If Christianity went against all of our desires then it would have become extinct very quickly. Instead, it encourages many phenomena that are naturally appealing to us. Charity. Forgiveness. Self-sacrifice. Triumph. Unity. The hanged one said ‘blessed are the poor’ and he favoured us over the rich, hence why many of us flocked to Christianity before it became the Roman Empire’s state religion.

I am presuming that by ‘man’s desires’ the author had sexual attraction in mind, as

You know the next commandment pretty well, too: ‘Don’t go to bed with another’s spouse.’ But don’t think you’ve preserved your virtue simply by staying out of bed. Your heart can be corrupted by lust even quicker than your body. Those ogling looks you think nobody notices—they also corrupt.

I think that the overwhelming majority of wives would agree that suppressing lust for other women is good advice for their husbands, even if for most husbands that sounds difficult to do, albeit not as difficult as removing an eye or a hand. This verse was inspired by the Torah, because while it may never explicitly condemn lust, the hanged one, as Amy-Jill Levine wrote, ‘does not “oppose” the Law; he extends it.’

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago (4 children)

before it became the Roman Empire's state religion

Y'all ever wonder if Christianity was so pro-poor why one of the most powerful men in history would pick it up and start spreading it around?

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

Recuperation, just as liberals do with MLK.

[–] AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Simple. To appeal to the converted masses.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Brown asserts that Christians still comprised a minority of the overall population, and local authorities were still mostly pagan and lax in imposing anti-pagan laws;

[–] AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You raise a fair point; my earlier statement was misleading. The masses in general were not yet Christian, but the Christian minority showed a remarkable fervour that the rich no doubt noticed and were eager to exploit:

In a way that the awesome power-deities of the pagan pantheon could not, the all-powerful and supremely benevolent Christian god offered ‘a heart in a heartless world’ that had strong appeal to the oppressed of the Roman Empire.

[…]

The exploitation and oppression of the Roman Empire meant misery for millions, but the violence of the state usually prevented effective resistance. This was the contradiction that allowed the Christian Church to grow and grow.

Recruiting among slaves, women, and the poor, the Church was viewed with grave suspicion, and was repeatedly battered by repression. It [did] not work. The men and women set on fire, eaten alive by animals, or nailed onto wooden crosses to die provided the Early Church with a roll call of martyrs as impressive as any in history.

By the early 4th century CE, the Church had become the most powerful ideological apparatus in the Mediterranean world, with a complete underground network of priests, congregations, and meeting-places extending across the Empire.

Many army officers, government officials, and wealthy landowners had already become Christians. In 312 CE, the Emperor Constantine the Great decided to adopt Christianity himself, to legalise the religion, and to make the state the protector and patron of the Church. Before the century was out, his successor, Theodosius the Great, would make paganism illegal and hand over all temple estates to the Church.

(Emphasis added. Source.)

The ability for a minority to seize state power was a structural defect of the Roman Empire:

The army became more and more the master of the republic. As the mercenary soldiery increased, the fighting capacity of the Roman citizens fell; or rather, the decline of their fighting capacity conditioned the growth of the mercenary soldiery. All the elements of the people that were capable of fighting were in the army; the part of the people outside of it kept losing both its ability and its desire to bear arms.

[…]

The more non-Romans there were in the army and the more the aristocratic officers were replaced by career men, the more willing the army was to sell itself to the highest bidder and make him the ruler of Rome.

In this way the foundations were laid for Caesarism, by having the richest man in Rome buy up the republic by purchasing its political power. It was also the basis for having a successful general with an army at his back try to make himself the richest man of Rome; the simplest way to do this was to expropriate his opponents and confiscate their property.

(Source and more here.)

Sorry to overwhelm you with text, but I hope that this helps regardless.

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think a part of it as well is how the Roman state religion was heavily ossified at the time, and had a fair bit of power and influence that the Emperor couldn't easily deal with. But if he converted to a new religion, it would create a new religious power structure that he could benefit from. Constantine also made a brand new capital in Constantinople, another means of moving away from the established power structure in Rome. It might have been a shrewd decision to try and consolidate his power.

[–] corvidenjoyer@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You could easily ask as a similar question of the Nazis or the Democratic party.

[–] fox@hexbear.net 4 points 1 day ago

Because a majority of Romans were at that point Christians, and Emperor Theodosius converted only after recovering from a near-lethal illness and had Christians whispering in his ear about what saved him, probably.

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I am presuming that by ‘man’s desires’ the author had sexual attraction in mind

White Christian men can be some of the most sexually depraved individuals.

[–] tripartitegraph@hexbear.net 13 points 2 days ago

I got to see Amy-Jill Levine give a talk once, I found her book on the parables really interesting