Tobias Posted September 25, 2005 Report Share Posted September 25, 2005 Possibly because many choose not to learn from past mistakes By the way, the Theory of Plate tectonics might explain earthquakes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted September 25, 2005 Report Share Posted September 25, 2005 I think the question that started the thread is a little ...off. Why did the Romans honor their gods? Well, why did anyone from ancient society honor their gods? Why do people today follow the divinity of their understanding? It's because for better or for worse, for right or for wrong, like it or not, they simply believe. If we want to get into the more specific nature of Roman religion, I believe what I offered earlier was an accurate and fairly objective summary. The Romans had a religion because they thought it would propitiate gods and spirits they believed controlled their lives. One may find that naive or demonic, but as a matter of historical and cultural record it is what the Romans themselves believed. If we want to get into a broader question of why people come to believe in the unprovable and develop religion in the first place, I believe that question lies far outside the scope of this site. Let's not go down that road. Let's just take it as a given that most cultures develop some sort of religion and work from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 Well Said Ursus, I was just adding my own interpretation of it. In the end my beliefs go back to the original Roman Concept of Polythesim, even if they are masked by logic the basis is still there. Do et des-I give so that you may give. That phrase can some up the whole notion of Roman Polythesim immeditatly, the gods must be pleased according to the Romans and if there not your life will just get harder. That can some up almost all ancient polytheisim. Zeke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skarr Posted September 30, 2005 Report Share Posted September 30, 2005 I think a more modern analogy could be insurance. The Romans worshipped many gods as the forces that moved the world were mysterious and it was better to be on the good side of these forces than on the bad. Therefore, if a few simple prayers, a small sacrificial animal or some offering to a god would help, why not? I think it is like insurance, to buy some peace of mind to say, "I have done all that I can, the rest is upto the gods". Not performing this and then suffering disaster would invite "I told you so" kind of sentiments, I would imagine, from a highly superstitious populace. I think the whole metaphysical concepts of religion, origin, etc. etc. on the meaning or purpose came much later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 If a 21st century scientist or some very learned person were to go back to Roman times and witness some of the "miracles" performed by the gods or signs of the gods, i'm sure they'd be able to give a plethora of logical scientific reasons as to how they happened i.e. the eruption of Vesuvius. But, were they to try to explain to devout Romans that these weren't signs of the gods, at best they'd get a "prove it" attitude in reply. The Romans knew no better, and they reasoned that they must happen for some reason. Thus, obviously the gods must make these things happen! On at least one occasion it suited a Roman general to "science up" real quick. At Pydna (I think) a lunar eclipse happened the night before the battle with the Macedonians. Lucius Aemilus Paullus had enough knowledge of astronomy to explain the mechanism of eclipses to calm his troops. Didn't stop him from making sacrifices-- just in case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobias Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 That's very interesting. I've seen many examples of how much the roman soldiery feared the wrath of the gods and saw certain signs as bad or good omens. I understand that Caesar himself did not attack somewhere because of a large black bird witnessed by soldiers over them. As well, at Pharsalus, Pompey's pre-battle sacrifices took place after the sacrificial sheep escaped and were recaptured - a bad omen if ever there was one for Pompey's soldiers Roman religion has always remained a neglected region for me- it fascinates me how roman generals could use it to their advantage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lo-Lo Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Another interesting point is to look how religion was used for things other than fear or respect - such as Mithraism being popular with the army, possibly because it was a unifying force for disparate men away from home and hearth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost_Warrior Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 I understand that Caesar himself did not attack somewhere because of a large black bird witnessed by soldiers over them. Wow they wouldn't have fought a single battle in PA then! But seriously, I find that the superstitions are most evident in the military. Another interesting point is to look how religion was used for things other than fear or respect - such as Mithraism being popular with the army, possibly because it was a unifying force for disparate men away from home and hearth? Indeed it would have been. That's why it was more than likely strongly encouraged. It also offered a feeling of safety one would assume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted October 4, 2005 Report Share Posted October 4, 2005 Did the Pagans believe in "slapping the other cheek" or loving their enemies? Did they believe that if they killed innocent people they would burn in Hell/Hades for eternity? The difference for me was that the Pagans were more materialistic whilst the Christians believed that everything we do on Earth must be to ensure that we live forever in Heaven. I agree with Julian 'Apostate', that Christianity had weakened the Romans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost_Warrior Posted October 4, 2005 Report Share Posted October 4, 2005 They believed that if they ticked the Gods off they would be in the bad part of Hades (the good and the bad all went to Hades. The good went to Elysium (the good part) and the bad went to the other parts). It's just that what angered their Gods isn't the same as what angered the Christian God for the most part. While the Christian God is (supposedly) angered by killing and immoral behavior (one look at the Crusades though, and you'll see where, at least for much of history, they stood on that issue) the Roman Gods were angered by not offering the proper sacrifices etc. etc. They had no problem whatsoever with killing, and it was often done in their honor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 Did the Pagans believe in "slapping the other cheek" or loving their enemies? Did they believe that if they killed innocent people they would burn in Hell/Hades for eternity? The difference for me was that the Pagans were more materialistic whilst the Christians believed that everything we do on Earth must be to ensure that we live forever in Heaven. I agree with Julian 'Apostate', that Christianity had weakened the Romans. Paganism wasn't monolithic. Different cultures believed in different things. Even within a culture, different cults might believe in different things. The plethora of varying religious cults reached its apex within the Roman Empire. As far as "loving they neighbor" Stoic philosophy was preaching this centuries before Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lo-Lo Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 It's just that what angered their Gods isn't the same as what angered the Christian God for the most part. They had no problem whatsoever with killing, and it was often done in their honor. Hmmm, do yo unot think that the traditional religion of the Romans is actually just a different type of religion to Christianity, which is based on spirituality more than anything else? Also I have to disagree with the idea that the gods (and by extension, the Romans) had no problem with killing - human sacrifice in particular was frowned upon and considered as deviant behavious which threatened the Roman administration, hence their attempts to stamp out (or remove this rite) from certain religious sects, including the Druids and some Phoenician religions. But then again, there's always the punishment for a Vestal Virgin that strayed, so what do I know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost_Warrior Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 Hmmm, do yo unot think that the traditional religion of the Romans is actually just a different type of religion to Christianity, which is based on spirituality more than anything else? Well of course it is. But that wasn't the question that I was answering Also I have to disagree with the idea that the gods (and by extension, the Romans) had no problem with killing - human sacrifice in particular was frowned upon and considered as deviant behavious which threatened the Roman administration, hence their attempts to stamp out (or remove this rite) from certain religious sects, including the Druids and some Phoenician religions. But then again, there's always the punishment for a Vestal Virgin that strayed, so what do I know! Yes, but that is a threat to Roman administration. It's not because they feared the wrath of the gods. What about the *earlier* use of gladiators, and those who were killed at Triumphs, etc. etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lo-Lo Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 Are they actually sacrifices or just displays of strength/power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost_Warrior Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 At one point, they were sacrifices. Although soon after that they stopped being sacrifices and started being displays of power/for entertainment. I think another big part of it is that many of the Western religions (Christianity, but the different branches) are more control oriented. While the Roman religion was to "please the Gods and keep Rome safe and happy and victorious" the church at least in the earlier times wanted control. The control that they tried to achieve over society is what led them to create such strict behavioral codes (which seem to have stuck somewhat). (and yes, I am aware that the Romans also used religion to gain control/influence. They just did not go about it the same way in which the Christians did, so it's not as evident.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.