Forum Romanum


Subject:	Hiatus
From:
Date:	Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:00:24 -0700

I shall be on hiatus for a while.
I have put the lists on "No Mail".
I am hoping my mail box will be able to hold all the other
postings that may come in without bouncing anything. So,
it would be very convenient for my 'net mailbox, and me,
if you all would hold any massive post generating debates
and/or flaps until I get back. =({[;-)
I am not leaving Immediately, but that Busy time
of prepping is upon the household.
I'll possibly be back around the Ides.

C. Aelius Ericius.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Intentional communities, ecovillages, homesteading, permaculture, etc
From:	"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:07:19 GMT

Salve, Gaius Drusus:

May I ask what "Teramo", the Intentional Community is?
Vale,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

>From: <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114056113185089095081021203102129208071" >dean6886@--------</a>
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] Intentional communities, ecovillages, homesteading,
>permaculture, etc
>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
>

______________________________________________________
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:	George VanDeWater <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=081166234150056086048038203219129208071" >vandewge@--------</a>
Date:	Tue, 04 Apr 2000 08:41:58 -0600

Salva Good Sulla,

May the Gods watch over you. Gens Africania Secunda will pray to Minerva and Methras for your health and speedy recovery.

Vale,
G. Africanus Secundus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] To Graecus: More on Philosophy
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Tue, 4 Apr 2000 22:39:50 EDT

Salve Graecus,

No, Einstein did not show time is an illusion. What relativity did do was
show time as the fourth dimension of the cosmos. Let me put it this way: Do
roughness or heaviness exist? As separate, existing things, no. Are they
then illusion? Again no. They are attributes. They cannot be removed from
the object. I could never ask you to hand me a stones roughness. I have to
ask for the stone so I can feel the roughness.
In much the same way, time is an attribute. It is a measurment of very real
change. So your contention that time is illusion and therefore change is
illusion is off target.
The only "illusion" is the old discarded notion of time as a purely constant
thing in itself.

As for the alleged possibility of time travel... What is being contended by
a very small group of physicists is that PAST time travel is possible. The
rest of the physics community sees this in the same light as they see
perpetual motion machines. It is not an accepted idea. Will it be one day?
I would not bet on it. It will likely end up in the same boat as the
cold-fusion in a bottle debacle a few years ago. With future time travel,
theoretically possible. You would need an infinite power source to
accellerate your space ship to light speed however. That is a bit of a stick
in the mud.

You mention numbers, and that 2+2=4. No doubt a very remarkable fact, but
not exactly awe inspiring either. Do you believe numbers are actually
existing things? Or are they also attributes of sets? Example: We see on
the table an apple and an apple and an apple. This set of apples has the
attribute of "three-ness" about it. Sulla runs into the room, devours one of
the apples before you can say, "Hey, that's mine!", and we are left with two.
What happened to the three? The three did not exist, actually. It was an
attribute of the set, and when the set changed the "three" vanished. Now
that is one way of looking at it, rather than thinking numbers are
independent things in and of themselves.

But perhaps what you were really getting at is the order of the universe.
Labienus said you were presenting a form of the teleological argument, or the
argument from design.
If this is what you were getting at, there is really nothing compelling here.
Our ideas of "order" and the like are derived from the universe we are
studying. So, when we are tempted to say, "Oh, the universe displays such
wonderful order", we are actually saying the universe looks like the
universe. This is redundant. Again, our notioins of order and mathematics
are based on this, our only universe that we know of. We detect patterns in
it, which is not that surprising since we ourselves are part of this
universe. So what should we expect but that the universe is orderly?

Another form of the teleological argument says that it is improbable that
such a "finely tuned" universe capable of having life would arise by pure
chance, and so there must be a creator. But there are two problems with this
argument. One, hardly anyone claims it arose by "pure chance". The behavior
of energy/matter, what we call natural law could well be an attribute of the
energy/matter itself. Secondly, how can we decide this universe is either
probable or improbable when we have only ONE universe to observe?
Probability is determined, or guessed at, by repetition. Since we have only
one universe that we know of, we really have no business speaking of it's
probability or improbability.

You then said, " (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 disagree. Labienus mentioned the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Some
people appeal to this as an example of the "indeterminacy" of nature. But
they are in error. The Uncertainty Principle does not say the cosmos is in
anyway "free" or indeterminate. It is a statement of our epistemic
limitations. That we cannot know BOTH the direction and speed of an electron
says more about our inability to determine the one without changing the
other, than it does about the nature of the electron itself.

Lastly, you spoke of your belief in Sol Invictus, and that the other various
gods are aspects of or "parts" of this one single god. I hope I am
understanding you correctly. But while I have no doubt this is your belief,
it is not relevant to my point. My point was, and still is, that humans can
imagine contradictory ideas of god or gods. Now if you wish to harmonize
these in your personal theology, that is fine. But not all polytheists
believe as you do. Some have and do believe in separate deities. Other
people, monotheists, do not. Their gods, in their minds, contradict each
other so that if one belief is true, the others must be false. And if one
must be false, then your theory that the gods have actual existence because
we can think of them is also false, discredited by the contradiction.

You concluded to Labienus, "Well, as Plato would say, both contradictory
Ideas exist in the Empyrean, though only one of them exist in the Sensible
world. =)"

Well, it is the existence of this "Empyrean World", the abode of the Gods,
that you seek to prove. To appeal to it now in philosphic arguement is to
beg the question!

Best Wishes,

Gaius Lupinius Festus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Does Festus Exist?
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Tue, 4 Apr 2000 22:39:44 EDT

In a message dated 4/4/00 1:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a> writes:

<< (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...) >>

You haven't been reading creationist literature, have you?

Actually, atheists do not tend to appeal to randomness to explain the cosmos
without a deity. J. Monod was an atheist who DID do that, but he is unique
in this. Atheists tend towards the opposite view, that matter/energy,
behaving in patterns which are regular and predictable {in theory, if not in
actual practice} brought about "creation". So called "creation scientists"
are notorius for erecting the "it's all chance" straw man argument, which
they claim is the only alternative for theistic creation.

So, it is all still up to you! A real person is typing {even if I am a
neurotic Sulla...No I'm not...Yes I am!...oh shut up...I'm trying to type!
Well so am I!} or you are a loon!

As for Berkowitz and the Virgin Mary's globe trotting these last few decades,
ask yourself what Hume asked. Which would you say is more likely? That a
spook is talking to Berkowitz {or a 2000 years dead Jewish woman is appearing
in Conyers} or that someone is either {1} making it up, or {2} hallucinating.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Censor Announcement
From:
Date:	Wed, 5 Apr 2000 00:25:39 EDT

In a message dated 04/03/2000 10:26:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a> writ--------br>
<< On May 11, I will be having surgery in my
stomach-abdomen area. >>
Sulla,

I wish you well and I will pray to the gods for your speedy recovery.

--Silvanus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Intentional communities, ecovillages, homesteading, permaculture, etc
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114056113185089095081021203102129208071" >dean6886@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 5 Apr 2000 00:36:55 -0500 (CDT)

Check out <a href="http://www.ic.org" target="_top" >http://www.ic.org</a>

On the lefthand column go to List of Intentional communities and
when you get to that page scroll down to Teramo. There are many
different ideas and projects coming from these various communities. Some
are totally off the wall while others make good sense and are
experimental or just alternative.

Before anyone passes judgement on the international intentional
communities movement please take a look at 15-20 different websights as
they are all extremely different from oe another. One may focus on
envirementalism, while the next focuses on alternative economic models
or on different farm and business cooperatives, or just co-housing, or
even the arch-type hippie commune. Take a good look and also check the
Reachbook section where people post messages and for situations, along
with the for sale section where intentional communities can offer goods
and services along with selling land specific to the communities
movement. Hope that this gets the conversation rolling as far as
possibilities for a landed Nova Roma on either a central, provincial, or
gentes basis.

Gaius Drusus Domitianus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Announcement to the people of Nova Roma (Special Election)
From:	George VanDeWater <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=081166234150056086048038203219129208071" >vandewge@--------</a>
Date:	Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:41:06 -0600

Salvete Civies,

I Giaus Africanus Secundus Germanicus, a citizen of Nova Roma, living in the Southwest Provincia announce that I wish to stand for election for Curule Aedile in the upcoming elections. In the next few days I will post my reasons for doing so. With the help of the Gods of my Gens, Minerva and Methras, I will serve Rome.

G.Africanus Secundus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Population Decreasing?
From:	George VanDeWater <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=081166234150056086048038203219129208071" >vandewge@--------</a>
Date:	Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:30:47 -0600

Salvete Civies

This may not be correct as I know that known of my Gens are listed on the Album Civies. Most of these have become citizens within the last four months so the count may not have been updated.
G. Africanus Secundus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Population Decreasing?
From:	George VanDeWater <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=081166234150056086048038203219129208071" >vandewge@--------</a>
Date:	Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:30:47 -0600


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] To Graecus: More on Philosophy
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:24:11 +0100

Salvete Festus et al

> No, Einstein did not show time is an illusion. What relativity did do
was
>show time as the fourth dimension of the cosmos. Let me put it this way:
Do
>roughness or heaviness exist? As separate, existing things, no. Are they
>then illusion? Again no. They are attributes. They cannot be removed from
>the object. I could never ask you to hand me a stones roughness. I have
to
>ask for the stone so I can feel the roughness.
Well, your position is Aristotelian. Nevertheless, I say that heaviness (for
example) is an attribute of all objects. You can draw a parallel in your
thought, as such as when we speak about heaviness you do not need to imagine
one specific object anymore. You think it as "heaviness" only. And you are
even able to perform abstract calculations on heaviness without the need of
a materia object. You calculate physical laws and then (for your surprise??)
you notice that all objects behave as Newton said, "materialising" the
mathmatical concepts.

>As for the alleged possibility of time travel... What is being contended
by
>a very small group of physicists is that PAST time travel is possible. The
>rest of the physics community sees this in the same light as they see
>perpetual motion machines. It is not an accepted idea. Will it be one
day?
>I would not bet on it. It will likely end up in the same boat as the
>cold-fusion in a bottle debacle a few years ago. With future time travel,
>theoretically possible. You would need an infinite power source to
>accellerate your space ship to light speed however. That is a bit of a
stick
>in the mud.
Well, it is a possibility... What are we talking about? Hipothesis, right?

> You mention numbers, and that 2+2=4. No doubt a very remarkable fact,
but
>not exactly awe inspiring either. Do you believe numbers are actually
>existing things? Or are they also attributes of sets? Example: We see on
>the table an apple and an apple and an apple. This set of apples has the
>attribute of "three-ness" about it. Sulla runs into the room, devours one
of
>the apples before you can say, "Hey, that's mine!", and we are left with
two.
> What happened to the three? The three did not exist, actually. It was an
>attribute of the set, and when the set changed the "three" vanished. Now
>that is one way of looking at it, rather than thinking numbers are
>independent things in and of themselves.
Yet, the concepts of 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. are so well impressed in your mind
that you don't need to think of any material set to perform abstract
calculations. You simply calculate and then observe that your calculations
have a mapping in the material world.

>But perhaps what you were really getting at is the order of the universe.
>Labienus said you were presenting a form of the teleological argument, or
the
>argument from design.
>If this is what you were getting at, there is really nothing compelling
here.
> Our ideas of "order" and the like are derived from the universe we are
>studying. So, when we are tempted to say, "Oh, the universe displays such
>wonderful order", we are actually saying the universe looks like the
>universe. This is redundant. Again, our notioins of order and mathematics
>are based on this, our only universe that we know of. We detect patterns
in
>it, which is not that surprising since we ourselves are part of this
>universe. So what should we expect but that the universe is orderly?
You may be correct... But you may also not be...

>Another form of the teleological argument says that it is improbable that
>such a "finely tuned" universe capable of having life would arise by pure
>chance, and so there must be a creator. But there are two problems with
this
>argument. One, hardly anyone claims it arose by "pure chance". The
behavior
>of energy/matter, what we call natural law could well be an attribute of
the
>energy/matter itself. Secondly, how can we decide this universe is either
>probable or improbable when we have only ONE universe to observe?
>Probability is determined, or guessed at, by repetition. Since we have
only
>one universe that we know of, we really have no business speaking of it's
>probability or improbability.
You may be correct... But you may also not be...

>You then said, " (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 disagree. Labienus mentioned the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Some
>people appeal to this as an example of the "indeterminacy" of nature. But
>they are in error. The Uncertainty Principle does not say the cosmos is in
>anyway "free" or indeterminate. It is a statement of our epistemic
>limitations. That we cannot know BOTH the direction and speed of an
electron
>says more about our inability to determine the one without changing the
>other, than it does about the nature of the electron itself.
It may be... Or it may be not.

>You concluded to Labienus, "Well, as Plato would say, both contradictory
>Ideas exist in the Empyrean, though only one of them exist in the Sensible
>world. =)"
>
>Well, it is the existence of this "Empyrean World", the abode of the Gods,
>that you seek to prove. To appeal to it now in philosphic arguement is to
>beg the question!
The "Empyrean" is a theory used to explain amont other things the
contradiction between change and constancy. It is not as esotheric as you
seem to sugest. It is based on the fact that we can indeed think of
contradictory ideas. While these ideas are just ideas, yes, they BOTH exist
as Ideas. The Empyreum is nothing more than the world of Ideas.

Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	ATTN (Religio Romana): Nonas Aprilis (April 5th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:42:00 +0100

Salvete omnes

This is one of the dies nefasti (N), a day on which no legal action or
public business could take place.

The rex sacrorum appears on the steps of the Capitol on this day to announce
to the people what days of the month are holidays. The Regina Sacrorum
sacrifices a lamb to Iuno, Who had been announced in the Kalendas. As we
have still no Rex Sacrorum in charge, a Pontifex is appointed for the
announcement (as was done in ancient Rome). Pontifex Iulia Ovidia Luna will
replace him today.

In this day, the "Dies Natalis" of the temple of Fortuna Publica on the
Quirinal Hill is celebrated.

This is also the second day of the Megalesia in honour of Cybele.

Pax Deorum vobiscum

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] [Civil War Legones]
From:
Date:	Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:16:41 EDT

<< I really need to find out the names of the legions just befor the civil
war between Caesar and Pompey, and their locations. >>
Salvete!
Before I send a private e-mail to this person, I was wondering if any other
citizens was interested in this information.
Valete
Q. Fabius


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Italian Translation Needed! (Conferratio rite)
From:
Date:	Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:19:45 EDT

In a message dated 3/29/2000 7:26:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=219166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >c--------us622@--------</--------; writes:

<< We're getting married on April 22, so there's not
much time! >>
Did you ever get that done?


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] [Civil War Legones]
From:	"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:53:39 GMT

Salve, Consul: I would be most interested in this info. Thanks!
Pompeia Cornelia

>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] [Civil War Legones]
>Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:16:41 EDT
>
>
><< I really need to find out the names of the legions just befor the civil
>war between Caesar and Pompey, and their locations. >>
>Salvete!
>Before I send a private e-mail to this person, I was wondering if any other
>citizens was interested in this information.
>Valete
>Q. Fabius

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>


Subject:	Re: [Civil War Legiones]
From:	Mariu--------mbria <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 05 Apr 2000 14:00:15 -0500 (CDT)

Salve, Fabi Maxime Consul:

>Before I send a private e-mail to this person, I was wondering if any
>other citizens was interested in this information.

:: Nods vigorously! ::

-- L Marius Fimbria, Legionarius ad spem


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Does Festus Exist??? (long)
From:	Mike Ma--------r <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:51:35 -0400

Salvete!

1. Festus opened this discussion by asserting that the Gods do not exist.=

This is an offer to prove a negative, and can only be achieved by Festus
proving either (a) some analytical reason for supposing that to state the=

the Gods exist is self-contradictory or self-defeating, or (b) some
testable claim directly inconsistent with the existence of the Gods. It i=
s
not up to us believers (in this discussion opened by Festus) to prove tha=
t
the Gods do exist: the burden of proof is on Festus.

2. A fortiori, we are not obliged to prove the existence of the Gods to t=
he
satisfaction of Festus on a list whose purpose is to promote their worshi=
p;
and the curator of the list would be entitled to intervene to shut this
discussion down and arguably should do so.

3. However, Festus has raised some interesting issues which certainly
relate to my own reasons for ceasing to be an atheist and become a neorom=
an
pagan.

Festus claims that (a) only those things exist which have consequences in=

the perceptible world and (b) the Gods do not act in the perceptible worl=
d.
It is certainly the case that there are legitimate philosophical objectio=
ns
to the ontological empiricist claim (a); this is the point which has been=

made by Graecus and Vado in different ways. However, I think that more
interesting issues arise if we temporarily suppose (a), and consider what=

(b) really means.

The sun Apollo, the ocean Neptune, the weather Jupiter, the
fertility of the earth Ceres, certainly have effects in the perceptible
world. It is equally true that Roma, the spirit of romanness, has had dee=
p
effects on European and "western" culture and continues to do so; and on =
a
smaller scale that Brigantia, the spirit of "northernness" in the
population of the parts of Britannia formerly occupied by the Brigantes,
has had major perceptible effects throughout post-roman British history a=
nd
continues to do so. (This is to give only a few examples). The existence =
of
these causal powers in our lives can really be disputed only the most
thick-headed empiricist/solipsist. The question is whether we should thin=
k
of these causal powers as mechanisms (as yet imperfectly explained), the
(more or less sophisticated) materialist view; as either mechanical
creations, or providential operations of a single omnipotent, etc., god,
(the monotheist view); or as agents which have an active role in our
destiny, the (polytheistic pagan view). =

Hence, the claim that the Gods do not act in the perceptible worl=
d
is, in reality, a claim either (i) that our prayers are not always
answered, so that we cannot prove the existence of the Gods by experiment=

or (ii) that postulating the Gods is not necessary to relating our lives =
to
the causal powers in the world (hence all the science stuff), so that by
applying Occam's Razor (the argument that imperceptible entities should b=
e
kept to the minimum required for explanation) we should refuse to postula=
te
them.

In this context, it is obvious and trivial that (i) the fact that=

our prayers are not always answered is not an objection to theism (either=

mono- or poly-). If prayer was an operation which always produced results=

or failed for explicable reasons, it would be a mechanism and the God/s
would not be agent/s, hence not God/s.

(ii), the Occam's Razor claim, is more interesting. It rests in t=
he
last analysis on the success of scientific method and technology in
explaining, and advancing human control of, aspects of the world. However=
,
the recent development of science has been not to project further the cla=
im
of the unlimited power of this approach to give control and explanation. =
On
the contrary, science has increasingly asserted its own limits. Russell's=

paradox and the disproofs of computability offered by Godel and Turing se=
t
limits to the formalizing possibilities of mathematics. In quantum
mechanics only imperfect predictions can be made. Deterministic chaos set=
s
limits to our knowledge, since only by knowing initial states to infinite=

precision (which is impossible) can we make more than very approximate
predictions of outcomes. Complexity theory tends to show that complex
systems have emergent properties, so that the programme of reduction of
sociology to biology, biology to chemistry and chemistry to physics fails=
. =

Moreover, the mechanistic approach has turned out to be hubristic=
,
setting humans (scientists) up as quasi-gods and producing catastrophes. =
In
terms of practical control, we now know that if we try to use DDT to
eliminate the anopheles mosquito and hence malaria, DDT-resistant mosquit=
os
will appear - and similarly with drug-resistant germs, etc.. If car safet=
y
is improved, drivers go faster or more carelessly and the level of accide=
nt
fatalities and injuries returns to its original level. And so on. =

Even neo-darwinian evolutionary theory has turned out to have
problems which may be fundamental objections to a fully predictive accoun=
t
of biology. (Bagemihl). Neither humans nor animals (nor even plants!) can=

be simply regarded as stimulus-response machines, as the old materialists=

thought. Agency certainly exists in nature beyond human agency.
Put all this another way. It is time to "remember that we are
mortal": to accept our own limitations both as individuals and as
collective human society/ies. We can only do this if we accept that there=

are powers in the world which are not controllable by human endeavour or
even fully graspable by the human mind; and if we give those powers the
respect they deserve. These powers include the powers in our own history,=

like Roma and Brigantia, as well as the powers in nature, like Apollo and=

Ceres.

This argument is one which can be shared by monotheists: if not b=
y
the modern worshippers of "God the Watchmaker", certainly by those of the=

providential God who intervenes directly the the unexplained acts of
nature. But contrary to what someone (was it Festus?) has said in this
discussion, monotheists have a hell of a higher hill to climb than
polytheists on this matter. We polytheists can acccept that we
anthroporphise the Gods. It is natural to do so: we are only human, and
humans anthropomorphise animals, ships, cars, hurricanes... But the
singular "God the Creator" is far more clearly an image of the world as a=

made thing like a watch, and "God the King" all too clearly a deified
Emperor removed from the world to take from the living Emperor the
responsibility for crop failures and barbarian invasions. The "religions =
of
the book" (Christianity, Islam) have the further job of explaining why th=
e
revelation of God's purpose came only once ... =

Our Gods are real powers. We have no difficulty in accepting that=

these real powers may be personified and worhipped by other cultures in
other ways; this is a matter of humans' relationship with the divine and
the world. The multiplicity of these powers and their diversity is our
strength.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	salvete romani
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=091176234237035233170098228064247165230048139046" >nina.shaull@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:05:33 -0000

Hello. I am not a member of Nova Roma, but am interested in it, I
got the e-mail group info from a dear amica (please forgive me if the
Latin is bad, I had a couple of years in college and that was it!)
Thank you in advance for any kind words from Rome.
--Nina Shaull

<--------lass="msghead"> &l--------href="/pos--------varoma?pro--------ID=132056219182127132169218031036129208" &g--------curia@--------&l--------&g--------td>


Subject:	Nina mea filia
From:
Date:	Wed, 05 Apr 2000 16:52:27 -0500

woops! that should be sunt omnia not sumt onmia.

Mater


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Italian Translation Needed! (Conferratio rite)
From:	"Kyrene" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=200028091056078198015242190036129" &--------yrene@--------</a&--------/td>
Date:	Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:28:38 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=061044104089235135169082190036" >sfp55@--------</--------;
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Italian Translation Needed! (Conferratio rite)

> In a message dated 3/29/2000 7:26:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=219166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >c--------us622@--------</--------; writes:
> << We're getting married on April 22, so there's not
> much time! >>
> Did you ever get that done?

An excellent day to get married, if I do say so myself!

Vale et khaire,

Kyrinia
who turns 22 on the 22nd :)

-=* Kyrene Ariadne/Andrea Gladia Kyrinia *=-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-=* <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/1527" target="_top" >http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/1527</a> *=-
-=* ~The Tholos~ *=-
-=* ICQ:6663573 Yahoo:KyreneAriadne AIM:KyreneAriadne *=-


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] salvete romani
From:	"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:00:37 GMT

Salve, Nina! Welcome to the Nova Roma egroup list. If you haven't already,
check out our website at www.novaroma.org. If you're interested in becoming
a cive, drop the ce-------- a li--------t <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=137056234112193209090218066036129208" >Ce--------s@--------</a>. His -------- is Lucius
Cornelius Sulla Felix.
Vale, Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

>From: <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=091176234237035233170098228064247165230048139046" >nina.shaull@--------</a>
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] salvete romani
>Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:05:33 -0000
>
>Hello. I am not a member of Nova Roma, but am interested in it, I
>got the e-mail group info from a dear amica (please forgive me if the
>Latin is bad, I had a couple of years in college and that was it!)
>Thank you in advance for any kind words from Rome.
>--Nina Shaull
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] salvete romani
From:
Date:	5 Apr 2000 16:20:17 -0700

On Wed, 05 April 2000, <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=091176234237035233170098228064247165230048139046" >nina.shaull@--------</a> --------e:

>
> Hello. I am not a member of Nova Roma, but am interested in it, I
> got the e-mail group info from a dear amica (please forgive me if the
> Latin is bad, I had a couple of years in college and that was it!)
> Thank you in advance for any kind words from Rome.
> --Nina Shaull

Welcome to Nova Roma! I haven't been here that long myself, but it gets pretty interesting at times. Don't worry about the Latin, I don't use it much at all. I'm still learning.

M. Stellatinus
Laci Magni

____________________________________________________________________

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] Italian Translation Needed! (Conferratio rite)
From:
Date:	Wed, 5 Apr 2000 19:55:25 EDT

In --------ss--------d-------- 4/5/00 9:22:29 AM P--------ic D--------ght Time, <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=061044104089235135169082190036" >sfp55@--------</--------;
writes:

<< Did you ever get that done? >>

No! Work problems kept me offline for the next four days. :(

Vale,

Cassius