Back in the day, you could not separate religion from politics. But it wasn’t a problem, because there was no monotheism – all gods existed. It didn’t matter if the Emperor worshiped Jupiter and that a subject worshiped Baal. Please advance an argument.

Messianism – apocalypticism – is why the Jews stirred up rebellion – and the first Christians were Jews. If you want some Christian examples, read Revelation and other works from the second century.

You are the one lacking a grasp of the intricacies of Roman history. And yu have yet to offer one shred of proof, one bit of evidence, even one single citation, in support of your arguments. This is so very typical of the Christians who come here to argue with me. Honestly, I think I need to make a rule here that if you can’t argue a cogent argument, I won’t even bother replying, because you’re really insulting my intelligence at this point.

Please do make a cogent argument, or don’t bother.

And why did groups of Christians, Jews, members of various pagan cults stir up rebellion? Did they really or was this a Roman bias.

You read history one way and one way only. You have no grasp of the intricacies of Roman history. You can agree all you like with other posters, but that doesn’t lend any credibility to your biased arguments.

Good luck with your intolerant war against intolerance.

1) The Romans’ professed abhorrence of certain Carthaginian customs as further justification for war with Carthage.

2) Alexander’s abhorrence of certain religious customs practiced by the peoples he conquered in the lands now called Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There are no doubt a great many others but, unfortunately, I had to leave my library behind when moved overseas – i.e., I don’t have immediate access to all of the primary witnesses (most of which are not Christian). But please, look up some of them – the primary sources I mean; I would hate for my own understanding of history to be based solely on modern interpreters.

You wrote “Indeed, I carefully cite my sources when I write”. I missed the source that you cited when you proclaimed what “Christians” would say and that “Christians” initiate conversations about religion. Nowhere did you say that you were writing only about Christians who think like Mr. Douthat.

You wrote “I’m sorry, but this won’t do. This is an old excuse and I’m quite frankly tired of seeing it trotted out. The crimes committed by Christianity since the fourth century cannot be wished away by simply waving a magic wand…” Indeed, this won’t do – I did not say (and here you are putting words in my mouth) that Christians have not committed atrocities. Clearly they have. No need to elaborate. I was referring to Christians now, not Christians then. (But I think that you have difficulty differentiating…).

You wrote “you won’t find any such list of polytheistic intolerance”. Wrong and wrong. There is plenty of indication of Roman intolerance (despite your careful waving away of it with the magic wand of “Christian bias”). Read Josephus for some of the description of Roman treatment of the “Other”. Consider the Chanadala and associated groups trampeled by Hindu society… I am sure that if you were interested in having a real ecumenical view you would investigate the dark sides of polytheism as well.

But, it is clear that you are a thirty year reactionary against a bad experience from your youth. This is clear when you write “I speak from three decades of experience as a polytheist and before that an upbringing as a Lutheran (ELCA) – from birth to age 22″. You throw this out as some kind of claim for authority about what you are saying – and it is a common trope used by reactionaries against religions – but being raised in a tradition is no guarantee of sufficient knowledge of it. Perhaps you have sufficient knowledge, maybe you have studied Lutheran theology in depth – I don’t know; what I do know is that the claim which you make carries little weight.

Don’t get me wrong – I am not interested only in defending Christianity. I am defending it here because you are attacking it with rather specious arguments. If you were attacking polytheism, I would be defending that. But, in your rebellion against your previous religious tradition (which was no doubt thrust upon you authoritatively) you craft your own Other against which you demonstrate very little tolerance. You contradict your own claims for polytheism.

I would think that a real ecumenical position would seek to rehabilitate all religious positions to be tolerant of the Other rather than seek to brand some inherently and irremediably intolerant and therefore not worthy of regard.

But you have already crafted your own vision of Christianity and have declared it to be the only viable one (and you make use of similarly ideological representations) and thus you cannot take into account any nuance that can be legitimately read in Christian scriptures.

I am sure that if you read any polytheistic writings the way that you read Christian writings you would find intolerance of Others (whether or not these Others are differentiated according to religious view or according to some other criteria).

I would like you to prove that all polytheisms have been perfectly tolerant to all Others. After all, your silence suggests that you deny my claim that polytheists do not escape the dark, intolerant side of human nature.

Re: Christian persecution under Rome… I am dimly recalling a Christianizing of the Roman Empire class in my undergraduate years, and a book which posited that the “persecution” stemmed from Christianity’s unwillingness to participate in the state religious festivals, which required no particular belief but did require form. I thought that was a rather pat answer, though, since the Jews (of which Christianity was considered a radical new sect, but nothing unique) were tolerated and they didn’t participate in pagan practices, either. What the Romans did not tolerate well was insurrection and rebellion, and they were cheerfully even-handed about squashing those, regardless of how many gods you worshiped–so I suspect the Christians were somehow conceived of as rebelling in some fashion. (This is one of those times I wish I’d kept all my books from college.)

Syncretism is absolutely a part of the ancient religious landscape; no religion is free of it. And I don’t think this makes a religion – including Christianity – less.

But what Christianity has done is taken all these bits and pieces – from Judaism, from “mystery religions” and so on and put them all together (along with ancient ideas of morality, ethics, etc) and called them something new with the pretense that it invented these things – and then replaced everything it stole – through force.

The pope (Truth and Tolerance, 2004) tries to make an argument against Assmann but without success.

I haven’t read Moses the Egyptian but I intend to… I just started reading The Mosaic Distinction. (Maybe better to read Moses the Egyptian first?)

His theory about the cultural translation being achieved through religion, i.e. polytheism, is a rather persuasive argument.

No historical event comes to my mind, in which a polytheistic culture intentionally destroyed another’s religion. I could be missing it somewhere though… On the other hand, it can be stated that syncretism was rampant in ancient history.

Christianity is no stranger to this either. It was and is still being used to influence and support Christianity’s purposes. The Catholic saints usually (not always) tend to have been the replacement for local deities.

In addition to the deities, “holidays” were also assimilated. You point this out well in your article about Christmas. (I do not like that word, I prefer Yule.)

From the beginning, the Church realized the only way to convert the masses was to let them keep their habits and rituals. They didn’t want to reinvent the wheel… and yes, as you stated above everything Christianity had to offer was already available. What’s the saying? If you can’t beat them, join them. Pun intended.

Sydryd