Get Rid of All Religion?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And I still don’t see a connection between what Marius did while Rome was still a Republic and what happened 400 years later. [/quote]

Then to put it kindly you’re a little slow. Rome was already in decline at the time of the Cataline conspiracy, the Marian reforms, the rise of the triumvirate and the establishment of the empire. Marius’ reforms made the legions more mobile; more suitable to the kind of enemy he was fighting. They also introduced uneducated plebeians into the ranks who did not have any allegiance to the city or their own land(as they didn’t own any). They were there for plunder and pay and their loyalty was to their commander who used the legionaries to gain political power as Julius Caesar did. Although from the equestrian class he used rabble rousing politics against the optimates as the Grachi brothers had done and as Sulla and Caesar would soon do. Pompey didn’t have the balls.

It had already become tradition not to allow the army into the city after a campaign for this very reason. Rome was already in a moral decline long before the disasters of the 3rd/4th century.[/quote]
Now you change it to MORAL DECLINE and not population decline or some other tangible, measurable decline as Rome expanded its conquests and borders after Marius. That doesn’t sound like decline. [/quote]

This is tedious. The zenith of Rome is universally agreed as the period of the early republic. I have also quoted numerous contemporary authors who describe the decline long before Marius. I have admitted that ‘ghost town’ was a poor choice of words although the period in question was one of continual disasters, a lowering population and a change in population as citizen rights were granted to virtually anyone. Rome even had non-Italian emperors and scores of foreign peasants moving in.

The reason for the decline and fall of Rome is THE most hotly debated subjects in the field. Almost all agree there were numerous reasons. Gibbon actually attributes Christianity.[/quote]
Again, I told you I really don’t need a lesson on ancient Rome. You studied it for 20 years? Well, that means before you opened a book on it I had already been chased by security while visiting the Colosseum as a kid. It also means that I have at least a 20 year head start on you.

542

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@smh it’s six thirty in the morning and I’ve just been released from hospital again in a lot of pain. I concede you are largely right due to my poor use of words. I’ll try to explain my position ASAP -not a cop out. I don’t have access to my library.[/quote]

Just a semantic quibble man. I like history and debating history and etc. Don’t think I feel like I’ve “won” anything. By the way, you know much more about Roman history than I do.

I am sorry to hear about the hospital and pain. I sincerely wish you luck and a full and fast recovery.[/quote]

Thanks man. And I’m not sure I know as much as you about certain eras of Roman history. My forte was military history and it’s been a long time since I took on serious study. You are one of the smartest posters here - no circle jerking.

543

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’d like to offer an apology for my use of words that may have come across as offensives to. Ah… Whatever it is you’d like to be called. I honestly bear you no ill will. Best of luck.[/quote]

I know this isn’t addressed to me, but this is cool too. And, if I may be so presumptuous, very Christian.[/quote]

Christian?

'A man’s pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor.
Proverbs 29:23

‘Pride is the mask of one’s own faults.’ - Jewish Proverb

544

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And I still don’t see a connection between what Marius did while Rome was still a Republic and what happened 400 years later. [/quote]

Then to put it kindly you’re a little slow. Rome was already in decline at the time of the Cataline conspiracy, the Marian reforms, the rise of the triumvirate and the establishment of the empire. Marius’ reforms made the legions more mobile; more suitable to the kind of enemy he was fighting. They also introduced uneducated plebeians into the ranks who did not have any allegiance to the city or their own land(as they didn’t own any). They were there for plunder and pay and their loyalty was to their commander who used the legionaries to gain political power as Julius Caesar did. Although from the equestrian class he used rabble rousing politics against the optimates as the Grachi brothers had done and as Sulla and Caesar would soon do. Pompey didn’t have the balls.

It had already become tradition not to allow the army into the city after a campaign for this very reason. Rome was already in a moral decline long before the disasters of the 3rd/4th century.[/quote]
Now you change it to MORAL DECLINE and not population decline or some other tangible, measurable decline as Rome expanded its conquests and borders after Marius. That doesn’t sound like decline. [/quote]

This is tedious. The zenith of Rome is universally agreed as the period of the early republic. I have also quoted numerous contemporary authors who describe the decline long before Marius. I have admitted that ‘ghost town’ was a poor choice of words although the period in question was one of continual disasters, a lowering population and a change in population as citizen rights were granted to virtually anyone. Rome even had non-Italian emperors and scores of foreign peasants moving in.

The reason for the decline and fall of Rome is THE most hotly debated subjects in the field. Almost all agree there were numerous reasons. Gibbon actually attributes Christianity.[/quote]
Again, I told you I really don’t need a lesson on ancient Rome. You studied it for 20 years? Well, that means before you opened a book on it I had already been chased by security while visiting the Colosseum as a kid. It also means that I have at least a 20 year head start on you. [/quote]

Let’s agree to disagree(not exactly sure on what we are disagreeing on though).

When I visited Rome I was filled with indescribable emotion I have never felt since. It all came back to me - The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, Suetonius’ Twelve Caesars, Livy’s account of the Second Punic War…Rome was in most ways the greatest civilisation the world has and likely will ever known. And all from an obscure Etruscan village on the Tiber. We would not exist today without them.

I just feel sorry for the way Italy and Europe are turning out now. Arrivederci and Buona Fortuna. I’m sure you’ll need it if you stay there.

545

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’d like to offer an apology for my use of words that may have come across as offensives to. Ah… Whatever it is you’d like to be called. I honestly bear you no ill will. Best of luck.[/quote]

I know this isn’t addressed to me, but this is cool too. And, if I may be so presumptuous, very Christian.[/quote]

Christian?

'A man’s pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor.
Proverbs 29:23

‘Pride is the mask of one’s own faults.’ - Jewish Proverb[/quote]

Haha, I should have said “Judeo-Christian.” I actually hesitated because I’m not sure how you describe yourself.

546

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’d like to offer an apology for my use of words that may have come across as offensives to. Ah… Whatever it is you’d like to be called. I honestly bear you no ill will. Best of luck.[/quote]

I know this isn’t addressed to me, but this is cool too. And, if I may be so presumptuous, very Christian.[/quote]

Christian?

'A man’s pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor.
Proverbs 29:23

‘Pride is the mask of one’s own faults.’ - Jewish Proverb[/quote]

Haha, I should have said “Judeo-Christian.” I actually hesitated because I’m not sure how you describe yourself.[/quote]

A God fearer. :slight_smile:

547

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@smh it’s six thirty in the morning and I’ve just been released from hospital again in a lot of pain. I concede you are largely right due to my poor use of words. I’ll try to explain my position ASAP -not a cop out. I don’t have access to my library.[/quote]

Just a semantic quibble man. I like history and debating history and etc. Don’t think I feel like I’ve “won” anything. By the way, you know much more about Roman history than I do.

I am sorry to hear about the hospital and pain. I sincerely wish you luck and a full and fast recovery.[/quote]

Thanks man. And I’m not sure I know as much as you about certain eras of Roman history. My forte was military history and it’s been a long time since I took on serious study. You are one of the smartest posters here - no circle jerking.
[/quote]

That’s very kind of you, and the feeling is mutual (No CJ). I have always been impressed by your handle of ancient and Middle East history. And I can assure you that I don’t know half what many posters here do about Roman history. I spent almost all my time studying late antiquity and medieval history. A few books here and there, a few of the big primary texts, and a few survey courses are all I’ve got for Rome. It’s high up on my list of things to read about though, along with the English Reformation.

548

Sounds like you know more about the later later Empire than I do. I was enthralled with characters like Sertorius and Hannibal. What inspires me about Hannibal is that nothing was written about him except by his enemies yet he was described as a man of exceptional personal character, bravery, leadership skills, honour and military tactics; betrayed by his own city like Sertorius.

BTW - the Tanach(OT) has recently taught me much of the Babylonian and Persian-Mede empires not to mention the Israelites whose history is most interesting of all. There is a great deal of sound history there to be discovered. As I’ve said, I’m not trying to convert. Apparently I’m supposed to do the opposite which seems much more natural and sane than handing out New Testaments with glazed eyes to strangers in the streets. I hope I don’t sound like I’m being critical but I don’t see much attempt at conversion other than from people who look like they’re suffering some kind of psychiatric disorder. And I don’t mean posters here, I mean the kooks on the streets handing out NTs and won’t take no for an answer.

550

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I didn’t attack you. And libertarians are pro gay marriage FWIW. [/quote]

Some are. Some aren’t.[/quote]

From the Libertarian party platform:

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

https://www.lp.org/files/LP%20Platform%202012.pdf
[/quote]

I’ve posted this numerous times and it gets routinely ignored. Wanting the state to define what consenting adults do in the bedroom and who gets certain treatments is the big government position and contrary to the vast majority of people who are Libertarian. [/quote]

I’ve posted this numerous time and it gets routinely ignored. Wanting the state to officially recognize what goes on in gay bedrooms as “normal” and therefore worthy of state recognition and certain treatments is the big government position and contrary to true libertarianism.

No matter what the Libertarian Party platform states.

Besides, if you carefully read the verbiage of the platform quote above you will note the LP is advocating NO government recognition of marital relationships, i.e., “Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”

That means government shouldn’t recognize heterosexual or homosexual or bestial or polygamous relationships; it should do nothing in that regard.

When you, Harold, or anyone else, insist the government license gay marriages along with heterosexual marriages you are insisting the government define and license personal relationships.

So you and BigFlamer are not on board the Libertarian ship.

Wise up.

Learn to comprehend the words that ye post lest ye be damned to lake of ignorance forever and ever.
[/quote]
Doesn’t get it^^^

Recognizing marriage and what goes on in bedrooms may be against the Libertarian platform but, and there is a but that is being ignored, if the govt is going to recognize marriage, as it does now, then it should recognize both gay and heterosexual marriages. I think you swim in that lake alone.

551

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
… if the govt is going to recognize marriage, as it does now, then it should recognize both gay and heterosexual marriages. I think you swim in that lake alone. [/quote]

yeah what he said.

… i mean who is the government to say if H-factless can marry his sister in june than those gay/homos can’t marry as well?

what do state representatives care if us dudes sit in hot tubs all day trying to get our sperm to find an egg inside the right guy? we might not always get a dude pregnant but it’s fun trying.

i’ve artificially inseminated a few dudes and still haven’t had to pay child support.

the jokes on the other guys, i’m sterile.

552

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
we might not always get a dude pregnant but it’s fun trying.

i’ve artificially inseminated a few dudes and still haven’t had to pay child support.

the jokes on the other guys, i’m sterile.

[/quote]
I’ll have to take your word for it you sick bastard.

553

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Doesn’t get it^^^

Recognizing marriage and what goes on in bedrooms may be against the Libertarian platform but, and there is a but that is being ignored, if the govt is going to recognize marriage, as it does now, then it should recognize both gay and heterosexual marriages. I think you swim in that lake alone. [/quote]

Of course he doesn’t get it, sorta like “talking” to me when I have him on ignore. Then I have to see his ignorance when you quote it.

Still, odd for a guy to try hard to convince someone of something that has them on ignore and runs directly counter to the Libertarian Party platform. Of course just because the ACTUAL FUCKING PARTY PLATFORM says something doesn’t mean that would keep Push from saying it isn’t actually a position for them.

Because when you say a lot of stuff and believe you are correct no matter what evidence is in your face then you can never lose. Assert your way to victory, evidence be damned!