Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 Lesley > What with gladiatorial fights and throwing Christians to the lions and owning slaves? Very forward thinking. You are judging them by modern standards. In most other cultures at the same time human sacrifice was considered perfectly acceptable. You need to judge societies by the time in which they exist. They were backward by today's standards, but todays standards would not exist if the Roman Empire had not been forward thinking, and we could well still be sacrificing virgins to the gods. BB Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 Lesley > Yes, exactly the ancient Romans were horrible, just killed or enslaved anyone with different beliefs, or threw them to the lions, or > put them in the gladiatorial arena to fight to the death, I'm frankly shocked that Peter seems to think they weren't too bad. I'm sorry, but here you are talking utter rubbish. They were very tolerant of religions other than their own. Herod, a staunch polytheistic Roman, funded the building of a replacement Jewish Temple. The priesthoods of other religions were always allowed to continue practicing in every country that the Romans conquered. The only religions they had a problem with were those which wanted to destroy the Empire because they wanted to usher in a government based on monotheistic religion. May I recommend that if you wish to have a historically based discussion with an historian, you actually spend a little bit of time reading some books on the subject rather than just going with with what you think might be the case. You might then make some intelligent comments rather than just making a fool of yourself. BB Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 No offense, but I disagree normal is in the eyes of the beholder who is to say what is truly right er wrong what belongs and what doesn't i do not have nor want that power anything " normal " to me is usually forced " now try to act normal " why? so i can be someone i am not? so i can lie to both of us a handicapped child is just as normal as anyone else and deserves his er her own respect just because their views and concepts are different does not make them abnormal they need more care love and support, but are human the same nikki - just my two cents , " Angie Wright " <angiewright@n...> wrote: > When you have a handicapped child You know what normal is > > Angie > > > nikki_mackovitch [nikkimack@m...] > 22 August 2002 12:47 > > Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk sucksssssssss > > > Jo, > > Good Morning! > > please define normal - tis a word I could never quite grasp the > concept of > > hugz, > nikki > > , " Heartwork " <Heartwork@b...> wrote: > > I think I look fairly normal anyway. > > > > Jo > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 oh course it does how can one make points and debate if you don't know, correct? the more we learn, the better off we can be as folks " Lesley Dove " <Lesley wrote: >I don't know enough history to say, does it make a difference? > >Lesley > > > Heartwork [Heartwork] > 22 August 2002 16:08 > > Re: Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk sucksssssssss > > > How and which other civilisations were better? > > Jo > > > > What with gladiatorial fights and throwing Christians to the lions and >owning slaves? Very forward thinking. > Obviously you are joking. > > Lesley > > > Peter [snowbow] > 21 August 2002 21:14 > > Re: Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk >sucksssssssss > > > Hi Lesley > > > And it seems to me there are a lot of parallels between Jesus and >his followers at the time, especially if they were hoping to > > overthrow an evil empire > > And what was so " evil " about the Roman Empire? In comparison to other >empires of the day it was a very forward thinking empire. > > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 Hi Vegicate > Surly the Hindu & Buddist were better civilisations ,if they were > avoiding killing and eating animals! Not really. Buddhists weren't a civilisation, but a religion. Hindu's at that time regularly practiced human sacrifice in line with the Vedic texts. In some areas, this continued right up to the 19th century. Now, if we're basing " civilised " on whether someone eats animal flesh....wasn't Hitler civilised. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 Hi Fraggle > most ancient civilizations used slaves..egypt, sumner, assyria, hittites, greece Hey, don't forget America. IIRC, the last American town to ban slavery did so in 1996 (except for Dick Cheney, who still uses slave labour in his oil company in Burma). Russia was 1851. Britain I believe the 17th century. But, of course, it still goes on in the western world by companies like Nike, Gap, etc. etc. This is still considered acceptable by all those people who purchase products from these companies. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 i was talking ancient civillzations.... and, i believe its mississippi which has never taken slavery off the law books.... *waves that confederate flag* as for england, you might have banned slavery in the 1700's, but thats cuz you had ready " markets " in india by then " Peter " <Snowbow wrote: >Hi Fraggle > >> most ancient civilizations used slaves..egypt, sumner, assyria, hittites, >greece > >Hey, don't forget America. IIRC, the last American town to ban slavery did >so in 1996 (except for Dick Cheney, who still uses slave labour in his oil >company in Burma). Russia was 1851. Britain I believe the 17th century. > >But, of course, it still goes on in the western world by companies like >Nike, Gap, etc. etc. This is still considered acceptable by all those people >who purchase products from these companies. > >BB >Peter > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 > > > >To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 Peter didn't invent the word - it's what they're called - civilisations. Jo > Surly the Hindu & Buddist were better civilisations ,if they were > avoiding killing and eating animals!I wouldn't call anyone who eats > animal flesh civilized anyway,deprived not civilized! > vegg --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 Hi Fraggle > and, i believe its mississippi which has never taken slavery off the law books.... Could well be. I remember seeing a very amusing TV programme when whichever town it was banned slavery. The presenter " bought " some slaves (i.e. paid them to become his slaves), and then went to the local police station to find out what compensation he was going to get for them when the law went through and he had to free them! BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 I didn't say they should not be given respect etc Nor did I say they were not Human but if all kids are normal then children who are "different" won't be given the extra help they and their parents might need . Somepeople will probably object to my use of the word" different" but I can't list all the genetic conditions etc they may be suffering from Normal/different /special are just terms used to explain quickly where their may be a need . We have to use labels for convenience . I don't object to labels where they are used to help . The label Vegan is useful that's why we want food labelled that way when appropriate nikki_mackovitch [nikkimack] 22 August 2002 19:13 Subject: Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk sucksssssssssNo offense, but I disagreenormal is in the eyes of the beholderwho is to say what is truly right er wrongwhat belongs and what doesn'ti do not have nor want that poweranything "normal" to me is usually forced"now try to act normal"why?so i can be someone i am not?so i can lie to both of usa handicapped child is just as normal as anyone elseand deserves his er her own respectjust because their views and concepts are differentdoes not make them abnormalthey need more care love and support, but are human the samenikki - just my two cents, "Angie Wright" <angiewright@n...> wrote:> When you have a handicapped child You know what normal is > > Angie> > > nikki_mackovitch [nikkimack@m...] > 22 August 2002 12:47> > Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk sucksssssssss> > > Jo,> > Good Morning! > > please define normal - tis a word I could never quite grasp the > concept of > > hugz,> nikki> > , "Heartwork" <Heartwork@b...> wrote:> > I think I look fairly normal anyway.> > > > Jo> > > > > >> > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 Are there rules that say we shouldn't make fools of ourselves . !!! It seems impolite to talk to someone this way imo We can't all be knowledgeable in all subjects. I seem to remember someone didn't understand about dentition and diet but no one called her stupid. This is one benefit of being on these lists ----. We learn things Angie -Original Message-----Peter [snowbow] 22 August 2002 18:53 Subject: Re: Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk sucksssssssss Lesley I'm sorry, but here you are talking utter rubbish. They were very tolerant of religions other than their own. Herod, a staunch polytheistic Roman, funded the ------------- May I recommend that if you wish to have a historically based discussion with an historian, you actually spend a little bit of time reading some books on the subject rather than just going with with what you think might be the case. You might then make some intelligent comments rather than just making a fool of yourself. BB Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02To send an email to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 Hitler was health conscious wasn't he !!!! In some areas, this continued right up to the 19th century.Now, if we're basing "civilised" on whether someone eats animalflesh....wasn't Hitler civilised.BBPeter---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02To send an email to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 I meant that it doesn't make them any better even if the others of their day were worse, not that I didn't care to learn. Lesley EBbrewpunx [EBbrewpunx]22 August 2002 19:15 Subject: RE: Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk sucksssssssssoh course it doeshow can one make points and debate if you don't know, correct?the more we learn, the better off we can be as folks"Lesley Dove" <Lesley wrote:>I don't know enough history to say, does it make a difference?>>Lesley>> > Heartwork [Heartwork]> 22 August 2002 16:08> > Re: Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk sucksssssssss>>> How and which other civilisations were better?>> Jo>>>> What with gladiatorial fights and throwing Christians to the lions and>owning slaves? Very forward thinking.> Obviously you are joking.>> Lesley>> > Peter [snowbow]> 21 August 2002 21:14> > Re: Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk>sucksssssssss>>> Hi Lesley>> > And it seems to me there are a lot of parallels between Jesus and>his followers at the time, especially if they were hoping to> > overthrow an evil empire>> And what was so "evil" about the Roman Empire? In comparison to other>empires of the day it was a very forward thinking empire.>> BB> Peter>>> ---> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).> Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02>>> To send an email to - >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 > > Re: Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk sucksssssssss > > > Lesley > > > Yes, exactly the ancient Romans were horrible, just killed or enslaved > anyone with different beliefs, or threw them to the lions, or > > put them in the gladiatorial arena to fight to the death, I'm frankly > shocked that Peter seems to think they weren't too bad. > > I'm sorry, but here you are talking utter rubbish. They were very tolerant > of religions other than their own. Herod, a staunch polytheistic Roman, > funded the building of a replacement Jewish Temple. The priesthoods of other > religions were always allowed to continue practicing in every country that > the Romans conquered. The only religions they had a problem with were those > which wanted to destroy the Empire because they wanted to usher in a > government based on monotheistic religion. > > May I recommend that if you wish to have a historically based discussion > with an historian, you actually spend a little bit of time reading some > books on the subject rather than just going with with what you think might > be the case. You might then make some intelligent comments rather than just > making a fool of yourself. > > BB > Peter > Actually, that's not accurate. The very problem with the Romans to the Hebrew people was that they wouldn't accept the Roman Gods and religion. Herold was a puppet who did everything he could to please the Romans. Including building a beautiful city on the banks of the Medetarianium, fed with fresh water with 100s of miles of aqueducts, steam rooms, running water toilets (dual] water, one for your " wiping brush " , one for the waste, and much beauty. This city was built for retired Roman officers. However, the Jews still refused to bow down and worship the Roman Gods, which eventually resulted in the Roman's destroying the holy center of Jewish world, Jerusalem. They built the Roman Coliseum on the plunder of the destruction of Jerusalem. The blood was so thick from the murdered Jews it ran to one's ankles. They left several towers, that still stand to this day, so world would see how mighty the Romans were, because the walls for Jerusalem were so incredibly massive. Oh yes, because the Roman's thought human sacrifice was OK, didn't make it right. The practice of human sacrifice was ended on the very hill where the Temple stood, 1000 years or so before the Roman Empire. Bob C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 People demonstrated to get ostrich and kangaroo meat banned, because they didn't want even more species eaten, so why would it not matter about human virgins. Jo Our society isn't really any better than if we were sacrificing virgins to the gods, considering the way animals are treated. I'd prefer to judge by my own standards thank you very much, and surely as vegans our standards tend to be future standards hopefully, and better than modern standards. Lesley Peter [snowbow]22 August 2002 18:44 Subject: Re: Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk sucksssssssss Lesley > What with gladiatorial fights and throwing Christians to the lions and owning slaves? Very forward thinking. You are judging them by modern standards. In most other cultures at the same time human sacrifice was considered perfectly acceptable. You need to judge societies by the time in which they exist. They were backward by today's standards, but todays standards would not exist if the Roman Empire had not been forward thinking, and we could well still be sacrificing virgins to the gods. BB Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02To send an email to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 Pot and Kettle. Jo You need to think about your attitude I think. Lesley ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 Lesley > are you saying it is a complete lie about Herod killing all baby boys then? Please would you let me know of one historical source which says this happened. The only place I know of it being mentioned is the Bible, and this places his order 4 years after his own death. > OK, so you are a historian, but do you think people will want to listen to you and be interested in learning the truth if you treat > them so rudely for not knowing as much as you? Pots, kettles and dark colours. I was not the first one to be rude. > It's not as if I am making anything up deliberately, just going on what I have heard and seen in films, etc, like Gladiator. I thought > there was some basis in history there. Why would there be? They're entertainment, not history. > For instance I'm only rude to animal eaters if it is obvious they don't care, I don't assume that any person who doesn't know about > cruelty is being purposely ignorant and deserving of disrespect, the way you obviously do with people who don't know much > history. Y'know, if you hadn't answered my comments as though you were an expert, I wouldn't have thought that you were trying to make out that you did know something. > You need to think about your attitude I think. No Lesley - you are the one who needs to think about your attitude. Why do you think you have been kicked off so many lists and got into so many physical fights. At some point it must dawn on you that you are the one who has the attitude problem, and not everybody else in the world. Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 umm yes, it is a lie there is no historical documentation of any such event..the only one is in the bible..if something like this were to happen, some historian, such as josephus, would have written about it.. and remember..gladiator was a movie...movies entertain, doesn't mean they have anything to do with facts... yes, there were gladitorial games, they just came about much later in the history of Rome is all fraggle " Lesley Dove " <Lesley wrote: > >Don't be so damned condescending, are you saying it is a complete lie about >Herod killing all baby boys then? >OK, so you are a historian, but do you think people will want to listen to >you and be interested in learning the truth if you treat them so rudely for >not knowing as much as you? It's not as if I am making anything up >deliberately, just going on what I have heard and seen in films, etc, like >Gladiator. I thought there was some basis in history there. >For instance I'm only rude to animal eaters if it is obvious they don't >care, I don't assume that any person who doesn't know about cruelty is being >purposely ignorant and deserving of disrespect, the way you obviously do >with people who don't know much history. >You need to think about your attitude I think. > >Lesley > > > Peter [snowbow] > 22 August 2002 18:53 > > Re: Dressing 'normally' was Re: milk sucksssssssss > > > Lesley > > > Yes, exactly the ancient Romans were horrible, just killed or enslaved >anyone with different beliefs, or threw them to the lions, or > > put them in the gladiatorial arena to fight to the death, I'm frankly >shocked that Peter seems to think they weren't too bad. > > I'm sorry, but here you are talking utter rubbish. They were very tolerant >of religions other than their own. Herod, a staunch polytheistic Roman, >funded the building of a replacement Jewish Temple. The priesthoods of other >religions were always allowed to continue practicing in every country that >the Romans conquered. The only religions they had a problem with were those >which wanted to destroy the Empire because they wanted to usher in a >government based on monotheistic religion. > > May I recommend that if you wish to have a historically based discussion >with an historian, you actually spend a little bit of time reading some >books on the subject rather than just going with with what you think might >be the case. You might then make some intelligent comments rather than just >making a fool of yourself. > > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 Hi Bob Welcome to the list :-) > Oh yes, because the Roman's thought human sacrifice was OK, didn't make > it right. The practice of human sacrifice was ended on the very hill where the Temple stood, > 1000 years or so before the Roman Empire. I think you've misunderstood the point. Human sacrifice was, according to the Bible, ended by the followers of Yahweh at this point. However, at this point there was not even such a thing as a Jewish culture, let alone civilisation. To speak of " Jews " at this point in history is meaningless - only later did a Jewish culture appear when disparate tribes gathered in the area which became Judah sometime during the 12th-10th centuries BCE and reached a basic concensus on a monolatorous religion. They merged their traditions and stories, and at this point became a " political " entity - I can recommend Martin Noth's books on the subject. The point is that although the Bible states that the Isaac incident on Mount Moriah ended human sacrifice, this can only be taken in the context of one very small tribe - maybe even one family, and is not, historically speaking, a significant cultural shift. There are numerous tribes who did not practice human sacrifice. Now, Rome actually banned human sacrifice in 96 BCE and were the first major civilisation to do so. It was only a considerable time after this, when the Empire was in a rapid state of decline, that they began persecution of the Jews (and of other religions such as Druidry) - the Jewish massacre you talk of occurred in 60 CE - some 154 years after the Romans had banned sacrifice. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 not from wot i have read i guess different historinas have different perspectives they only destroyed the temple after the jewish rebellions... " name one thing the romans ever did for us?' " aqueducts? " " oh, yes, and medicine " " law and order " " oh yes reg, remmeber how you couldn't walk around after dark " " i think he said bleased are the cheesemakers... " > >Actually, that's not accurate. The very problem with the Romans to the >Hebrew people was that >they wouldn't accept the Roman Gods and religion. Herold was a puppet >who did everything he >could to please the Romans. Including building a beautiful city on the >banks of the Medetarianium, >fed with fresh water with 100s of miles of aqueducts, steam rooms, >running water toilets (dual] >water, one for your " wiping brush " , one for the waste, and much beauty. >This city was built for >retired Roman officers. > >However, the Jews still refused to bow down and worship the Roman Gods, >which eventually >resulted in the Roman's destroying the holy center of Jewish world, >Jerusalem. They built the >Roman Coliseum on the plunder of the destruction of Jerusalem. The >blood was so thick from >the murdered Jews it ran to one's ankles. They left several towers, that >still stand to this >day, so world would see how mighty the Romans were, because the walls >for Jerusalem were >so incredibly massive. > >Oh yes, because the Roman's thought human sacrifice was OK, didn't make >it right. The practice >of human sacrifice was ended on the very hill where the Temple stood, >1000 years or so before the >Roman Empire. > >Bob C > > > > > >To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. 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.