Ursus

It is certainly possible, MPC. As you know, religion was not separated from politics in Ancient Rome, or from daily life for that matter. I have no problem believing there were people, then as now, who have little use for religion aside from the purely secular benefits it might dispose to them. However, I must point out the larger paradigm of Roman religion. Religion was a contractual obligation with the supernatural powers that be, where human beings rendered honor and offerings to those powers in exchange for favors. "I give so that you may give" is the standard motto for that contract. "Sacrifice" literally means "to make holy" or to consecrate an offering to the holy powers of a supernatural being. Above what peasants did in the privacy of their own homes and fields and street corners, the State saw itself as the intermediary between the gods and the community as a whole. In the State religion, certain deities demanded certain animals (it was thought). To give anything less violated the contract between men and gods. If men did not give full honors to the gods, the gods would not give their full favors to men. Thus, animal sacrifice was part of that spiritual contract between human and supernatural beings which was mediated by the government on behalf of the citizenry. I believe most of the Roman citizenry would have believed in this contract to some degree, even if the benefits of fresh meat were more immediately appreciable. As I said, fringe cults took exception to it, as well as perhaps certain people educated in certain sectors of Greek Philosophy. I can't find the exact quote from Ovid to see if indeed the quote originated from him, but what the Greek educated literati believed about religion is not necessarily what the great mass of Roman citizens believed about religion. Apropos: the myth where Prometheus tricks Zeus into taking the bones, while humans get the best cuts of meat. As myth recounts gods dining on "ambrosia" they would have no need of animal flesh to sustain themselves. What was offered perhaps was simply life itself - a reminder of what separated mortals from deathless gods. A sacrifice of 100 bulls would better illustrate this than a simple offering of wine or barley.

In Zoroastrianism, Mithras was a warrior angel of light and goodness (who served Ahura Mazda). In the Mithraic cult, Mithras is also a warlike being, but one associated with light and goodness. Most scholars believed for the longest time there had to be a definite link. More modern scholars are not as certain.

On the bright side this saves me from shelling out $70 for the season 2 dvd.

There were certain fringe cults such as the Pythagoreans that always objected to it. However, blood sacrifice was the culminating event of the mainstream civic cults overseen by a city-state or imperial government. Outside the fringe cults, I think most people would have avoided animal sacrifice only because they couldn't afford it. The small farmer possibly could not survive by offering his only oxen to Jupiter, so he made do with some wine and incense. But governments have larger resources and wouldn't have had to worry about it. The animal sacrifices organized by the city-state would also have been, to my knowledge, one of the few chances the urban poor would have had to eat fresh meat, and on that basis might have had a value to them in addition to any purely religious sentiment. Modern reinterpretations of paganism and their adherence (or lack thereof) to historically attested practices are rather outside the scope of this forum.

Ave, Augusta. Thanks to the gods (or to Viggen) you are now an equestrian and can move your blog out of MySpace hell.

You are free to restart the topic on Islam and Byzantine. I can assure you since the offender was placed on moderation, it won't be hijacked. No, we would keep the person around for party tricks.

1) I know exactly what you mean 2) I stand by my warning. You fed into IamJoseph's zionism-uber-alles drivel and contributed to the problem of derailing the threads Arguing the internal validity of a religion is something best left to forums specifically designed for that purpose. Or there are real life religious institutions in which I am sure many sympathetic ears may be found. This is however a Romanophile history/culture/archaeology site. We have a different focus. If someone can't restrain themselves regarding religious subjects perhaps they should refrain from visiting those threads. Or find a new site altogether. I have not noted any Pagans "preaching the word" as it were. Sometimes an agnostic can become too militant with their anti-religious sentiments, but for the most part they are respectful and restrained. The religious fervor seems mainly confined to a handfull of zealous monotheists who simply have no restraint or manners. I thus say again: follow the rules or find yourself silenced. If you must debate religion outside the parameters we set, then stay off the Temple Forum - or be gone. I don't think you got what I said. I meant that when people are affiliated with a religion (Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, etc) it is often hard to be impartial. Instead of taking it as a part of Roman culture and history, they take it more seriously going beyond the parameters of what you (and many here) want to see discussed. I did not mean it they way you interpreted it, and see no wrong in what I said.

I could place you on mod status and then you wouldn't be able to say anything. Don't temp me.

I grow weary of historical/academic discussions on religion that become derailed with modern day religious fervor and the veracity of "sacred texts." A recent instigator was placed on moderated status. Some of the rest of you are not much better though, and feed into it. If you want to talk about how great and glorious a certain god and his people and his texts are - go somewhere else. This is not the site for it. In case anyone missed the point of the site, we are here to discuss Roman History and culture. I can't speak for all the mods, but the next person that annoys me in relation to the above gets placed on mod status. I don't care if you're a pleb, or an equestrian or a patrician. You have been warned.

This whole thread is now woefully off topic. Thread locked. If this blatant off topic religious zealotry continues, the offenders will be placed on moderated status.

The second one looks fascinating to this political science/international relations major. The price tag is a bit hefty. I might have to wait until a cheap used one becomes available.

No, but we have plenty of Quakers. And Amish. And Mennonites. And under-educated, hygiene free rednecks who might as well just be home in Alabama. It's a beautiful mosaic of socio-religious diversity. Or something. Maybe you should go over what I was saying at the time. It certainly wasnt about questioning the diversity of America I realize that. I was making a fecetious and fairly ridiculous comment on something else in an attempt to bring some levity to a topic that has itself become fairly ridiculous.

I proposed just that, as none of my fellow Americans were giving me credible alternatives. Actually, I would love to meet you. And I think Nephele lives there, she could be our tour guide.

Still not much discussion on this. To be honest, I am not sure if I am still going at this point. Now that I have a significant other I am not as free to make my own decisions. I'll try to make it if I can. I hate big cities, but NYC has been suggested more than once. There is plenty of culture and entertainment. It would also let our British friends so inclined to drop in on us. What say you all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon

I can understand you frustration here, Ursus, but I think there is only this and one other thread which is currently discussing modern day US politics. But given that The US is currently the richest, most influential and (politically) the most interesting country in the world at present, surely that is no surprise? Given that there are more Americans suscribing to this forum than any other nationality, it also gives us non-citizens a chance to learn something, or to inform on things which may have escaped the media in the US, and I think thats a good thing. I'll take your word for it. But I think Pertinax's suggestion of moving it is rather sound.

If the meeting ever happens, I am sure you and any one else so inclined would be welcome to join us. I find these perennial America vs Europe threads a bit silly, as I am sure we would rather live with each other than under the dominion of Sino-fascism or Islamo-fascism. Since I am not exactly objective, I have asked the other mods to look and see if any lines are being crossed. Personally I do feel the thread has outlived reasonable and intelligent discourse. The only thing that remains is to compare GWB to Hitler. No, but we have plenty of Quakers. And Amish. And Mennonites. And under-educated, hygiene free rednecks who might as well just be home in Alabama. It's a beautiful mosaic of socio-religious diversity. Or something.

1. Trust good character more than promises. 2. Do not speak falsely. 3. Do good things. 4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made. 5. Learn to obey before you command. 6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful. 7. Make reason your supreme commander. 8. Do not associate with people who do bad things. 9. Honor the gods. 10. Have regard for your parents. Solon of Athens

I would also love a detailed study of Sejanus, spittle. Fascinating figure. I think a definitive book on the confluence of Roman and Celtic culture & history (the Romano-Celts of the Western Empire) has yet to be written, and would make an interesting counterpoint to the endless examinations of Greco-Roman fusions of cultures. Most of what is written on the Celts these days is so hopelessly revisionist that an honest book on the subject would be worth its weight in gold. By the same token, I am not sure if there are any substantial works on Roman Africa and Romano-Punic culture, which I also think would be fascinating.

The sense I get reading the episode discussions is that "Rome" is slowly degenerating from a historical drama embellished by soap opera elements to a soap opera embellished by historical elements.

I do this every few months to get ideas. Recommend me a book on Rome. Any topic, any era. Scholarly or casual, fiction or non-fiction.

While opinion is divided, some say the mystery cult of Mithras was an offshoot of Zoroastrianism. Mithraism was practiced by many soldiers and civil servants of the empire in the Latin West.

The girlfriend and I were in the theatres last night (we watched "The Messengers" - a watchable if rather predictable horror film) and saw the previews for this. I saw the monsters and film style and thought: "Oh my gods, Sin City meets Lord of the Rings." I think the last stand of the Spartan 300 is intriguing enough without the need to embellish it. I expected a little Hollywood-ization insofar as a lot of beautiful people engaged in superfluous love affairs. But monsters and demons in the age of classical Greece? And yeah, what is with the Persians being black Africans?

Lately this "universal history" folder has become nothing but a bad excuse to discuss modern American politics.

While not being an expert on the subject, everything I have read suggests Britannia simply tied up three legions that could have been put to better use elsewhere. The possibility of naughty British chieftans trying to aid subversive Gauls seems to pale in comparison to the benefits of having three more legions stationed on the Germanic frontier and Persian border.