Ancient Rome

[biblkman]

I wish society were more like ancient Rome, in terms of sexuality. Back in ancient Rome they didn't Realy have labels for sexual preference, you had sex be it a men or women their wasn't a big deal about it nor ridicule. It was what it was, a person could be free and comfortable being who they were, But the fall of Rome and the spread of Christianity changed all that. It would be nice to live in a non judgmental world as Ancient Rome.

[Canticle]

Ummmm.....they also enjoyed watching people be hacked to death in the arena.......or torn to pieces by wild animals. The Romans also had slaves, they conquered countries, didn't care how many died in the battles etc etc. Don't think life was all that grand, back then......especially for the ''aristocracy.'' They had a terrible habit of bumping one another off.

Smiles sweetly :)

[darkeyes]

I wish society were more like ancient Rome, in terms of sexuality. Back in ancient Rome they didn't Realy have labels for sexual preference, you had sex be it a men or women their wasn't a big deal about it nor ridicule. It was what it was, a person could be free and comfortable being who they were, But the fall of Rome and the spread of Christianity changed all that. It would be nice to live in a non judgmental world as Ancient Rome.

Yea rite..an we kno who held alla the cards don we?? Non Judgemental me arse...

[RobUK]

A site that has a lot of information about m2m relationships in the ancient world (the Greeks, the Spartans, the Hoplites, the Romans, etc.) is http://man2manalliance.org.

You may or may not like the frot idea, but there's lots of interesting articles that you should like...

Rob
:male:

[fredtyg]

If ancient Rome was as sexually tolerant as we've been led to believe, it makes me wonder how and why that changed?

[RobUK]

If ancient Rome was as sexually tolerant as we've been led to believe, it makes me wonder how and why that changed?

Christianization
:(

[Canticle]

Yea rite..an we kno who held alla the cards don we?? Non Judgemental me arse...

High fives ya!!

[Canticle]

Christianization
:(

I could comment about something...but I won't.

The Roman Empire never really went away.......it just changed.......from Emperors to Popes and the Holy Roman Empire!

This going on about Christianity....it does get yawnish, at times.

[darkeyes]

This going on about Christianity....it does get yawnish, at times.

...thats cos Christianity is yawnish.. only interestin thing bout it is its unpleasant side an slaggin it off...

[FalconAngel]

If ancient Rome was as sexually tolerant as we've been led to believe, it makes me wonder how and why that changed?

Christianity changed it.

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, as part of a promise to his Christian mother, for surviving and winning the battle for the city that became Constantinople, everyone pretty much had to toe the line of that religion. Prior to that, the Empire was pretty tolerant and inclusive of a lot of social behaviors as well as other religions. All that they asked of the people was to obey the law and pay their taxes.

It was the growth in power of the church that demanded so much more of the people and was a huge contributor (mostly indirectly -domino effect- than directly) to the fall of Rome.

[FalconAngel]

Ummmm.....they also enjoyed watching people be hacked to death in the arena.......or torn to pieces by wild animals.

Violence and races with crashes to appease and distract the masses? The Romans called it "bread and Circuses"; we call it WWE/WWF and Nascar. Kind of watered down, by comparison, but still the same idea.


The Romans also had slaves, they conquered countries, didn't care how many died in the battles etc etc. Don't think life was all that grand, back then......especially for the ''aristocracy.'' They had a terrible habit of bumping one another off.

Smiles sweetly :)

Don't we still have that?

It goes on all over the world, even today, but much of the slavery is created by mega-corporations and dictatorial governments. And most of the "bumping off" is mostly limited to the Mafia and other gangs and drug cartels.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[FalconAngel]

I could comment about something...but I won't.

The Roman Empire never really went away.......it just changed.......from Emperors to Popes and the Holy Roman Empire!

This going on about Christianity....it does get yawnish, at times.

It is the history of the religion. Christians may hate that fact, but it is what it is and the more that they deny it, the worse it looks on them. Particularly the Catholic church, who did most of the damage and got the whole problem started in the first place.

But, as I have said, many times before, that is the fault of their corrupt leadership, not the religion itself.

[richarddennis]

The PBS series "I, Claudius" is worth your time, but for those that actually read, Robert Graves books are even better:

Two books, I, Claudius and Claudius the God


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Claudius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Claudius

[FalconAngel]

Yea rite..an we kno who held alla the cards don we?? Non Judgemental me arse...

I doubt that anyone was saying that it was perfect; one would have to be a fool to believe that, but it was certainly safer to not be straight than it is nowadays.

[Canticle]

It is the history of the religion. Christians may hate that fact, but it is what it is and the more that they deny it, the worse it looks on them. Particularly the Catholic church, who did most of the damage and got the whole problem started in the first place.

But, as I have said, many times before, that is the fault of their corrupt leadership, not the religion itself.


I knew that......before I became a Christian....which I no longer am...sort of

[darkeyes]

But, as I have said, many times before, that is the fault of their corrupt leadership, not the religion itself.

..and it can be argued, those who wrote down the tenets of the religion which were adopted by that church.. it is extremely easy to argue that they themselves were as corrupt as any church leadership.... just who were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?? Other than their own words.. if indeed they be their own words... no one knows..

.. whichever be the case.. the only fault if fault there be, remains with men.. even if the religion is a lie.. and far be it for me to suggest such a preposterous notion:eek:....

[ErosUrge]

Violence and races with crashes to appease and distract the masses? The Romans called it "bread and Circuses"; we call it WWE/WWF and Nascar. Kind of watered down, by comparison, but still the same idea.



Don't we still have that?

It goes on all over the world, even today, but much of the slavery is created by mega-corporations and dictatorial governments. And most of the "bumping off" is mostly limited to the Mafia and other gangs and drug cartels.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

So so true....I've always wondered how many others are able to see that with what goes on today.
With all the imperfections of ancient Rome, there did indeed seem to be a tolerance about sexuality. Perhaps this was only for the ruling and upper social classes that this was true. I really don't know. But it's nice to think there might have been such a time and place.

[Canticle]

The PBS series "I, Claudius" is worth your time, but for those that actually read, Robert Graves books are even better:

Two books, I, Claudius and Claudius the God


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Claudius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Claudius



What is PBS? Is this a documentary series, or a serialisation of I, claudius and Claudius the God, both of which I have read and they are amazing. In 1976, the BBC serialised the two novels and called the 26 part series, I, Claudius.

Claudius was played by Sir Derek Jacobi, Augustus by Brian Blessed, Livia by Sian Phillips, Gaius Germanicus (Caligula), by John Hurt and Tiberius by George Baker.

Jacobi won a BAFTA award for best actor in a television series and has become one of the most well repected actors in the UK and elsewhere.

In the 1930s, Sir Alexander Korda tried to make a film of these stories of Claudius and those around him. Several scenes were shot, but the film was never finished. Charles Laughton was playing the part of Claudius, Emlyn Williams, Caligula and Merle Oberon (Korda's wife), the wife of Claudius.....the one who's name begins with M (it escapes me at the moment). Laughton had great difficulties getting into feeling comfortable with the part. I watched a very interesting documentary about this, many years ago and one can clearly see how frustrated, he was obviously feeling. Shame it didn't get finished. it would have been a fascinating film.

[Canticle]

...thats cos Christianity is yawnish.. only interestin thing bout it is its unpleasant side an slaggin it off...

Watch it young lady.......or this Sassenach will beat you severely with a loofah......LOL :bigrin:

Anyway you're wrong...so there!:tong:

[darkeyes]

What is PBS? Is this a documentary series, or a serialisation of I, claudius and Claudius the God, both of which I have read and they are amazing. In 1976, the BBC serialised the two novels and called the 26 part series, I, Claudius.

Claudius was played by Sir Derek Jacobi, Augustus by Brian Blessed, Livia by Sian Phillips, Gaius Germanicus (Caligula), by John Hurt and Tiberius by George Baker.

Jacobi won a BAFTA award for best actor in a television series and has become one of the most well repected actors in the UK and elsewhere.

In the 1930s, Sir Alexander Korda tried to make a film of these stories of Claudius and those around him. Several scenes were shot, but the film was never finished. Charles Laughton was playing the part of Claudius, Emlyn Williams, Caligula and Merle Oberon (Korda's wife), the wife of Claudius.....the one who's name begins with M (it escapes me at the moment). Laughton had great difficulties getting into feeling comfortable with the part. I watched a very interesting documentary about this, many years ago and one can clearly see how frustrated, he was obviously feeling. Shame it didn't get finished. it would have been a fascinating film.

U thinkin of Messalina Canticle... Rite tart she wos... gal afta me own heart.. tee hee..:bigrin: Me doin Claudius the God wiv 3rd year kids rite now.. brill... hav seen the Beeb dramatisation.. seems its on telly every few months these days...

[Canticle]

U thinkin of Messalina Canticle... Rite tart she wos... gal afta me own heart.. tee hee..:bigrin: Me doin Claudius the God wiv 3rd year kids rite now.. brill... hav seen the Beeb dramatisation.. seems its on telly every few months these days...

That be her Fran....thanks...saved me from remembering it in about three days time and frightening the life out of everyone. My epilepsy drugs have side effects.......one of these is I ''lose words''.....can't remember things I am desperately trying to remember.....but all the trivia...well....that stays. I once forgot what he who snores, is called. LOL. Oh, well it will drift away in a few days and then one of th others will arrive.

Now Messalina was a really nasty little madam.....and far more than a tart. You're sort is the ladylike kind......more the Queen of hearts type.

I hope the kids are enjoying the book......young people seem to like anything Roman. I well remember a trip to Verulanium, when I was at school. Most interesting and we got shown around St Alban's Abbey (as it then was called), by the Dean...who was the Archbishop of Canterbury, before Carey and I can't remember his name!

I do remember Stephen Mundy (odd boy..but brainy) stuffing the top of a pillar up his jumper and taking it home with him.

[darkeyes]

Now Messalina was a really nasty little madam.....


History records her as such, but I take a different view of Messalina.. I look on her as challenging a man's world and living her life knowing the risks she run.. I am a little in love with Valeria Messalina... an have been since I was 14 and first read Graves.. and the more so as I read the facts about her life as we have them..and remember.. the worse the reputation history gives one often has much to do with who wrote the history.. Macbeth being another
example.. and Lady Macbeth even more so.. I am a little in love with Gruoch too... but both of them at least have been tried by history and found not guilty.. so far, Valeria's trial continues...

..but I do love the story of Messalina and the whore.. brill!!!!:bigrin: Empress of Tarts indeed...

[FalconAngel]

..and it can be argued, those who wrote down the tenets of the religion which were adopted by that church.. it is extremely easy to argue that they themselves were as corrupt as any church leadership.... just who were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?? Other than their own words.. if indeed they be their own words... no one knows..

.. whichever be the case.. the only fault if fault there be, remains with men.. even if the religion is a lie.. and far be it for me to suggest such a preposterous notion:eek:....

You won't get an argument from me in that respect. As long as it is possible to garner power, there will be people who will do everything; lie, cheat, steal, kill, to gain and maintain that power.

That's why history books get revised by people with agendas.

[TaylorMade]

The Catholic Church has apologized so many times...what do you want them to do, walk around like a bunch of flagellants to apologize to every little person and wash their feet?

In which case, I'd like an apology from the Spanish and English for conquering and colonizing Jamaica, each white person living to give me a full apology for slavery and Jim Crow- - the English for their treatment of the Irish and Scots, the Welsh and English for forcible rape, et al. Hell, maybe and I'm sorry from every pagan here for what the Romans, Norse, Muslims , et al do and STILL do to Christians today.

You wouldn't apologize and I wouldn't demand it. . . if you pride yourself on being un-PC - the true test of ideology is to apply it to something you REALLY don't like. You shouldn't apologize for the above because you didn't have a direct hand in it. . .and at this point. . .most present-day Christians have not done a damn thing to you directly so demanding an I'm sorry from them is hypocritical.

*Taylor*

[Canticle]

The Catholic Church has apologized so many times...what do you want them to do, walk around like a bunch of flagellants to apologize to every little person and wash their feet?

In which case, I'd like an apology from the Spanish and English for conquering and colonizing Jamaica, each white person living to give me a full apology for slavery and Jim Crow- - the English for their treatment of the Irish and Scots, the Welsh and English for forcible rape, et al. Hell, maybe and I'm sorry from every pagan here for what the Romans, Norse, Muslims , et al do and STILL do to Christians today.

You wouldn't apologize and I wouldn't demand it. . . if you pride yourself on being un-PC - the true test of ideology is to apply it to something you REALLY don't like. You shouldn't apologize for the above because you didn't have a direct hand in it. . .and at this point. . .most present-day Christians have not done a damn thing to you directly so demanding an I'm sorry from them is hypocritical.

*Taylor*

Well said Taylor, we cannot put right what happened in the past. We can only make sure such terrible events are completely eradicated from the world and society, for there are still slaves, people still get conquered, invaded, raped, tortured, massacred etc.

We can only learn from the mistakes of history and that is why history IS important. If every civilisation, empire, country, state that has existed, had to have the descendants of people from those days say sorry.....the apologies would never end.

I remember watching a documentary, where a group of black Britons were taken to Africa and shown where slaves had been kept, before transportation to the new World and then the penny dropped. They realised that the white man, had bought black people from their fellow countrymen, but from different tribes. They had not realised that this happened. Human inhumanity to fellow humans.

Also, all the white people transported to Australia and before that the americas, as prisoners (in days when a child could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread), were really white slaves and they had to do the work that settlers didn't want to have to do. From those prisoners, forcibly taken from their home country, we have their descendants, who are the citizens in free societies. We can only learn....we cannot go back.

[Lady_Passion]

...thats cos Christianity is yawnish.. only interestin thing bout it is its unpleasant side an slaggin it off...

*lol*

So true!

[TaylorMade]

Well said Taylor, we cannot put right what happened in the past. We can only make sure such terrible events are completely eradicated from the world and society, for there are still slaves, people still get conquered, invaded, raped, tortured, massacred etc.

We can only learn from the mistakes of history and that is why history IS important. If every civilisation, empire, country, state that has existed, had to have the descendants of people from those days say sorry.....the apologies would never end.

I remember watching a documentary, where a group of black Britons were taken to Africa and shown where slaves had been kept, before transportation to the new World and then the penny dropped. They realised that the white man, had bought black people from their fellow countrymen, but from different tribes. They had not realised that this happened. Human inhumanity to fellow humans.

Also, all the white people transported to Australia and before that the americas, as prisoners (in days when a child could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread), were really white slaves and they had to do the work that settlers didn't want to have to do. From those prisoners, forcibly taken from their home country, we have their descendants, who are the citizens in free societies. We can only learn....we cannot go back.

Yeah... that's what I'm saying. . .or as one of my old friends used to say, "Sorry don't feed the bulldog."

*Taylor*

[Darkside2009]

...thats cos Christianity is yawnish.. only interestin thing bout it is its unpleasant side an slaggin it off...

thats cos Christianity is yawnish.. only interestin thing bout it is its unpleasant side an slaggin it off...

Do not think so little of me as to grant me your tolerance. Allow me your acceptance and understanding of who and what I am with the love, respect and dignity with which I do you.


Is this your idea of according Christians tolerance, dignity and respect, as you would wish for yourself?

From where I'm sitting it just looks like hypocrisy.

[Lady_Passion]

I would not speak for anyone but myself, but the day Christianity affords me real tolerance, dignity and respect I might actually consider joining in again.

Has to work both ways. That's the biggest rift of all. Christianity leaves no room for anything but itself, much like numerous other religions and doctrines.

There was an explorer/anthropologist named Thor Heyerdahl who wrote ("Easter Island") no matter where he went in the world, no matter how unexposed to christianity, no matter how remote or how small a group of people he encountered, they all had a word for 'god' or 'gods'.

To me that speaks to the need for acceptance across the board, yet no religion or doctrine really does that, that I'm aware of.

As for the Romans, they had a good run though it would seem with all their resources they would have lasted longer by not spreading themselves so thin. There's always a point of diminishing returns.

[darkeyes]

thats cos Christianity is yawnish.. only interestin thing bout it is its unpleasant side an slaggin it off...

Do not think so little of me as to grant me your tolerance. Allow me your acceptance and understanding of who and what I am with the love, respect and dignity with which I do you.


Is this your idea of according Christians tolerance, dignity and respect, as you would wish for yourself?

From where I'm sitting it just looks like hypocrisy.

U think so? Im not tryin to ban any religion.. not trying to stop people from practising it.. I merely made a statement of how I see Christianity.. for it is how I see Christianity.. and I accept and understand people's need to believe what they believe and have no problem with it.. just as I get slagged off for what I believe I will insist on the right to do just that to things I think are wrong.. is that hypocrisy? Ok.. I plead guilty in that case..

..and in ne case.. that lil ditty is about me sexuality.. it wasnt meant to refer to ne thing else.. although it is how I live my life in the main.. and I defy you or anyone else to take issue with it..I am not perfect by any means..but I leave the decision of whether I am hypcrite to others..

[FalconAngel]

The Catholic Church has apologized so many times...what do you want them to do, walk around like a bunch of flagellants to apologize to every little person and wash their feet?

In which case, I'd like an apology from the Spanish and English for conquering and colonizing Jamaica, each white person living to give me a full apology for slavery and Jim Crow- - the English for their treatment of the Irish and Scots, the Welsh and English for forcible rape, et al. Hell, maybe and I'm sorry from every pagan here for what the Romans, Norse, Muslims , et al do and STILL do to Christians today.

You wouldn't apologize and I wouldn't demand it. . . if you pride yourself on being un-PC - the true test of ideology is to apply it to something you REALLY don't like. You shouldn't apologize for the above because you didn't have a direct hand in it. . .and at this point. . .most present-day Christians have not done a damn thing to you directly so demanding an I'm sorry from them is hypocritical.

*Taylor*

I can't speak for everyone, but those apologies would go a lot further if they would follow it up with actions that said that they actually mean what they say.

An Apology means very little when the one apologizing does the same things, over and over, that they were apologizing for in the first place. And, to be honest, I firmly believe that one need not be perfect to abide by that simple rule; the excuse for repeating those mistakes; "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven" is a pale excuse for it, too.

I don't want the church, any church, to apologize; all that I want is for them to learn from those mistakes and stop finding excuses to justify repeating them over and over again.
And if that is asking too much, then perhaps they need to not be forgiven or their crimes forgotten; not even the crimes they commit in this day and age.

Deeds, not words, are the most telling about it all. Deeds show what words do not, particularly in this case.

[biblkman]

FOR THE PEOPLE NOT PAYING ATTENTION..........I SAID IN TERMS OF SEXUALITY!!! Please pay attention before going on about the wrong topic.

[Canticle]

FOR THE PEOPLE NOT PAYING ATTENTION..........I SAID IN TERMS OF SEXUALITY!!! Please pay attention before going on about the wrong topic.

You cannot extract one small area of the behaviour/ideals/morals etc of a civilisation and decide that ''Oh, that was OK, it doesn't matter that the rest was crap.'' The way things work in the minds, hearts and behaviour of humans, means that all aspects of the whole are interconnected.

Also, what may be reported as how things were, by historians, may not be precisely how things worked in practice. It has always been very easy, for the elite of any society, the wealthy, the privileged, to behave exactly how they desire and call it right or good.

However, these same people, the elite, the ruling forces, the controlling powers that be, more often than not, have dual standards and what any small society may consider OK for it's own, it may stamp out elsewhere.

Whatever ''sexual freedom,'' there may have been among, Roman, Greek and other great civilisations and empires, had nothing to do with the people of the time being more accepting of anything. It all has to do with wealth and power and the rulers deciding that they are almost godlike and therefore can do what the hell they like.

It's the old ''don't do as I do, do as I say.''

[Darkside2009]

U think so? Im not tryin to ban any religion.. not trying to stop people from practising it.. I merely made a statement of how I see Christianity.. for it is how I see Christianity.. and I accept and understand people's need to believe what they believe and have no problem with it.. just as I get slagged off for what I believe I will insist on the right to do just that to things I think are wrong.. is that hypocrisy? Ok.. I plead guilty in that case..


..and in ne case.. that lil ditty is about me sexuality.. it wasnt meant to refer to ne thing else.. although it is how I live my life in the main.. and I defy you or anyone else to take issue with it..I am not perfect by any means..but I leave the decision of whether I am hypcrite to others..


Well, firstly, you wouldn't be able to ban religion, but many have tried from left-wing regimes.

Secondly, what other purpose does your constant belittling of Christians serve other than to try and stop them practising their beliefs.

Their is much more to Christianity than your few glib remarks would indicate, you know that, I know that, yet you chose to make derogatory remarks. Hardly tolerant was it.

In thread after thread I have witnessed you making similar derogatory remarks on Christian beliefs.

(I accept and understand people's need to believe what they believe and have no problem with it..)

Your words above in brackets, far from having no problem with it, you seem to have a very big issue with it, as you continually make similar derogatory remarks.

I do not share the Socialist, or Atheist views you espouse on this site, but I have never tried to belittle those beliefs in any post, on any thread on this site.

Neither do I berate, or try to belittle the religious beliefs of anyone, who has religious beliefs differing from my own.

That includes the many people who profess to be Pagans on this site, that is there sincerely held belief and I respect it.


(..and in ne case.. that lil ditty is about me sexuality.. it wasnt meant to refer to ne thing else.. although it is how I live my life in the main.. and I defy you or anyone else to take issue with it)

How you live your life in the main? It is easy to be agreeable to those that share our beliefs, that is not a mark of tolerance.

Tolerance is where one doesn't share the other persons beliefs but accords that person's beliefs the respect and dignity one would expect for ones own beliefs. Provided they are legal of course.

Tolerance is a wonderful concept, try it sometime, you might grow to like it.

[Darkside2009]

I would not speak for anyone but myself, but the day Christianity affords me real tolerance, dignity and respect I might actually consider joining in again.

Has to work both ways. That's the biggest rift of all. Christianity leaves no room for anything but itself, much like numerous other religions and doctrines.

There was an explorer/anthropologist named Thor Heyerdahl who wrote ("Easter Island") no matter where he went in the world, no matter how unexposed to christianity, no matter how remote or how small a group of people he encountered, they all had a word for 'god' or 'gods'.

To me that speaks to the need for acceptance across the board, yet no religion or doctrine really does that, that I'm aware of.

As for the Romans, they had a good run though it would seem with all their resources they would have lasted longer by not spreading themselves so thin. There's always a point of diminishing returns.


Well I cannot speak for other Christians, either on here or off. However, I believe I have accorded the views you have expressed in your posts, on the various threads you have contributed to, the respect and dignity due to you, as one person to another.

I would ask for this respect and dignity to be reciprocated, not just to myself, but to the other Christians on this site. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

[Lady_Passion]

Well I cannot speak for other Christians, either on here or off. However, I believe I have accorded the views you have expressed in your posts, on the various threads you have contributed to, the respect and dignity due to you, as one person to another.

I would ask for this respect and dignity to be reciprocated, not just to myself, but to the other Christians on this site. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Why are people so quick to make a topic personal? I specifically stated 'christianity', not a particular individual. I have not questioned your personal intent and unlikely to bother.

Not sure how this jumped tracks from ancient Rome to perceived personal slights but I don't accord anyone respect they haven't earned, regardless of their faith or lack of. Most certainly I would not encourage anyone else to. Neither is my intent anything other than to speak my mind about what I believe.

If we disagree because of different experiences, so be it, but disagreements or differences of opinion and faith should not be interpreted as personal or impolite. Tolerance doesn't mean I need to pretend to agree in order to be considerate of others with opinions and beliefs differing from mine.

/end psychobabble for the day... maybe... :.)

[open2both]

Ahh!
Transport me back in time!
Pleasures of EVERY sort!
If I put on Dorothy's ruby slippers and clicked my heels 3 times and said "there's no place like ROME...?":flag3:

[csreef]

A few years ago I met a man who was a retired professor of Ancient History at New York University.

He told me that if you owned slaves, you could rape them, without consquence, and if they refused "your advances", you could kill them, just because :
(1) they were slaves(your property);
(2) as a male member of the upper class, the law did'nt really apply to you...

[Darkside2009]

Why are people so quick to make a topic personal? I specifically stated 'christianity', not a particular individual. I have not questioned your personal intent and unlikely to bother.

Not sure how this jumped tracks from ancient Rome to perceived personal slights but I don't accord anyone respect they haven't earned, regardless of their faith or lack of. Most certainly I would not encourage anyone else to. Neither is my intent anything other than to speak my mind about what I believe.

If we disagree because of different experiences, so be it, but disagreements or differences of opinion and faith should not be interpreted as personal or impolite. Tolerance doesn't mean I need to pretend to agree in order to be considerate of others with opinions and beliefs differing from mine.

/end psychobabble for the day... maybe... :.)



It may be a generational or age gap, I was raised, not to put people on probation, until such time as they had earned my respect. On the contrary, I was raised to accord everyone dignity and respect as fellow human beings, until they proved undeserving of that respect.

I have not asked, nor expected, that you pretend to accept my beliefs or opinions in preference to your own.

I would hope that if I changed the way you thought of or about some topic, it would have been through logical persuasion and not through any glib or sarcastic remark.

Tolerance, to my mind, means live and let live, we can disagree on every topic under the Sun, but we can do it in a civilised manner.

[Lady_Passion]

It may be a generational or age gap, I was raised, not to put people on probation, until such time as they had earned my respect. On the contrary, I was raised to accord everyone dignity and respect as fellow human beings, until they proved undeserving of that respect.

I have not asked, nor expected, that you pretend to accept my beliefs or opinions in preference to your own.

I would hope that if I changed the way you thought of or about some topic, it would have been through logical persuasion and not through any glib or sarcastic remark.

Tolerance, to my mind, means live and let live, we can disagree on every topic under the Sun, but we can do it in a civilised manner.

Live and let live works for me :.)

[TaylorMade]

You cannot extract one small area of the behaviour/ideals/morals etc of a civilisation and decide that ''Oh, that was OK, it doesn't matter that the rest was crap.'' The way things work in the minds, hearts and behaviour of humans, means that all aspects of the whole are interconnected.

Also, what may be reported as how things were, by historians, may not be precisely how things worked in practice. It has always been very easy, for the elite of any society, the wealthy, the privileged, to behave exactly how they desire and call it right or good.

However, these same people, the elite, the ruling forces, the controlling powers that be, more often than not, have dual standards and what any small society may consider OK for it's own, it may stamp out elsewhere.

Whatever ''sexual freedom,'' there may have been among, Roman, Greek and other great civilisations and empires, had nothing to do with the people of the time being more accepting of anything. It all has to do with wealth and power and the rulers deciding that they are almost godlike and therefore can do what the hell they like.

It's the old ''don't do as I do, do as I say.''

This. . .Oh Christ, this. . .we don't know what the sexuality of Joe and Jane Roman was like. . .maybe it was just as free wheeling as their more aristocratic counterparts, but probably it was less.

And even among aristocrats there was a cycle of permissive sexuality ----->traditionalist sexuality, during the reign of Augustus Ceasar, the aristocracy was expected to conform to traditional sexuality. . . so while, all of it looks good on the outside, there is so much more than,"there's no place like Rome. "

*Taylor*

[TaylorMade]

A few years ago I met a man who was a retired professor of Ancient History at New York University.

He told me that if you owned slaves, you could rape them, without consquence, and if they refused "your advances", you could kill them, just because :
(1) they were slaves(your property);
(2) as a male member of the upper class, the law did'nt really apply to you...

Yeah... and they sometimes didn't just kill you nicely, either.

*Taylor*

[locotom]

Violence and races with crashes to appease and distract the masses? The Romans called it "bread and Circuses"; we call it WWE/WWF and Nascar. Kind of watered down, by comparison, but still the same idea.



Don't we still have that?

It goes on all over the world, even today, but much of the slavery is created by mega-corporations and dictatorial governments. And most of the "bumping off" is mostly limited to the Mafia and other gangs and drug cartels.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

replace the phrases drug cartels and mafia with elected governments and your probably more near the mark?

[MarieDelta]

The gallae, known in non-trans scholarship as galloi (sing. gallos) or galli (sing. gallus), were a group of priests of the goddess Cybele. They are known to have existed in ancient Greece and Rome, and probably also in Phrygia, although the evidence for them there is very scant. The gallae were assigned male at birth, but transformed themselves by means of castration and ritual, after which they wore female clothing, spoke in a feminine vocal register, and lived apart in religious communities dedicated to Cybele.


The Worship of Cybele

The goddess now most frequently called Cybele seems to have first appeared in Phrygia. There she was worshipped as Matar, the Mother, and frequently given place-name epithets to relate her to her local cults. One of these was Matar Kubileya, which appears to be the origin of her Greek name, Meter Kybele. In Latin she was called Magna Mater, Mater Idaea, or more rarely Cybele.
Despite the title of Mother, Cybele seems to have no association with fertility until Roman times. She was rarely depicted with children, fruit, or other symbols of fertility. Instead, she seems to have been originally a goddess of wild animals. She was associated with wild, barren places, and depicted with birds of prey and occasionally lions. In a paradox common in much religious practice, this goddess of the wild seems to have been responsible for creating and preserving civilization.


http://transhistory.wikispaces.com/gallae

[Canticle]

This. . .Oh Christ, this. . .we don't know what the sexuality of Joe and Jane Roman was like. . .maybe it was just as free wheeling as their more aristocratic counterparts, but probably it was less.

And even among aristocrats there was a cycle of permissive sexuality ----->traditionalist sexuality, during the reign of Augustus Ceasar, the aristocracy was expected to conform to traditional sexuality. . . so while, all of it looks good on the outside, there is so much more than,"there's no place like Rome. "

*Taylor*

I take it that you are not agreeing with me. No matter, for in the greater scheme of things, this is not important. Did I not express myself to your satisfaction. Perhaps I have let myself down. I really should have taken the time to produce an incredibly erudite epistle, on Word, taking my time and using the spell and grammar check.

I am quite sure that the same sexual behaviour was found, at all levels of the Roman class system. So sorry if I produced a reply, far too quickly and missed something out. Throughout the history of humankind, the wealthy have always had greater opportunities to indulge themselves, whether this be sexually, financially, clothing themselves well, or buying expensive jewellery, having slaves and servants to do their bidding, food enough to turn them into gluttons and thousands of workers on the land or in industry, who when it was expected of them, willing, or not, could spill their blood, so the wealthy could fight wars, in a vicarious manner.

It does not matter if they were, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, rulers of the Ottoman Empire, or the many wealthy countries and Empires of the west. In fact on a smaller scale, the same difference in the classes, ruling or otherwise, will be seen and will have been seen in local governments and even tribal societies.

Wealth and power speak volumes and allow the privileged to indulge in behaviour that the poorer classes could perhaps only dream of, or cause them to hate their overlords.........and in some societies the corruption will lead to revolution and then the underlings just move up a few rungs of the ladder and slip into the roles vacated by those who went before them.

[TaylorMade]

I take it that you are not agreeing with me. No matter, for in the greater scheme of things, this is not important. Did I not express myself to your satisfaction. Perhaps I have let myself down. I really should have taken the time to produce an incredibly erudite epistle, on Word, taking my time and using the spell and grammar check.

I am quite sure that the same sexual behaviour was found, at all levels of the Roman class system. So sorry if I produced a reply, far too quickly and missed something out. Throughout the history of humankind, the wealthy have always had greater opportunities to indulge themselves, whether this be sexually, financially, clothing themselves well, or buying expensive jewellery, having slaves and servants to do their bidding, food enough to turn them into gluttons and thousands of workers on the land or in industry, who when it was expected of them, willing, or not, could spill their blood, so the wealthy could fight wars, in a vicarious manner.

It does not matter if they were, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, rulers of the Ottoman Empire, or the many wealthy countries and Empires of the west. In fact on a smaller scale, the same difference in the classes, ruling or otherwise, will be seen and will have been seen in local governments and even tribal societies.

Wealth and power speak volumes and allow the privileged to indulge in behaviour that the poorer classes could perhaps only dream of, or cause them to hate their overlords.........and in some societies the corruption will lead to revolution and then the underlings just move up a few rungs of the ladder and slip into the roles vacated by those who went before them.

I actually WAS agreeing with you... LOL! MY mistake since the misunderstanding started with me.

*Taylor*

[Canticle]

I actually WAS agreeing with you... LOL! MY mistake since the misunderstanding started with me.

*Taylor*


Damnation!.......and LOL.......you mean I posted at my very best attempt to be so terribly, terribly English and all all along you were agreeing with me.......Ye gads. Actually, as today will not be a good one for me and your post so pissed me off, I really did enjoy writing that last post.

My apologies Taylor....still shaking head in disbelief and laughing. :rolleyes:

[TaylorMade]

Damnation!.......and LOL.......you mean I posted at my very best attempt to be so terribly, terribly English and all all along you were agreeing with me.......Ye gads. Actually, as today will not be a good one for me and your post so pissed me off, I really did enjoy writing that last post.

My apologies Taylor....still shaking head in disbelief and laughing. :rolleyes:


:) I have coffee if ya want it. <<hugs>>

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

Well, firstly, you wouldn't be able to ban religion, but many have tried from left-wing regimes.

Secondly, what other purpose does your constant belittling of Christians serve other than to try and stop them practising their beliefs.

Their is much more to Christianity than your few glib remarks would indicate, you know that, I know that, yet you chose to make derogatory remarks. Hardly tolerant was it.

In thread after thread I have witnessed you making similar derogatory remarks on Christian beliefs.

(I accept and understand people's need to believe what they believe and have no problem with it..)

Your words above in brackets, far from having no problem with it, you seem to have a very big issue with it, as you continually make similar derogatory remarks.

I do not share the Socialist, or Atheist views you espouse on this site, but I have never tried to belittle those beliefs in any post, on any thread on this site.

Neither do I berate, or try to belittle the religious beliefs of anyone, who has religious beliefs differing from my own.

That includes the many people who profess to be Pagans on this site, that is there sincerely held belief and I respect it.


(..and in ne case.. that lil ditty is about me sexuality.. it wasnt meant to refer to ne thing else.. although it is how I live my life in the main.. and I defy you or anyone else to take issue with it)

How you live your life in the main? It is easy to be agreeable to those that share our beliefs, that is not a mark of tolerance.

Tolerance is where one doesn't share the other persons beliefs but accords that person's beliefs the respect and dignity one would expect for ones own beliefs. Provided they are legal of course.

Tolerance is a wonderful concept, try it sometime, you might grow to like it.

..and I think sometime you ought to grow the ability to read properly...that I am no Christian I accept.. I have no religion whatever and am glad of it.. the absence of a belief in a God leaves no hole in my life.. but do you really believe I belittle Christianity? You've read then every word I have said of it and it is therefore found wanting...

If I wanted to I could indeed belittle Christianity.. it is not me that belittles it but those who are responsible for spreading its.. or at least their version of its message.... I have always respected the beliefs of Christians.. and I accept them as their sincerely held opinion and belief.. I have said more than once that I have found Christianity a rather attractive religion as religions go... but that I take issue with the tenets of Christianity vis a vis the resurrection AND the virgin birth( not with much of the alleged message of Christ)....and think them fairy tales I have never kept secret.. because I take issue with anything does not mean I do not respect the opinions and beliefs of those who are believers.. it means I take issue with the issue.. as my dear is my right.. and if you believe anything I have said is belitting then so be it.. Christianity or at least those who have and do run it on this good earth, have belittled and refused to tolerate me and my like for centuries.. yes I can be glib.. and often flippant... but disrespect the beliefs of others? You may think so.. we will just have to disagree when it comes to Christianity...

I suggest you wade through whatever I have written of Christianity and think again.. yes I may take issue with much of it.. but mostly I have taken issue with the those who run it.. and many who "practice" it.. and if you believe I do not tolerate Christianity.. think again.. I live my life very substantially by what Christ is meant to have preached... which is a fucking sight more than most believers do...

.. thinking is nice darkside.. I suggest you try that occasionally you cheeky bastard...

[Darkside2009]

..and I think sometime you ought to grow the ability to read properly...that I am no Christian I accept.. I have no religion whatever and am glad of it.. the absence of a belief in a God leaves no hole in my life.. but do you really believe I belittle Christianity? You've read then every word I have said of it and it is therefore found wanting...

If I wanted to I could indeed belittle Christianity.. it is not me that belittles it but those who are responsible for spreading its.. or at least their version of its message.... I have always respected the beliefs of Christians.. and I accept them as their sincerely held opinion and belief.. I have said more than once that I have found Christianity a rather attractive religion as religions go... but that I take issue with the tenets of Christianity vis a vis the resurrection AND the virgin birth( not with much of the alleged message of Christ)....and think them fairy tales I have never kept secret.. because I take issue with anything does not mean I do not respect the opinions and beliefs of those who are believers.. it means I take issue with the issue.. as my dear is my right.. and if you believe anything I have said is belitting then so be it.. Christianity or at least those who have and do run it on this good earth, have belittled and refused to tolerate me and my like for centuries.. yes I can be glib.. and often flippant... but disrespect the beliefs of others? You may think so.. we will just have to disagree when it comes to Christianity...

I suggest you wade through whatever I have written of Christianity and think again.. yes I may take issue with much of it.. but mostly I have taken issue with the those who run it.. and many who "practice" it.. and if you believe I do not tolerate Christianity.. think again.. I live my life very substantially by what Christ is meant to have preached... which is a fucking sight more than most believers do...

.. thinking is nice darkside.. I suggest you try that occasionally you cheeky bastard...


Well, I'm a little saddened that you have seen fit to drag my parents into this disagreement.

Mine are both deceased and you didn't know either of them, but no matter. I wish you, your partner and your parents, a long and happy life. Take care of yourselves and of them, they are taken from us all too soon. God Bless.

[darkeyes]

Well, I'm a little saddened that you have seen fit to drag my parents into this disagreement.

Mine are both deceased and you didn't know either of them, but no matter. I wish you, your partner and your parents, a long and happy life. Take care of yourselves and of them, they are taken from us all too soon. God Bless.

Hun wy ty... I adore me parents as well as me partner an the childer... they all alive s ya prob kno...wos scrattin me head tryin 2 figger wer me brot up ya mum an dad... but it clicked in end... an u kno as well as I that me partin comment had nowt 2 do wiv them.. but am sorry if it rankled.. hav been called worse an will b 'gain no doubt... an hav cum back wiv ripostes jus like u.. so thts life sweets.. cant wish u God bless for obvious reasons...but can wish u an alla urs nowt but gud throughout ya life...:)

[Canticle]

Romans..apparently....used leather condoms