[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When Rome wanted to divine the future they traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle as they had no auspices of their own. [/quote]
That isn’t true. [/quote]
Yes it is. In the early days they used Etruscan augurs and afterwards augurs from Greece. I’m using my phone now but will provide evidence tomorrow.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When Rome wanted to divine the future they traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle as they had no auspices of their own. [/quote]
That isn’t true. [/quote]
Yes it is. In the early days they used Etruscan augurs and afterwards augurs from Greece. I’m using my phone now but will provide evidence tomorrow.[/quote]
The part that isn’t true is that they didn’t have their own augurs.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I’m curious how many wars were REALLY started by religious differences. I would suspect that religious differences was the guise of the leadership used to do what they wanted. I would even further suspect that is the case with every war attributed to religion.
Organized religion is simply another government/oversight entity. No different than a democracy, republic, monarch, etc, etc. The associated religious text is analogous to our constitution. A living, breathing document in which to interpret as needed.
Organized religion desires just as much to command as many followers as possible, to obtain control of resources, and maintain rule of law.
If every other government structure acts this way, how can we possibly expect organized religion not to act this way? It almost seems inevitable and primitive. It wreaks of our innate need for survival. [/quote]
You make a good point.[/quote]
Apparently you are the only one who feels this way lol.
Instead of attacking this from a “religious belief” view, perhaps it would best to approach this from a “Global Power” point of view.
This article states the US Catholic Church expended approximately $170B in 2010. This is just the Catholic Church in the US! That would put them in the Top 25 countries in expenditures per year.
I’m not sure how to expand that to all religions world wide, but it certainly seems a good reason to want to maintain and/or grow your “resources.” And the resources for organized religion are of course it’s followers and government powers which align themselves with similar goals.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
This article states the US Catholic Church expended approximately $170B in 2010. This is just the Catholic Church in the US! That would put them in the Top 25 countries in expenditures per year.
[/quote]
And we don’t even need guns!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Kamui is rockin’ it.
I’m impressed.[/quote]
He’s absolutely killing it.
Somehow I feel simultaneously smarter and dumber with every new post of his.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Kamui is rockin’ it.
I’m impressed.[/quote]
He’s absolutely killing it.
Somehow I feel simultaneously smarter and dumber with every new post of his. [/quote]
Where you been, mi amigo?
(You’ve got email btw)
[/quote]
Growing my business, working mi culo off, compadre. (^_^)
Will check that email. Sorry, I miss those sometimes.
[quote]pat wrote:
Religion in the ancient world was entirely polytheistic.
[/quote]
Want to get technical? Zoroastrianism: ‘the religious philosopher Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) in the 7th century BCE.’
From wiki to save time.
The empire demanded the worship of the emperor as a living God leading to thousands of Jews dying as opposed to acknowledging him as a God. As a Catholic I’m sure you’re familiar with the Maccabees(not included in the protestant canon for some reason).
pat said [quote]
Not all religion in the ancient world was entirely polytheistic. But aside from that, Rome tended to be politically speaking, religiously apathetic. If they took you over and you had gods you worshipped, they preferred not to want to piss your gods off, just in case they were real.
The Christian case in Rome is an interesting one, mainly because the Romans tended towards religious tolerance. So I wonder why they picked in the Christians? Nero was a bonafide nut, but I wonder if it was because he perceived them weak and easily stomped out? I don’t know, guess I have some homework to do.[/quote]
The persecutions began before and after Nero’s bloody reign. Dioclectian took particular delight in terrorising this sect and inciting the mob against them. Christianity was still considered an offshoot of Judaism until Constantinople. See what I quoted above from Edward Gibbon. BTW as I’m sure you know I’m no expert on the early Christian church. Or religion for that matter. With shattered legs, feet, ankles and vertebrae I’m going to have a lot of time on my hands to learn from you guys. Don’t be afraid to correct me, point out when I ask stupid questions or piss you off.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When Rome wanted to divine the future they traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle as they had no auspices of their own. [/quote]
That isn’t true. [/quote]
Yes it is. In the early days they used Etruscan augurs and afterwards augurs from Greece. I’m using my phone now but will provide evidence tomorrow.[/quote]
The Roman equivalent of an augur. Confusing as they are usually referred to as augurs or auspices: Haruspex - Wikipedia
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When Rome wanted to divine the future they traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle as they had no auspices of their own. [/quote]
That isn’t true. [/quote]
Yes it is. In the early days they used Etruscan augurs and afterwards augurs from Greece. I’m using my phone now but will provide evidence tomorrow.[/quote]
The Roman equivalent of an augur. Confusing as they are usually referred to as augurs or auspices: Haruspex - Wikipedia [/quote]
Augur and auspice are not interchangeable and cannot be confused with one another. An auspice is what an augur interprets. Romans could become augurs. A Roman would not travel to Greece to find an augur since they already had them there. A Roman might go to Greece to consult an oracle. An oracle is not an augur.
P l e a s e - lets get rid of the fairy tale BullShit !
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
P l e a s e - lets get rid of the fairy tale BullShit ![/quote]
So I assume you never complain of people being intolerant of you, correct?
Opinions like this are the apex of lazy thought, and so a total lack of willingness to even begin to comprehend a subject.
It is because they ARE religious that they are intolerant of me !
So F-em, let them have their little fantasies to keep them going…
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
It is because they ARE religious that they are intolerant of me !
So F-em, let them have their little fantasies to keep them going…[/quote]
Many of them are hugely intolerant, but the answer is not intolerance back.
Religion is dwindling because of the intolerance of some of them, we don’t need to “force” anything. It is happening on its own without any force.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Many of them are hugely intolerant [/quote]
This is a pretty broad generalization, H.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Many of them are hugely intolerant [/quote]
This is a pretty broad generalization, H. [/quote]
Well, he is correct in that tolerance on LGBT issues always meant state-led normalization and acceptance. See forcing Christian wedding photographers to attend gay weddings.
Where-ever you can see the state acting and/or denying based on racial discrimination it will now do so against actual Christianity.
Tax-exempt status (despite what a church may do for its local community) is done. Wouldn’t give tax-exempt status to a white-supremacist group, would you? If charters schools and vouchers ever take off, forget using your voucher to send your kid to a religious school. Wouldn’t allow tax money to be applied to a Klan run school, would you?
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
It is because they ARE religious that they are intolerant of me !
So F-em, let them have their little fantasies to keep them going…[/quote]
So… Because you think these people would feel differently about you if they weren’t religious, you think being a massive hypocrite and doing the same things you are upset about is a correct response?
Good luck with that.
Most people I know outgrow that life approach around 30, give or take a few years.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Religion is dwindling [/quote]
Yeah, I’m not sure this is at all accurate.
I mean, it has been around since the first of mankind… And it has survived many a change, many a new name, and many a new word to describe essentially the same things.
Go on and believe it is true, but historical precedence sort fo flies in the face of any opinion poll you want to site.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Many of them are hugely intolerant [/quote]
This is a pretty broad generalization, H. [/quote]
You’re correct. Some of them. I would say the intolerance of the average religious person is down from 40 years ago but it would be hard to measure that.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Religion is dwindling [/quote]
Yeah, I’m not sure this is at all accurate.
I mean, it has been around since the first of mankind… And it has survived many a change, many a new name, and many a new word to describe essentially the same things.
Go on and believe it is true, but historical precedence sort fo flies in the face of any opinion poll you want to site. [/quote]
Historical precedence doesn’t change what I said though. Attendance and amount of people who say they believe is down relatively big time. Surely you are not arguing counter to this fact?
Your post doesn’t really have much to do with what I said honestly. Religion is dwindling right now by measurable metrics that we have to determine such a thing. I’m not saying it is gone or will be gone, it is simply down and demonstrably so.