Ursus

From what I can gather on the internet, the plot involves a conspiracy by the Vatican to conceal the true nature of Christianity - and the true nature of Christianity seems to be something along the lines of Gnosticism, where Mary Magdelene was a disciple of Christ and in fact his lover. Leonardo da Vinci somehow knew of the conspiracy and reflected it in his paintings, which explains the title of the book. I believe I saw a movie like this before. Ever see "Stigmata?" It's part of a growing interest in Gnosticism - or at least what the New Age crowd wants to take from Gnosticism. A version of Christianity more friendly to the feminine, and to mysticism, and so forth. As for myself, I really don't care either way. But I do give modern Christians their due that they can disagree with the book and denounce it as heresy or blasphemy without killing people or burning things. That's something that apparently modern Islam hasn't learned, as demonstrated by recent events.

Very interesting. I look forward to your completed article.

This looks like it will be a truly amazing discovery. I love Ancient Egypt.

The Roman view of human sexuality.

Not that I can see. Not much mention at all is made of Judaism around here.

Because militant atheists, like militant monotheists, feel the need to convert people. As for the book itself, I've not read it, and have only heard about in passing. What, exactly, is all the buzz about?

In the Interpretatio Romano, YHWH = Jupiter. Jupiter had a better sex life though.

Yeah, the same Greek Orthodox Church that doesn't want Pagans to perform rituals at the Parthenon.

I've been rather busy, but do try to pop in at least once a night. Tonight is the first time in days the site was visible to me. Glad you're back up.

We're not on the religion folder, so there is a certain leeway for this type of thing. However, if it goes beyond the boundaries of good taste, it will be shut down. Statements like "all religion is insanity" certainly don't help to foster mutually profitable intercourse. Whatever else happens to this thread, it dispells Onasander's notion that the majority of the site is Pagan. The relative majority of the site is actually Christian.

But, exactly where does the "House of..." come from in the first place? A Roman would have identified himself in a social and religious sense with his clan, gens. Caesar was part of the gens Julius, for example. But the political function of the clans was vestigial after the dawn of the Republic, and they were mostly a social and religious club. To say "House of ..." seems more like English aristocrats than Romans. The Houses of York and Lancaster, etc.

I believe you're paraphrasing Milton's "Tis better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

You may continue general translation questions under this thread. Thank you.

What I fear most is that an army of fanatical Trekkies will take over and force us all to speak Klingon. But first they might have to contend with legions of Elvish speaking Tolkien fans ....

I can always move it to a forum where it won't be. I kind of am. I remember during the Clinton Administration when some our NATO allies begged us to bomb the hell out of Serbia in the name of "humanitarianism." Actually, I think it was because our alllies didn't want Balkan refugees in their backyard, and they didn't have the will or the means to take action themselves. I remember thinking to myself this wasn't exactly the best use of our military forces, but our allies didn't seem to mind our overbearing imperialism at the time. For that matter, if the world tires of American imperialism, why does it so readily suck up the mindless pop-culture and consumerism we are so keen on exporting? "Baywatch" used to be the biggest television show on the planet. I guess no one minds American imperialism as long as Pamela Anderson puts a friendly face (and figure) on it.

Well, not really. A lot of the Ancient Celts and Germanic tribes had a King or Chieftan who was advised (often even elected) by a council of aristocrats or tribal elders. Even into Medieval times the Anglo-Saxon Kings would call advisory sessions of their "wise men" and from this germinated modern Parliamentary government. I think it only makes sense the Big Cheese at top in any well-functioning society would want the good will and considered opinions of the leading citizens. You can, up to a certain point, ignore the comman man on the street - but it's not prudent or safe to ignore the people who own the land, lead the military, and know how to debate in the political assemblies. We might assume the original Senate under the archaic kings was composed of the leading members of the clans (gens) when the clans actually meant something. After the creation of the Republic, and after the political function of the clans dwindled, the Senate became increasingly a body of ex-magistrates. And under Augustus, the Senate was the Empire's economic elite, from whom Augustus could draw certain trusted individuals to help staff the military and civil commands.

I think Favonius has a point. The principate's central flaw was in succession of leadership. Augustus assumed it would always go to one of his relatives, but he didn't count on Nero killing off the rest of his dynasty. From that failure arose the civil wars. The civil wars took troops from border defenses and weakened the empire. When the victorious general won, he had to mint coins to pay his troops, which caused inflation. It was a vicious cascade effect. Another problem is that empire was too large and unprofitable. The costs of the empire exceeded the benefits. For instance, in the short term Britannia provided some valuable metals to the empire, but in the long term it tied up three legions that could have been put to better use elsewhere. If the Empire had not expanded beyond its essential Mediterranean nature, it probably would have been better off in the long term. As for Christianity, you can make an argument that the priests and the monks were leeches, and sucked resources from a Western empire whose wealth was already vanishing. Monks don't do anything but pray all day, so why feed them? But at the end of the day I think this was simply one factor among many and not the central factor. The very Christian Byzantine Empire did quite well for itself.

While not reading everything in this massive thread, I believe it has run its course and served its purpose. :-) Locked.

I'm a Roman Pagan, and like Pantagathus I have an affinity for Hermes/ Mercury, among a few others. I don't agree with and would never personally practice a lot of religions/philosophies out there, but if they leave me alone I don't care. I find militant atheists can be as annoying as militant monotheists, and I find it hard to befriend either.

The front page of UNRV is now being syndicated to the world's largest online blogging site http://syndicated.livejournal.com/unrv_history/ Free press is always a good thing, I suppose.

Interesting ....

Hmmm. It seems Moonlapse is no longer the sole Objectivist on the board.

Indeed, I do recommend _Gods of Ancient Rome_ by Turcan. He also wrote a companion piece called _Cults of the Roman Empire_.

Sorry ...ViggEn. :bag: Britain has never been truly Romanized, only on the surface. Gaul was far more Romanized, especially the regions closest to Italy. The people there were more ingrained with the culture, language and legal-political traditions of Rome. The Germanic overlords found it best to adapt the existing framework to their own end, rather than trying to topple the existing framework completely. Britain, on the other hand, had a thin vaneer of Romanization, which easily vanished under the weight of the Germanic tribal culture.

Welcome.