What is a god, that we ought to give a damn about it

In learning about ancient and medieval history (yes, I've progressed in time) I've run across much religion and theology. In rather simple terms, most pre-Christian religions were a means of obtaining favor from the gods. There were other social functions, too, but the main part of religion was to obtain favor from the gods. This goes clear back to Egypt, Sumer and all the other ancientest civilizations, and it most definitely includes the Greeks and Romans.

The rituals varied a great deal between societies and sometimes within them. Some requests from the gods required different rituals as well. Healing, for instance, often required a pilgrimage and a stay at the god's sanctuary.

The afterlife wasn't a big concern, except in ancient Egypt. Agyprians were obsessed with it, and expended a lot of money in making sure that they would reach the next world and had a good afterlife in it. But they were the exception. In particular the most influential civilizations of late antiquity in the West, Greece and Rome, paid little mind to the afterlife. Religion was about seeking favor from the gods.

Now, what does it mean to seek favor? Simply that things would go well for the person making the sacrifice, offering and prayer. To be healed, to have a good harvest, to suceed in business, to pass a law in the Senate, to win a battle.

The last is very important. Rome's history is pretty much one war after another, with some interludes in between. Most turning points in Rome's history involve wars: The Latin Wars, the Punic Wars, the Social Wars, etc. When Rome wasn't fighting for conquest it was fighting for dear life, or it was fighting internally for power. Roman civil wars were so numerous and frequent, I'm sure an Ancient Roman looking at US History would be astounded to see just one civil war in over 200 years.

I'm going to great lengths explaining this for two reasons. one is that many civila wars also mark turning points in ROman history, such as Octavian's war agasint Anthony which completed the change from Republic to Empire. Second because the eventual rise and establishment of Christianitya s the dominant religion was the direct result of a war.

How this comes about requires a bit more explanation. I'll get to it as time allows.

Overall the view of most polytheistic religions in ancient times was that one prayed, made sacrifices and/or offerings to the gods in order to secure their favor. Different peoples worshipped different gods, but this was seen as normal and natural.

It was also believed all gods were valid, and in fact it was common for one culture to adopt gods form other cultures. Heracles, or Hercules, was widely adopted throughout the Mediterrenean, for exmaple. either by himself, or as an aspect of a lcoal god (this is known as syncretism). Hannibal, who wrought havoc throughout the Roman Republic for years, used the image of Heracles Melkart (a mix with a Carthaginian/Phoenician god) widely in his propaganda. Serapis was a Greek adaptation of the Egyptian god Osiris worshipped by the Alexandrian Greek adn Macedonian expatriates; a big temple knowns as the Serapium was built in his honor.

Crucially the ancient world viewed Judaism and Jews this way also. The Romans in particular did so. Yes, ti was odd that the Hebrews only worshipped one god, and that they never worhsipped foreign gods, but in essence it was the same thing. In fact, Jewish ritual at the time, and afterwards, did include sacrificing animals to Yahwe at the temple. This probably goes back to the book of Genesis, when Abraham is ordered by god to sacrifice his son Isaac, only to be stopped by an angel and then told to sacrifice a goat or sheep instead.

As an aside, One thing I've often wondered was wether ancient Jews believed other gods existed, but chose not to worship them. The evidence is ambiguous at best, and twisted by long practice and intepretation. but I wouldn't be surpised if it were so. It would explain passages in Exodus where Pharaoh's magicians can work miracles, though they are bested by Moses and his god, as well as the wording int he first commandment.

Of course bad things happen all the time. Ancient hsitory is rife with periods of famine, plague, and most particualrly wars lost. But also of prosperity and wars won. Naturally people ha dno trouble believing they were either favored by the gods or abandoned by them, depending on how things turned out.

At the conclussion of one revolt agaisnt Roman rule in Judea, the emperor Hadrian made a point to destroy Jerusalem in order to show the Jews their god had abandoned them. He also barred Jews from entering Jerusalem and reanmed the city Aelia Capitolina, after himself (or one of his names) and Jupuiter Capitolinus. This was an extreme measure, but not unheard of in Roman times. Reserved for repeat offenders (Judea had rebelled several times before), strong enemies like Carthage, or those acting at a really bad time, as when Aurelian leveled Palmira. The practice has a long history, going back to Alexander himself during his "great" campaigns.

An empire on the rise, such as Rome, which defeated and conquered one enemy after another, the Etruscans, the Latin tribes, Scicilly, Carthage, Greece, Pontus, Gaul, Egypt, Syria, Judea, etc. would ahve seen itself as favored greatly by the gods.

The Romans expected miracles from their gods in abttle, too, and often got them. Trajan's Column in Rome commemorates several fo these, as do other monuments by other victorious emperors. And now we get to the point.

Rome experienced a very bad, very long period of incessant civil wars and barbarian invasions (mostly raids along the frontier, but expensive ones) during what is knwon as the Crisis of the Third Century. This ended when the emperor Diocletian took over and instituted rule by four emperors, known as the Tetrarchy. There were two senior emperors, Diocletian and Maximinus, and two junior ones. But here was no doubt Diocletian was at the top and was in charge of the whole operation. He also turned the definition of emperor from a magistrate (Princeps) to a lord (Dominus). This is important.

After 20 years of this kind of rule, rather successful, too, Diocletian and hsi senior colleague retired, making way for the junior emperors. These in turn named two other emperors to join them.

Of course things aren't quite that simple and don't often turn out well. What eventually followed was a civil war for control of the Empire.

Skipping over a lot of complicated history and politics, a crucial battle in this war took place at the Milvian Bridge, right outisde of the city of Rome. On one side, and inside Rome, was Maxentius, and on the other Constantine. This wasn't quite the last battle, but it elevated Constantine to great heights and made it unlikely to face much serious opposition.

Shrotly before the battle Constantine claimed to have experienced a vision of a cross on the Sun, accompanied by the words "In this sign you will conquer." Allegedly his army saw the same vision. Later Constantine dreamt of Jesus instructing him to place a Christian symbol on the shields of his armies.

The consensus is that Constantine painted the Greek letters Chi and Ro one his mens' shields, and palced them on the military banner known as the Labarum as well. These letters form a symbol knowns as the Chi-Ro and are an early Christian symbol for Christ.

Now, this would be a perfectly normal event involving a pagan god. That is, no Roman at that time would think it odd for a god to say "Fight under my banner and I'll give you victory." But my, admittedly limited, understanding of Christianity tells me it would be out of character, to say the least, for Jesus to offer to take sides in a war. I'd be interested to get a Christian take on that.

Regarldess of wether or not this happened, it is what is believed to have happened. In time Constantine converted to Christianity and began using state funds to promote the church in various ways. Had he been a magistrate rather than a lord, still mimmicking the old Republic, things would ahve been different, too. And the point is Constantine converted because the Christian god, as it were, granted him victory, in a most pagan god fashion.

Ironic, isn't it?

Nareed, I found that to be a very good and fair telling of the story. And yes it would be strange and a bit ironic if Jesus took sides in a Roman civil war. However, it is not strange at all for God to take sides when oppression and persecution is taking place. The Romans were notoriously brutal in the killing of innocent Christians throughout their history pre-Constantine. Just like God who heard the voice of His chosen people the Jews; exiled, tortured, killed, and enslaved in Egypt and fought against the Pharaoh. Looking at in this way it seems that the story of Constantine in some ways mirrors a new Exodus from persecution, much more than a rehashing of pagan histories.

Hey, welcome back!

Quote: FrGamble

Nareed, I found that to be a very good and fair telling of the story.

You're too kind. Re-reading it now I find it choppy and disjointed.

Quote:

And yes it would be strange and a bit ironic if Jesus took sides in a Roman civil war.

I'd say in any war. In the Old Testament, God constantly takes the side of his chosen people. This is completely in character with practices at the time, too. Homer has several deities so involved in the Trojan war, that they fight in the battlefield and even get to sustain wounds.

The New Testament is a different kind of book, more theology and moralizing, with little pretense at history. The god featured in it is also quite different, talking more of love and peace and virtue, while saying little or nothing about war or battle.

Quote:

However, it is not strange at all for God to take sides when oppression and persecution is taking place. The Romans were notoriously brutal in the killing of innocent Christians throughout their history pre-Constantine.

Yes, indeed. But while the last persecution took place in Diocletian's time, it was quite over by the time the son of Constantius so impressed the legions they elected him Imperator in a most provocative fashion. When Constantine secured a position in the Tetrarchy and began poking at the others, and he was not alone in this, there were no persecutions in place.

Quote:

Just like God who heard the voice of His chosen people the Jews; exiled, tortured, killed, and enslaved in Egypt and fought against the Pharaoh.

You know, there's no evidence found in Egypt that this was the case. There is plenty of evidence found of Jewish communities setting up time and again, and thriving there for centuries. There is also a great deal of evidence that many of the monumental works erected in Egypt (tombs, pyramids, temples, obelisks, etc) used paid laborers.

Quote:

Looking at in this way it seems that the story of Constantine in some ways mirrors a new Exodus from persecution, much more than a rehashing of pagan histories.

If so, one would wonder what took so long. Not to mention why do nothing when Nero carried out a more bloodthirsty and more brutal persecution than any others ever did afterwards.

Most important, Constantine's story does not end at the Milvian Bridge. After that battle, he eventually turned on his co-ruler Lychinius (I think, the names in this era are particularly repetitious even by Roman standards) in order to be the sole Roman emperor. And the notable Edict of Milan recognizing Christianity as a valid religion also decreed toelration towards all religions. That does not seem at all fighting under the cross and only under Christ.

Quote: Nareed

I'd say in any war. In the Old Testament, God constantly takes the side of his chosen people. This is completely in character with practices at the time, too. Homer has several deities so involved in the Trojan war, that they fight in the battlefield and even get to sustain wounds.

The New Testament is a different kind of book, more theology and moralizing, with little pretense at history. The god featured in it is also quite different, talking more of love and peace and virtue, while saying little or nothing about war or battle.

The war becomes more spiritual but both Jesus and the early Church often spoke in imagery and language referring to battle and struggle.

Quote:

Yes, indeed. But while the last persecution took place in Diocletian's time, it was quite over by the time the son of Constantius so impressed the legions they elected him Imperator in a most provocative fashion. When Constantine secured a position in the Tetrarchy and began poking at the others, and he was not alone in this, there were no persecutions in place.

It is hard to kill the poor and persecute minorities during a civil war and unrest in Rome.

Quote:

You know, there's no evidence found in Egypt that this was the case. There is plenty of evidence found of Jewish communities setting up time and again, and thriving there for centuries. There is also a great deal of evidence that many of the monumental works erected in Egypt (tombs, pyramids, temples, obelisks, etc) used paid laborers.

We must be reading some different materials. I thought it was a fairly established fact that many of the monumental works of the ancient world were built with slave labor.

Quote:

If so, one would wonder what took so long. Not to mention why do nothing when Nero carried out a more bloodthirsty and more brutal persecution than any others ever did afterwards.

Most important, Constantine's story does not end at the Milvian Bridge. After that battle, he eventually turned on his co-ruler Lychinius (I think, the names in this era are particularly repetitious even by Roman standards) in order to be the sole Roman emperor. And the notable Edict of Milan recognizing Christianity as a valid religion also decreed toelration towards all religions. That does not seem at all fighting under the cross and only under Christ.

Most historians believe that Constantine waited to receive baptism until his death bed knowing that ruling the empire at that time would require some thoroughly un-Christian behavior.

Quote: FrGamble

The war becomes more spiritual but both Jesus and the early Church often spoke in imagery and language referring to battle and struggle.

Maybe so. But there was nothing spiritual about the war Constantine was fighting. Nor much spiritual in Christ saying "Paint my monogram in your men's shields, and together we'll kill, maim and enslave Maxentius' legions." That's what war was like back then (actually it still is, minus the enslavement part)

Quote:

We must be reading some different materials. I thought it was a fairly established fact that many of the monumental works of the ancient world were built with slave labor.

Not as much as people seem to think. The Roman world was rife with slaves. Literally, for a while, they had more slaves than they knew what to do with, and many were owned by the state. Back then the main source of slaves was war. Enemy soldiers captured in abttle more often than not wound up as slaves, as did many refugees and many people from cities which were sacked.

Egypt, unlike Rome, did not engage in conquests. Instead they raided their neighbors from time to time and demanded tribute in order not to raid them again (not any time soon). They had a big standing army thanks to the overabundance of food produced at the very fertile Nile valley (later on Egypt was the breadbasket of Rome), and also a larger population than other nations of similar size. So there were lots of willing workers and artisans paid for building things like Rameses' temple, or Akhnaton's new capital.

Keep in mind, too, Egyptians built more momnuments than anyone else. Every ascendant pharaoh built at least one temple and one tomb, many built more than that. But rich Egyptians also built elaborate tombs for themselves. Tombs were very important to their belief system.

Quote:

Most historians believe that Constantine waited to receive baptism until his death bed knowing that ruling the empire at that time would require some thoroughly un-Christian behavior.

Wouldn't that be hypocrisy?

There was a belief at the time that abptism washed away all sins. Many practicing and devout Christians waited until near their deaths to be baptized for that reason. Which again strikes me as hypocrisy.

I don't know if it would be hypocrisy. There is nothing wrong, at least I hope not, with realizing the truth and the way to live your life but failing to live up to it. In fact in many ways this is why Jesus came to forgive our sins and failings as we strive to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. He keeps us from being discouraged and despairing. Constantine was also way before the development of the private Sacrament of Reconciliation. So if you did sin grievously after baptism it was quite an ordeal to go through in getting back in good graces.

Quote: FrGamble

There is nothing wrong, at least I hope not, with realizing the truth and the way to live your life but failing to live up to it.

Not with failing. But how about with planning not to live up to whatever ideal you know is the right one?

Yes, the intentional choice not to follow your conscience is pretty close to what I may define as sin or you might call sadness.