I jsut read...
>>I'm curious of your source for that. It appears to be a consensus
>>that the claims of martyrdom were exaggerated by the early Church
>>Fathers in order to gain converts.
>
This is a long way from the game, but that ia not my understanding of Early Church History in our world. My understanding of the consensus is that there was a fear on the part of the persecutors that martyrs by their behaviour gained sympathy; that the Diocletian and Neronic persecutions by their unusual cruelty excited sympathies in the public for the Christians; and bizarrely enough that is an extant body of early church literature which condemns some who it was believed sort martyrdom as a way of 'showing off', which strikes me as unlikely to say the least. It was this latter prejudice in the Church which led to the condemnation of the Montanists much later as I recall?
I could well be wrong, I often am. Mind you, it's woefully off topic.
I did wonder briefly why Crucifixion was chosen as a method of executing Orlanthi rebels; then I thought about the symbolism of exposing the rebels pinned against the Sky. Unfortunately it struck me that any group of rebels who wanted to rescue their colleagues, or indeed the victims, might call upon the winds to just blow over the crosses that lined the roads? I would have thought burning them, would hav been more suitable?
cj x
Powered by hypermail