Christian Exclusivity
From Zanecorpwiki
Writing in the 3rd century AD, the historian Ammianus explained the Emperor Julian's policy of requiring the Christians to accept those espousing the Aryan Heresy by saying: "[N]o wild beasts are such dangerous enemies to man as Christians are to one another." The idea being that by removing the drive for a centralized, undivided view of Christianity (a development which itself may have been sparked by the Empire), Julian could forestall the development of the Church as an alternative center of power.
Whether or not this need for unity was inherent in the earliest Christianity or not (it probably wasn't), by the 3rd century, it was a huge factor. Once started, the idea of the Judeo-Christian god as an exclusive deity would seem to support such a drive, and it is this exclusivity, first found in Judaism, combined with the mandate to proselytize which sets Christianity apart from other religions and, to my mind, better explains the nature of Christianity in the modern context than any supposed moral superiority or rightness as many Christians hold.
While it is inescapable that my Christian brethren will consider this tract an attack on their faith--one which I myself share in a tangential fashion, by the way--it is none-the-less not my intent. While I do not myself hold that Christianity is a "superior" faith in any of the normal meaning of the term, neither do I deny that it may be so. In any case, such a debate is not my purpose here.
Rather, it is to point out the unique character of Christianity as universally combative. The world, prior to the ascendancy of exclusive mono-theistic religions was dominated by polytheists. The central character of polytheism in the ancient world (and I speak here mostly in terms of the West and Hellenized East, though I would venture to say it's the same for the rest of the world) was one of toleration by default. Anyone could believe in whatever deity or deities they wished, and by-and-large, this was accepted. The question wasn't who was "right", but rather who had the stronger magic.
The supernatural world was seen as a reflection of our own. People won battles because the stronger deity was on their side, the victories of a certain people gave glory to their deity. The fortunes of the celestial courts waxed and waned more or less with and in similar (even if more mysterious) ways as their mundane counterparts.
There is a lot to contrast with the Judeo-Christian tradition here, and I'm obviously painting with and absurdly wide brush. The point is that to understand the culture of Judaism (in broad terms), it's useful to focus on one commandment: "thou shalt have not other gods before me." The Jewish god was not another player among many. He wasn't simply the strongest. He was of another nature altogether, and he was the only one such being.
Combine this with the mandate to proselytize and you've go the recipe for a religious virus that is, as far as I know, unique in the classical period. You also understand why the history of Christianity from Constantine through to the modern period is so contentious. Why differences of opinion become heresy, and why it's taken Christians 2000 years to re-learn the basic idea of toleration.
