| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Severus; |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 20:16:45 EDT |
|
Fame at last. For my next trick I'll make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
Oh, it's been done. Bloody Dickens.
Severus
Britannia
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Rufa Paula Cornelia |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 20:16:44 EDT |
|
In a message dated 02/04/00 22:24:45 GMT Daylight Time,
&l--------href="/pos--------varoma?pro--------ID=132056219182127132169218031036129208" &g--------curia@--------&l--------&g--------ri--------
<< You do not give ' two hoots ' about the US Constitution. Nova Roma is
allowed to exsist within the bounderies of the United States, because of the
US Constitution. And the citizens of Nova Roma are permitted to give their
political ideas voice because of the US Contitution. That, my fellow
citizen of Nova Roma, is why the article contained in the First Amendment
concerning the freedom of speech was written. So that individuals could
speak their minds on political matters without fear of retaliation. >>
So you are saying you would put the US Constitution BEFORE the NR
Constitution despite the fact that NR is trying become a 'nation' in its own
right? If you didn't agree with something you'd quote the US Constitution to
over-ride that of NR. Perhaps you're missing the ideals that NR is trying to
attain.
I'd be interested to know if you'd have joined NR if it was a British idea
where quoting your First Amendment would have been greeted with a good deal
of laughter? I don't think we have a Freedom of Speech clause in our
unwritten 'constitution'. Certainly nothing as blatent as your First
Amendment.
Forgive me for going on about this but as a non-US citizen of NR I think it
is important to know if US citizens of NR would use their 'other' country's
Constitution to ride roughshod over NR.
BTW, I have nothing against you, Rufa.
Severus
Britannia
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Severus; |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:18:13 -0700 |
|
Then what can you do to top that? ;)
Sulla Felix
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132100020254093198016200200028114253071048139" >DTibbe2926@--------</--------; wrote:
> Fame at last. For my next trick I'll make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
>
> Oh, it's been done. Bloody Dickens.
>
> Severus
> Britannia
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> LOW RATE, NO WAIT!
> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates
> as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
> Learn more at:
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/937/4/_/61050/_/954807501/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/937/4/_/61050/_/954807501/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
To Fortunatas |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 20:24:21 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/3/00 5:28:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
&l--------href="/pos--------varoma?pro--------ID=034166250009056116130232203056129208071" &g--------bienus@--------&l--------&g--------ri--------
<< And so, left with neither proof nor disproof of the spiritualist stance, I
am
left with only reason and personal preference with which to attempt to grasp
a
truth that, by its very nature, will forever elude me. Reason dictates that
I
must trust my senses, which are useless in this case. Personal preference
dictates that I join the spiritualist camp, but, as my preference is
stronger
or weaker on any given day and gradually changes over time, it is a fickle
and
unstable thing to base a system of belief upon--especially since I maintain
that Truth is constant. >>
Salve!
I was very pleased with what you wrote here. Like you, I to tend to
fluctuate in temperment and in leanings, from one period to the next. If I
am exploring a religious system, the materialist side seems uneasily more
compelling. When "feeling" more secular, there is that annoying "call of the
spirit". We are like cats it seems, always on the wrong side of every door.
One of the consuls here has called me an atheist. That is not quite correct.
He probably inferred that from my statement, in an earlier post, that, "Rome
lived with it's deists and atheists. So can we." Yet I never claimed to be
an atheist myself. True, I did say the gods do not exist. The context was
supplied by a Nova Roman claiming "the gods" {ie the ROMAN gods} would vent
wrath on the nation. And I have no problem saying these gods, Jupiter,
Saturn, and the rest, do not exist. But I do not a priori rule out ALL
possibility of deity.
In other words, I have no problem saying that the planet Altair, once
populated by the Krell {Forbidden Planet} does not exist. But this does not
mean I say there are no planets anywhere that have life, besides our own.
I am uncomfortable with materialism, yet in my darker moments, I suspect they
may be right. More about that matter later, in another subject.
I think you and I can agree that the matter being discussed is more difficult
than merely arguing whether or not god exists. That is difficult enough, but
polytheists do not have it even that easy. They have to justify the
existence of several gods, rather than one.
Gaius Lupinius Festus
|
| Subject: |
To Graecus: More on Philosophy |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 20:24:22 EDT |
|
Salve Graecus,
Let me ask you, do you truely doubt your common sense? When I said that
our common sense experience shows that things do not exist simply because we
think of them, you said that that position is as difficult to prove as the
existence of the gods.
Do you really doubt common sense? Fortunatas said it well, that such
doubt, even of your own common sense can lead to such an extremem skepticism
that you end up unable to believe that it is possible to know anything. When
I first saw you post here, you looked like a man of religious faith. But
solipsism is the very opposite of faith. You begin by believing in the gods,
then embark on an epistemological course which parodoxically ends in not
being able to believe anything at all!
There is a test, though, to see if one can trust common sense. Stand by a
busy street, and wait for a fast moving car to approach. Ask yourself if you
can deliberately walk in front of the car. Your common sense will tell you
this is a very bad thing to do! And I'll wager that if you take this test,
and you see that car flying down the street, and contemplate walking out on
front of it, that you will decide to trust your common sense after all!
Of course common sense is not all encompassing or infallible. That is
where science enters the picture. It was a common sense observation that the
sun moved around the earth. With science, the truth was found. We still use
old figures of speech like "the sun rise", or "the movements of the stars
across the sky". But we also know that these appearences are misleading. So
knowledge does not end with common sense, but it does begin there. And I
know of no better place to begin. Do you?
Let me return for a moment to the problem of thinking about things, and
whether or not they actually exist. When I used examples of thinking about
Godzilla or Mary Poppins, you protested that I was thinking about material
things. But sir, what is the difference?
If thinking about something that can be be seen or detected does not mean
necessarily that this thing actually exists, then on what grounds do you
assert that thinking about undetectable, non-material entities proves their
existence? No way to test? No way to tell?
There is another problem with your ciontention that that thinking about god
proves god's existence. Right now, I am thinking of god. As I type, I am
holding in my mind the idea of the god of the Muslims. The sole, one and
only supreme being besides which there is no other. Does this mean Allah
exists? If it does, than polytheism must be false. But if polytheism is
false, then it is not true that thinking of the polytheists gods proves their
existence. You see, the idea of Allah is uncompromisingly monotheistic. If
other gods exist, then the muslim god cannot. And if Allah exists, then
Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, and the rest, cannot exist. Your thinking seems to
violate Aristotle's law of non-contradiction. How do you deal with the
contradictions that your theory invites? Better to abandon it altogether,
and recognize the reality that thinking of a thing, and that thing's actual
existence, are two very different matters altogether.
You then mention the Ideas, or archtypes. How do you suppose this idea
will demonstrate for us the existence of the gods?
Gaius Lupinius Festus
|
| Subject: |
Does Festus Exist??? |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 21:28:54 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/3/00 2:49:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a> writes:
<< I challenge Festus to prove that HE exists >>
LOL! Ok, ok....against my better judgement, I will respond.
It all boils down to cause and effect.
My posts have definitely had an effect. Not too good, perhaps, but
nonetheless real.
Now, for the effect, there must be a cause.
If Gaius Lupinius Festus exists, then you have a cause for the effect.
If, on the other hand, Gaius Lupinius Festus does not exist, then the posts
of mine appearing before your eyes are figments of your psyche, on a par with
the "voices" heard by wackos like David 'Son of Sam' Berkowitz, or
appearences of the Virgin Mary to very strange people in Conyers, Ga.
Either Festus exists, and you are sane. Or he does not, and you are a loon!
:>
The choice is all yours! :}
Best Wishes,
Gaius Lupinius Festus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Does Festus Exist??? |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:29:05 -0700 |
|
Not necessarily..someone could be imitating Festus...and then a whole new realm
of contradictions might be available.... :)
Sulla Felix
Censor
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a> wrote:
> In a message dated 4/3/00 2:49:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a> writes:
>
> << I challenge Festus to prove that HE exists >>
>
> LOL! Ok, ok....against my better judgement, I will respond.
>
> It all boils down to cause and effect.
>
> My posts have definitely had an effect. Not too good, perhaps, but
> nonetheless real.
>
> Now, for the effect, there must be a cause.
>
> If Gaius Lupinius Festus exists, then you have a cause for the effect.
>
> If, on the other hand, Gaius Lupinius Festus does not exist, then the posts
> of mine appearing before your eyes are figments of your psyche, on a par with
> the "voices" heard by wackos like David 'Son of Sam' Berkowitz, or
> appearences of the Virgin Mary to very strange people in Conyers, Ga.
>
> Either Festus exists, and you are sane. Or he does not, and you are a loon!
> :>
>
> The choice is all yours! :}
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Gaius Lupinius Festus
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9%
> Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/936/4/_/61050/_/954811742/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/936/4/_/61050/_/954811742/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Does Festus Exist??? |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 21:41:53 EDT |
|
Sulla Said
"Not necessarily..someone could be imitating Festus...and then a whole new
realm
of contradictions might be available.... :)"
Ah, but even in this case, the name Gaius Lupinius Festus would still be
attached to some real person, even if this one is using multiple names.
Ok.....I admit....
I'm Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Censor of Nova Roma. Festus is my dark
alter-ego. I am a split-personality, and I am now talking to myself.
|
| Subject: |
Censor Announcement |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 03 Apr 2000 19:08:19 -0700 |
|
Salvete Civies
I know its a bit early for this announcement, but I wanted to give
proper notice to everyone. On May 11, I will be having surgery in my
stomach-abdomen area. I will not be able to fulfill my duties from May
10, when I will be admitted into the hospital til around mid to late
June. I will probably not even have e-mail access. I wont be going no
mail on any list becuase Helena Cornelia will keep me informed while I
am recuperating. The surgeon has estimated my stay in the hospital will
be at most a week. In regards to my "day job" at EarthLink, I am taking
a 5-6 week leave of absence. Hopefully, soon our Consuls will have an
election for Censor and I will have enough time to get him up to speed
in regards to completing the Century Points and Tribes. Other than that
the job is essentially caught up.
Vale!
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
|
| Subject: |
Re: [ReligioRomana] The "legitimization" of the Religio |
| From: |
Donald and Crystal Meaker <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=029056113163056209105098072248155208071048" >meakerfam@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:24:02 -0500 |
|
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:23:05 +0100 "Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
writes:
> Salvete Gai Iuni Placide Amethystia Iunia Crystallina Maternaque et
> Prima
> Iunia Terrelina
>
> I would like you to know that I'm very proud of your efforts for
> the
> Religio and that what you are doing is very very important. It is
> indeed a
> big step for the Religio Romana. I'm sure that the Gods will favour
> your
> effort.
>
The gods have and (we hope) will continue to smile on us. My husband is
Terre's father, the only one who matters. The name change will keep one
aspect of her life from glaring against the norm (in a Pagan and
Interracial family, that has meaning).
> Please, feel free to ask me anything you need.
>
> Valete
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Pontifex - Senator - Praetor - Propraetor Lusitaniae
>
>
I thank you Pontifex. We appreciate your response and acknowledgement.
AICrysM and Placidus
Through my constant care, my husband flourished.
-From an epitaph found at Rome (1st century B.C.)
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Censor Announcement |
| From: |
<--------lass="msghead"> labienus &l--------href="/pos--------varoma?pro--------ID=034166250009056116130232203056129208071" &g--------bienus@--------&l--------&g--------td>
| Date: |
Mon, 03 Apr 2000 22:49:50 -0500 |
|
Salve Luci Corneli
> I know its a bit early for this announcement, but I wanted to give
> proper notice to everyone. On May 11, I will be having surgery in my
> stomach-abdomen area.
Ouch. My wife just had surgery to correct an umbilical hernia, though
it sounds as though you'll be going through something a bit more
intense. We wish you well, and we'll light some incense to Aesculapeius
for your quick and full recovery. Bonam Fortunam!
Vale,
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
To Festus |
| From: |
<--------lass="msghead"> labienus &l--------href="/pos--------varoma?pro--------ID=034166250009056116130232203056129208071" &g--------bienus@--------&l--------&g--------td>
| Date: |
Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:25:43 -0500 |
|
Salvete Feste et alii
> We are like cats it seems, always on the wrong side of every door.
That does sound awfully familiar, I must admit. Though, I have made
some very long and sincere journeys into the territory on either side of
the door. I very nearly became a Buddhist monk at one point.
> One of the consuls here has called me an atheist. That is not quite
> correct.
> He probably inferred that from my statement, in an earlier post, that,
> "Rome
> lived with it's deists and atheists. So can we." Yet I never claimed
> to be
> an atheist myself. True, I did say the gods do not exist. The
> context was
> supplied by a Nova Roman claiming "the gods" {ie the ROMAN gods} would
> vent
> wrath on the nation. And I have no problem saying these gods,
> Jupiter,
> Saturn, and the rest, do not exist. But I do not a priori rule out
> ALL
> possibility of deity.
So you are more of an agnostic than an atheist. Personally, I have
never felt certain enough to deny the god or gods of anyone's religion.
There can be no doubt of the power of faith, whether one believes that
it is purely a psychological phenomenon or not. It has always seemed
presumptuous to me to interfere with such a power--especially as it is
almost invariably a positive force in a given person's life. I am
willing to decry attempts to stifle learning and the human spirit
couched in religious terms, but I would never arrogate to myself the
right to bald-facedly deny the object of someone's faith.
> I am uncomfortable with materialism, yet in my darker moments, I
> suspect they
> may be right. More about that matter later, in another subject.
I do not see materialism as necessarily dark or negative. The universe
is perfect in and of itself, whether or not it includes more than that
which is purely physical.
> I think you and I can agree that the matter being discussed is more
> difficult
> than merely arguing whether or not god exists. That is difficult
> enough, but
> polytheists do not have it even that easy. They have to justify the
> existence of several gods, rather than one.
I certainly agree that the subject is difficult. Several thousand years
of inquiry by greater minds than mine have yet to solve the dilemma.
Though, I disagree that proving one god exists is any easier than
proving that many exist. Both are, I suspect, impossible (barring, of
course, some chiliastic event). They are also beside the point to the
followers of a religion. Proof is sought by philosophy. Faith is all
that is required in religion. As far as I'm concerned, neither is
superior to the other.
Valete,
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Announcement to the people of Nova Roma (Special Election) |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 02:32:22 EDT |
|
Citizens of Rome, Salvete!
At this time we invite all who wish to stand for the one opening of Censor
declare your candidacy to the list.
All those wishing to stand for Curule Aedile, two places are open, declare
your candidacy to the list.
You will have 3 days starting at 4:00 AM PDT.
At this time we are also looking for a new forum moderator (Curator Sermo) It
is an appointed position by the Senate. Interested people can contact the
consules, we will relay your request to the Senate.
Fortuna watch over our republic.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
M. Municius Audens
Consules
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Freedom of Speech and a Philosophical Ramble |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:20:42 +0100 |
|
Salve Labiene Fortunate
>> Wrong. There was a guy executed for public atheism. I shall bring the
name
>> tomorrow.
>
>I look forward to reading this, as I have never heard of such a case. The
>closest I've seen is Apuleius' Apology, in which he defends himself against
>allegations of (among many other things) atheism. In his case, he was
facing
>exile. Please do supply as many details as possible.
You are right. I was referring to Clodius Pulcher, which was accused of
sacrilege (in fact because of acts rather than words, which makes his case
worse). In fact, Pulcher was murdered rather than executed.
Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
|
| Subject: |
Graecus' acceptance of Festus' apology |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:26:44 +0100 |
|
Salvete omnes
There is much confusion going on here. Yes, I have accepted Festus' apology
PERSONALLY. But, as already said by many people before me, personal business
is different from public business, and while as citizen I accept the
apology, as Praetor I must follow the Leges of Nova Roma. As such, as
Praetor, I'm still bound to analyse the situation and decide, together with
my coleague Praetor. While I do not feel offended anymore, there are many
other citizens who could feel as such and who trust the magistrates of our
Res Publica to defend their rights. Moreover, in case of bad omen or
prodigy, Festus is not free from being accused of causing it, a decision
that can be made by the Collegium Pontificum.
Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Graecus' acceptance of Festus' apology |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Tue, 04 Apr 2000 02:54:40 -0700 |
|
What Leges of Nova Roma?
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
Antonio Grilo wrote:
> Salvete omnes
>
> There is much confusion going on here. Yes, I have accepted Festus' apology
> PERSONALLY. But, as already said by many people before me, personal business
> is different from public business, and while as citizen I accept the
> apology, as Praetor I must follow the Leges of Nova Roma. As such, as
> Praetor, I'm still bound to analyse the situation and decide, together with
> my coleague Praetor. While I do not feel offended anymore, there are many
> other citizens who could feel as such and who trust the magistrates of our
> Res Publica to defend their rights. Moreover, in case of bad omen or
> prodigy, Festus is not free from being accused of causing it, a decision
> that can be made by the Collegium Pontificum.
>
> Valete
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Praetor
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> LOW RATE, NO WAIT!
> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates
> as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
> Learn more at:
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/937/4/_/61050/_/954840388/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/937/4/_/61050/_/954840388/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] To Graecus: More on Philosophy |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:01:37 +0100 |
|
Salvete Festus et al
> Do you really doubt common sense? Fortunatas said it well, that such
>doubt, even of your own common sense can lead to such an extremem
skepticism
>that you end up unable to believe that it is possible to know anything.
When
>I first saw you post here, you looked like a man of religious faith. But
>solipsism is the very opposite of faith. You begin by believing in the
gods,
>then embark on an epistemological course which parodoxically ends in not
>being able to believe anything at all!
The belief on what cannot be sensed is of course a personal question, and
that I have never questioned. What I question is the absolute statement that
"the Gods do not exist". As I have said citing Parmenides, the very fact
that I believe the Gods is a proof of their existence in "some way" (well,
for an atheist they would be "material" thoughts in our brain, but still
they would have some influence for our thought guides our action). And hence
the hipothesis of the illusion of the material world in which we cannot see
such entities that may exist. Now, let us not think "Medieval". Let us use
Science as an ally of Philosophy as the ancients did.
Didn't Einstein show that the Time we perceive is an illusion? What is the
Law of Relativity (and its later developments as well) other than that?
Change is by definition dependent on the notion of Time. If time is an
illusion, then change is an illusion as well.
Nevertheless, we can also perceive phenomena that do not change
independently of Time. Numbers! 2+2=4 independently of doing the calculation
now of later. And we further perceive that although numbers are not directly
sensed, they exist in nature, for the Laws discovered by Science are subject
to exact proportions.
Modern Physics are thus a lake of Philosophical knowledge, which, besides
demonstrating the relativity of Time (Parmenides), that the Universe is
subject to unchangeable entities called Numbers (Pythagoras, Plato in
extended concept), also demostrates that a "Universal Will" denies all sort
of exact law to move subatomic particles other than a mere "probability"
law. Isn't this the scientfic recognition of Parmenides, Pythagoras, Plato
and other "religious" Philosophers of antiquity?
> There is a test, though, to see if one can trust common sense. Stand by
a
>busy street, and wait for a fast moving car to approach. Ask yourself if
you
>can deliberately walk in front of the car. Your common sense will tell you
>this is a very bad thing to do! And I'll wager that if you take this test,
>and you see that car flying down the street, and contemplate walking out on
>front of it, that you will decide to trust your common sense after all!
That's because I'm not acting like a true philosopher.
> Of course common sense is not all encompassing or infallible. That is
>where science enters the picture. It was a common sense observation that
the
>sun moved around the earth. With science, the truth was found. We still
use
>old figures of speech like "the sun rise", or "the movements of the stars
>across the sky". But we also know that these appearences are misleading.
>So knowledge does not end with common sense, but it does begin there. And
I
>know of no better place to begin. Do you?
Firstly, the "movements of stars" are not misleading. If you consider a
Geocentric model and bother to calculate its mathmatical laws (surely more
complex, but yet valid), the result will be as valid as the laws of Kepler
and will predict exactly the same movement for planets and stars (it only
depends on referencial, i.e. whether you put the Sun or the Earth in the
center of your system). You will then find out that Ptolemy was as right as
Galileus.
> There is another problem with your ciontention that that thinking about
god
>proves god's existence. Right now, I am thinking of god. As I type, I am
>holding in my mind the idea of the god of the Muslims. The sole, one and
>only supreme being besides which there is no other. Does this mean Allah
>exists? If it does, than polytheism must be false. But if polytheism is
>false, then it is not true that thinking of the polytheists gods proves
their
>existence. You see, the idea of Allah is uncompromisingly monotheistic.
If
>other gods exist, then the muslim god cannot. And if Allah exists, then
>Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, and the rest, cannot exist.
Wrong. I believe Sol Invictus to be the One God. Nevertheless, He is One
because he is the reunion of the Many. Also, the Christian God is Triad:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three are God, yet He is One. Besides, many
of the of Roman Gods were in fact 'genii' (=guardian spirits which we can
call lesser Gods) Who match the Hebrew and Christian "angels". The only
difference is that of "status" and privilege. Why the polytheists incur no
sin on paying homage to "angels" or lesser Gods, the monotheists usually do
in order to stress that the suppreme creator and ruler is only One. It's
only a question of modesty and generosity, as Roman Gods are not affected by
jealousy =).
Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Graecus' acceptance of Festus' apology |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:11:14 +0100 |
|
Salvete
>What Leges of Nova Roma?
Our Constitution says it explicity (see
<a href="http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new.html" target="_top" >http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new.html</a>):
VI.A:
"The Religio Romana, the worship of the Gods and Goddesses of Rome, shall be
the official religion of Nova Roma. All magistrates and Senators, as
officers of the State, shall be required to publically show respect for the
Religio Romana and the Gods and Goddesses that made Rome great. Magistrates,
Senators, and citizens need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana, but
may not engage in any activity that intentionally blasphemes or defames the
Gods, the Religio Romana, or its practitioners."
Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor
|
| Subject: |
ATTN (Religio Romana): pridie Nonas April (April 4th) |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:11:56 +0100 |
|
Salvete omnes
This is one of the dies comitiales (C), when committees of citizens could
vote on political or criminal matters.
This was the first day of the Megalesia, or the Great Games, which were
celebrated for seven days in honor of Cybele, the Great Mother goddess or
Mater Magna. Differently from the festivals of March, more dedicated to
Attis, the Megalesia were considered a national celebration, for Cybele
saved Rome!
In 205 BC, after a rain of stones and the fact that the 2nd Carthaginian war
had no end with Hannibal still in Italy, a consultation of the Sibylline
Oracles demands the "Mother of Ida" to be brought to Rome from mount
Pessinus in Phrygia, if the war is to be won. As a coincidence, an ambassy
returns from Delphi with the promise of victory. An ambassy of magistrates
is then constituted, departing to Asia with five "quinqueremes" ships.
Stopping at Delphy, the Pythia tells them that once arrived at home, the
Mother is to be received by be best man in the world ("vir optimus"). P.
Scipio Nasica is chosen by the senate. Together with the senators and
members of the "ordo equester", he receives Cybele at the port of Ostia.
During the arrival, Cybele performs Her first miracle. At the entrance of
the Tiber, the ship that carries the black stone of Cybele refuses to move
despite all efforts to pull the cables. Claudia Quinta, a beautiful matron
whose virtue was doubted raises her hands to the sky an says:
"They deny my chastity... But if I'm innocent, You Who are chaste, You will
obey to my chaste hands!"
And the ship moved...
As already referred in a past religious note, the black stone was enclosed
within an idol of silver. On April 4th, 204 BC, the idol was deposed at the
temple of Victory. Cybele had Her temple at the Palatine Hill finished and
dedicated on April 10th, 191 BC. That's why the Megalesia last from April
4th to April 10th.
Theatrical games before the temple of Cybele are the main events (many
commedies of Terence were performed at the Megalesia). Chariot races take
place in the last day.
Pax deorum vobiscum
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Censor Announcement |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
4 Apr 2000 04:34:18 -0700 |
|
On Mon, 03 April 2000, Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:
>On May 11, I will be having surgery in my
> stomach-abdomen area. I will not be able to fulfill my duties from May
> 10, when I will be admitted into the hospital til around mid to late
> June.
I'm sorry to hear you'll be having surgery. I hope everything goes well. I'll be looking forward to your return.
M. Stelatinus
____________________________________________________________________
For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to <a href="http://mp3.altavista.com" target="_top" >http://mp3.altavista.com</a>
____________________________________________________________________
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Censor Announcement |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:39:35 EDT |
|
Sulla,
I will offer prayers and incense to Asklepios for you!
Be well!
--Dex
|
| Subject: |
welcomes |
| From: |
"Tinnekke Bebout" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=189176234185056182213038203004129208071" >tinnekke@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 04 Apr 2000 13:45:46 GMT |
|
Salvete Audens et Graecus
I thank you both for your warm welcomes. It's nice to be home.
Valete
L. Iunia Cypria
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Censor Announcement |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:46:51 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salve, Lucius Cornelius Sulla;
I am in receipt of your message regading your pending hospital stay and
operation. I wish for you the very best, and my prayers go with you,
that you will emerge better and more vigorous in life than your present
status. In addition would wih for you the excellent care and concern I
have received over the past many weeks from my medical care team. All
the best to you and to yours.
Vale, Respectully and Sincerely;
Marcus Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Announcement to the people of Nova Roma (Special Election) |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:30:29 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salve, Citizens of Nova Roma;
I second the Senior Consul's announcement for the gathering of
candidates for the positions cited. I appeal to all Nova Romans to give
this opportunity to serve Nova Roma in a positive way, some specific
consideration to these offered candidacies. Nova Roma needs her workers
and her builders and movers more than ever before. We have our
philosophers and sages of course, and they are necessary for the
complete formation of Nova Roma. But we also need those who will step
into the trenches (as it were) there to labor for the good of Nova Roma
with only the satisfaction of work well done for a reward.
I also wish to make the following announcement regarding the Fasces in
the month of April. Due to my pending vacation to the West Coast in the
middle of April, the Senior Consul and I have agreed that he shall
retain the Fasces for the month of April and I will take the Fasces in
May. We both feel that this is the most efficient use of resources for
the benefit of Nova Roma.
In regard to the efforts that I am working toward, the Senior Consul has
agreed to introduce all of my submissions to the Senate as his own,
during my absence. I thank the Senior Consul publicly for his
willingness to adapt his schedule to mine.
I also wish to take this opportunity to thank all those in Nova Roma who
have said prayers and wished me well in my recovery process. Your
patience and good will have made a potentially difficult road much
easier to traverse---My sincerest thanks for your kind thoughts and
expressions.
Vale, Very Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens;
Consul et Senator
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Re: Does Festus Exist??? |
| From: |
"RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:07:48 -0400 |
|
Salvete Feste et alii
>
>The choice is all yours! :}
Exactly. It all boils down to choice. No philosophy or science can prove
or disprove any god, let alone provide people with any satisfaction or basis
on which to value life. Just as in marriage one chooses to trust someone
with the future by vowing oneself to a mate for life, here and now, one can
choose to believe in gods. There is no "proof" that marriage will bring
prosperity, there is no "proof" that any person deserves love.
While Nova Roma seeks to be many things, becoming a laboratory experiment to
test the existence of a god, gods or anything else is not one of them. One
thing that it is trying to be is an organization to unite and support people
who already have chosen to believe in deity, and more specifically, the
Roman gods and goddesses.
Philosophical debate is fine, but who wants to debate with someone who opens
his "debate" by denying the existence of the gods publicly to a praetor and
pontifex? The pontifex maximus asked some days ago for you to move your
"debate" over to another list - yet you have not done this. Both consules
asked for your apology, and you gave one deserving an award for most
smart-assed apology of the year, limiting it to four people who had
expressed sympathy with you. You are proving more points with the sum total
of your behavior exhibited here than with any specific content of any of
your messages, only the points that you prove cast doubt on your motives and
respect for others.
Since you hold "common sense" in such high regard, please answer this common
sense question: what is your intention in conducting this "debate" here in
our forum? What are you trying to accomplish?
Other than a straight unequivocal apology to all of Nova Roma or a straight
answer to that question, there is nothing that you say that will interest me
or elicit my further direct response to you in public.
Valete
C Marius Merullus
Senator
>
>Best Wishes,
Really? Prove it.
>
>Gaius Lupinius Festus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Announcement to the people of Nova Roma (Special Election) |
| From: |
"Jeffrey L. Graham" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045056047121127198187242109140244253188098030046209130" >--------reygraham@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:05:26 +0000 |
|
I would like to stand for the office of curule aedile
Q. Gaufridus Canus
ICQ # 55638228
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] To Graecus: More on Philosophy |
| From: |
<--------lass="msghead"> &l--------href="/pos--------varoma?pro--------ID=034166250009056116130232203056129208071" &g--------bienus@--------&l--------&g--------td>
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:37:58 US/Central |
|
Salve Graece, and thank you for an interesting debate.
> As I have said citing Parmenides, the very fact that I believe the Gods is a
> proof of their existence in "some way" (well, for an atheist they would
> be "material" thoughts in our brain, but still they would have some influence
> for our thought guides our action).
True, inasmuch as any thought guides our actions. Your argument is equally
valid for both the believer and the atheist. You say the gods exist in some
manner. The atheist responds, "Sure, as figments of your imagination." He
would go on to argue that they only have an impact upon your life because you
are delusional. The argument remains moot. In order for the gods to be proven
to exist, they must be more substantial than a mere idea.
(Before flinging angry messages at me, please note that I am not arguing for or
against either religiosity or the gods. I am responding purely to Graecus'
defense of Parmenides.)
> And hence the hipothesis of the illusion of the material world in which we
> cannot see such entities that may exist. Now, let us not think "Medieval".
> Let us use Science as an ally of Philosophy as the ancients did.
> Didn't Einstein show that the Time we perceive is an illusion? What is the
> Law of Relativity (and its later developments as well) other than that?
I wouldn't say that he showed that time itself was an illusion. Instead, I'd
argue that he showed that the observer's perception of the flow of time was
dependent upon the position and motion of the observer relative to the rest of
the universe. So, while the point that time's constancy is illusory is valid,
the contention that time does not exist at all outside of our belief in it is
not.
> Change is by definition dependent on the notion of Time. If time is an
> illusion, then change is an illusion as well.
Agreed, but, as I said above, the true illusion is time's constancy, and not
its existence. The best you could do from this line of attack would be to
argue that we do not correctly perceive change's constancy (or lack thereof).
> Nevertheless, we can also perceive phenomena that do not change independently
> of Time. Numbers! 2+2=4 independently of doing the calculation now of later.
> And we further perceive that although numbers are not directly sensed, they
> exist in nature, for the Laws discovered by Science are subject to exact
> proportions.
True enough. However, one must admit that the mathematical laws of science are
currently inadequate when describing the extraordinarily large and the
extremely small. Exempli gratia: one cannot simultaneously determine both the
position and velocity of a given electron.
> Modern Physics are thus a lake of Philosophical knowledge, which, besides
> demonstrating the relativity of Time (Parmenides), that the Universe is
> subject to unchangeable entities called Numbers (Pythagoras, Plato in
> extended concept), also demostrates that a "Universal Will" denies all
> sort of exact law to move subatomic particles other than a mere "probability"
> law. Isn't this the scientfic recognition of Parmenides, Pythagoras, Plato
> and other "religious" Philosophers of antiquity?
I'm not sure I understand this argument. I think your position is that our
inability to completely quantify the universe and its physical behavior, as
shown by things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle I alluded to above,
is evidence of a divine will.
You've effectively put forth a version of the argument from design, which
states that the universe is put together so elegantly that it must have been
created by some divine intelligence. You're saying that we can never
understand the universe, so it must be driven by some divine intelligence.
This argument is still unconvincing, because the inability to concretely define
the universe does not necessarily imply the hand of the divine. The atheist
would argue for random chance, rather than Providence, as the force at work.
> > There is a test, though, to see if one can trust common sense. Stand
> >by a busy street, and wait for a fast moving car to approach. Ask yourself
> >if you can deliberately walk in front of the car. Your common sense will
> >tell you this is a very bad thing to do! And I'll wager that if you take
> >this test, and you see that car flying down the street, and contemplate
> >walking out on front of it, that you will decide to trust your common sense
> >after all!
> That's because I'm not acting like a true philosopher.
A true philosopher who believes that automobiles are entirely illusory, that
is.
In any case, Festus' argument here seems a little spurious to me. Such a test
will demonstrate a person's desire not to die, but it does little to disprove
the idea that what we experience with our senses is illusory. And, there are
plenty of instances of people who have committed suicide, firm in the belief
that they are leaving only a world of illusion. Once again, we are out of the
realm of philosophy and into the realm of faith.
> Firstly, the "movements of stars" are not misleading. If you consider a
> Geocentric model and bother to calculate its mathmatical laws (surely more
> complex, but yet valid), the result will be as valid as the laws of Kepler
> and will predict exactly the same movement for planets and stars (it only
> depends on referencial, i.e. whether you put the Sun or the Earth in the
> center of your system). You will then find out that Ptolemy was as right as
> Galileus.
Actually, the geocentric model of the solar system was abandoned precisely
because its mathematical laws were not valid. Modern mathematics and physics
uphold the heliocentric model over the geocentric model every time.
> > There is another problem with your ciontention that that thinking about<BR>
> >god proves god's existence. Right now, I am thinking of god.
<amputatio>
> Wrong. I believe Sol Invictus to be the One God. Nevertheless, He is One
> because he is the reunion of the Many.
<amputatio>
Your argument is a reasonable if controversial one from a religious standpoint,
Graece, and I won't argue with it on those grounds. However, it does nothing
to defend Parmenides. The point that one can conceive of entirely
contradictory things still defeats him. If everything I think of exists, and I
think of two things that cannot coexist, then I've hit a paradox.
Vale,
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Fwd: Pantheon, Rome, Reconsecration? 1 |
| From: |
Pat Washburn <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197063113185056135042082190036" >p--------@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 13:42:06 -0400 |
|
This was sent to me by Lowell McFarland, who runs a Pagan-oriented news
service...
----------
EWTN has an article about the new 10 foot fence, being
installed because of vagrants and graffiti markers, at the
ancient Pagan (now Christian) Pantheon in Rome:
<a href="http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=48635" target="_top" >http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=48635</a>
Excerpts included.
The entire article should be read for accuracy and completeness.
EWTN offers you to "share this news story with a friend. "
"Pope Boniface IV reconsecrated the still perfect structure
on March 6, 609 as the Church of St. Mary of the Martyrs.
Italian kings and queens are interred here, with monuments
where statues of the [Pagan] gods once stood.
So too is Raphael, the prince of Renaissance painters."
<a href="http://www.travelvantage.com/rom_pant.html" target="_top" >http://www.travelvantage.com/rom_pant.html</a>
"The Pantheon is the best preserved monument of antiquity.
It is also the most ancient monument in the world that
maintained its original function: a religious temple (first Pagan
and then Christian)."
<a href="http://www.romanhomes.com/pantheon-quarter.htm" target="_top" >http://www.romanhomes.com/pantheon-quarter.htm</a>
NOTE: The Roman Pantheon is one of the greatest and best
preserved structures from antiquity.
Other Pagan temples and buildings were routinely destroyed,
like the ancient Library at Alexandria.
That Pagans were prevented from using the Pantheon and
that it was occupied by Pope Boniface IV in 609 AD, with all
Pagan statuary and art destroyed, is unquestioned.
In line with the Roman Catholic Church's demands
that it's property seized by the Communists should be
returned to the Church - it is thought that this ancient
Pagan temple in particular, should be unChristianized and
reconsecrated by current Italian Pagan representatives.
This would also be in line with the papal apology
concerning sins against other faiths and the expected,
or hoped for, restorations or reconsecrations of Pagan
property by the Roman Catholic Church (and Protestant
churches where applicable).
Other ancient Pagan sites, like Chartres, Mont.
Ste Michel, Croagh Patrick, etc., may also be subject
to discussions about reconsecration to Paganism.
Pantheon:
<a href="http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/Places/E" target="_top" >http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/Places/E</a>
urope/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/churches/Pantheon/home.html
<a href="http://www.chch.school.nz/mbc/pantheon.htm#Photo" target="_top" >http://www.chch.school.nz/mbc/pantheon.htm#Photo</a>- recent of Pantheon
<a href="http://www.leonet.it/culture/nexus/98/Sperling.html" target="_top" >http://www.leonet.it/culture/nexus/98/Sperling.html</a>
<a href="http://www.fieldingtravel.com/Buzz/Maps/ThePantheon3D.html" target="_top" >http://www.fieldingtravel.com/Buzz/Maps/ThePantheon3D.html</a>
<a href="http://www.travelvantage.com/rom_pant.html" target="_top" >http://www.travelvantage.com/rom_pant.html</a>
<a href="http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Pantheon.html" target="_top" >http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Pantheon.html</a>
----------
EWTN
3-Apr-2000 -- ZENIT News Agency
ARCHEOLOGISTS LAMENT ROMAN PLAN TO PROTECT PANTHEON
ROME, (ZENIT.org).- Archeological purists have reacted
negatively to the city government's plan to build a 10-foot-high
railing around the Pantheon to keep out homeless persons and
prevent graffiti at night.
Installation of the new protective devices began last month,
with estimated costs of $430 million.
The city council says that it is unable to provide enough police
to protect the monument and keep the homeless from sleeping
under its portico.
Other critics compared the railing to a "prison" around the
monument, built by Agrippa in 27 B.C., and reconstructed by
Hadrian between A.D. 117 and 125 after a fire.
The Pantheon is now a [Roman Catholic] church dedicated
[reconsecrated] to All [Christian] Saints.
----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
Pat Washburn . editor, writer, Web producer
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197063113185056135042082190036" >p--------@--------</a> . (207) 646-6634
|
| Subject: |
Re: Does Festus Exist? |
| From: |
"Nicolaus Moravius" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:54:50 PDT |
|
Salutem!
The existential hypothesis known for the sake of argument as 'Festus', said
in support of this hypothesis that 'Festus' had an effect, that the effect
exists, that as such it must have a cause and the best logical guess is that
the cause is 'Festus'. If the effect is real, says 'Festus', the cause must
be real.
I don't buy this. Real effects (such as road accidents) have had unreal
causes (such as hallucinations). 'Festus', I submit, is even less than an
hallucination. Has any one of you SEEN him, O Cives?
>If, on the other hand, Gaius Lupinius Festus does not exist, then the posts
>of mine appearing before your eyes are figments of your psyche, on a par
>with
>the "voices" heard by wackos like David 'Son of Sam' Berkowitz, or
>appearences of the Virgin Mary to very strange people in Conyers, Ga.
- Firstly, I know nothing of the religious experiences of Mr Berkowitz, nor
of the BVM's appearance to people in Conyers, Ga. - but I wouldn't disparage
them on the premise that their experiences COULDN'T possibly be real.
- Secondly, Sulla very adroitly saw where I was coming from when he
suggested the possibility of 'Festus' having no basis in reality, being a
virtual creation of someone in Nova Roma...
>Not necessarily..someone could be imitating Festus...and then a whole new
>realm
>of contradictions might be available.... :)
- Indeed, Sulla: some deceitful paterfamilias trying fraudulently to get the
three-child privileges, for example. But 'Festus' goes on to say:
>Ah, but even in this case, the name Gaius Lupinius Festus would still be
>attached to some real person, even if this one is using multiple names.
>
>Ok.....I admit....
>
>I'm Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Censor of Nova Roma. Festus is my dark
>alter-ego. I am a split-personality, and I am now talking to myself.
- Banishing from my mind for a moment the horrible thought that I am
absolutely alone with Sulla, who has invented everybody else in Nova Roma
(cleverly setting up the whole thing some months before he joined, so no-one
would suspect)...
I don't see how a fictitious person's name need be traceable back to an
inventive mind, whether sane or insane.
I put to you this: that all the letters in what we wrongly imagined to be
posts from 'Festus', were simply random key-depressions caused by multiple
ricochets off the terminal keyboards in a CyberCafe somewhere, where the
entire staff and clientele were engaged in a food-fight.
(Well, Quirites, a similar aetiology of randomness has been advanced by
atheists to explain the Creation without a divine agency, and is earnestly
believed by many clever people in the world today...)
Get out of that one, 'Festus'!
Bene valete,
Vado.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] To Graecus: More on Philosophy |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:21:12 +0100 |
|
Salve Labiene
I also thank you for the interesting debate.
>> And hence the hipothesis of the illusion of the material world in which
we
>> cannot see such entities that may exist. Now, let us not think
"Medieval".
>> Let us use Science as an ally of Philosophy as the ancients did.
>> Didn't Einstein show that the Time we perceive is an illusion? What is
the
>> Law of Relativity (and its later developments as well) other than that?
>I wouldn't say that he showed that time itself was an illusion. Instead,
I'd
>argue that he showed that the observer's perception of the flow of time was
>dependent upon the position and motion of the observer relative to the rest
of
>the universe. So, while the point that time's constancy is illusory is
valid,
>the contention that time does not exist at all outside of our belief in it
is
>not.
Ok. To this I answer with recent (though widely know in the news) research
on Physics, which lead to the mathmatical conclusion that it is
theoretically possible to travel in time (though it requires a BIG ammount
of energy). If this is so, and if we can go to an arbitrary moment in time,
this can only show that all moments exist at the same time, id est change is
nothing but simultaneous existence of all states of the Universe.
>You've effectively put forth a version of the argument from design, which
>states that the universe is put together so elegantly that it must have
been
>created by some divine intelligence. You're saying that we can never
>understand the universe, so it must be driven by some divine intelligence.
>This argument is still unconvincing, because the inability to concretely
define
>the universe does not necessarily imply the hand of the divine. The
atheist
>would argue for random chance, rather than Providence, as the force at
work.
Even if it is not, Providence is random to humans, for they cannot perceive
its intent.
As I recall, my point was that both models (theist and atheist) can be
defended within Philosophy and both are ultimately based upon creed.
>> Firstly, the "movements of stars" are not misleading. If you consider a
>> Geocentric model and bother to calculate its mathmatical laws (surely
more
>> complex, but yet valid), the result will be as valid as the laws of
Kepler
>> and will predict exactly the same movement for planets and stars (it only
>> depends on referencial, i.e. whether you put the Sun or the Earth in the
>> center of your system). You will then find out that Ptolemy was as right
as
>> Galileus.
>Actually, the geocentric model of the solar system was abandoned precisely
>because its mathematical laws were not valid. Modern mathematics and
physics
>uphold the heliocentric model over the geocentric model every time.
Yet, I insist. Mathmatical laws could also be presented in a Geocentric
model.
> > There is another problem with your ciontention that that thinking
about<BR>
> >god proves god's existence. Right now, I am thinking of god.
<amputatio>
> Wrong. I believe Sol Invictus to be the One God. Nevertheless, He is One
> because he is the reunion of the Many.
<amputatio>
>Your argument is a reasonable if controversial one from a religious
standpoint,
>Graece, and I won't argue with it on those grounds. However, it does
nothing
>to defend Parmenides.
Nor it is its intent.
>The point that one can conceive of entirely
>contradictory things still defeats him. If everything I think of exists,
and I
>think of two things that cannot coexist, then I've hit a paradox.
Think of a fractal function. It is only one function. Nevertheless, that
function consists of a repetition of itself indefinitely. Although the
function is one, I am able to perceive (e.g. through the graphical
representation) that it is built at the cost of many identical functions,
whose formula is the same. There is thus One function and at the same time
there are Many. Where is the contradiction?
Now, the Christians and Hebrews (not to cite other monotheistic creeds) say
that there is only one God. That is because they distinguish the One from
all His creation with different names. Who are the Angels, Demons, Genii
other than Gods for the politheists? Many are called Gods, and have the
right to homage through prayer and sacrifice. That's only a question of name
and statute. Some examples within the Religio Romana are paradigmatic. The
spirits of the ancestors are not called "souls". They are called Dii Manes =
Manes Gods. For the Christians, it is forbidden to worship the dead, while
for the Romans it is mandatory.
In my opinion, the reason for the difference is only the following. As the
Hebrews and Christians wanted to stress their belief on a common source for
all things, they forbade the worship of spirits other than the One and
forbade people to call them 'Gods', calling them Angels, Demons, Spirits
instead. As to the pagans, while some believed in a common source (e.g. the
Neoplatonists, the worshipers of Sol Invictus) they had not the need to
stress that part of their creed, and as such they kept calling Gods to all
worshiped entities: Dii Manes, Dii Lares, etc.
Once again, where is the contradiction?
Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] To Graecus: More on Philosophy |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:40:20 +0100 |
|
Salve again
>>The point that one can conceive of entirely
>>contradictory things still defeats him. If everything I think of exists,
>and I
>>think of two things that cannot coexist, then I've hit a paradox.
Oh, now I got your point! Sorry for my last answer.
Well, as Plato would say, both contradictory Ideas exist in the Empyrean,
though only one of them exist in the Sensible world. =)
Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
|
| Subject: |
Intentional communities, ecovillages, homesteading, permaculture, etc |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114056113185089095081021203102129208071" >dean6886@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 15:07:20 -0500 (CDT) |
|
I was wondering if anyone else on this list had any interest or
knowledge of the intentional communities websight and their various
links? There are infinite possibilities in the establishment of
alternative housing, townbuilding, homesteading, integrating natture
with modern infrastructure, different economic models, etc.etc. I've
had an interest in these numerous "projects" for much longer than I've
been with Nova Roma and find many of the ideas intrigueing as to
possible incorporation into a futuristic physical Nova Roma.
A physical Nova Roma could either include the faraway goal of 108
acres as a central place or just the establishment of various households
among some gentes using different models of living and economic
arrangements-- a possibility. I just thought this could be a great
discussion topic for the list. Anyone ever hear of Teramo ( the
intentional community) for instance? What about co-housing communities?
Gaius Drusus Domitianus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Why not a Philosophy list? |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 17:04:04 EDT |
|
Salvete philosophers!
While I love Philosophy as much as the next person, I'm afraid that it has
taken over the Forum. And while you toga clad philosophers stand under the po
rtico yammering of things of infinite beauty, it has made for a lot of posts.
I'm surprised that P. Cassia's post about Agrippa's Pantheon got through.
And the citizenry has started to complain. Since we no longer have a curator
sermo, you will understand where these complaints are ending. So...
Why do not one of you start a list devoted to philosophy? When I am through
serving my term I'll be glad to join it. I enjoy discussing it, and I would
be a frequent contributor to such a list, again once my term is completed.
Valete!
Q. Fabius.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Announcement to the people of Nova Roma (Special Election) |
| From: |
Matt Hu--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:15:51 -0500 (CDT) |
|
I, MARCUS OCTAVIUS GERMANICUS, citizen of the Laci Magni Provincia,
respectfully declare to the Senate and People of Nova Roma
my intention to stand for Curule Aedile.
--
Matt Hu--------(<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>) |
konoko Network Consulting | Microsoft delenda est.
Graveyards of Chicago: |
<a href="http://www.graveyards.com" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com</a> |
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Why not a Philosophy list? |
| From: |
"Luciu--------riu--------mbria" <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:30:04 -0000 |
|
Salvete omnes!
Fabius Maximus Consul scripsit:
> Salvete philosophers!
> While I love Philosophy as much as the next person, I'm afraid that
> it has taken over the Forum. [...snippage...]
>
> Why do not one of you start a list devoted to philosophy? When I am
> through serving my term I'll be glad to join it. I enjoy
> discussing it, and I would be a frequent contributor to such a
list,
> again once my term is completed.
Respondeo:
Philosophical discussion is more than welcome on my message-board and
on my personal ONElist, both named the Roman Outpost! So are
discussions of Roman historical, alternate-historical, fictional and
fantastic exploits; any Latin literature someone might want to
compose or share; military doings; and explorations of one's
individual Romanitas. If any of this interests you (and you'd like
to see--and make!--more of it), by all means visit the Board:
<<a href="http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb787015" target="_top" >http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb787015</a>>
and/or the List:
<<a href="http://www.egroups.com/group/RomanOutpost" target="_top" >http://www.egroups.com/group/RomanOutpost</a>> -- or simply e-mail
<a href="mailto:RomanOutpost-subscribe@--------" >RomanOutpost-subscribe@--------</a> .
NOTA BENE: The Outpost is NOT a Nova Roma Gripe-List! However, NR
news and current events are just as welcome as any other word of the
Roman world. >({|:-)
Hope to see ya on-board!
In amicitia,
-- L Marius Fimbria, Proprietor
Garrison commander (Pilus prior), the Roman Outpost
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Why not a Philosophy list? |
| From: |
"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:37:27 GMT |
|
Salvete Esteemed Consul and Philosophers:
This, in my opinion, is an excellent idea. I find the philosophical posts
of yesterday and today interesting, and for the most part, reflective of the
fact that the authors have spent some time in deep thought. I do, however,
have difficulty keeping track of "who said what", "who thinks what", owing
to the fact that the posts are mixed in with email of other subject matter.
Having the posts together on a separate list would foster the continuity
necessary to follow the train of thought of each contributor.
Another thought...perhaps this could be the basis for yet another future NR
Sodalitas.
Valete with Respect,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
>From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=061044104089235135169082190036" >sfp55@--------</--------;
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Why not a Philosophy list?
>Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 17:04:04 EDT
>
>Salvete philosophers!
>While I love Philosophy as much as the next person, I'm afraid that it has
>taken over the Forum. And while you toga clad philosophers stand under the
>po
>rtico yammering of things of infinite beauty, it has made for a lot of
>posts.
> I'm surprised that P. Cassia's post about Agrippa's Pantheon got through.
>And the citizenry has started to complain. Since we no longer have a
>curator
>sermo, you will understand where these complaints are ending. So...
>Why do not one of you start a list devoted to philosophy? When I am
>through
>serving my term I'll be glad to join it. I enjoy discussing it, and I
>would
>be a frequent contributor to such a list, again once my term is completed.
>Valete!
>Q. Fabius.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>
|
