No love for my Arian Western Empire idea? Rome surviving does not preclude Rome Christianizing.
Not lack of love, just big cultural issues.No love for my Arian Western Empire idea? Rome surviving does not preclude Rome Christianizing.
Rome was Arian so long as there were Germanic foederati propping it up at spearpoint.Rome was Arian until after Valens.
I was using those stelae to support my trinitarian hypothesis. I don't believe anybody has denied (in fact, pretty much everbody has acknowledged) the polytheistic and syncretic nature of the Roman religious system.This completely misses the point that these were accentuated movements within a universally polytheistic culture. There was NO active competition to supplant other godheads.
No one has suggested this either.It also doesn't prove that the general multi-ethnic populace of the Roman Empire were getting bored with their own pantheons, and wanted some juicier sort of eastern cult. Whole populations of religious believers don't just give up their traditional religious beliefs spontaneously just because a new one appears.
I was using those stelae to support my trinitarian hypothesis. I don't believe anybody has denied (in fact, pretty much everbody has acknowledged) the polytheistic and syncretic nature of the Roman religious system.
The comment came after I addressed Dathi about a perceived inevitability that a religion from the east was going to become the state religion of the Roman Empire. Whatever attracts followers in the eastern provinces isn't necessarily going to catch on everywhere else without the state actively endorsing it and forcing the population to accept it along with them.
No one has suggested this either.
I refer you to Dathi THorfinsson's earlier comments.
Your point, however, seems to ignore that it is States which create Societies, and (as the Romans knew very well) Organized Religion is almost always the handmaiden of the State.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Again, I was arguing that whole civilian populations don't just convert en mass, in short fashion, to any new religion without being compelled by social pressure.
But the bolded is what we're discussing. Dathi is still correct in pointing out that Oriental cults are the more appealing to the Imperial government due to their influence in the most populous/wealthiest parts of the Empire.The comment came after I addressed Dathi about a perceived inevitability that a religion from the east was going to become the state religion of the Roman Empire. Whatever attracts followers in the eastern provinces isn't necessarily going to catch on everywhere else without the state actively endorsing it and forcing the population to accept it along with them.
I wouldn't argue with you on that, since you're correct. But State endorsement and Organized Religion on the macro-level is what we're talking here.Again, I was arguing that whole civilian populations don't just convert en mass, in short fashion, to any new religion without being compelled by social pressure.
But the bolded is what we're discussing. Dathi is still correct in pointing out that Oriental cults are the more appealing to the Imperial government due to their influence in the most populous/wealthiest parts of the Empire.
Fair enough, and I don't agree with Dathi on this one.Dathi said "the polytheisms of Greece/Rome/Gaul whatever were simply no longer appealing". "Appealing" to whom? The state, or the general populace? This should be clarified.
Well, his wording could be better, but the point remains a pretty solid one; an Oriental cult is most likely, and messianism tends to be popular in times of extreme duress (like the Empire's last centuries).Before that he said it was "pretty much guaranteed that a Near Eastern messianic cult becomes the official faith of the Roman Empire".
Indeed. But things like that tend to change when a cult becomes a part of the State Religion.By the way, cults like that of Mithras had a selective approach to gaining followers (for example, no women).