> Vale
> Gaius Basilicatus Agricola

> is there a mailing list for America Austroccidentalis Provincia?

> Would it be possible for America Austroccidentalis Provincia to set
> up a separate account to collect funds to build on the land in West
> Texas

----- Original Message -----
From: quintuscassiuscalvus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:48 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Sad day in the Cassius Calvus home


Salvete,

Tonight I've had to make a difficult decision that I knew was
coming, but I didn't want to make as I was hoping nature would take
its course.

Tommorow I will be bringing my furry friend, Rodie, to the vet for
that one last trip. He has been more waddling than walking the past
few days and tonight he turned his nose up at a raisin which has
always been his favorite treat. That tells me all I need to know
that life for him is no longer a blessing.

In the two years that I have had to spoil him rotten he has always
been an endless source of amusement and never once bitten me no
matter how much he hated being picked up (though he loved being put
in his ball so he could run around the place) when I cleaned his
cage.

I know this is not as catastrophic as losing a human family member,
but to me it feels the same.

For a picture of how I wish to always remember the little guy,
http://home.comcast.net/~richmal/new_page_3.htm

Valete,

Q. Cassius Calvus



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]

> Salve Gai Gemini,
>
> Gaius Geminius Germanus asked:
>
> > is there a mailing list for America Austroccidentalis Provincia?
>
> There are four, though I don't know if any are active. All of

> in yahoogroups. The description after the group name is taken

> Yahoo listing.
>
> Austroccidentalis
> This groups is primarily for citizens of the Nova Roma Province of
> America Austroccidentalis. However anyone interested in the

> history or religion of Rome may subscribe.
>
> NR_Austroccidentalis
> The list for discussion of provincial business and building

> the Provincia America Austroccidentalis of Nova Roma, comprising

> NM, OK, UT, and AZ.
>
> America_Austroccidentalis
> A discussion group for all members of Nova Roma, but primarily for

> cives of Provinciae America Austroccidentalis.
>
> Apiciusfriends
> Recipe box for Nova Roma provincia America Austroccidentalis.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus

> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Daniel wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible for America Austroccidentalis Provincia to

> > up a separate account to collect funds to build on the land in

> > Texas
>
> This is a question that requires two answers. First, any province

> have its own savings account for anything allowed by macronational

> But once the province decided to actually start spending the

> site improvements, approval of the Senate would be needed since

> Ager Publicus.
>
> Valete,
>
> -- Marinus

> Thank you for the info. It looks like the top two (the more
> important ones are not active. For citizens of the Province. How
> do I get active within the province

> How would I go about getting a saving account set up for the
> province within the Nova Roma corporate entity.

>
> Titus wrote:
>
> "I agree, it is getting old and that is all I have been trying to explain,
> we seem to be the only two in here that feel this way. The two groups need
> to call a truce and exist together and deal with it."
>
> I agree. And by existing together, I take it you mean we must crush all who
> oppose us?
>
> GBA
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

> Salve Gai Gemini,
>
> G. Geminius Germanus writes:
>
> > How would I go about getting a saving account set up for the
> > province within the Nova Roma corporate entity.
>
> Your propraetor, if you had a propraetor, (there currently isn't

> your province) could set up an account using our corporate tax

> information. Until we can actually get somebody who wants to take

> the job I think your best bet would be a simple personal savings

>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus

> Avete Quirites.
>
> I hereby assign the newly elected quaestor Gaius Moravius Laureatus
> Armoricusto work with the aedilis curulis Marcus Iulius Perusianus.
>
> Datum a.d. IX Kalendas Septembras anno MMDCCLVII A.V.C.
>
> CN.SALIX.T.F.A.NEP.OVF.ASTVR
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: John Dobbins
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:36 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Fwd: RE: The meaning of sacrifice Re: [[ReligioRomana]


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...>
wrote:
> Salvete omnes,
>
> At the risk of entering a religious discussion with my philosophical
> point of view, I'm going to offer some thoughts here...
>
> Maior wrote:
>
> > I suggest you and others read Pontifex Gryllus's references to King
> > Numa the founder of the Religio who forbade blood sacrifice.
>


The Immortals are quite capable of raising our little village of Nova
Roma up too, but I see no reason why they would do so if we place
pleasing humans above them.

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]

> Sorry for such a late response, but I've been in north beach Miami

>
> The problem with "modern" paganism is we redesign the past to fit
>the conventions of today. If we don't like something change it and
>say that's what the immortals desire..mostly because its what we
>desire. While innovation is necessary, it can't be done legitimately
>until we have a strong foundation in which to build. The best
>foundation we of the Religio can have is to "master" the way our
>adopted ancestors worshipped and go from there. I don't think it is
>possible that the immortals didn't want blood sacrifice, because
>they received blood sacrifice from our adopted ancestors.

>
> There is no mythological source extant in which the God demand blood
> sacrifice from humans.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Charlie Collins <iguard@g...> wrote:
> I am a Deist. Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists. When asked
Thomas Paine
> said "God Exsists, and there it lies". For more info on Deism go to
this site:
>
> http://www.deistnet.com/deism.htm
>
> From the United Deist Church:
>
> " I freely believe in God as being discovered through nature and
> reason, rejecting revealed religion and its authority over
humanity. I
> believe that all humans are equal. Further, as God has not shown
favor
> for one people over another and has given us all that we need, that
we
> should follow God's example and give to others as we can."
>
> Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus
>
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:31:45 -0500, James LaSalle
> <jlasalle@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Titus wrote:
> >
> > "I agree, it is getting old and that is all I have been trying to
explain,
> > we seem to be the only two in here that feel this way. The two
groups need
> > to call a truce and exist together and deal with it."
> >
> > I agree. And by existing together, I take it you mean we must
crush all who
> > oppose us?
> >
> > GBA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> iChatAV/AIM: RomanHillbilly

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Charlie Collins <iguard@g...> wrote:
> I am a Deist. Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists. When asked
Thomas Paine
> said "God Exsists, and there it lies". For more info on Deism go to
this site:
>

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

> Q. Caecilius Metellus Galo Agorio Taurino salutem dicit

>
> Salve,
>
> Rather than reply to your post point-by-point, if I may, I'd like
>to simplify things. From what I understand, it is your position
>that, because there are no extant sources which show that the Gods ?
>demanded animal sacrifices, we, as a People, and we, as individuals,
>should not perform animal sacrifices. Am I correct here?

> Moving on the assumption that I am correct above, my response is
>that, in the first place, we also have no sources which show that
>the Gods were not pleased by animal sacrifices. On the contrary, in
>fact, the sources at least imply that, by offering sacrifices of the
>correct animals at the correct times to the correct Gods in the
>correct manners, the Gods were well placated and, because of this,

> Furthermore, by the nature of the domestic Roman Religion (i.e.,
>without foreign cults, such as Magna Mater, Mithras, Isis and
>Serapis, etc.), it was the pious way of doing things to follow the
>example of ancestors. It is because this is the pious way, and that
>this is the way the Religio worked, that animal sacrifices should
>still be performed.

> Being the omnipotent beings that they are, the Gods are well able
>to inform us if they are not pleased by a sacrifice, and, indeed,
>they do just that, when an animal does not submit to being
>sacrificed, or when the exta are not as they should be.

> I know too that you may respond by stating that the Gods are also
>just as able to tell us if they do not want sacrifices at all, with
>which I agree. At the same time, though, it must be said that I
>have seen no sign that the Gods go un-pleased by sacrifice.

> My experience is that the Gods have been more propitious since
>sacrifices have been performed on the behalf of the Senate and the
>Roman People of the Quirites, and I believe that this is, in and of
>itself, a sign that the Gods desire sacrifices, or are at least
>placated by them.

> Salve:
>
> I don not wish to contradict someone I hold in such high esteem,

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
> <g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > There is no mythological source extant in which the God demand

> > sacrifice from humans.
>

> You have repeated that over and over while ignoring numerous

> that animal sacrifices were the norm and were pleasing to the Gods,
> citations from people who had access to information that we no

> have.

> If Animal sacrifices weren't required I think that the ancients
> with their wider source of materials would have discovered this.

> It's very clear that the animal sacrifices were pleasing to the
> immortals, something that is NOT clear about your personal desire to
> avoid animal sacrifices.

> One thing is very clear however, that you place your personal
>feelings
> about animal sacrifices ahead of honoring the immortals.

> ... I can only sigh, laugh, and worry
> when a political
> commentator (or anyone not so informed, for that
> matter) says our
> country is founded on Christian values. And people
> believe them.

> Incense was also pleasing to the Gods. So were sacred Hymnodia. So
> were festivals. So were Epic stories in which they were presented and
> praised. Animal Sacrifice, like any other sacrifice, would be
> pleasing to the Gods. But that doesn't mean that they demanded, or
> that they need it.

> Modern pagans have almost none of those
> things, in 99.999 percent of all cases, and modern pagans certainly
> don't have the last of those three things, in any case.

> My personal desires have nothing at all to do with this issue.

> The issue here is simple: Was animal
> sacrifice required by the Gods? The answer is no.

> I do nothing of the kind. You continually try to confuse this issue
> by making statements about my personal religious life, but that is
> not what this is about.

> I am only respectfully trying to speak for
> history. And as I said, there were Romans that were against Animal
> Sacrifice.

> A. Apollonius Cordus L. Modio Kaelo omnibusque sal.
>
> > ... I can only sigh, laugh, and worry
> > when a political
> > commentator (or anyone not so informed, for that
> > matter) says our
> > country is founded on Christian values. And people
> > believe them.
>
> Which is strange, because our country was founded
> seven hundred and fifty-three years before the birth
> of Christ. :)
>
> I don't mean to pick on you particularly - I know
> Lentulus made the same slip, and a few days ago
> Valeria Messalina said several times something like
> "this is not Rome, this is the USA". Please, Quirites,
> remember that this is not the USA, this is Rome. Our
> founding fathers are Vedius Germanicus and Cassius
> Iulianus.
>
> The fact that English is the dominant language on this
> list, and in Nova Roma generally, already makes many
> of our fellow-citizens who are not from North America,
> Australasia, or the UK feel rather excluded. There's
> not a lot we can do about that except all try to learn
> more Latin. But we can try not to make them feel even
> more left out by talking about Nova Roma as though it
> doesn't exist outside the USA. Sorry to be dull, but
> that's me. :)
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW

> "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
> sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no
> character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of
> Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war

> act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by

> parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever
> produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
> countries."

>
> People did animal sacrifice in ancient times for a host of religious
> and social reasons- but the social aspect of animal sacrifice was
> almost the mainstay of it's purpose- a communal feast in which all
> could have cooked meat- and the bonds of society, between neighbors,
> families, and friends, and between men and gods, were renewed.

> I am simply against the notion that we *have* to have animal
> sacrifices, and anyone who thinks differently is putting

> desires" before the Gods.

> If the Gods were omnipotent, then why did they let their society
> crumble to dust under the feet of christianity? Why did they not
> leave an intact manual of sacrifice so that people in the modern

> could know how to do animal sacrifices?

> I think the Gods speak in many ways- and the Romans agreed with me,
> because they had people who specialized in Augury and many forms of
> divination, who were consulted to know the will of the Gods. Let's
> not forget the Sybils... But those people are dead. Where are your
> new diviners? Who now interprets the will of the Gods to you? How

> they do it?

> So What about the offerings made to the Chthonic Gods? In these

>
> L. Sicinius Drusus

> I tried to email the censors (censors@n...) Monday evening,
> and last night I was returned a message saying that delivery was
> impossible. Any ideas where I might be able to email now??
>
> ~Horatia~

> I tried to email the censors (censors@n...) Monday evening,
> and last night I was returned a message saying that delivery was
> impossible. Any ideas where I might be able to email now??
>
> ~Horatia~

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Horatia Minucia Tiberia Caesar"
> <theladysabine@h...> wrote:
> > I tried to email the censors (censors@n...) Monday evening,
> > and last night I was returned a message saying that delivery was
> > impossible. Any ideas where I might be able to email now??
> >
> > ~Horatia~
>
> Salve,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus got to this before I and explained the
> situation. Unfortunately it is true, a spam-spider got a hold of
> those addresses and we were being bombarded with spam. I waded
> through 1200+ spams in one day coming through from the Censor's
> office. The only bright side to that was I got a lot of spammer
> addresses blacklisted so I see their spam no more. Unfortunately
> spammers are like rabbits breeding out of control.
>
> I know Marcus Cassius Julianus explained how to get a hold of a
> magistrate if needed. Within the next 48 hours (keeping fingers
> crossed) the address links you now see on the bottom of the main
> page will be gone and replaced with redirection to the contact page.
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus

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

Thank you for that information. As I read what you wrote it occured
to me that even though the contact page was mentioned no one told
anyone how to get to it in the meantime!

Thank you, much appreciated.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

> Salve,
>
> There is a webform that replaces the e-mail contact information.
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/contact.php?
>
> The link can be set up so that the default in the dropdown menu
> matches the old email group, for example
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/contact.php?to=pontifices
>
> makes the pontifices the default selection.
>
> Using this webform is easier than having to make two posts to the
> magistrates, and far easier when there is a larger group such as
the
> Senate or the Pontifices.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Pontifex

> Salve,
>
> In my last message I referred to Persephone eating "three"
> pomegranate seeds in the underworld. I believe the actual number

> six - this was merely a typographical error on my part and not a

> of knowledge of classical mythology. (Just saving anyone the

> from correcting me on this small point!)
>
> Vale,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus

>
> In ancient times the only way to get truly pure, fresh food was to
> slaughter it on the spot. Modern sanitation can provide fresh meat
> for rituals to any of Nova Romas Citizens, should they be making
> offerings that require flesh. (And many offerings did not.)

>I must respectfully disagree.

> DRUSUS: So why can't all other rituals be tossed in the trashbin

> with animal sacrifices?

>
> DRUSUS: The vast majority of modern Pagans are Wiccans. If we are
> going to adopt that standard then wouldn't that result in simply
> defining the Religio Romana as Wicca?

>
>
>
> > My personal desires have nothing at all to do with this issue.
>
> DRUSUS: Then why do you object to something that the historic record
> clearly shows is part of the Religio Romana?

>

>
> > The issue here is simple: Was animal
> > sacrifice required by the Gods? The answer is no.
>
>
> DRUSUS: Please Cite something other than your Personal viewpoint.
>

>
> DRUSUS: Since there is only scanty historic evidance for your

> it certainly isn't concerned with how the ancients practiced the
> Religio Romana. That only leaves your personal feelings.
>

> DRUSUS: Some Romans who were influanced by foreign ideas.

>

> So What about the offerings made to the Chthonic Gods? In these

> the entire victim was burned. That is hardly consistant with your
> theory that sacrifices only happened as an excuse for a picnic.
>

> Galus Agorius Taurinus Sesquiculus said:
>
>

>
> But on to where I actually disagree with you.
>
>
> > If the Gods were omnipotent, then why did they let their society
> > crumble to dust under the feet of christianity? Why did they not
> > leave an intact manual of sacrifice so that people in the modern
> day
> > could know how to do animal sacrifices?


>
> You know very well the answer to that first question is a mystery,
> and any conjecture as to why they did we cannot even begin to

> based on the sources available to us.

> As you said, the gods are inclined to stay within the
> basic philosophical natural law of this world. They also have a
> divine standard by which they act, which the average human is
> incapable of understanding.

> By extension, someone reading mythology
> might conclude that Iupiter was an anthropomorphic, bearded man.

> also know from mythology this is not true. These are simply forms

> gods choose, out of preference and/or for the benefit of humankind.
> Viewing a god in his/her true form, at least on the physical plane

> existance, would kill a human being.

> One woman made this wish (not
> knowing what the gods know), and Zeus was obliged to show her, as

> had promised beforehand to grant her wish. She was destroyed.

>
> The second question, I can actually address. Although I personally
> don't feel the form a victimari uses is necessarily that important

> long as the end result is the same, we do roughly know how it was
> done. Besides basic extant sources of the "form" in literature and
> art which portray sacrifice, I BELIEVE you are right in saying the
> actual techniques are passed down to us. But I'm not well-versed
> enough in classical literature to say so. However, we do know that
> the methods for sacrifice were basically the same throughout the
> ancient world. Most of us have seen it done in person or on
> television

> (That is by no means liscense for anyone to go out there
> and try it; that's wrong, on so many levels). The Falashas of
> Ethiopia still practice sacrifice using ancient techniques that

> used in Asian Minor and the Mediterranean, and thus, probably also
> used by the Romans.

> I've seen Voodoo practioners sacrifice animals
> myself; the process, as I remember it, is almost exactly the same

> the way those of Beta Isreal practise it.

> still practice sacrifice as it was taught by their ancestors. If we
> followed extant examples.. At worst, we would me imitating Roman
> sacrifice. At best, we would be duplicating it. By the logic of

> who lived in Roma Antiqua, either would be adequate.

>Nova Roma (to my knowledge) makes extensive use of
> divination, and consults the gods before taking many important
> actions. And they do this in the context and in the manner of which
> was done in Roma Antiqua.

> If an animal sacrifice is part of a ritual, you can't arbitraly omit
> it any more than you can omit a libation.

> That is the first flaw in
> your reasoning. Failure to perform that portion of the ritual means
> that it has been done incorrectly, it's no different than omitting a
> prayer.

> Even if you could seperate the killing of the victim from the
> remainder of the ritual, modern slaughter houses do NOT follow the
> correct rituals. the victim isn't carefully selected to be sure that
> it is worthy of offering to the Immortals, it isn't preparede for
> sacrifice by carefully cleaning and grooming it. Slaughterhouses

> perform any rituals to offer the victim to the Immortals prior to
> killing it, they don't see if the victim assents, they take no
> precautions to insure that the victim is killed without fear, and

> a minium of pain.

> This is no more of an acceptable sacrifice than some non-
>practitioner
> accidentally knocking over a bottle of wine is a libation.

> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Pontifex

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Dobbins" <drusus@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > DRUSUS: So why can't all other rituals be tossed in the trashbin
> along
> > with animal sacrifices?
>
>
>
> Because then there would be no religion.

> >
> > DRUSUS: The vast majority of modern Pagans are Wiccans. If we are
> > going to adopt that standard then wouldn't that result in simply
> > defining the Religio Romana as Wicca?
>
>
>
>
> I wasn't even referring to Wiccans. I don't consider wiccans to
> be "pagan" in the true sense of the word- when I use the
> term "pagan", I am ALWAYS referring to reconstructionist pagans. Your
> counter here was a non sequitur- I pointed out modern realities with
> paganism, and problems facing modern pagans, and you pointed out that
> the vast majority of people calling themselves pagan are wiccan, and
> tried to make a link (somehow) between my point and that fact- with
> the implication that I thought we should all be wiccan, when I don't,
> and never have.

>
> People once ate the hearts of toads to cure colds, according to the
> historical record. Why aren't you doing that?

>
> People once sacrificed humans, according to the historical record.
> Why aren't you doing that?

>
> People once kept slaves, according to the historial record. Why
> aren't you doing that?

>
>
>
> My personal reasons and objections to animal sacrifice are CLEARLY
> and openly stated at my Gens website.

> > > The issue here is simple: Was animal
> > > sacrifice required by the Gods? The answer is no.
> >
> >
> > DRUSUS: Please Cite something other than your Personal viewpoint.
> >
>
>
>
> Please cite something (other than your guess) that it was. The
> difference between you and I is, I am not believing something without
> seeing evidence. You ARE believing something without seeing evidence.
> The burden of proof is on you, totally.

> All you have is evidence that some worshippers of the Gods said that
> the Gods were pleased by sacrifice, not that the Gods ever said "you
> have to make animal sacrifices for us"-

>
> NO INDO EUROPEAN pagan mythology has a myth where the Gods demand
> animal sacrifice, or require it- no Greek myth, no Celtic, no Norse,
> no Slavic, and even No Vedic. These were related people to the Romans-
> and much of their mythology is preserved where Roman mythology is
> not. Odd that not ONE mentions the Gods making that command, huh?

> Most pagans don't sacrifice
> animals anymore, as times have changed, and the Gods are still
> pleased with the sacrifices that are still done.

> > DRUSUS: Since there is only scanty historic evidance for your
> postion,
> > it certainly isn't concerned with how the ancients practiced the
> > Religio Romana. That only leaves your personal feelings.
> >
>
>
>
> You have not the first theological basis,

> > DRUSUS: Some Romans who were influanced by foreign ideas.
>
>
> There were regular Romans that didn't like animal sacrifice. They
> didn't have to be "influenced by foreign ideas"- no group of people
> of that size can be so homogeneous and simple.
>

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Modius Kaelus"

> wrote:
> > Galus Agorius Taurinus Sesquiculus said:
> >
> >
>
>
> First off, I didn't say that. That was written hundreds of years

>
> Secondly, I do not appreciate your insulting addition to my name.

> would you be allowed to insult me openly in public like this, when

> have done nothing to you to be so attacked?
>
> If there are censors here, who uphold public decency, please

> to this.
>
> My name is Galus Agorius Taurinus. I have no other name. In the

> of the civility you lack, I will excuse this insult. But please

> do it again.

On Thursday, August 26, 2004, at 01:03 AM, L. Modius Kaelus wrote:

> Salve Taurinus,
>
> I put your name there to indicate what you wrote in the e-mail, as is
> common courtesy when breaking up individual parts of a post. That
> way, people won't be confused as to whom I was citing if they didn't
> see or didn't recall the text. I wasn't putting words in your mouth.
>
> I was also addressing you formally, and the agnomen Sesquiculus HAS
> been conferred on you officially, by senatorial consensus. Therefore,
> you should be petitioning the magistrates to remove the agnomen,
> rather than petitioning them to correct me. They can't. I apologise
> if I offended you, but it was intentioned to be both in good humour
> and even have a very modest amount of civility in addressing you
> fully. I actually thought you would laugh it off and get a kick that
> someone was using the agnomen in a post that was generally FAVOURABLE
> to what you said. But I should have known better.
>
> And you know very well that I've been nothing but polite and civil to
> you in the past, despite my inclination to jump in at some of the
> more hateful and generalising things you've said on the Back Alley.
> But I know it would serve no purpose, so in the interest of Roman
> Virtues and the civility which I supposedly "lack", I kept my mouth
> tightly shut at those times. I don't see what you seek to accomplish
> by insulting the religion, sexuality, and intellectual capacity of
> those you're trying to convince of your position. However, I don't
> want to argue with you, Taurinus. I'd rather dialogue with you
> REASONABLY than make myself another target.
>
> Once again, TAURINUS, I'll desist from calling you by your agnomen or
> fully addressing you if you feel it does insult your dignitas. But I
> would see about doing something about that, though. Otherwise those
> or any of the other ones suggested might stick. I think the best way
> to go about that would just be to behave yourself and not respond to
> insulting posts (however insulting they may be) with epithets like
> those about broomhandles in the nether-regions of certain inviduals
> (among other things said).
>
> Vale,
> Kaelus
> (Also an ass and a half)
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
> <g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Modius Kaelus"
> <xkaelusx@y...>
>> wrote:
>>> Galus Agorius Taurinus Sesquiculus said:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> First off, I didn't say that. That was written hundreds of years
> ago.
>>
>> Secondly, I do not appreciate your insulting addition to my name.
> Why
>> would you be allowed to insult me openly in public like this, when
> I
>> have done nothing to you to be so attacked?
>>
>> If there are censors here, who uphold public decency, please
> respond
>> to this.
>>
>> My name is Galus Agorius Taurinus. I have no other name. In the
> name
>> of the civility you lack, I will excuse this insult. But please
> don't
>> do it again.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

> It is not a mystery. The answer is that the Gods are
> not "omnipotent". In Classical Mythology, the Gods are themselves
> constrained by Fate and Necessity. It was Fate that christianity
> Rise, and that the world be put through the Loss of Wisdom and the
> Tribulations and Bloodbaths that followed in its wake.

> Consider it a test- although it not's *truly* a test- see before

> in the pages of history, a long era of ignorance and loss of wisdom
> and honor on the parts of most humans. But the Gods are still

> being deathless, and the real test of Piety is still going on.

>No one
> ever said that Wisdom or Piety would be easy to obtain and

> and in fact, the world goes through cycles of darkness and
> contraction and expansion and freedom.
>
> Through it all, the Gods remain.

>
> That standard is not truly alien to us, just very difficult because
> the Gods have a different view and experience of Fate from us (see
> Cicero, the Nature of the Gods)
>

>
> Only people that are so dull as not to grasp the concept
> of "Metaphor".
>

>
> I am not certain that the Gods "choose" anything like that- I think
> that humans "choose" these forms, based on their limitations and
> their experience of the Gods. Also, I don't see a "hard"

> between "this physical plane" and any other. The Gods are not

> to be "seen", so they can't be "seen" with eyes in that manner.
> You "see" the divine power of the Gods when you take a walk outside
> and listen to thunder or look at trees.
>

> The metaphor of "being destroyed if you could "see" the "true"

> of the Gods refers to the death of sanity, of the mind's ability to
> be sane after being forced into an omnijective perspective of great
> power, that it is totally unused to.
>

>
> Yes, I know this story quite well.
>

>
> I'm sorry, but I have never seen a Classical Pagan sacrifice done

> TV. What TV Show did you see this on?
>

>
> No, I don't follow you here. "Asia Minor and the Mediterranean" is

> bit of a broad area- you can't just say that since "Rome was around
> there", that things in the native Roman Religio were done the same.
> That is grasping for straws.
>

>
> Two sects that I strongly disapprove of, and which I see no

> to the Roman Religio in. The Hebrews were actively disliked by Rome
> for their lack of philosophical elegance and barbarism; and Vodoun,
> as a bastardization of Catholicism with degenerate forms of West
> African Shamanism owes more to the slave trade than any true

> knowledge.
>

> I doubt Drusus would agree with you- he seems to be against
> anything that we don't have a direct historical record of, in a

> somewhere.
>

> So, which is it going to be? When it comes to animal sacrifice, do
> you want to allow people some breathing room to look at foreign
> models and do a lot of guesswork, and call that "Roman Religio" and
> assume that the Gods will be happy with that? That sounds like a

> of assumptions being made in light of the fact that there is shaky
> ground.
>

> That is no different from me saying "We don't have the knowledge of
> how to do sacrifices, nor a mythological, theological precedent for
> the Gods saying it HAD to be done, so there is no requirement for

> to be done in the modern day, with any sense of necessity."
>

> The
> difference is that I am deciding for compassion in light of the

> and others are (it seems) intent on spilling blood, even though we
> have no clear notion how it was done in the Religio, nor a clear
> command from the Gods showing that it was required for the Religio

> be fulfilled.
>

> It was Compassion that came to Achilles, the greatest warrior in
> history, in the Iliad, in the most important scene in that book.

> display of compassion was what people remembered the most, and what
> made that book and story so potent to the Greek mind.
>

>
> So have the Gods commented to them yet regarding our debate? And if
> you say yes, why should I or any other Novaromani believe you or
> them? How many years of constant devotion, study, and orthopraxic
> sacrifice have they performed, and what school of augury and
> diviniation did they attend?
>

>
> G. Agorius Taurinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Worship of the Gods/ The Nature of Truth


Salve Kaelus ~

Tagging Taurinus as "Sesquiculus" in the Back Alley by Drusus and Sulla
hardly constitutes "officially, by Senatorial consensus". If anything,
it proves how unsuitable those two are for the title of "Senator", a
title whose holders should behave with honour, dignity and decorum ~ or
have the title removed. You are perpetuating the notion that a title
grants someone the right to run roughshod over others; if this was not
your intention, then please post a retraction.

Vale
~ Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus

On Thursday, August 26, 2004, at 01:03 AM, L. Modius Kaelus wrote:

> Salve Taurinus,
>
> I put your name there to indicate what you wrote in the e-mail, as is
> common courtesy when breaking up individual parts of a post. That
> way, people won't be confused as to whom I was citing if they didn't
> see or didn't recall the text. I wasn't putting words in your mouth.
>
> I was also addressing you formally, and the agnomen Sesquiculus HAS
> been conferred on you officially, by senatorial consensus. Therefore,
> you should be petitioning the magistrates to remove the agnomen,
> rather than petitioning them to correct me. They can't. I apologise
> if I offended you, but it was intentioned to be both in good humour
> and even have a very modest amount of civility in addressing you
> fully. I actually thought you would laugh it off and get a kick that
> someone was using the agnomen in a post that was generally FAVOURABLE
> to what you said. But I should have known better.
>
> And you know very well that I've been nothing but polite and civil to
> you in the past, despite my inclination to jump in at some of the
> more hateful and generalising things you've said on the Back Alley.
> But I know it would serve no purpose, so in the interest of Roman
> Virtues and the civility which I supposedly "lack", I kept my mouth
> tightly shut at those times. I don't see what you seek to accomplish
> by insulting the religion, sexuality, and intellectual capacity of
> those you're trying to convince of your position. However, I don't
> want to argue with you, Taurinus. I'd rather dialogue with you
> REASONABLY than make myself another target.
>
> Once again, TAURINUS, I'll desist from calling you by your agnomen or
> fully addressing you if you feel it does insult your dignitas. But I
> would see about doing something about that, though. Otherwise those
> or any of the other ones suggested might stick. I think the best way
> to go about that would just be to behave yourself and not respond to
> insulting posts (however insulting they may be) with epithets like
> those about broomhandles in the nether-regions of certain inviduals
> (among other things said).
>
> Vale,
> Kaelus
> (Also an ass and a half)
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
> <g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Modius Kaelus"
> <xkaelusx@y...>
>> wrote:
>>> Galus Agorius Taurinus Sesquiculus said:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> First off, I didn't say that. That was written hundreds of years
> ago.
>>
>> Secondly, I do not appreciate your insulting addition to my name.
> Why
>> would you be allowed to insult me openly in public like this, when
> I
>> have done nothing to you to be so attacked?
>>
>> If there are censors here, who uphold public decency, please
> respond
>> to this.
>>
>> My name is Galus Agorius Taurinus. I have no other name. In the
> name
>> of the civility you lack, I will excuse this insult. But please
> don't
>> do it again.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


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]

> Salve Kaelus ~
>
> Tagging Taurinus as "Sesquiculus" in the Back Alley by Drusus and

> hardly constitutes "officially, by Senatorial consensus". If

> it proves how unsuitable those two are for the title of "Senator",

> title whose holders should behave with honour, dignity and decorum

> have the title removed. You are perpetuating the notion that a

> grants someone the right to run roughshod over others; if this was

> your intention, then please post a retraction.
>
> Vale
> ~ Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
>

>There is no mythological source extant in which the God demand blood
>sacrifice from humans.

>There is a clear sociological reason why humans began blood sacrifice-
> and in the past, there was a clear, important sociological niche and
>institutional system in place to support the practise of Animal
>Sacrifice, and even to make it a desirable thing to human communities.

>That no longer exists.

>On top of that, no pagan "theologian" can
>claim that the Gods "required" animal or blood sacrifice- because not
>a single myth or text exists in which any God commands humankind to
>make animal sacrifices, as a matter of requirement.

>I would never argue that people didn't make animal sacrifices in the
>past. They clearly did, and it clearly wasn't a bad things to them.
>
>But equally as important is the fact that it wasn't a religious
>requirement from the Gods, as much as it was a venerable and
>acceptable religious practise to some people who lived long ago. We
>don't live long ago- we live now, with our realities now.

>No one who is against animal sacrifice is trying to "change paganism"
>to suit them- there were Greeks and Romans who were against animal
>sacrifice.

>Also, there was no one standard "paganism" in ancient
>times from which we can deviate- some cults of some gods likely did
>not recieve animal sacrifice at all.

>"Religio" does not require animal sacrifice. It never did, and it
>still doesn't. If you wish to reconstruct a situation and an
>institution wherein it can be done- (even though such a thing is
>questionable, if for no other reason but lack of information about
>the proper historical procedure) then fine- but the Religio is not
>centered on killing animals for the Gods, but on belief, devotion,
>and honor and respect for the Gods, and many, many other things (just
>like in the past) can be offered to them as sacrifices, when the time
>to sacrifice to them comes.

>I don not wish to contradict someone I hold in such high esteem, but I
>could not in good conscious allow this remark to pass without comment. It
>is a common fallacy among "neo pagans" and "secularists" to claim that the
>founding fathers of the United States were not Christian. Most were. A few
>prominate ones were deists that is true, and one was possibly an atheist(
>Thomas Payne) but he is on record denying this. The vast majority were
>Christians of various stripes, this is very evident in their personal
>writings and in the Declaration of Independence. Some may argue( I have in
>the past) that the Declaration is not a governing document, but it is a
>legal instrument that the Founders used to justify breaking with England
>and the soul of the American Revolution. Christian values are not the only
>ones present, true, but we cannot ,in good conscious, deny that they are
>there.
>
>Vale;
>Tiberius Arcanus Agricola
>mikeabboud@...

>Excellent text on the subject may be found in "An Introduction to
>Roman Religion" by John Sheid, pages 81-95. There Sheid states
>that "A study of rituals known to us, ritual vocabulary, and remarks
>found in ancient literature make it clear that Roman sacrifice was
>first and foremost a banquet, quite literally."

>This has actually been the basis of my argument that live sacrifice
>is not absolutely necessary to the modern practice of the Religio
>Romana. No ancient text makes any mention of the "life force" of an
>animal feeding the Gods... fresh physical food is the offering.

>In ancient times the only way to get truly pure, fresh food was to
>slaughter it on the spot. Modern sanitation can provide fresh meat
>for rituals to any of Nova Romas Citizens, should they be making
>offerings that require flesh. (And many offerings did not.)

>I must respectfully disagree.

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


>> Because then there would be no religion.



> DRUSUS: There is no differance in tossing out animal sacrifices and
> tossing out libations.

>
> DRUSUS: The Wiccans consider themselves to be Pagans, and I won't
> contest that. What I will contest is your claim of being a
> reconstructionist. Simply picking some rituals, ignoring others, and
> making up something new to be modern is the EXACT same thing that

> Wiccans have done. What you are doing isn't reconstructing, it's
> creating yet another neo-pagan cult.

>>
>> People once ate the hearts of toads to cure colds, according to the
>> historical record. Why aren't you doing that?
>
> DRUSUS: That isn't part of the Religio Romana

>> People once sacrificed humans, according to the historical record.
>> Why aren't you doing that?

>
> DRUSUS: because I don't have a copy of the sybeline books ordering

>> My personal reasons and objections to animal sacrifice are CLEARLY
>> and openly stated at my Gens website.
>

> DRUSUS: Well at least you finally admitted it's just your personal
> beliefs.

>>
>> Please cite something (other than your guess) that it was. The
>> difference between you and I is, I am not believing something

>> seeing evidence. You ARE believing something without seeing

>> The burden of proof is on you, totally.
>



> DRUSUS: Gee where have I heard that one? From the creationists who
> yell that science has to prove God didn't create the Earth. From the
> UFO Cultists who claim that Science has to prove that aliens didn't
> crash at Roswell. You are pretty much playing the same game they

> making an extraordinary claim that goes against the vast majority of
> evidance and demanding that your claims be proven wrong. Sorry you.
> along with the Creationists and the UFO cultists are the one making
> the claim, so the burden of proof lies on you.

>> All you have is evidence that some worshippers of the Gods said

>> the Gods were pleased by sacrifice, not that the Gods ever

>> have to make animal sacrifices for us"-

>
> DRUSUS: Not "some" the vast majority of ancient sources and the
> archelogical record.

>> NO INDO EUROPEAN pagan mythology has a myth where the Gods demand
>> animal sacrifice, or require it- no Greek myth, no Celtic, no

>> no Slavic, and even No Vedic. These were related people to the

>> and much of their mythology is preserved where Roman mythology is
>> not. Odd that not ONE mentions the Gods making that command, huh?



>
> DRUSUS: Odd that all of these people practiced animal sacrifice
> without a command. The only thing you have backing up your theory is
> your personal whims, the widespread practice of sacrifice supports
> such a command better than your notion to the contrary.

>
>> Most pagans don't sacrifice
>> animals anymore, as times have changed, and the Gods are still
>> pleased with the sacrifices that are still done.
>



> DRUSUS: Most Pagans are Wiccans or other new agers, not Roman
> Polytheists. What they do or don't do is as unimportant to the

> Romana as what Xtians, Muslims, and Hindus practice.

> DRUSUS: The Religio is based on Orthopraxy, not Orthodoxy, so
> theological arguments are alien.