02-29-2008, 12:24 PM
I haven't read Decius' decree, but I think I can understand it from his point of view. If any group, such as Christians, would not follow the state religion, they were risking the spiritual safety of not just themselves (according to his viewpoint) but also of the whole country. So in one way, it was a national security issue.
What's most interesting to me is that the Christians, for their part, viewed blood sacrifices as a no-longer-necessary ritual, believing that Jesus had fulfilled the need for all sacrifices. They were probably not happy with Decius' dictum, though it was not new, just newly being enforced. Yet, they were unable to comply.
I guess from both their perspectives, they were dealing with non-negotiable fundamentals, and therefore could not compromise without damaging their respective core beliefs. The state required animal sacrifices to honor their gods, and the Christians (and Jews) were forbidden to honor them, or they would offend their own.
What's most interesting to me is that the Christians, for their part, viewed blood sacrifices as a no-longer-necessary ritual, believing that Jesus had fulfilled the need for all sacrifices. They were probably not happy with Decius' dictum, though it was not new, just newly being enforced. Yet, they were unable to comply.
I guess from both their perspectives, they were dealing with non-negotiable fundamentals, and therefore could not compromise without damaging their respective core beliefs. The state required animal sacrifices to honor their gods, and the Christians (and Jews) were forbidden to honor them, or they would offend their own.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)
Saepe veritas est dura.
(David Wills)
Saepe veritas est dura.
