragmented groups together, but as it gained power it also ended religious freedom in the empire, and widened the divide between the Latin Western Empire and Greek Eastern Empire.

However, power gained by the church was not absolute. Although there were several cases of church officials asserting power over the Emperor — most notably when the Bishop of Milan told the Emperor Theodosius I to do penance for two years for ordering the deaths of seven thousand people in Thessalonica — the majority of the time the various Emperors would twist the church to fulfill their goals and preach the Emperor’s own version of Christianity. So, even though the Church theoretically overruled the state, the Emperor controlled the church.

Because the church was controlled by the Emperor it changed just as much as it changed the Empire. One of Constantine’s first acts was to create a creed on the nature of Jesus — previously this point was a hotly debated issue — thus defining Christianity and laying the foundation of intolerance to any “deviant” forms not related to the official church. Christianity also borrowed the Roman hierarchical and patriarchal structure for its leadership which quickly created the internal bureaucracy one sees when looking at the various ranks and duties of the orders of priests. At the same time the adoption of Christianity diversified — while diluting — it. Constantine and later Emperors in an attempt to popularize the religion made it easier for Christians to enter politics and gave tax breaks to Christian priests. In turn this was frequently abused by people looking to get ahead ahead. Various other Roman customs were absorbed into Christianity including titles (Pontifex Maximus is a title of the pope for example). …[the remainder of this article has been corrupted]

Bookmark

Mahayana Tradition recognizes an infinite number of Buddhas who are able to help people achieve enlightenment or, for the lay followers, pray to in times of need. Theravadan tradition however only recognizes Gautama Buddha and prior Buddhas as legitimate. These Buddhas are accepted as men who found enlightenment, but not as supernatural beings. The Mahayanan tradition of accepting infinite Buddhas is beneficial to the religion overall because general practitioners can look to the different Buddhas for guidance and support in times of trouble which, in turn, has a profound positive influence on lay followers.

Theravada Buddhism only accepts Maitreya Bodhisattva as an “official” bodhisattva because he is the only one mentioned in the Pali language cannon. However, Mahayana teaches that all human beings have the opportunity to become a bodhisattva through many lifetimes worth of work. This act of becoming a bodhisattva is seen as an act of great compassion in Mahayanan tradition because the practitioner forestalls an easier road to nirvana to help others achieve enlightenment. Mahayanan tradition holds those who forestall their own ascension to nirvana in the highest regard; however, Theravadan tradition rewards those who focus on their own attainment of nirvana. As a result, Theravadan Buddhism tends to be seen as an elitist religion without much in the way of benefit for lay followers.

Theravadan Buddhism also does not allow local input or updating of traditions from the original Pali language; however, Mahayana allows local traditions to blend with the prior tradition. Mahayana also accepts all languages as part of their cannon while Theravada only allows for the original Pali texts as cannon. Theravadan furthers compounds this difference by only allowing the Tripitaka to be written in Pali unlike Mahayana’s acceptance of all languages. Without a blending of traditions and the ability to easily adopt the ideals of Buddhism to each new region or group, Theravadan Buddhism has had a much harder time spreading over a large area. Mahayana however, has continually spread, and, as a result, has become the dominant form of Buddhism in most areas.

Theravada tradition puts only minor emphasis on rituals. The rituals that are practiced only come from pre-Buddhist influences; local customs are cast aside in the practice of Theravadan Buddhism. Mahayana however greatly emphasizes rituals most of which are based on the local traditions of the area Mahayana migrated to. Emphasis on rituals causes Mahayana to be seen as a folk religion or words over substance and it also encourages the dilution of Mahayanan tradition with the influx of outside influences.

The differences within Mahayanan schools of Buddhism are striking. The three main schools: the pure land sect, the intuitive sect, and the rationalist sect each offer three very different but complementary views of Buddhist scripture and philosophy. Theravadan tradition has only a single school of thought which prevents the philosophy from being fully explored by practitioners. However, Theravadan tradition does have strength as it does not have the schisms in the religious community that has plagued Mahayanan tradition since its inception.

Overall, Mahayanan tradition is seen as a religion of the people while Theravadan tradition is a religion of the elders. Neither is entirely superior to the other as both traditions have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Bookmark

Mahavira was born in 599 BC in Bihar, India (formerly Vaishali Videha) where he lived a normal princely life until the age of 28 when both of his parents died. He, in respect to the wishes of his brother, continued to live at home for two years. During this time, he began his practice of self-denial and meditation. In contrast, Gautama was born in 536 BC in Kapilavastu, India (now called Nepal) where he lived surrounded by earthly pleasures and excesses to the point that his father never allowed him to see anything dissatisfactory with the world for fear Gautama would become a spiritual leader rather than a warrior. Gautama was content with his life, but when he was about 29 years old he became discontent with his life because of what are referred to as the “four sites”. These four sites (age, sickness, death, and mediation) caused him to question his place in life and caused him to fear the same happening in his own family. Soon after, he cast aside the burden of householder life and, leaving his family behind, began his journey to enlightenment.

Mahavira, after his renunciation, began his quest for enlightenment first by joining a group of ascetics, but left them soon after because of differences in opinion. (Oddly, he left because he had angered the other Ascetics by allowed starving cattle to eat the thatch roofs of their huts.) He then spent two years in the town of Nalanda. During the second year he meet Gosala, and the two traveled together for ten years (less 6 months) until Gosala left him. However, Gosala did not leave Mahavira’s life permanently later he tried to kill Mahavira by cursing him; however, the curse backfired and, if the legends are to be believed, Gosala himself died from the same curse 7 years later. Mahavira spent 12 years in meditation to achieve enlightenment; as he progressed his spiritual abilities grew and he achieved perfect enlightenment. After his enlightenment, Mahavira spent the reminder of his life preaching the way to enlightenment he had achieved.

Gautama began his journey by studying with the hermits Arada and later Udraka. They taught him how to meditate and achieve a state of non-existence and to achieve a state not of perception or non-perception respectively. After Gautama mastered both of these techniques, he began practicing asceticism, and he was later joined by a group of wandering ascetics who were impressed by the degree of self-mortification Gautama had achieved. After several years, he remembered the meditative states he had achieved as a boy, and he began to become discontent with the ascetic way. He decided that the ascetics would not help him achieve the enlightenment he desired, so he renounced asceticism, ate some food and began his pursuit of a “middle way”. Gautama then began seeking enlightenment through meditation rather than self-deprivation. After leaving the ascetic way of life, Gautama sat under a bodhi tree and began his meditation; shortly after, he achieved a heightened state of awareness, and by turning this awareness inward, he realized the four noble truths. The truths he realized became known as the Dharma which Gautama spent the remainder of his life preaching to those who would listen.

The paths of these two men are very similar: their life choices follow the same path and the end result was the same. The differences can be traced back to a single point: one was spoiled as a child and one was not. Gautama who lived a life of excess beyond what was normal even for other princes chose a middle path that did not require self-deprivation, Mahavira who lead a “normal” life for a prince chose extreme self-deprivation as a tool. One can only wonder if the roles were reversed would their decisions have been the same.

Bookmark