F. Galerius Aurelianus Senator L. Sicinius Drusus. Salve.

You are correct in feeling that if a magistrate is not regularly posting on
the ML, he may not be active in Nova Roma. However, assumption is the mother
of all screw-ups. I asked about the Senior Consul about a month ago and the
Junior Consul responded about what he was up to and why he had been away from
the ML. He did get mentioned several times in the past month including the most
recent information about the Finnica Gathering. I was surprised when I
discovered he had shaved off his beard.

Once again, it is apparent that greater efforts need to be made in the area
of personal communication. If you are wondering what a magistrate or member of
the Sacred College is up to, it doesn't take long to email them or post a
note on the ML that you are seeking communication with them.

Vale.


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

Salve,

I am trying to contact people to help me fix problems with my gens
registration and its listing on the NR home page. If any of you
have the time to help me I would be very thankful.

Ave,
Prima Ritulia Nocta
Materfamilia gens Ritulia

May the Queen who holds the Keys of the World bless you all:




We at Gens Agoria are devout reconstructionist Pagans, however, in
accordance with wisdom and insights gained from studying classical
history and philosophy, we shun live animal sacrifice.


At this page, I address why we do not believe that live animal
sacrifice is needed to carry on the power and tradition of Paganism:


http://www.thecrookedheath.com/syriktes/es1.htm



And at this page, I show that the institution of Sacrifice was in
fact NOT from the Gods- the Gods did not demand that humans kill
animals, originally; it was simply the realities of those ancient
times that made animals the most logical choice (for humans) for the
sacred life-sharing celebration and division between man and god:


http://www.thecrookedheath.com/syriktes/es7.htm


And let us not forget that the myth of the first sacrifice was not
even a literal story, but metaphorical- all Indo-European cultures,
the Ox is a symbol of the 'primal beast' that acts in a role of
creating the new world or innagurating the new era. It is a symbol of
power and life.



There is tons of room to evaluate and reconsider why we do what we do
for the Gods.

The Religio has to be true to the spirit of old Paganism, but also
protean and healthy in form, to be alive and well in the modern day,
amid our modern needs and ideas. The values and virtues of the Pagan
Religion will exist regardless of what we offer to the Gods, and what
is more important than killing a beast is offering our own hearts,
our consent, and a real desire for a two-way relationship of honor
and exchange between the human and the divine.


The Gods do not fear change, which is a part of Fate and Natural Law-
the Gods love Natural Law and uphold it. Let us follow in their
example.


Remember that the Religio Romana is what made Rome Great.


Galus Agorius Taurinus

Answered off list.

-- Marinus

Prima Ritulia Nocta wrote:

> Salve,
>
> I am trying to contact people to help me fix problems with my gens
> registration and its listing on the NR home page. If any of you
> have the time to help me I would be very thankful.
>
> Ave,
> Prima Ritulia Nocta
> Materfamilia gens Ritulia

If you go back and actually read my statements you will see that I
stated nothing more than the fact that not posting on this list could
create the impression that a magistrate was no longer active. No Where
have I stated a charge that anyone isn't.

Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@a... wrote:
> F. Galerius Aurelianus Senator L. Sicinius Drusus. Salve.
>
> You are correct in feeling that if a magistrate is not regularly
posting on
> the ML, he may not be active in Nova Roma. However, assumption is
the mother
> of all screw-ups. I asked about the Senior Consul about a month ago
and the
> Junior Consul responded about what he was up to and why he had been
away from
> the ML. He did get mentioned several times in the past month
including the most
> recent information about the Finnica Gathering. I was surprised when I
> discovered he had shaved off his beard.
>
> Once again, it is apparent that greater efforts need to be made in
the area
> of personal communication. If you are wondering what a magistrate
or member of
> the Sacred College is up to, it doesn't take long to email them or
post a
> note on the ML that you are seeking communication with them.
>
> Vale.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Didius Geminus Sceptius"
<sceptia@y...> wrote:

> Consul Astur has been indeed to Thules, has been in the European
> Rallye of Segovia 2004,

DRUSUS: How is anyone other than the people who were there going to
know these things if he dosen't see fit to inform the rest of Nova
Roma about these events?

< and we see him every month, twice or more

> times, working for the Oppidum, for Hispania and for its Legio
> VIIII.

DRUSUS: These activities have nothing to do with his postion as a
Consul of Nova Roma. They show no more than he is active on a local level.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
<g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:

> At this page, I address why we do not believe that live animal
> sacrifice is needed to carry on the power and tradition of Paganism:
>

Ave Agorius,

You are overlooking one thing, what these links are calling "Paganism"
is not the same thing as the Religio Romana.

The Religio is a unique religion in it's own right, and the ideas of
other Pagans, be they Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, or whatever have no more
relavance to the Religio Romana than the Ideas of Christanity, Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other Religion.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

Salvete Quirites,

Drusus writes, about Consul Astur:

> They show no more than he is active on a local level.

I've been in communication with Consul Astur regularly. I've asked him
to post to bring people up to date on his activities. Please appreciate
that his access to the net is limited mostly to weekends these days.

Any citizen is welcome to write to him using the e-mail interface on his
album civium page.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

The list that M. Arminia Maior Fabiana is referring to is the PeaceNR list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceNR

The purpose of the list is for magistrates, senators, pontifices, and active
citizens to have a place were they can honestly discuss heated issues within
Nova Roma, and hopefully dialogue were we can find some common ground.

I'm sorry that M. Arminia Maior Fabiana doesn't like the list. I feel that I
have done the best I can to promote communication and dialogue. If I have
failed in doing this then I humbly apologize to the citizens of Nova Roma.

Something has to be done to make sure our Republic survives the many
conflicts that seen on the main list.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius



In a message dated 8/16/2004 2:08:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rory12001@... writes:
Salvete;
I believe Diana Octavia was reading Censor Sulla's suggestions from
the Orwellian "Peace" List, wherein he suggested Consul Astur resign
and I leave Nova Roma and join some other organization.
I've exited that list for the above reasons, and that fact that
certain issues are just glossed over with clever wordplay.

Diana Octavia, FYI I will never, ever leave Nova Roma. I've made
wonderful friends and learned so much about Roma Antiqua, you can
have all the century points your heart desires & remove mine, your
reasons are not my reasons.
To all my wonderful amici present and future, thank you for
all your hard work and devotion.
valete
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Prima Ritulia Nocta"
<PrimaRituliaNocta@h...> wrote:

> Salve,
>
> I am trying to contact people to help me fix problems with my gens
> registration and its listing on the NR home page. If any of you
> have the time to help me I would be very thankful.
>
> Ave,
> Prima Ritulia Nocta
> Materfamilia gens Ritulia

Salve,

I've sent you email offlist. Hopefully things will be straightened
out in short order.

Vale

Q. Cassius Calvus
Magister Aranearius

Salvete

That thread below made me remember of a good book
about roman battles:
Battles of the Greek and Roman Worlds- A chronological
compendium 0f 667 battles to 31 BC, by J. Drogo
Montagu. Hardcover, 320 p.

What it is: basically a dictionary of battles, with
some comments about each one and eventually a drawing.

Mentions or describes 667 battles in 200 pages.
For example: for the greek battles, Tegea (473)
receives 7 lines; Mantinea (418) receives 2 columns
and a diagram; Issus (333) and Gaugamela (331), two
columns each;
and for the roman battles, Zama (202) receives 3
columns (one diagram included), and Tifernus (295), a
obscure battle of the third samnite war, only five
lines.

There is also 15 maps of various cenarios (north
Italy, center Italy, south Italy, Sicilia, Syracuse,
Hispania etc.; a background information, with 5 pages,
about the greek and roman armies, naval battles etc.,
a glossary (2 pages), and two chronological tables,
depicting name of the battle, year, war/episode,
victor/vanquished, for the greek battles (9 pages) and
roman battles (10 pages).

The work is limited to a compilation, and there isnt
an effort to deliver more than expected; no surprises,
then. But it is the proposal of the book. Its a great
reference for historical battles.


--- gaiusequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...> escreveu:
[..]

> CATO: let's take a look at how the Romans fared,
> Vedius Germanicus. Let history "do the math":
>
>
> Battle of the Allia River - 386 BC
> A large force of 70,000 Gauls defeats a half as
> large group of Romans sent to stop their march
> on Rome. The city is abandoned and the Celts sack
> it.
>
> Battle of Vesuvius - 339 BC
> The rebellious Latins defeat Romans under P. Decius
> Mus
>
> Defeat at the Claudine Forks - 321 BC
> As a result of Samnite tactics and the carelessness
> of the Roman consuls, the Roman army found itself
> trapped between two mountain passes at a place known
> as the Claudine Forks. They made hopeless attempts
> to scale the steep surrounding slopes before finally
> resigning themselves to suing for peace with the
> Samnites.

[..]

> vale,
> Cato
> Citizen

Vale
M.Arminius





_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - navegue de graça com conexão de qualidade! Acesse: http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete.

I, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix, Lictor Curiatus Novae Romae, hereby
witness the investment of Gaius Popollius Laenas with the Imperium
Praetoris in the consulship of Cn. Salix Astur and Gn. Equitius Marinus.

I also acknowledge and witness the ascension to priesthood of Flavius
Galerius Aurelianus as Flamen Cerealis, Lucia Modia Lupa as Aedis
Dianae Sacerdos, and Agrippina Modia Aurelia as Aedis Necessitatis
Sacerdos.

May the Gods look kindly upon them and guide them in thier service to
Nova Roma.

Valete bene in pace Deorum.

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix
Pontifex et Minervae Aedis Sacerdos
Rogator
Lictor
Legatus Regionis Massachusetts

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Dobbins" <drusus@b...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
> <g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:
>
> > At this page, I address why we do not believe that live animal
> > sacrifice is needed to carry on the power and tradition of

Paganism:

> >
>
> Ave Agorius,
>
> You are overlooking one thing, what these links are

calling "Paganism"

> is not the same thing as the Religio Romana.
>
> The Religio is a unique religion in it's own right, and the ideas of
> other Pagans, be they Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, or whatever have no more
> relavance to the Religio Romana than the Ideas of Christanity,

Islam,

> Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other Religion.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Pontifex

I am a Hellenic Reconstructionist Pagan, just like Emperor Julian- a
Roman Emperor- was. Do not try to ignore the important relationship
between Roma and Hellas that existed in the past- there would be no
Religio Romana without the Hellenic world and it's religions, myths,
and Gods.

What I have to say, along with my essays, is as crucial to us now as
it was when Emperor Julian tried to revive Roman Paganism using
Hellenism as one of his fountains of inspiration.

There is no reconstruction of the Religio Romana without Hellas. They
share gods, myths, and cultural norms that were adopted full force
and full scale by the Romans.


Taurinus

Salve Drusus ~

Since when is anyone obligated to inform you about their activity in
local groups by posting a report on the Main List? Do you imagine this
is an obligation only for Consuls, or do you expect every Citizen to
make attendance reports to you through Main List Posts?

If you're curious what any Citizen (or Consul) has been up to, why not
ask them?

Nobody claimed that our Consul's local activities had anything to do
with Consular business; the Post you cite merely stated that our Senior
Consul is indeed quite well and active in NR.

Yes, I'll agree to the extent that it would be nice to see our
Magistrates more active on the Main List, but your attempt to equate
lack of Posting with lack of interest is a non sequetor.

Vale
~ Troianus

On Monday, August 16, 2004, at 08:30 PM, John Dobbins wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Didius Geminus Sceptius"
> <sceptia@y...> wrote:
>
>
>> Consul Astur has been indeed to Thules, has been in the European
>> Rallye of Segovia 2004,
>
> DRUSUS: How is anyone other than the people who were there going to
> know these things if he dosen't see fit to inform the rest of Nova
> Roma about these events?
>
> < and we see him every month, twice or more
>> times, working for the Oppidum, for Hispania and for its Legio
>> VIIII.
>
> DRUSUS: These activities have nothing to do with his postion as a
> Consul of Nova Roma. They show no more than he is active on a local
> level.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
<hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:

>
> Yes, I'll agree to the extent that it would be nice to see our
> Magistrates more active on the Main List, but your attempt to equate
> lack of Posting with lack of interest is a non sequetor.

Now why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I said that if a
magistrate fails to keep Nova Roma informed about what he's doing it
will create an impression that he isn't doing anything or that he has
lost intrest.

Drusus

I, Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus, Lictor Curiatus Novae Romae,
hereby witness the investment of Gaius Popollius Laenas with the
Imperium Praetoris in the consulship of Cn. Salix Astur and Gn.
Equitius Marinus.

I also acknowledge and witness the ascension to priesthood of Flavius
Galerius Aurelianus as Flamen Cerealis, Lucia Modia Lupa as Aedis
Dianae Sacerdos, and Agrippina Modia Aurelia as Aedis Necessitatis
Sacerdos.

May the Gods look kindly upon them and guide them in their service to
Nova Roma.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
<g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:

>
> I am a Hellenic Reconstructionist Pagan, just like Emperor Julian- a
> Roman Emperor- was. Do not try to ignore the important relationship
> between Roma and Hellas that existed in the past- there would be no
> Religio Romana without the Hellenic world and it's religions, myths,
> and Gods.
>
> What I have to say, along with my essays, is as crucial to us now as
> it was when Emperor Julian tried to revive Roman Paganism using
> Hellenism as one of his fountains of inspiration.
>
> There is no reconstruction of the Religio Romana without Hellas. They
> share gods, myths, and cultural norms that were adopted full force
> and full scale by the Romans.
>

Jullian was born in Constanople, and never set foot in Rome. His
writtings show allmost no knowledge of The Religio Romana, or of
Classic Greek Religion. He was a Neo-Platonic Mystic who's beliefs
were closer to the Christanity he spurned than to the classical
polytheist religions of Rome or of Greece, and he was also rather fond
of Animal scarifices and made them on a regular basis.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

Salve Caesar, Salve Cato, Salvete omnes ~

Interesting thread!
All I can say is "Roman is as Roman does" ~ No doubt at all the
courtiers who went East brought with them the ideals and styles that
they thought appropriate to a "true Roman" Imperial Court. They
certainly believed their behaviour was Roman, and no one could
contradict them (at least no one who could make their objection stick).

Of course, the higher ranking officials tend to follow the trends set
by the Imperial Family, so these ideals changed with expedience to what
was deemed fashionable by the powerful ~ & we all know that fashions
can change rapidly, so it didn't remain "Roman" for long; at least, not
in any form that would be recognized by those who remained in Rome.

Ironically, since the lower classes tend to aspire to imitate their
"betters" but tend to lag behind by a generation or so, odds are that
those despised "teeming masses" were acting more "Roman" than the elite
trendsetters after a while!

(This also means our Canadian Citizen is in error: If his parents think
of themselves as British, act British, and look to Britain as an
example and answer to any question of behaviour, then they are for all
practical purposes British: If they are of British descent and remain
British in Culture, attitude, thought and deed, then they are simply
ex-Pat Brits regardless of how long the family has lived in Canada!
This doesn't make our Citizen British however: His words make it clear
he has rejected Britishness and regards himself as Canadian or perhaps
more generally as North American. This is no contradiction, and
applies to our Romans as well: The moment the next generation rejects
Rome as old fashioned or provincial, they become Byzantines. Just when
this shift occurs varies with each family, indeed with each individual,
& is generally lost to History ~ all we can look to is general trends.)

Valete
~ Troianus

On Sunday, August 15, 2004, at 09:04 PM, gaiusequitiuscato wrote:

> O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato
>
> salvete, omnes.
>
> Caesar, interesting statement:
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
>> I still don't think that you have proved that a small gaggle of
>> court officials, families and associates constitutes a move of
>> Roman society. They were almost refugees.
>
> The reason I find it interesting is that it betrays a very VERY
> modern sense of what "society" means. You seem to think that the
> upper classes, the ones who followed the emperor to Constantinople to
> create the Byzantine court, actually gave a rat's hiney what the
> great masses thought. The Patricians despised the Plebs, and used
> them only for their own ends. The great unwashed populace simply
> didn't *matter* to anyone; they were the workforce, the drudges, the
> ones who did all the stuff that the upper classes wouldn't dream of
> doing. no-one cared what they thought or did, unless to mock them in
> the theatre or to bribe them with games and bread for an upcoming
> election. The average "Iulius-on-the-street" might have been bustin'
> out with Romanitas, but nobody cared. Only the powerful mattered.
>
> So when that great throng of imperial hangers-on moved to
> Constantinople, they *did* bring with them Rome.
>
> LOL Cato the Censor HATED anything foreign, so you're right, he'd
> have absolutely despised Byzantium. Augustus, though.... :-)
>
> valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

No, Drusus ~ It's when things don't get done that a Magistrate appears
to have lost interest or isn't doing anything. Are there any Consular
duties that you see being neglected? Just what Consular duties do you
feel our Senior Consul should be performing on the Main List to satisfy
you?

Those who are GENUINELY concerned about our Senior Consul have reported
on this List that they have written him privately and received
reassuring replies; You, on the other hand, are merely trafficking in
innuendo ~ as usual.

~ Troianus

On Tuesday, August 17, 2004, at 01:33 AM, John Dobbins wrote:

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
> <hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I'll agree to the extent that it would be nice to see our
>> Magistrates more active on the Main List, but your attempt to equate
>> lack of Posting with lack of interest is a non sequetor.
>
> Now why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I said that if a
> magistrate fails to keep Nova Roma informed about what he's doing it
> will create an impression that he isn't doing anything or that he has
> lost intrest.
>
> Drusus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve Troianus.

Ok - I see your rationale. He thinks therefore he is but he acts
otherwise, therefore he isn't...at least that is my grasp of your
extension of the scenario. Yes, I could live with that :) As you say
at what point did they cease to think/act as Romans. No later that
when Rome was sacked and the Western Empire ceased to exist would be
my estimate for most.

Now as a final thought - even if one accepts Cato's premise, is it
not analgous (best example recently I could think of) to the British
who remained in India after independence. Discount the older
generation but look to the ones who married and raised their families
in India. My guess is 2nd generation thought of themselves as
British, but would they have been regarded as British or Indians?
Difficult to say, but by fourth generation I think it would be
generally accepted they were Indian.

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
<hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:

> Salve Caesar, Salve Cato, Salvete omnes ~
>
> Interesting thread!
> All I can say is "Roman is as Roman does" ~ No doubt at all the
> courtiers who went East brought with them the ideals and styles

that

> they thought appropriate to a "true Roman" Imperial Court. They
> certainly believed their behaviour was Roman, and no one could
> contradict them (at least no one who could make their objection

stick).

>
> Of course, the higher ranking officials tend to follow the trends

set

> by the Imperial Family, so these ideals changed with expedience to

what

> was deemed fashionable by the powerful ~ & we all know that

fashions

> can change rapidly, so it didn't remain "Roman" for long; at least,

not

> in any form that would be recognized by those who remained in Rome.
>
> Ironically, since the lower classes tend to aspire to imitate their
> "betters" but tend to lag behind by a generation or so, odds are

that

> those despised "teeming masses" were acting more "Roman" than the

elite

> trendsetters after a while!
>
> (This also means our Canadian Citizen is in error: If his parents

think

> of themselves as British, act British, and look to Britain as an
> example and answer to any question of behaviour, then they are for

all

> practical purposes British: If they are of British descent and

remain

> British in Culture, attitude, thought and deed, then they are

simply

> ex-Pat Brits regardless of how long the family has lived in

Canada!

> This doesn't make our Citizen British however: His words make it

clear

> he has rejected Britishness and regards himself as Canadian or

perhaps

> more generally as North American. This is no contradiction, and
> applies to our Romans as well: The moment the next generation

rejects

> Rome as old fashioned or provincial, they become Byzantines. Just

when

> this shift occurs varies with each family, indeed with each

individual,

> & is generally lost to History ~ all we can look to is general

trends.)

>
> Valete
> ~ Troianus
>
> On Sunday, August 15, 2004, at 09:04 PM, gaiusequitiuscato wrote:
>
> > O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato
> >
> > salvete, omnes.
> >
> > Caesar, interesting statement:
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> > <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> >> I still don't think that you have proved that a small gaggle of
> >> court officials, families and associates constitutes a move of
> >> Roman society. They were almost refugees.
> >
> > The reason I find it interesting is that it betrays a very VERY
> > modern sense of what "society" means. You seem to think that the
> > upper classes, the ones who followed the emperor to

Constantinople to

> > create the Byzantine court, actually gave a rat's hiney what the
> > great masses thought. The Patricians despised the Plebs, and used
> > them only for their own ends. The great unwashed populace simply
> > didn't *matter* to anyone; they were the workforce, the drudges,

the

> > ones who did all the stuff that the upper classes wouldn't dream

of

> > doing. no-one cared what they thought or did, unless to mock

them in

> > the theatre or to bribe them with games and bread for an upcoming
> > election. The average "Iulius-on-the-street" might have been

bustin'

> > out with Romanitas, but nobody cared. Only the powerful mattered.
> >
> > So when that great throng of imperial hangers-on moved to
> > Constantinople, they *did* bring with them Rome.
> >
> > LOL Cato the Censor HATED anything foreign, so you're right, he'd
> > have absolutely despised Byzantium. Augustus, though.... :-)
> >
> > valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
<gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:

> Salve Troianus.
>
> Ok - I see your rationale. He thinks therefore he is but he acts
> otherwise, therefore he isn't...at least that is my grasp of your
> extension of the scenario. Yes, I could live with that :) As you say
> at what point did they cease to think/act as Romans. No later that
> when Rome was sacked and the Western Empire ceased to exist would be
> my estimate for most.

The Transistion from Roman to Byzanthian isn't something that it's
easy to put a date on. Think of a colorbar where you have Red at one
end Yellow in the middle and Blue at the other end. I'ts easy to pick
widely seperated points and say this is Red this is yellow. It's a lot
harder to say where red ends and orange starts, where orange ends and
where Yellow starts. If the Principate is the Red on the left side of
the Bar and the byzanthian empire is the yellow, then the Dominate
would be the orange part, no longer the same as the red area that most
think of as Rome, but not the yellow byzanthian period yet either.
There isn't a sudden end to one, just a transition from Red to Yellow.

Drusus

Good way of describing it! The reason I settled on the sack of Rome
was that it would have been the event that severed the principal link
to a heritage that must already have been evolving and changing. That
must have been a defining moment in the lives of those out in the
east. For those "romans" who had been born in Byzantium, maybe it
confirmed that home was now in the east. Unlike the analogy of India,
at least the Brit ex-pats could go to Britain and re-settle. Whilst
that was possible still for our eastern "romans" I doubt many made
the trip from relative security to barbarian ravaged Italy. So one
can imagine them reluctantly getting influenced day by day with non-
roman customs, until as you say Drusus the colour blurs finally and
clearly into another.

I still don't think that when Byzantium fell that those inside its
walls were Roman :)

Caesar

> The Transistion from Roman to Byzanthian isn't something that it's
> easy to put a date on. Think of a colorbar where you have Red at one
> end Yellow in the middle and Blue at the other end. I'ts easy to

pick

> widely seperated points and say this is Red this is yellow. It's a

lot

> harder to say where red ends and orange starts, where orange ends

and

> where Yellow starts. If the Principate is the Red on the left side

of

> the Bar and the byzanthian empire is the yellow, then the Dominate
> would be the orange part, no longer the same as the red area that

most

> think of as Rome, but not the yellow byzanthian period yet either.
> There isn't a sudden end to one, just a transition from Red to

Yellow.

>
> Drusus

Julian was also going to aid the Jews to rebuild the Temple so that the Jews could conduct our sacrifices as well.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: John Dobbins
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 10:39 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Animal Sacrifice


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
<g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:

>
> I am a Hellenic Reconstructionist Pagan, just like Emperor Julian- a
> Roman Emperor- was. Do not try to ignore the important relationship
> between Roma and Hellas that existed in the past- there would be no
> Religio Romana without the Hellenic world and it's religions, myths,
> and Gods.
>
> What I have to say, along with my essays, is as crucial to us now as
> it was when Emperor Julian tried to revive Roman Paganism using
> Hellenism as one of his fountains of inspiration.
>
> There is no reconstruction of the Religio Romana without Hellas. They
> share gods, myths, and cultural norms that were adopted full force
> and full scale by the Romans.
>

Jullian was born in Constanople, and never set foot in Rome. His
writtings show allmost no knowledge of The Religio Romana, or of
Classic Greek Religion. He was a Neo-Platonic Mystic who's beliefs
were closer to the Christanity he spurned than to the classical
polytheist religions of Rome or of Greece, and he was also rather fond
of Animal scarifices and made them on a regular basis.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

I, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Lictor Curiatus Novae Romae,
hereby witness the investment of Gaius Popollius Laenas with the
Imperium Praetoris in the consulship of Cn. Salix Astur and Gn.
Equitius Marinus.

I also acknowledge and witness the ascension to priesthood of Flavius
Galerius Aurelianus as Flamen Cerealis, Lucia Modia Lupa as Aedis
Dianae Sacerdos, and Agrippina Modia Aurelia as Aedis Necessitatis
Sacerdos.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



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

The Religio Romana cannot be constructed without a knowledge of
Hellenic religion, but it is not at all dependant on it. It simply
supplements it, as a primary or secondary source for many of the
concepts and figures contained in the religio. It is, indeed, unique.
Augustus Iulianus was not truly acquainted with Roma Antiqua, or hard
polythiesm. I admire him to the utmost for his concern and efforts,
but the fact is he made very little actual effort to implement the
restructuring of the Roman polytheism he so often talked about. But
if he had been successful, it would not have been the religio of Roma
Antiqua in theology and practice, as Drusus pointed out. He was
heavily influenced by Plotinus, and syncretic Graeco-Roman religion
which dominated the area of Turkey (and was decidedly more Greek in
character, theology, and practice). So he did not necessarily CHOOSE
to use Hellenism, he simply was Hellenistic and knew very little
else; those were the eyes through which he saw the world, including
religion.

Also, as Drusus pointed out, Julian practised animal sacrifice on a
regular basis, and from his writings it is evident he regarded the
insitution highly. He thought it beneficial and absolutely necessary
in pleasing the gods. If you go over to Greece, where Hellenic
religion never -completely- died and has the most followers, you will
find most of those practicing polythiesm believe in the necessity of
animal sacrifice as well. Not arguing for or against, but your
articles are lacking in any historical reasoning for your decision
not to endorse it, despite being a reconstructionist. It's your
choice, but whatever historical evidence against is weak at best, and
reflects philosophy rather than religion... which is fine, but very
much one-sided.


Vale,
L. Modius Kaelus Iulianus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
<g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Dobbins" <drusus@b...>

wrote:

> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
> > <g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > At this page, I address why we do not believe that live animal
> > > sacrifice is needed to carry on the power and tradition of
> Paganism:
> > >
> >
> > Ave Agorius,
> >
> > You are overlooking one thing, what these links are
> calling "Paganism"
> > is not the same thing as the Religio Romana.
> >
> > The Religio is a unique religion in it's own right, and the ideas

of

> > other Pagans, be they Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, or whatever have no

more

> > relavance to the Religio Romana than the Ideas of Christanity,
> Islam,
> > Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other Religion.
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > Pontifex
>
>
>
>
>
> I am a Hellenic Reconstructionist Pagan, just like Emperor Julian-

a

> Roman Emperor- was. Do not try to ignore the important relationship
> between Roma and Hellas that existed in the past- there would be no
> Religio Romana without the Hellenic world and it's religions,

myths,

> and Gods.
>
> What I have to say, along with my essays, is as crucial to us now

as

> it was when Emperor Julian tried to revive Roman Paganism using
> Hellenism as one of his fountains of inspiration.
>
> There is no reconstruction of the Religio Romana without Hellas.

They

> share gods, myths, and cultural norms that were adopted full force
> and full scale by the Romans.
>
>
> Taurinus

Yes, I remember reading that. He regarded Christianity as a false
perversion of Judaism, and very much admired the latter. Of course,
I'm sure part of why he wanted to do so was to simply spite the
Christians and debunk them from the popular claim that the temple was
destroyed because they executed Christ. ;-)

Modius Kaelus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:

> Julian was also going to aid the Jews to rebuild the Temple so that

the Jews could conduct our sacrifices as well.

>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Dobbins
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 10:39 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Animal Sacrifice
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
> <g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I am a Hellenic Reconstructionist Pagan, just like Emperor

Julian- a

> > Roman Emperor- was. Do not try to ignore the important

relationship

> > between Roma and Hellas that existed in the past- there would

be no

> > Religio Romana without the Hellenic world and it's religions,

myths,

> > and Gods.
> >
> > What I have to say, along with my essays, is as crucial to us

now as

> > it was when Emperor Julian tried to revive Roman Paganism using
> > Hellenism as one of his fountains of inspiration.
> >
> > There is no reconstruction of the Religio Romana without

Hellas. They

> > share gods, myths, and cultural norms that were adopted full

force

> > and full scale by the Romans.
> >
>
> Jullian was born in Constanople, and never set foot in Rome. His
> writtings show allmost no knowledge of The Religio Romana, or of
> Classic Greek Religion. He was a Neo-Platonic Mystic who's beliefs
> were closer to the Christanity he spurned than to the classical
> polytheist religions of Rome or of Greece, and he was also rather

fond

> of Animal scarifices and made them on a regular basis.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Pontifex
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
<hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:

> No, Drusus ~ It's when things don't get done that a Magistrate appears
> to have lost interest or isn't doing anything. Are there any Consular
> duties that you see being neglected? Just what Consular duties do you
> feel our Senior Consul should be performing on the Main List to satisfy
> you?
>
> Those who are GENUINELY concerned about our Senior Consul have reported
> on this List that they have written him privately and received
> reassuring replies; You, on the other hand, are merely trafficking in
> innuendo ~ as usual.
>
> ~ Troianus

Ave Troianus,

Are you capable of following a discussion through a thread?

A Citizen expressed surprise at seeing the pictures of Astur stating
she thought he resigned.

Maior jumps in with accusations about a list that the citizen isn't
even a member of.

I Reply that it was most likely an assumption based on never seeing
him post.

You jump in with accusations against me.

Have y'all ever consider switching to decaf? Maybe it would calm y'all
down some.

L. Sicinius Drusus

lol! i love nova roma! i pray for the day i can hear
these arguements in a live forum. we are going to need
brawny lictors!
--- drusus@...
<drusus@...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius

Mercurius Troianus

> <hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
> > No, Drusus ~ It's when things don't get done that

a Magistrate appears

> > to have lost interest or isn't doing anything.

Are there any Consular

> > duties that you see being neglected? Just what

Consular duties do you

> > feel our Senior Consul should be performing on the

Main List to satisfy

> > you?
> >
> > Those who are GENUINELY concerned about our Senior

Consul have reported

> > on this List that they have written him privately

and received

> > reassuring replies; You, on the other hand, are

merely trafficking in

> > innuendo ~ as usual.
> >
> > ~ Troianus
>
> Ave Troianus,
>
> Are you capable of following a discussion through a

thread?

>
> A Citizen expressed surprise at seeing the pictures

of Astur stating

> she thought he resigned.
>
> Maior jumps in with accusations about a list that

the citizen isn't

> even a member of.
>
> I Reply that it was most likely an assumption based

on never seeing

> him post.
>
> You jump in with accusations against me.
>
> Have y'all ever consider switching to decaf? Maybe

it would calm y'all

> down some.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>

=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Dobbins" <drusus@b...> wrote:

> Jullian was born in Constanople, and never set foot in Rome.

In his day and age, he wasn't the only Roman Emperor or Ruler who
didn't go around the City of Rome much- but then, do recall that Rome
had more than one capitol by that point, as well.

> His
> writtings show allmost no knowledge of The Religio Romana, or of
> Classic Greek Religion.

That's odd, because I own all of his collected writings, (those that
survive) and his Pangyric to the Mother of the Gods and to Helios
show quite a complex and organic knowledge of a kind of Hellenism
that was influenced (as you say) by his Theurgic teachers.

> He was a Neo-Platonic Mystic who's beliefs
> were closer to the Christanity he spurned than to the classical
> polytheist religions of Rome or of Greece, and he was also rather

fond

> of Animal scarifices and made them on a regular basis.

He was a self-proclaimed polytheist. He believed that there were many
Gods and Goddesses. He was a product of his time, and being a Neo-
Platonist is not a crime, especially considering that 1. Neo-
Platonism bears almost no resemblance to Plato's laughable impiety
and 2. It is a WORLD better than christianity, regardless of what you
think about it.


I have his entire work "Against the Galileans" right in front of me-
please, take my word for it, this man opposed everything christians
stood for, attacked their every stance, and was an initiate at
Eleusis, he was a Mithraist, he had done the Tauroboliata, he was an
initiate of Dindymene in Asia Minor, and if he did animal sacrifices,
it was because at his point in time, they were one of the
main "distinguishing marks" of paganism vs. christianity.


Ritual butchery of animals was a way to get meat to a community as
much as it was a religious rite- the secularization of butchery was
one of the death blows of paganism, as much as christianity was.


Just because Julian did something in accord with his own time's
norms, doesn't mean anything to our own time's norms. Pagans today
are 99.999999% not butchers and farmers- they are also not
sacrificing priests and priestesses from 2000 years ago, trained in
the proper rites and rituals required for proper animal slaughter.


Pagans today are mostly urban peoples, who have no clue what an
animal even smells like in the wild or in a pen. They also don't have
the social structure and assumptions that upheld sacrifice around
them. If we had whole groups of pagans living in the country, who
used sacrifice as a ritual slaughter for their subsistence animals,
that would be one thing. I could have no true quarrel with that.


A bunch of urban kids with some middle-aged "leaders" going and
getting a chicken and cutting it's throat in the backyard after
praying to Jupiter (because they read that some Roman people did this
thousands of years ago, in a book they have) is an outrage to all
that is decent and proper.


It is an attempt to foist a fossil of a social/religious institution
that vanished long ago into the modern day, without trying to
rationalize and harmonize the same idea into the present structure of
reality. Sacrifice is still important, but the rationale, the logic
and the form have to be re-considered.



Galus Agorius Taurinus




PS: There were many worthies in ancient Rome and Greece that were
against animal sacrifice.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Modius Kaelus" <xkaelusx@y...>
wrote:

> The Religio Romana cannot be constructed without a knowledge of
> Hellenic religion, but it is not at all dependant on it. It simply
> supplements it, as a primary or secondary source for many of the
> concepts and figures contained in the religio. It is, indeed,

unique.



Not without primary sources it isn't. If you need Hellenism
for "primary sources", then that isn't supplimental.

> Augustus Iulianus was not truly acquainted with Roma Antiqua, or

hard

> polythiesm. I admire him to the utmost for his concern and efforts,
> but the fact is he made very little actual effort to implement the
> restructuring of the Roman polytheism he so often talked about. But
> if he had been successful, it would not have been the religio of

Roma

> Antiqua in theology and practice, as Drusus pointed out. He was
> heavily influenced by Plotinus, and syncretic Graeco-Roman religion
> which dominated the area of Turkey (and was decidedly more Greek in
> character, theology, and practice). So he did not necessarily

CHOOSE

> to use Hellenism, he simply was Hellenistic and knew very little
> else; those were the eyes through which he saw the world, including
> religion.

Julian was doing all he could do for his particular time and place.
You are holding him at fault for something he couldn't help or
change. Any attempt to restore pagan cults is better than no attempt-
saying that he didn't use the brand name you prefer is really making
light of this man's great efforts. Remember that by this time,
the "Religio" (which was far from stainless and unique as you present
it and never free from zillions of non-Roman cultural influences) was
all but whitewashed away.

> Also, as Drusus pointed out, Julian practised animal sacrifice on a
> regular basis, and from his writings it is evident he regarded the
> insitution highly.

And even though my other letter has not gone through, I will say it
again- He was doing what was right to his thinking, and for his
particular time and place. This does not mean that we should pick up
right where he left off. Like all things of this nature, that would
be a fatal spiritual over-simplification.

> He thought it beneficial and absolutely necessary
> in pleasing the gods.

He never says that it is "absolutely necessary". It was a social
structure that was a "mark" of paganism in his time, in contrast to
christianity- it was a social "hardpoint". Sacrifice brought people
together; it was a strong communal gathering that had many benefits.

He thought that it was pleasing to the Gods, and no doubt, done
properly and in the proper context, it is- but so are many other
things. To obsess over one particular form of devotion from history
is as shortsighted as a person can be, especially considering the
breadth we have when it comes to "pleasing the Gods". Pindar
said "Purity is to think pure thoughts"- I can assure you, the Gods
can be just as pleased by a beautiful poem as by killing an animal.




If you go over to Greece, where Hellenic

> religion never -completely- died and has the most followers, you

will

> find most of those practicing polythiesm believe in the necessity

of

> animal sacrifice as well.

I have been to Greece; I know many Hellenists there. Most are against
Animal Sacrifice now. It's just not necesarry; butchery has become
secularized. The meat is purchased and blessed and divided. That is
what the modern day has come to.





Not arguing for or against, but your

> articles are lacking in any historical reasoning for your decision
> not to endorse it, despite being a reconstructionist. It's your
> choice, but whatever historical evidence against is weak at best,

and

> reflects philosophy rather than religion... which is fine, but very
> much one-sided.

Everything that article said is totally based on how we approach
religion, as well as philosophy. Philosophy is the Love of Wisdom;
Religion means nothing if it does not bring mankind closer to the
Deathless Gods and, just for a moment, overcome the Sundering Power
that seperated man and God by bringing them together for a division
of a single offering- cast in the form of a meal; two sides, two
participants, not one, and yet, united in a common bond, a divided
feast.

In the Deathless Realm of the Gods is the Wisdom that man naturally
inclines towards- all religion, science, philosophy, and even the
technology that we use to do a sacrifice is from the Gods- the fire
of the Gods (not the Fire of man) that was stolen from them and
passed on to us is what makes all these things possible. We reach out
for the Godly to achieve a wholeness and Wisdom that we naturally
yearn for.



Galus Agorius Taurinus

Salvete,

I have been putting a great deal of thought into the animal
sacrifice issues, as have all of you.

When I saw the first saw that Scaurus had sacrificed a chicken, I
was mortified. At first glance it seemed utterly barbaric. But
then I had to get perspective.

In ancient Greece (I'm more familiar with their sacrifices),
chickens, ox, & cows were regularly sacrificed. These sacrifices
were cooked and the meat distributed to the demes (neighboorhoods).
From my studies, this was the primary source of meat in ancient
times as animals were expensive and could be used for other
purposes. In modern times, we can go to the grocer or any number of
restaurants and eat meat to our hearts content. We have religated
the task of slaughter to specialists - butchers and slaughter
houses. So for many of us, to kill and eat a animal with our own
hands is barbaric.

However, farmers and hunters do this everyday. Scaurus, from my
understanding, lives in Oklahoma - a farm state. For him to kill a
chicken and eat it is not uncommon. I know this because my soon to
be father-in-law grew up on a farm and did this regularly. The
difference here is rather than just kill & eat the chicken, he
offers a *portion* of it to the gods. The majority is consumed by
his family. I live in Ohio, largely a farm state, but I live in a
city. If I were to kill a chicken (or other farm animal), I would
probably be hauled into court for animal abuse (ironically if it
were a deer this wouldn't be a problem). If I lived in a rural area
and killed a chicken, then ate it, no one would think twice.

Personally, I could not kill an animal. I know this. When I
applied for Sacerdos Necessitas, I did my homework. I have found
nothing to indicate that she ever required the sacrifice of an
animal. I would not have applied for the position if such a
sacrifice was required. I would have worshipped her privately but
not officially for NR. In my situation the best I can do is offer
the meat I cooked for my dinner. I offer the food that I consume
anyways.

For those who are vegitarian/vegan, there is no solution to this.
They think the killing of any animal for food is wrong. I,
personally, disagree. NR decided that at no time will there be
funds spent on animal sacrifice. I don't really see the need to
revisit this debate over and over. Farmers and hunters kill animals
everyday - and cook and eat them. Scaurus lives in a farm state
where this is completely normal. Can we get back to discussing
Rome, please? I really think we've all had about enough of this
discussion, and given the circular nature of the arguments we
certainly aren't getting anywhere. Anger never solved anything and
NR seems to excel at making people angry.

Valete bene,

Agrippina Modia Aurelia

BTW: for those who know me & ask why my b/f won't join, this is one
of the reasons. He can't fathom how an organization which touts
itself as a reconstructionist organization debates this. To him it
was done in Rome, which we claim to reconstruct, therefore it should
be done, save where it is against the law. Period. He has stated
that this argument alone would be more than enough to prove that
most of the members aren't interested in *reconstructing* anything
other than loosely historically based fictional accounts of a shiny-
happy Rome that never existed (& only the really good parts at
that). He doesn't have the time nor the inclination to roleplay
(his words)

Salvete omnes,

Just a quick visit to the list since I'm on an expensive sat phone.
I read the discussions on the about Rome and her gods, abandonment
etc.
I just wanted to point out that no matter what the religion, it seems
that the spiritual being or beings do not always give earthly
material rewards to people or nations because of their loyalty or
deep devotions. No matter what, we all seem to suffer bad trials and
tribulations in our material lives. For example I've never got a nice
lottery win or big job promotion when I gave big money to charities
or the church. Often when I worked hard to help people out I just got
a kick I the teeth for my reward. My mother almost became a nun,
served the church faithfully all her life yet she had her last child
with Down's Syndrome and died relatively young in life with cancer.

I finished a book by Bernard Lewis last year called "What Went
Wrong?" He points out that the Islamic hard line fundamentalists
claim that because the middle east adopted western army technology
dress, customs etc. in the 18th century which later was passed on to
the civilian population. This displeased Allah so he has made them
lose all the wars and conflicts with the West ever since. Time to go
back to the old ways they suppose.

All in all, based on these observations, I feel it is not a good
precedent to equate our material downfalls and misfortunes on the
personal and national level to the temperament of the spiritual
beings. No matter what the religion we follow, it seems that we are
aiming for the next life where things will be better understood; not
necessarily here on earth.



Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
<g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:

>
> He was a self-proclaimed polytheist. He believed that there were many
> Gods and Goddesses. He was a product of his time, and being a Neo-
> Platonist is not a crime, especially considering that 1. Neo-
> Platonism bears almost no resemblance to Plato's laughable impiety
> and 2. It is a WORLD better than christianity, regardless of what you
> think about it.

DRUSUS: Being a Polytheist isn't the same thing as being a
practitioner of the Religio Romana. As a matter of fact it's possible
to be a Monotheist, to beleave that all of the Gods are aspects of a
single God, and still be a practitoner of the Religio Romana. You
might also want to read some of the writtings of the Church Fathers
from the third and fourth centiries. You will find that Neo-Platoism
had a major impact on Christian Theology and doctrine.

> I have his entire work "Against the Galileans" right in front of me-
> please, take my word for it, this man opposed everything christians
> stood for, attacked their every stance, and was an initiate at
> Eleusis, he was a Mithraist, he had done the Tauroboliata, he was an
> initiate of Dindymene in Asia Minor, and if he did animal sacrifices,
> it was because at his point in time, they were one of the
> main "distinguishing marks" of paganism vs. christianity.

DRUSUS: On the surface he opposed it, but his basic thought patterns
were those of the Xtian monks who raised him. He decried the symbols
of Xtanity while continuing to accept many of the underlying concepts
of the religion.

> Just because Julian did something in accord with his own time's
> norms, doesn't mean anything to our own time's norms. Pagans today
> are 99.999999% not butchers and farmers- they are also not
> sacrificing priests and priestesses from 2000 years ago, trained in
> the proper rites and rituals required for proper animal slaughter.

DRUSUS: What Non-Roman Pagans think is as of little relavance as what
Christians or Muslims think. The Religio isn't some kind of generic
paganism, it's a religion in it's own right.

> Pagans today are mostly urban peoples, who have no clue what an
> animal even smells like in the wild or in a pen. They also don't have
> the social structure and assumptions that upheld sacrifice around
> them. If we had whole groups of pagans living in the country, who
> used sacrifice as a ritual slaughter for their subsistence animals,
> that would be one thing. I could have no true quarrel with that.
>
>
> A bunch of urban kids with some middle-aged "leaders" going and
> getting a chicken and cutting it's throat in the backyard after
> praying to Jupiter (because they read that some Roman people did this
> thousands of years ago, in a book they have) is an outrage to all
> that is decent and proper.
>
>
> It is an attempt to foist a fossil of a social/religious institution
> that vanished long ago into the modern day, without trying to
> rationalize and harmonize the same idea into the present structure of
> reality. Sacrifice is still important, but the rationale, the logic
> and the form have to be re-considered.

DRUSUS: Actually your viewpoint is that attempt to foist concepts that
have nothing to do with the Religio Romana onto it's practitioners.
Have you even read the Decretum on Sacrifices?

The Collegium Pontificum is the only institution empowered to regulate
the ritual practice of the Religio Publica of Nova Roma. Until such a
time as the Collegium Pontificum may determine that circumstances are
appropriate for the full restoration of the cultus of the Religio
Publica the Collegium neither mandates nor prohibits animal sacrifice in
the caerimoniae of the Religio Publica. Practitioners of the Religio
Romana, including sacerdotes conducting the caerimoniae of the Religio
Publica, may conduct or refrain from animal sacrifice in accordance with
their conscience and circumstances. If animal sacrifice is conducted in
accordance with this decretum, the slaughter of the animal must be
conducted humanely, in accordance with the mos maiorum, and in
compliance with the macronational law applying to the locale of the
sacrifice. The Collegium does not intend to request appropriation of
public funds by the Senate for animal sacrifice until and unless a final
decision on the full restoration of the ancient cultus has been made, a
circumstance which we do not envision as likely until the construction
of public temples occurs and the fullest possible discussion of the
matter has been undertaken by the appropriate authorities of the state.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Quintio Lanio Paulino S.P.D.

Salvete.

Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:

>All in all, based on these observations, I feel it is not a good
>precedent to equate our material downfalls and misfortunes on the
>personal and national level to the temperament of the spiritual
>beings. No matter what the religion we follow, it seems that we are
>aiming for the next life where things will be better understood; not
>necessarily here on earth.
>
>
>

Your post makes excellent sense directed towards Judeo-Christians, whose
religious devotion is directed towards the next life, rather than
obtaining material rewards and benefits in this one. It really is not
relavant to the Religio Romana however. Why? Becuase one of the Primary
Goals of the Religio Romana, in both the State and Private cults, *IS*
obtaining material rewards and benefits from the Gods in this life. One
of the hardest things to understand from a modern (and therefore
generally Judeo-Christian perspective) is how *fundamentally* different
Roman religion is from Christianity and our modern concepts of Religion
in general. The Religio does not concern itself with the afterlife aside
from honoring and placating the spirits of the deceased. In fact, the
Religio has no official policy or dogma about the afterlife at all. Many
Romans felt death was the end, period. The whole purpose of the State
Religion of Rome was to, on a collective level, entreat the Gods through
sacrifice and ritual, to bestow thier blessings and protection to the
Roman people i.e. the Pax Deorum. The Romans honestly beleived that
without the direct and material assistance of the Gods, that they could
not (and would not) prosper. That was thier Pietas. When a Roman
sacrifices or prays, he or she expected a response from the Gods.
Christains and Roman Polythiests worship thier respective dieties for
very different reasons, and with very different expecations.

On another, related note, when a modern follower of the Religio states
his or her belief that Roma ultimately fell becuase the people turned
away from the Gods and the Pax Deorum for a foreign religion, it is a
simple, and logical conclusion based on the very principles the Religio
are founded on. To a pacticioner of the Religio, the ultimate fall of
Rome has Religious implications.Without the Gods and the Pax Deorum,
Roma could not continue as it had done before. I don't expect a
Christian (or a Historian either) to agree with that, as it is a matter
of belief, no different than when a Christian proclaims that Jesus was
the son of God, rather than just a man. We don't need to share each
others beleifs, but we should not attack each others rights to hold them.

Vale,

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix

>Regards,
>
>Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>

Salve Gai Minuci Hadriani Felix,

Thank you for your reply. You gave me a better insight into the way a
Roman and modern practitioner thinks with respect to the Religio
Romano and relations with gods on the every day walk of life. I've
often argued on other posts and other subjects that we often (in a
historical sense) fail to put our modern minds into the mind frames
and philosophies of the people's standards of their times rather than
ours.

Based on that I see that I failed to do that in this respect after
reading your post. My mind was too much in the Judea - Christian
mode. Now I'm a little better informed and see where you are coming
from so I stand corrected on this matter. Well we learn a little more
each day!

Respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
<c.minucius.hadrianus@n...> wrote:

> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Quintio Lanio Paulino S.P.D.
>
> Salvete.
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:
>
> >All in all, based on these observations, I feel it is not a good
> >precedent to equate our material downfalls and misfortunes on the
> >personal and national level to the temperament of the spiritual
> >beings. No matter what the religion we follow, it seems that we

are

> >aiming for the next life where things will be better understood;

not

> >necessarily here on earth.
> >
> >
> >
> Your post makes excellent sense directed towards Judeo-Christians,

whose

> religious devotion is directed towards the next life, rather than
> obtaining material rewards and benefits in this one. It really is

not

> relavant to the Religio Romana however. Why? Becuase one of the

Primary

> Goals of the Religio Romana, in both the State and Private cults,

*IS*

> obtaining material rewards and benefits from the Gods in this life.

One

> of the hardest things to understand from a modern (and therefore
> generally Judeo-Christian perspective) is how *fundamentally*

different

> Roman religion is from Christianity and our modern concepts of

Religion

> in general. The Religio does not concern itself with the afterlife

aside

> from honoring and placating the spirits of the deceased. In fact,

the

> Religio has no official policy or dogma about the afterlife at all.

Many

> Romans felt death was the end, period. The whole purpose of the

State

> Religion of Rome was to, on a collective level, entreat the Gods

through

> sacrifice and ritual, to bestow thier blessings and protection to

the

> Roman people i.e. the Pax Deorum. The Romans honestly beleived that
> without the direct and material assistance of the Gods, that they

could

> not (and would not) prosper. That was thier Pietas. When a Roman
> sacrifices or prays, he or she expected a response from the Gods.
> Christains and Roman Polythiests worship thier respective dieties

for

> very different reasons, and with very different expecations.
>
> On another, related note, when a modern follower of the Religio

states

> his or her belief that Roma ultimately fell becuase the people

turned

> away from the Gods and the Pax Deorum for a foreign religion, it is

a

> simple, and logical conclusion based on the very principles the

Religio

> are founded on. To a pacticioner of the Religio, the ultimate fall

of

> Rome has Religious implications.Without the Gods and the Pax

Deorum,

> Roma could not continue as it had done before. I don't expect a
> Christian (or a Historian either) to agree with that, as it is a

matter

> of belief, no different than when a Christian proclaims that Jesus

was

> the son of God, rather than just a man. We don't need to share each
> others beleifs, but we should not attack each others rights to hold

them.

>
> Vale,
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix
>
>
>
> >Regards,
> >
> >Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> >
> >

Salve Lucia Modia Lupa,

Your comment snipped from below "what is this about a Vestal..
Vestals didn't perform sacrafices.", which was a response my not
officially applying is a bit lacking in history. Maior also wasn't
going to be required to do any, yet her firm stand on not doing one
even if told to go her booted from her position since she wouldn't
follow directives. I would have to say the same thing to them. Yes,
it is ridiculous to interrogate a person and demand they do
sacrifices if so ordered when it has nothing to do with the
position, but if that is the benchmark...then I would fall short and
be booted as well. I won't verbally or officially or in any way
support such a thing, though I would, perhaps, simply refuse to
officially comment on it to protect the CP. Nevertheless, that is
what that is about.

Vale,
Annia Octavia Indagatrix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Samantha" <lucia_modia_lupa@y...>
wrote:

> Maior,
> Again respectfully I don't understand why you are wishing for the
> cives to decide. How can anyone decide anything based on just one
> persons single post.
> From your post here alone one could say.. well CP gives the rite

to

> chose which you are willing to do, so what is the point? Also they
> could turn around and say.. what is this about a Vestal.. Vestals
> didn't perform sacrafices. I am sorry but there really isn't

anyway

> one is going to be able to have a solid opinion about this without
> having heard the entire conversation on the Peace list.
> Certainly if people wish to read this line, do encourage those
> interested to subscribe to the Peace list rather then posting

small

> fractions of entire conversations please :)
> Just a suggestion :)
>
> Lucia Modia Lupa
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> > Salve;
> > I do not appreciate Diana Octavia, Senator Drusus nor

yourself

> > making opinions of my behavior without producting proof. Here

was

> one
> > of my last posts on an issue. Let it be for the cives to

decide.

> > Maior
> >
> > In PeaceNR@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> > Salvete;
> > Gnaeus Caesar I really truly am trying to find a via media,

and

> yes
> > a lot of cives write to me about this issue, they want to
> participate
> > but are put off. Indagtix, sorry I can't spell her cognomen
> properly
> > wants to be a Vestal, but won't put herself foward officially

for

> > fear she will be asked to perform an animal sacrifice.
> > This is not about me, I'm going to be a priest in Macro
> world.
> > Frankly most polytheists that you will find, witches etc..are
> against
> > animal sacrifice. So I don't understand saying that the PM and
> > Gryllus's opionions don't matter and they can't oversee the

cives

> and
> > sacerdotes who will offer fruits and vegetables.
> > Comparing it to the EU means nothing except I can travel to
> Italy
> > with the same money. I'm just talking about the CP being open

to

> > both sides with representation, and public.
> > Is there anything wrong about that?
> > When someone like Drusus replies with his raelian nonsense it
> just
> > discredits him, the issue stays, which is why it comes up. I

didn't

> > talk about it Maxima a new civis did. It is a concern and
> addressing
> > it openly and fairly I think is a good idea.
> > Maior
> > --- End forwarded message ---

Salvete.

I, Decimus Iunius Silanus, Lictor Curiatus Novae
Romae, hereby witness the investment of Gaius
Popillius Laenas with the Imperium Praetoris in the
consulship of Cn. Salix Astur and Gn. Equitius
Marinus.

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus
Lictor





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Agrippina Modia Aurelia"
<whiterose13.geo@y...> wrote:

> BTW: for those who know me & ask why my b/f won't join, this is

one

> of the reasons. He can't fathom how an organization which touts
> itself as a reconstructionist organization debates this. To him it
> was done in Rome, which we claim to reconstruct, therefore it

should

> be done, save where it is against the law. Period. He has stated
> that this argument alone would be more than enough to prove that
> most of the members aren't interested in *reconstructing* anything
> other than loosely historically based fictional accounts of a shiny-
> happy Rome that never existed (& only the really good parts at
> that). He doesn't have the time nor the inclination to roleplay
> (his words)

Rome probably once sacrifice human beings- the Festivals of "King
Saturn" would indicate this. But a time came when human sacrifices
were outlawed by the People of Rome. Times had changed. The Gods were
still happy with the other things they still chose to do.

"Reconstructionism" does not mean that we open a history book, point
to a page, and DO THAT. It means something much deeper- chiefly that
we take into account many factors that didn't exist in ancient times.



G. Agorius Taurinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Dobbins" <drusus@b...> wrote:

> DRUSUS: Being a Polytheist isn't the same thing as being a
> practitioner of the Religio Romana. As a matter of fact it's

possible

> to be a Monotheist, to beleave that all of the Gods are aspects of a
> single God, and still be a practitoner of the Religio Romana. You
> might also want to read some of the writtings of the Church Fathers
> from the third and fourth centiries. You will find that Neo-Platoism
> had a major impact on Christian Theology and doctrine.
>

I have an MA in Theology and Religious Studies from a very well known
Catholic University system- and one of the oldest in the US. I am
very aware of who and what Neo-Platonism was, and what relationship
it had to several of the Church Fathers, as well as its long term
impact on the Church itself.

The church did not "accept" Neo-Platonism; in fact, many of the
church fathers actively turned away from it at their conversions. The
church maintained a "love/hate" relationship with Plato for the
longest time, alternating between condemning Platonism and Neo-
Platonism, and calling Plato a "prophet" of types.

It was the works of Aristotle, ultimately, (not Plato) that would be
the pagan source of so many of the church doctrines- from Augustine
to Aquinas, both of whom shamelessly copied Aristotle's Nichomachean
Ethics straight into their books.


I do not believe that a person can be a true Monotheist and be a
practicioner in the Religio.

> DRUSUS: On the surface he opposed it, but his basic thought patterns
> were those of the Xtian monks who raised him. He decried the symbols
> of Xtanity while continuing to accept many of the underlying

concepts

> of the religion.

I don't think anyone here knew Emperor Julian, so double guessing
what he thought "below the surface" is tricky business. He devoted
his short life and reign to reviving paganism using the only model
that he knew- and that was very important. Like it or not,
christianity TOOK a lot of "underlying concepts" straight from the
Religio Romana, and from the Cults of Mithras, Dionysos, etc. Julian
wasn't allowing "christian" thinking to invade his thoughts- dying
and resurrected Gods, the importance of virtue, conscience, chastity,
all of these things were part of Paganism in many places as well.

> DRUSUS: What Non-Roman Pagans think is as of little relavance as

what

> Christians or Muslims think. The Religio isn't some kind of generic
> paganism, it's a religion in it's own right.

The Religio is not now, nor has it ever been, a "Thing apart" from
everything else. It was born from many, MANY tribal peoples dwelling
in the Italic peninsula, mixed with Etruscan religion, mixed with
incoming Indo-European paganism, mixed with Greek influences (and
direct whole-chunk imports), mixed with Eastern influences, mixed
with every other sort of influence you could imagine.

The fact that the Roman CULTURE was the bed that the Religio lay in
does not mean that it "sprang up alone" straight from Rome and
ignored and resisted all other influences. The "religio" was
different in every household in Rome, where every paterfamilias was
also his home's own pontifex maximus, and different gods and
different spirits were praised and offered to.


You like to call me a "non-Roman pagan" but I am just as Roman as you
are, being a citizen of Nova Roma and a paterfamilias. And there has
never been, historically a "generic paganism"- all paganisms were
tied to the cultures that practised them, and all paganisms recieved
many, many shaping influences from all over the world around their
home cultures.

> DRUSUS: Actually your viewpoint is that attempt to foist concepts

that

> have nothing to do with the Religio Romana onto it's practitioners.
> Have you even read the Decretum on Sacrifices?

I am not attempting to "foist" anything upon anything. I am
answering, with my opinion, a response to a debate which is very
important in the modern pagan world, whether you call
yourself "greek" or "roman" or "germanic" or "celtic". Surely I still
have the right to make an opinion known, and defend it when someone
tries to question it or show that it is "flawed". I am not a generic
pagan; I am a Nova Romani. My paganism is not "generic"- I worship
the Gods of my Greek and Roman ancestors.

> The Collegium Pontificum is the only institution empowered to
>regulate
> the ritual practice of the Religio Publica of Nova Roma.

But the Collegium doesn't do that, does it? 99.999999999% of all
religious practise and devotionals done by Nova Romanis is done at
home, at home shrines. Remember, this is an ONLINE organization- not
a true nation with temples and cities and land. "Publica" means "on
an e-list" somewhere.





Until such a

> time as the Collegium Pontificum may determine that circumstances

are

> appropriate for the full restoration of the cultus of the Religio
> Publica the Collegium neither mandates nor prohibits animal

sacrifice in

> the caerimoniae of the Religio Publica.

I seriously wonder when those "circumstances" will be right. I fear
they never shall be, but then, that might not be a bad thing, either.

>If animal sacrifice is conducted in
> accordance with this decretum, the slaughter of the animal must be
> conducted humanely, in accordance with the mos maiorum,

Ever been to a slaughter house? There is no humane way to cut an
animal's throat, nor smash their heads with mauls, nor shoot them.
This is not something that the Religio in the modern day needs
staining it without considerable thought and consideration.



G. Agorius Taurinus

O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato

BRAVO! This is` EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm interested in hearing
from practitioners. I get to understand the religio a little more.

Thank you, Minucius Hadrianus.

Valete,

Cato


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
<c.minucius.hadrianus@n...> wrote:

> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Quintio Lanio Paulino S.P.D.
>
> Salvete.
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:
>
> >All in all, based on these observations, I feel it is not a good
> >precedent to equate our material downfalls and misfortunes on the
> >personal and national level to the temperament of the spiritual
> >beings. No matter what the religion we follow, it seems that we

are

> >aiming for the next life where things will be better understood;

not

> >necessarily here on earth.
> >
> >
> >
> Your post makes excellent sense directed towards Judeo-Christians,

whose

> religious devotion is directed towards the next life, rather than
> obtaining material rewards and benefits in this one. It really is

not

> relavant to the Religio Romana however. Why? Becuase one of the

Primary

> Goals of the Religio Romana, in both the State and Private cults,

*IS*

> obtaining material rewards and benefits from the Gods in this life.

One

> of the hardest things to understand from a modern (and therefore
> generally Judeo-Christian perspective) is how *fundamentally*

different

> Roman religion is from Christianity and our modern concepts of

Religion

> in general. The Religio does not concern itself with the afterlife

aside

> from honoring and placating the spirits of the deceased. In fact,

the

> Religio has no official policy or dogma about the afterlife at all.

Many

> Romans felt death was the end, period. The whole purpose of the

State

> Religion of Rome was to, on a collective level, entreat the Gods

through

> sacrifice and ritual, to bestow thier blessings and protection to

the

> Roman people i.e. the Pax Deorum. The Romans honestly beleived that
> without the direct and material assistance of the Gods, that they

could

> not (and would not) prosper. That was thier Pietas. When a Roman
> sacrifices or prays, he or she expected a response from the Gods.
> Christains and Roman Polythiests worship thier respective dieties

for

> very different reasons, and with very different expecations.
>
> On another, related note, when a modern follower of the Religio

states

> his or her belief that Roma ultimately fell becuase the people

turned

> away from the Gods and the Pax Deorum for a foreign religion, it is

a

> simple, and logical conclusion based on the very principles the

Religio

> are founded on. To a pacticioner of the Religio, the ultimate fall

of

> Rome has Religious implications.Without the Gods and the Pax

Deorum,

> Roma could not continue as it had done before. I don't expect a
> Christian (or a Historian either) to agree with that, as it is a

matter

> of belief, no different than when a Christian proclaims that Jesus

was

> the son of God, rather than just a man. We don't need to share each
> others beleifs, but we should not attack each others rights to hold

them.

>
> Vale,
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix
>
>
>
> >Regards,
> >
> >Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> >
> >

Ave!

Augustine was very Neo Platonic and was perhaps the most influential Church Father. Aristotelianism became a force in Christianity in the 13th century under the leadership of Thomas Aquinas. The influence of Neo-Platonic thought in early Christianity cannot be under-estimated and I tend to disagree with your love hate relationship. There was far more love than hate there because that philosphy was a perfect fit with the scholarly aspects of Christianity during that time.

Here are some websites for you to explore:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/

"However, before embracing the Faith, Augustine underwent a three years' struggle during which his mind passed through several distinct phases. At first he turned towards the philosophy of the Academics, with its pessimistic scepticism; then neo-Platonic philosophy inspired him with genuine enthusiasm"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/augustin.htm

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: Galus Agorius Taurinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 11:26 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Animal Sacrifice


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Dobbins" <drusus@b...> wrote:



> DRUSUS: Being a Polytheist isn't the same thing as being a
> practitioner of the Religio Romana. As a matter of fact it's
possible
> to be a Monotheist, to beleave that all of the Gods are aspects of a
> single God, and still be a practitoner of the Religio Romana. You
> might also want to read some of the writtings of the Church Fathers
> from the third and fourth centiries. You will find that Neo-Platoism
> had a major impact on Christian Theology and doctrine.
>



I have an MA in Theology and Religious Studies from a very well known
Catholic University system- and one of the oldest in the US. I am
very aware of who and what Neo-Platonism was, and what relationship
it had to several of the Church Fathers, as well as its long term
impact on the Church itself.

The church did not "accept" Neo-Platonism; in fact, many of the
church fathers actively turned away from it at their conversions. The
church maintained a "love/hate" relationship with Plato for the
longest time, alternating between condemning Platonism and Neo-
Platonism, and calling Plato a "prophet" of types.

It was the works of Aristotle, ultimately, (not Plato) that would be
the pagan source of so many of the church doctrines- from Augustine
to Aquinas, both of whom shamelessly copied Aristotle's Nichomachean
Ethics straight into their books.


I do not believe that a person can be a true Monotheist and be a
practicioner in the Religio.




> DRUSUS: On the surface he opposed it, but his basic thought patterns
> were those of the Xtian monks who raised him. He decried the symbols
> of Xtanity while continuing to accept many of the underlying
concepts
> of the religion.




I don't think anyone here knew Emperor Julian, so double guessing
what he thought "below the surface" is tricky business. He devoted
his short life and reign to reviving paganism using the only model
that he knew- and that was very important. Like it or not,
christianity TOOK a lot of "underlying concepts" straight from the
Religio Romana, and from the Cults of Mithras, Dionysos, etc. Julian
wasn't allowing "christian" thinking to invade his thoughts- dying
and resurrected Gods, the importance of virtue, conscience, chastity,
all of these things were part of Paganism in many places as well.





> DRUSUS: What Non-Roman Pagans think is as of little relavance as
what
> Christians or Muslims think. The Religio isn't some kind of generic
> paganism, it's a religion in it's own right.




The Religio is not now, nor has it ever been, a "Thing apart" from
everything else. It was born from many, MANY tribal peoples dwelling
in the Italic peninsula, mixed with Etruscan religion, mixed with
incoming Indo-European paganism, mixed with Greek influences (and
direct whole-chunk imports), mixed with Eastern influences, mixed
with every other sort of influence you could imagine.

The fact that the Roman CULTURE was the bed that the Religio lay in
does not mean that it "sprang up alone" straight from Rome and
ignored and resisted all other influences. The "religio" was
different in every household in Rome, where every paterfamilias was
also his home's own pontifex maximus, and different gods and
different spirits were praised and offered to.


You like to call me a "non-Roman pagan" but I am just as Roman as you
are, being a citizen of Nova Roma and a paterfamilias. And there has
never been, historically a "generic paganism"- all paganisms were
tied to the cultures that practised them, and all paganisms recieved
many, many shaping influences from all over the world around their
home cultures.





> DRUSUS: Actually your viewpoint is that attempt to foist concepts
that
> have nothing to do with the Religio Romana onto it's practitioners.
> Have you even read the Decretum on Sacrifices?




I am not attempting to "foist" anything upon anything. I am
answering, with my opinion, a response to a debate which is very
important in the modern pagan world, whether you call
yourself "greek" or "roman" or "germanic" or "celtic". Surely I still
have the right to make an opinion known, and defend it when someone
tries to question it or show that it is "flawed". I am not a generic
pagan; I am a Nova Romani. My paganism is not "generic"- I worship
the Gods of my Greek and Roman ancestors.




> The Collegium Pontificum is the only institution empowered to
>regulate
> the ritual practice of the Religio Publica of Nova Roma.



But the Collegium doesn't do that, does it? 99.999999999% of all
religious practise and devotionals done by Nova Romanis is done at
home, at home shrines. Remember, this is an ONLINE organization- not
a true nation with temples and cities and land. "Publica" means "on
an e-list" somewhere.





Until such a
> time as the Collegium Pontificum may determine that circumstances
are
> appropriate for the full restoration of the cultus of the Religio
> Publica the Collegium neither mandates nor prohibits animal
sacrifice in
> the caerimoniae of the Religio Publica.




I seriously wonder when those "circumstances" will be right. I fear
they never shall be, but then, that might not be a bad thing, either.




>If animal sacrifice is conducted in
> accordance with this decretum, the slaughter of the animal must be
> conducted humanely, in accordance with the mos maiorum,





Ever been to a slaughter house? There is no humane way to cut an
animal's throat, nor smash their heads with mauls, nor shoot them.
This is not something that the Religio in the modern day needs
staining it without considerable thought and consideration.



G. Agorius Taurinus







Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:

> Ave!
>
> Augustine was very Neo Platonic and was perhaps the most

influential Church Father. Aristotelianism became a force in
Christianity in the 13th century under the leadership of Thomas
Aquinas.



Augustine came up with the doctrine of Original Sin; this singular
contribution to "christianity" makes his contribution and influence
seem much larger than it really is.

Aquinas is by far the largest influence ever on Christianity. He came
behind Augustine and fixed the various problems that Augustine was
never able to address in his own lifetime.

There are many points of Augustinian theology that the church
officially abandoned many years ago, in favor of Thomism.

And as for the man Augustine himself, he was never a Neo-Platonist.
He was a Manichean before he converted, and his earliest writings all
reflect a knowledge of Aristotle, whom he (and later Aquinas) refer
to as "the philosopher". They both go to great lengths to discuss
the "Eudaimonia" aspect of Aristotle, but both choose to place
Eudaimonia as accomplished through Faith in christ, not through pagan
means or lifestyles.

Eudaimonism has nothing to do with neo-platonism. I don't deny that
Neo Platonism was an influence on all religious thinkers in the
ancient world at that time, but great martyrs like Justin, who was a
Neo-Platonist, made great shows of abandoning it and condemning it.

Later scholarly churchmen were able to use the Neo-Platonic tendency
towards Monism as an apologetic point for their monotheism, but it
was still seen as a pagan theology and depending on the era, popes
either condemned it or studied it.



G. Agorius Taurinus

> BTW: for those who know me & ask why my b/f won't join, this is one
> of the reasons. He can't fathom how an organization which touts
> itself as a reconstructionist organization debates this. To him it
> was done in Rome, which we claim to reconstruct, therefore it should
> be done, save where it is against the law. Period. He has stated
> that this argument alone would be more than enough to prove that
> most of the members aren't interested in *reconstructing* anything
> other than loosely historically based fictional accounts of a shiny-
> happy Rome that never existed (& only the really good parts at
> that). He doesn't have the time nor the inclination to roleplay
> (his words)

I've never even met the guy, and I like him already!

Vale,

Metellus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Caecilius Metellus"
<postumianus@g...> wrote:

> > BTW: for those who know me & ask why my b/f won't join, this is

one

> > of the reasons. He can't fathom how an organization which touts
> > itself as a reconstructionist organization debates this. To him

it

> > was done in Rome, which we claim to reconstruct, therefore it

should

> > be done, save where it is against the law. Period. He has

stated

> > that this argument alone would be more than enough to prove that
> > most of the members aren't interested in *reconstructing*

anything

> > other than loosely historically based fictional accounts of a

shiny-

> > happy Rome that never existed (& only the really good parts at
> > that). He doesn't have the time nor the inclination to roleplay
> > (his words)
>


> I've never even met the guy, and I like him already!
>
> Vale,
>
> Metellus

To be perfectly honest, I am suspicious of anyone that accuses others
of "reconstructing a shiny happy wonderland that never existed"-
because almost always, this is just a borderlining-on-ad-hominem
method of condemning another's vision of Rome (or whatever we are
talking about reconstructing).

Not a single person here was ever in Rome. We don't really know what
their every thought, deed, and action was on every subject. All we
have are the annals of history, which I needn't remind you aren't
exactly 100% unbiased nor accurate.

More often, historical records accord with what the historians
desperately desired to believe more than what was.

The point is, Nova Roma is not the Rome of history. It is the vision
of a few people that has gone on to become the vision of many people,
and all of these very modern people are bringing their OWN idea of
what Rome is and should be to this reconstruction.

There are things about Rome, historical Rome, that not a single
person here would EVER want to reconstruct- the fact that WOMEN had
no governmental power, nor practically any self-governance besides-
is only one example.

Now, if we were all about "doing it EXACTLY the way history tells us
it was", why am I even seeing female members of Nova Roma government?
Sounds to me like someone "isn't interested in *reconstructing*
anything other than loosely historically based fictional accounts of
a shiny-happy Rome that never existed".


Taurinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
<g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:

>
> Ever been to a slaughter house? There is no humane way to cut an
> animal's throat, nor smash their heads with mauls, nor shoot them.
> This is not something that the Religio in the modern day needs
> staining it without considerable thought and consideration.
>

Let's see,

My Grandfather was a bookeeper in one when I was a young child, so yes
I have been to a slaughterhouse. What goes on in them has as little to
do with the Religio Romana as a Bar has to do with the wine in a
Christian Communion service.

I Knew how to kill a chicken by the time I was 5. I Have fished my
entire life and still enjoy it. I have been hunting, but don't do it
now. Not because of any "Oooooh I can't kill Bambi" attitude, but
because I don't care for climbing trees and setting in a deer stand.

Unlike you I'm not cut off from the cycle of life by the artifical
world that modern urban dwellers live in, and the same hold for the
Religio, it is a living faith in touch with the cycle of life rather
than a plastic reproduction of what it once was to make it suitable
for a plastic world.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

AMERICA AUSTRORIENTALIS EDICTUM 2757-3

Appointment of Praefectus Regio

I, Gaius Popillius Laenas, Propraetor of America Austrorientalis,
herby appoint

Helena Galeria Aureliana

Praefectus Regio (Legate) of the Carolina Regio of America
Austrorientalis.

Helena Galeria already serves the Province as Sacerdos Primus and
has kindly agreed to add the duties of Praefectus Regio.

Given under my hand, this day August 17 2757 auc, in the Consulship
of Gn. Salix Astur and Gn. Equitius Marinus

Gaius Popillius Laenas
Propraetor America Austrorientalis

Hunting is a big deal up here. I don't know about other places. I,
myself, regretfully never learned to hunt since my family was more
into just the guys sort of thing *lol*. I am determined to learn
however :) It is an excellent source of food.
I come from a family of hunters, on both sides. People in southern
Alaska who hunted deer. I do have many found memories of the hauling
in of deer into the garage to be butchered for the meal. Here in more
norther Alaska I have family that hunts moose.
I grew up fishing, and even spent summers on my uncles boats hauling
in nets of fish, clubbing them over the head so they don't jump out,
and then gutting them on the main boat. Personally I greatly miss
fishing.
Not to mention aunts who raised chickens for food *lol*.
I live right now in the biggest city in Anchorage, and a large number
of people I know still hunt and fish. perhaps they do not depend on
it as much as the people outside of the city, but it is still a
provision of food.
Personally I think deer meat is very tasty *grins*, moose is a bit on
the dry side though *lol*.

Given the choice to eat deer or eat processed hamburger from the
grocery store, I think my choice would be very obvious. I don't much
care for cow meat or pork except eating it once in a while. I do like
eating chicken, and do plan to raise chickens and rabbits for food
when I move out of the city and can have barn yard animals :)

I do offer a portion of my meal to my gods. right now there is no
need and no space for me to sacrafice. But when I get to the point
where I am raising my chickens and rabbits for food (both are pretty
darn tasty meat), then I would be more then happy to do it in a
manner that is pleasing to the gods.
And when I learn to hunt I will do in spirit of celebration to hunt
of Diana. And offer her prayers, incense and the best of
deer/moose/whatever afterwards :)

Lucia Modia Lupa

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Dobbins" <drusus@b...> wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
> <g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ever been to a slaughter house? There is no humane way to cut an
> > animal's throat, nor smash their heads with mauls, nor shoot
them.
> > This is not something that the Religio in the modern day needs
> > staining it without considerable thought and consideration.
> >
>
> Let's see,
>
> My Grandfather was a bookeeper in one when I was a young child, so
yes
> I have been to a slaughterhouse. What goes on in them has as little
to
> do with the Religio Romana as a Bar has to do with the wine in a
> Christian Communion service.
>
> I Knew how to kill a chicken by the time I was 5. I Have fished my
> entire life and still enjoy it. I have been hunting, but don't do it
> now. Not because of any "Oooooh I can't kill Bambi" attitude, but
> because I don't care for climbing trees and setting in a deer stand.
>
> Unlike you I'm not cut off from the cycle of life by the artifical
> world that modern urban dwellers live in, and the same hold for the
> Religio, it is a living faith in touch with the cycle of life rather
> than a plastic reproduction of what it once was to make it suitable
> for a plastic world.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Pontifex

> To be perfectly honest, I am suspicious of anyone that accuses others
> of "reconstructing a shiny happy wonderland that never existed"-
> because almost always, this is just a borderlining-on-ad-hominem
> method of condemning another's vision of Rome (or whatever we are
> talking about reconstructing).

No, I don't think so, honestly. I think it's a way of saying simply that one believes that we are not reconstructing Rome insofar as his vision of Rome is concerned. I don't think it would be your "borderlining-on-ad-hominem" attack. Rather far away from it, I think.

> Not a single person here was ever in Rome. We don't really know what
> their every thought, deed, and action was on every subject. All we
> have are the annals of history, which I needn't remind you aren't
> exactly 100% unbiased nor accurate.

True. But if you take the opinions out of things, and get down to simply what happened, we do get a decent idea of what happened. Even with the opinions, that gives us ideas of how certain people thought, albeit not necessarily the opinion of the populace-at-large.

> The point is, Nova Roma is not the Rome of history. It is the vision
> of a few people that has gone on to become the vision of many people,
> and all of these very modern people are bringing their OWN idea of
> what Rome is and should be to this reconstruction.

Precisely. Nova Roma is not the Rome of history. We can't entirely think like the Romans of history. But we can try. We can remove our modern tendencies and look at the what, how, and why of Antiquity, and try to bring ourselves as close to that as possible. We can cease making concessions to modernity, and start trying to be true to history. We will never be what our ancestors were. But we can try to get as close as possible, and I think we're failing in that regard, and will continue to do so for as long as we keep our computers as our primary means of communication.

> There are things about Rome, historical Rome, that not a single
> person here would EVER want to reconstruct- the fact that WOMEN had
> no governmental power, nor practically any self-governance besides-
> is only one example.

Are you sure about that? Granted, I'm not against women being in such positions on a personal level, insofar as reconstructing goes, we run into a different opinion.

> Now, if we were all about "doing it EXACTLY the way history tells us
> it was", why am I even seeing female members of Nova Roma government?
> Sounds to me like someone "isn't interested in *reconstructing*
> anything other than loosely historically based fictional accounts of
> a shiny-happy Rome that never existed".

Sounds to me like you haven't stopped to get my opinion on the matter.

Vale,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Dobbins" <drusus@b...> wrote:

> Let's see,
>
> My Grandfather was a bookeeper in one when I was a young child, so

yes

> I have been to a slaughterhouse. What goes on in them has as little

to

> do with the Religio Romana as a Bar has to do with the wine in a
> Christian Communion service.

I didn't say anything about the Religio taking place in
Slaughterhouses. What I said was simply that there is no humane way
to cut a throat or bash a head. Killing an animal in the Religio does
not suddenly transport the animal or the killer of the animal "away"
from all the inhumanity of a slaughterhouse; on the contrary, it
brings in a very huge element of bloodshed, and puts it in the laps
(and backyards) of mostly urban pagans who have never had to kill
anything in their lives. This is a problem. And making them kill
things, or letting them see things killed, is not going to
magically "restore their connection" to some "lost" way that people
used to be- even in ancient Rome, sacrifice was done on religious
festivals, and the average person NEVER did it- they got 99% of the
meat they ate from these festivals.

> I Knew how to kill a chicken by the time I was 5. I Have fished my
> entire life and still enjoy it. I have been hunting, but don't do it
> now. Not because of any "Oooooh I can't kill Bambi" attitude, but
> because I don't care for climbing trees and setting in a deer stand.

Your resume of how you can kill and living stalk creatures is not in
question, and I don't see how it has anything to do with the Religio.

> Unlike you I'm not cut off from the cycle of life by the artifical
> world that modern urban dwellers live in, and the same hold for the
> Religio, it is a living faith in touch with the cycle of life rather
> than a plastic reproduction of what it once was to make it suitable
> for a plastic world.

1. You don't know who I am or where I come from; I too have fished,
hunted, and lived in the country for most of my life.

2. The "cycle of life" does not include altars and latin prayers and
animals getting their throats cut- I would daresay that this practise
is a human contrivance, layered neatly and traditionally (in the old
days) into the cycle of the food-chain.

As I have said before, the social structures and realities that
existed in the old days to uphold the institution of sacrifice no
longer exist, and we cannot just "recreate" them with a history book
or three.

We also can't just say "well, I've hunted and fished, so I am
qualified to cut an animal's throat for the Gods- I have a
connection, etc. etc." Because not a single one of us grew up around
a socially sanctioned and functioning pagan sacrifice system.


The Religio, as history reveals it to us, was suitable for a world
that is gone, long gone. It can return, but not before we are
prepared to re-integrate it into ourselves and into society in such a
manner that we don't come off as blind, dogmatic modern people
grasping at what we think might have been some form of piety. You
want to bring Roman prayers back to the slaughterhouse? Name all
slaughterhouses "temples"? Re-convince everyone in society that these
religious rites make "the gods happy"? You have a long way to go.


I don't think you or anyone here, or our great-great-great
grandchildren are going to see that happen. We had better settle for
what Fate has allowed us to have in this life- and Fate has not given
us the ancient Roman sacrificer's manual. She has given us a sense of
respect and a desire to hearken back to pagan times, and a sense of
history and pride in the past, and a love for the Old Gods and
customs- but these things are like the ruins of the Temples in Italy
today- fallen stones, decaying in the breeze; scattered, fragmented,
lonely.


It is the work of a poet and a mystic that will bring the bones back
together, and see them live in a form that doesn't come off as
contrived, hurried, and uninformed by anything other than a history
book or a book on Ancient Roman Religion that (I can assure you) was
probably written by a christian.


Compassion by itself is not something that needs to be scoffed at or
called "non-roman".


Galus Agorius Taurinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Caecilius Metellus"
<postumianus@g...> wrote:

>> Are you sure about that? Granted, I'm not against women being in
>such positions on a personal level, insofar as reconstructing goes,
>we run into a different opinion.

Quite Sure. Women were not allowed to hold governmental offices in
Ancient Rome, for any reason. They were also all but the property of
their husbands. Only priestesses had any release from that system,
and even then- it wasn't perfect.


So, Nova Roma is more than willing to CHANGE when it comes to women's
liberation, but not when it comes to how we deal with matters like
the Religio... interesting.

> Sounds to me like you haven't stopped to get my opinion on the
>matter.
>

I wasn't after your opinion on the matter; I was merely pointing out
what I consider to be a double-standard, on the parts of the hard-
liners here who say that we need to open the pages of history books,
point to a chapter on Rome, and DO THAT EXACTLY, and anyone who dares
mention that we should reconsider SOME things based on the MODERN day
and the changes that the world has undergone, are accused of

"foisting" their opinions on the "sacred religio",

of "not reconstructing what was, but a shiny happy Rome that never
existed"


...and the like.


I mean no offense to you or anyone else; I am not here to fight. I am
simply trying to be a voice of reason and moderation.



Regards,

G. Agorius Taurinus

Salve Taurine,

> >> Are you sure about that? Granted, I'm not against women being in
> >such positions on a personal level, insofar as reconstructing goes,
> >we run into a different opinion.
>
>
>
> Quite Sure. Women were not allowed to hold governmental offices in
> Ancient Rome, for any reason. They were also all but the property of
> their husbands. Only priestesses had any release from that system,
> and even then- it wasn't perfect.

I agree with that. I was referring to your saying that we were of the opinion that bending on women's liberation is acceptable. I was questioning your confidence in the fact that there are things that no one would want to reconstruct. You offered the example of women, and I was asking if you were sure I thought it acceptable in a reconstruction attempt.

Moving right along...

> I mean no offense to you or anyone else; I am not here to fight. I am
> simply trying to be a voice of reason and moderation.

I can accept this. I'm not here to fight either, but I will offer my opinion when I think it's warranted.

Vale,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus

Salvete Omnes:

I have been out of town for a few days, without computer access, and
so a delay in this message.

My congratulations to the elected magistrates in the recent
election, and for the legislations passed in the comitiae.

I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to those who
supported me as a candidate.

Be well,
Po

G. Popillius Laenas Galo Agorio Taurino slautem dicit,


As you have returned to Nova Roma after quite a long absense you may
not know that this debate over blood sacrifice has been going on for
quite some time.

The current posiiton of the Collegium Pontificum is that such
sacrifice is neither mandated nor prohibited. The Collegium has
further determined not to ask the Senate for any funding regarding
such sacrifices. A private such fund, however, has been set up.

You can read the Collegium's decretum here:

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/pontifices/2004-04-24.html

It is not my intent to curb the exchange of ideas between politie
and civil posters. However, from what I have read over the months,
it is highly unlikely any opinions on this subject are going to be
changed by this debate.


Vale.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
<ksterne@b...> wrote:

>
> It is not my intent to curb the exchange of ideas between politie
> and civil posters. However, from what I have read over the months,
> it is highly unlikely any opinions on this subject are going to be
> changed by this debate.
>
>
> Vale.

I don't want to change opinions, in the end- I just want to make
certain that those who are interested know where I stand and
(hopefully) those who agree with me will aid me, and find me a worthy
addition to their "side" in this debate. Among them, and the rest of
the moderates and compassionates, I will find rest and succor.


I also wanted all who may have been wavering on this issue to know
that a person can be a very "hard" pagan, very devoted to the Gods
and the Religio, and not have to passively or actively support live
animal sacrifice.


G.Agorius Taurinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Dobbins" <drusus@b...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
>> DRUSUS: Being a Polytheist isn't the same thing as being a
> practitioner of the Religio Romana. As a matter of fact it's

possible

> to be a Monotheist, to beleave that all of the Gods are aspects of

a

> single God, and still be a practitoner of the Religio Romana.

Salve,

Just a minor technical point. A person who believes that all Gods
are aspects of a single God wouldn't be a monotheist. Such a person
would be a henotheist or monolatrist. I think henotheist would be
the more accurate of the two as a monolatrist while believing that
there are more than one divine entities out there only feels that
one is worthy of worship, while the henotheist would focus on one
particular diety but feel that the others that may be out there are
equally worthy of worship.

Vale,

Calvus

Salvete,

I have recently started a new group which cointains information on
Ancient Rome, pictures etc. I am building this group up slowly
adding information as and when I can. NR members are more than
welcome and I would also appreciate any suggestions with regards rto
information you would like to see.

Pleasse check it out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Romanum/

Valete

Lucius Valerianus Severus

Actually, as a side note, Romans and Greeks expected the same thing
from other institutions outside the Religio. The Mystery cults
focused on a return also on behalf of the gods, whether in
experiencing immortality or closer communion and identification with
the gods. The same holds true to an extent with the collegia, or
burial societies. Individuals were assured by their membership that
their names and status would be remembered by men. When they honoured
the gods through the decoration on sarcophogi in the form of images
or prayers, they did so expecting the gods to remember them and look
after their worldly remains.

This isn't so foreign, either. A practicing Jew could easily
understand the concept of the Pax Deorum and the pact that upholds
it. It's analagous to the Covenant at Sinai. In exchange for
upholding the laws and commandments of YHWH (and by extension,
maintaining the sacrifice and burnt-offerings on behalf of the
spiritual well being of Israel), God gives the Israelites a land to
call their own, protection, and peace. This also applies to
individuals making offerings to YHWH on their behalf, for sins
commited, error in following the law, etc. God will grant them
prosperity in this life, and sometimes even the next, on an
individual basis in exchange. This obedience collectively combined,
in addition to the sacrifices performed on behalf of the nation, God
grants them peace and tranquility. When the people as a whole
transgress the laws, God does not hold up his end of the bargain
until they "turn back to Him and His laws". Major disasters in Jewish
history are perceived this way and intepreted thus by the Prophets.

Individually, kings of Israel and Judah were 'sacrificed' because of
their infedility to YHWH by practicing pagan religion and putting
other [Canaanite] gods before Him. The whole ordeal of the
destruction of the first temple and the subsequent exhile in Babylon
was seen as a sort of 'purgatory' for sins against God by the Jewish
people. Similarly, when Rome destroyed the second temple, the
majority of later Jews saw it as punishment for straying into
Hellenism and many of the faith assimilating the worship of the Roman
gods (hence the necissity of the Talmuds, to correct errors in
interpreting both written and oral Torah). This provided the catalyst
for keeping the laws as best they could and preserving Jewish culture
by formation of the rabbinical system of Judaism.

This can arguably also be equated to what we in Nova Roma are
attempting to do with the religio in restoring the Pax Deorum. The
ideas behind it are not at all that dissimilar.

I'm sure this doesn't do justice to help explain the underlying
concepts, but I think it provides a suitable analogy for those
outside the Religio.

Vale,
L. Modius Kaelus Iulianus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:

> O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato
>
> BRAVO! This is` EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm interested in

hearing

> from practitioners. I get to understand the religio a little more.
>
> Thank you, Minucius Hadrianus.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>

> Rome probably once sacrifice human beings- the Festivals of "King
> Saturn" would indicate this. But a time came when human sacrifices
> were outlawed by the People of Rome. Times had changed. The Gods

were

> still happy with the other things they still chose to do.
>
> "Reconstructionism" does not mean that we open a history book,

point

> to a page, and DO THAT. It means something much deeper- chiefly

that

> we take into account many factors that didn't exist in ancient

times.

>
>
>
> G. Agorius Taurinus

Human sacrifice was abandoned in the classical ancient world largely
on a theological basis, though the underlying reasons behind the
theology may have been quite different and more social, depending on
your perspective. It's been mentioned in many cultures that the
reason for the Deluge or Great Cataclysm was an over-abundance of
human sacrifice and/or canabislism, and this was not pleasing to the
gods. It can also be loosely interpreted as that it was perceived as
contrary to nature, and thus people became inhuman in doing so. An
easy reference to at least this attitude can be found in Genesis,
when the reason stated for the flood is that people were consuming
blood (general scholarly consensus says that it probably orginally
referred to canabilsm rather than drinking blood of sacrifice
victims, as is prohibited in Jewish law). This isn't found
universally in extant written accounts of ante-deluvian times such as
those of Utnaphistim or Deukalion, but those reasons are stated in
some versions, and several commentators hold the consensus. Nothing
concrete, but it's something to think about.

This is the main point of my reply, Taurinus. These "factors" which
didn't exist in ancient times were not a result of
paganism 'evolving' beyond that point, or social norms and ideas
changing within the contexts of pagan societies. Pagan culture and
religion were largely interrupted by the advent of two monotheist
relgions: Christianity, and later, Islam, which did not modify
classical pagan religion, but supplanted and usurped it. To my
knowledge, no continuing ancient polythiestic religion has
exclusively banned or "risen above" animal sacrifice. This includes
one of the two historical paths of Hinduism, which while a minority
still by and large practises animal sacrifice. Voudoun (Voodoo),
other African polythiestic religions, Chinese polytheism, Shintoism,
and several native american religions, among others, still almost
uninformally practise animal sacrifice. Where it is not is almost
always a result of influence from foreign religions, or enforced
state athiesm; abandonment is not naturally occurring within those
religions. Hinduism is a modern polythiestic religion, rooted in as
much antiquity as the Religio. I have no quarrel with those for or
against animal sacrifice.. but to discount it totally because of our
current norms and values is not true reconstructionism, but rather
bowing to the modern perceptions of a * particular time and place in
history. * Our time, western Judeo-Christian culture. The cultural
taboo, whether you argue based on ethics or any other criterion, is
not universal. As any good anthropologist would tell you, any
argument discounting any particular idea or value is a result of your
perception of the world through a lens of particular norms which form
cultural constructs. One has to evaluate particular concepts in the
context of which they are given, and in which case each practice,
tradition, and idea (in a system) is afforded the same EQUAL dignity
as the next. Qualification is in the eye of the beholder.

Vale bene,
L. Modius Kaelus Iulianus

Friend Taurinus, Salve.

I think this divergence comes primarily from various interpretations
of the Mos Maiorum. While we want to recreate Roman society and
culture, we can't do so exactly. What we can do is try to reconstruct
it to the point that it supports the Religio Publica, which is
exactly what the formation of the governmental system was intended to
provide. Who holds the office, what magistrative capacity in which
they serve, etcetera is not as important as ensuring that the office
exists so that they may fullfill the religious obligations of those
offices in support of the reconstruction of the Religio Publica. We
want the framework, and we want to adorn and build upon the cultural
foundation in which the framework is supported as much as possible by
adopting the cultural values and practices associated with it. But I
think, in my opinion, it's meant to serve a primarily utilitarian
purpose in support of the religion. Cultural reconstruction in other
areas is important and may be the primary motivation and activity for
some cives in Nova Roma. But the cultural foundations which lay at
the base of the religio publica, and the state on which it is
supported, is the most important in INSTITUTING and making effort to
approximate it as close to Roma Antiqua as possible. It's only in
this way that the religio can be a public, thriving, living religion.

Just my opinion, as I'm sure others may differ.

Vale,
L. Modius Kaelus Iulianus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
<g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Caecilius Metellus"
> <postumianus@g...> wrote:
>
>
> >> Are you sure about that? Granted, I'm not against women being

in

> >such positions on a personal level, insofar as reconstructing

goes,

> >we run into a different opinion.
>
>
>
> Quite Sure. Women were not allowed to hold governmental offices in
> Ancient Rome, for any reason. They were also all but the property

of

> their husbands. Only priestesses had any release from that system,
> and even then- it wasn't perfect.
>
>
> So, Nova Roma is more than willing to CHANGE when it comes to

women's

> liberation, but not when it comes to how we deal with matters like
> the Religio... interesting.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sounds to me like you haven't stopped to get my opinion on the
> >matter.
> >
>
>
> I wasn't after your opinion on the matter; I was merely pointing

out

> what I consider to be a double-standard, on the parts of the hard-
> liners here who say that we need to open the pages of history

books,

> point to a chapter on Rome, and DO THAT EXACTLY, and anyone who

dares

> mention that we should reconsider SOME things based on the MODERN

day

> and the changes that the world has undergone, are accused of
>
> "foisting" their opinions on the "sacred religio",
>
> of "not reconstructing what was, but a shiny happy Rome that never
> existed"
>
>
> ...and the like.
>
>
> I mean no offense to you or anyone else; I am not here to fight. I

am

> simply trying to be a voice of reason and moderation.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> G. Agorius Taurinus

Gaius Modius Athanasius G. Agorio Taurino salutem dicit

You showed up on this list almost two years ago without the intention of a
fight, and caused quite a commotion.

You are back again, and controversial conversation follows.

Two years ago you attacked Christianity with a vengence, and now you seem to
be attacking any view of the Religio against your own. Are you absolutely
sure you are not here to cause a fight?

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 8/17/2004 4:08:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
g_agorius_taurinus@... writes:
I mean no offense to you or anyone else; I am not here to fight. I am
simply trying to be a voice of reason and moderation.



Regards,

G. Agorius Taurinus


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

Salvete, pater Modii.

Is this the very Taurinus that was the catalyst for Pompeia's
resignation? If that's so.. then I must say, Agorus, you certainly
can make an argument much better now than what I read in the
archives. And you're even a little more civil.
And that's a compliment, by the way.. though I didn't agree with your
conduct from what I read Taurinus, at all.

Vale bene,
L. Modius Kaelus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Gaius Modius Athanasius G. Agorio Taurino salutem dicit
>
> You showed up on this list almost two years ago without the
intention of a
> fight, and caused quite a commotion.
>
> You are back again, and controversial conversation follows.
>
> Two years ago you attacked Christianity with a vengence, and now
you seem to
> be attacking any view of the Religio against your own. Are you
absolutely
> sure you are not here to cause a fight?
>

Gaius Modius Athanasius L. Modio Kaelo salutem dicit

He would be one and the same person.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 8/17/2004 11:49:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
xkaelusx@... writes:
Salvete, pater Modii.

Is this the very Taurinus that was the catalyst for Pompeia's
resignation? If that's so.. then I must say, Agorus, you certainly
can make an argument much better now than what I read in the
archives. And you're even a little more civil.
And that's a compliment, by the way.. though I didn't agree with your
conduct from what I read Taurinus, at all.

Vale bene,
L. Modius Kaelus


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Modius Kaelus" <xkaelusx@y...>
wrote:

> Salvete, pater Modii.

> Is this the very Taurinus that was the catalyst for Pompeia's
> resignation? If that's so.. then I must say, Agorus, you certainly
> can make an argument much better now than what I read in the
> archives. And you're even a little more civil.
> And that's a compliment, by the way.. though I didn't agree with

your

> conduct from what I read Taurinus, at all.
>

This would be a fine (if a touch condescending) compliment to me, if
I were, in fact, here seeking compliments, when I am not. I am only
here to present an alternate view. I am not trying to fight. I think
that every person should have the right to speak openly and clearly.

Pompeia was, as I remember her, a woman of honor- she did not need me
to "catalyze" anything. She made her own decision. I look forward to
talking to her again, whenever I can locate her.

It's always better to be civil. One of the biggest mistakes I made
last time was to be uncivil when there was no real cause.


Taurinus

Many apologies, but I do not quite remember this person
who "resigned" over my statements the last time I was here. I may be
getting her confused with someone else- if this woman hated me or my
statements, then I retract what I said about her earlier- I may have
been mistaking her for another woman here at Nova Roma that was kind
to me when I was here.

If I was correct, and this woman made her resignation because she
supported something I said, then my original comment stands, and I
hope to find her soon.


Galus Agorius Taurinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:

> Gaius Modius Athanasius G. Agorio Taurino salutem dicit
>
> You showed up on this list almost two years ago without the

intention of a

> fight, and caused quite a commotion.
>
> You are back again, and controversial conversation follows.
>
> Two years ago you attacked Christianity with a vengence, and now

you seem to

> be attacking any view of the Religio against your own. Are you

absolutely

> sure you are not here to cause a fight?
>
>

I am attacking nothing; I am presenting, in a civil manner, an
alternate opinion that has as much validity as any group of modern
people who claim to interpret the "Religio" of Rome.


I think that you are becoming very defensive in a very un-needed and
non-helpful manner, and to be honest, I think this says more about
you than I. I am not trying to fight. Truly.


Galus Agorius Taurinus

17 Augusto 04

Dear Sir,

Honorable friend, I am not the very Taurinus which you think and to tell the truth, it is my intention to join your micro nation of disciplined persons with systematic form of organization. It so happened when browsing the web and encountering your official micro nation web site and upon reading your constitution which am decided to join.

In behalf t'was looking for Porticus since I have adopted that Nomen and my Praenomen is Marcus which there were names written and address through email but non existent. It is the blessing of God that you sent me this letter that we cross our paths. Valerius 013@... is my e mail address and am not yet a citizen or member of your organisation. Seems there is war inside the micro nation which I wanted to be a citizen.

Perhaps, you can help me find my way towards the micro nation and who might think by ideas and other means I can be of help since billions of people of different nationalities are roaming here on earth, and will remember by your grace that way was found.


So long and till next time hearing from you.

Porticus Marcus


"L. Modius Kaelus" <xkaelusx@...> wrote:
Salvete, pater Modii.

Is this the very Taurinus that was the catalyst for Pompeia's
resignation? If that's so.. then I must say, Agorus, you certainly
can make an argument much better now than what I read in the
archives. And you're even a little more civil.
And that's a compliment, by the way.. though I didn't agree with your
conduct from what I read Taurinus, at all.

Vale bene,
L. Modius Kaelus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Gaius Modius Athanasius G. Agorio Taurino salutem dicit
>
> You showed up on this list almost two years ago without the
intention of a
> fight, and caused quite a commotion.
>
> You are back again, and controversial conversation follows.
>
> Two years ago you attacked Christianity with a vengence, and now
you seem to
> be attacking any view of the Religio against your own. Are you
absolutely
> sure you are not here to cause a fight?
>



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

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