I must admit, that given the primitive conditions within the Roman 
empire, even at it's height, Paul may well have been correct in an 
assessment that to challenge paganism *and* slavery *and* tyranny, 
may well have been a vain effort.  Further, from the standpoint of 
the power structure, there is the problem of law and order, and an 
ethic motived by the desire to save the soul from damnation, seems 
a fairly expedient way to improve the behavior of the rabble. 
 
Notwithstanding the size of the problem, the Stoics began building 
schools- and *only* schools, none of which survive, whereas church 
building began immediately, with far greater resources expended in 
the hope of salvation.  Then too, the Christian church invented an 
alternative teaching method that pagan temples never had- pulpits. 
At the same time, the fine new edifaces were an excellent media to 
get out the word of the Gospel, which you may recall, was painted, 
or fresco, on every available surface. 
 
The sound reasoning of Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics was not very 
amenable to graphic representation, so I am not all that surprised 
that the Romans chose a more expedient method of improving ethics, 
rather than choosing the best ethical standard available.  If they 
are known for anything, this expedience is typically Roman. 
 
But: I raise this question because I think that the resources that 
we have *today* are sufficient to teach the best ethical standard; 
and that standard is *not* that of the Judeo-Christians, but is in 
fact: Aristotle, Plato, Epictetus, Seneca, & Marcus Aurelius. 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------