«12. . .1,4911,4921,4931,4941,4951,4961,497. . .1,6181,619»
No less insane than the Quran.
If we're going to get technical, the bible is more violent that the Quran
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/violence-more-common-in-bible-than-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html
Ironically the religion invented to perpetrate warlordism is the less violent one.
HAHAHA!!!, I found that statement to be hilarious, I will agree that they are about as violent as each other. To say one is more violent than the other is absurd.
I think it fits on a much better level than you'd expect. Dionysus was the last of the Greek Olympians to ascend, and Vesta/the Virgin Mary gave up her throne for him. I think the Marriage at Cana is one of Jesus's more memorable miracles, and the idea of water into wine, as well as the deep symbology of wine as blood in the Last Supper, sells this idea for me. As for Bacchus himself, he wasn't a satyr (I will give you the drunken part). But in regard to that, there's no reason why the pantheon can't adjust itself to fit better. Ares was a bloodthirsty maniac in Greek myth, such as the Trojan War, but became a celebrated god in the Roman tradition. I can't see a reason why Bacchus likewise can't change.
Biblical Esther, the greatest of the Israelite Queens, yes. The one who saved her people from genocide by bravely confessing to her husband that she herself was a Jew and that if he wanted to kill them all, he'd have to kill her too. The queen of Persia, a country renowned for its peacock symbolism, and a country that has provided countless other gods for the Roman pantheon, such as Mithras. Yes, I think we're talking about the same Esther.
The Keeper of the Keys to Heaven. I suppose you're right in that regard. However, I too much enjoy the parallel between Saints Peter and Andrew, the two brothers, and Pluto and Neptune, also two siblings, to make that sacrifice.
To be honest, I haven't given any of the bottom six much thought. I just wanted to put it out there. That's why you have total randoms like the Widow of Zarephath. Of course we don't need every single one to have a parallel. But I definitely think we should try to match them up as much as possible. I particularly enjoy Delilah-Aphrodite and Virgin Mary-Vesta, for example.
fine, the bible has more phrases of violence than the quran
happy?
I think such pedantry is quite absurd. It shouldn't matter whether one advocates more violence than another, that doesn't justify or condemn either text as angelic or demonic. I find that the traditional Christian values of faith, charity, and grace sit quite well with me, so I adhere to them. I think that the Bible has many valuable life lessons through its parables and stories, though I take certain ones with a grain of salt. It's been responsible for pardoning immense atrocities and responsible for great triumphs of human nature as well. Arguing over whether the book itself is evil is rather pointless. It's humans who commit violence, not books.
I imagine there'd have been a few religious wars in the 800s that established the supremacy of the Flamen Dialis. The remaining sects usually don't refute the Flamen Dialis's words directly, but rather they focus on glorifying and worshipping one particular Saint. Again, I imagine the Cults of Isis, Thoth, Delilah, and Mithras to be rather unrowdy.
Correct. I imagine that Islam would possibly still have ballooned out into the south and across the Indian Ocean to India, but Catholicism remains rather entrenched in Roman custom. That being said, Islam the religion probably functions as a minor cult within Egypt and Syria. Islam as a political force (the Caliphate) remains woefully walled up behind the staunch Roman legions of dear General Vaballathus.
Interestingly, this results in an Egypt heavily influenced by Hellenic culture, and still possessed with strong Pharaonic roots.
I wish I had your wit.
I mean it was only confirmed by text-based computer analysis, after all.
Fair enough. We should hammer out the status of the marine corp’s status in colonial affairs then.
Relatively dominant, I suppose. I feel as though since Roman colonies were traditionally settled by veterans and their families, they’d have great loyalty to the military. Many colonial leaders are probably ex-soldiers. Only the merchants, I think, are really opposed or resentful of the military.
Settling with veterans would be a terrible system.
Yet the Romans operated by it for hundreds of years. Care to elaborate?
The Romans of irl also didn’t have an advanced economy. It’s hard to establish a modernized, industrialized economy without people with any skills. These are men in their 40s at least, without any skills that don’t apply to military service.
Funnily enough, that’s how Australia struggled by for the first fifty years of its existence. Convicts with no skills struggled to eke out a living, and wound up succeeding pretty well. And convicts have no motivation to actually work hard, whereas veterans would; their loyalty to the mother country vastly exceeds whatever paltry feelings convicts had for Britain. Especially considering America’s better climate and extra resources, I think that veteran Roman colonies might struggle a lot in the early years, but ultimately end up doing just fine.
You also have to remember that Roman soldiers are trained at a much high level of discipline than just fighting. Roman legionnaires were renowned for their engineering skills, such as building siege fortifications, earthworks, and weapons of war. Those skills easily translate to colonial life.
[ Slavery was how Islam spread into Persia, a law declaring that any slaves that were Muslim had to have Muslim owners, hence a slave who was Zoroastrian could simply convert to Islam and would be a freeman instantly unless his or her master also converted. That sort of change happened in the 11th Century.
That said slavery was never practiced en masse in Iran/Persia because of the Zoroastrian influence, and those who were enslaved were generally foreigners who found themselves treated better than most commoners. ]
So I just wanna know, how did the Romans get to America? Also for how long since there might be things like horses or disease in America
AHHHHHHHHHHHH
I definitely agree, but I'm using this evidence for the people who are like "hur hur mooslims are all terrorists"
«12. . .1,4911,4921,4931,4941,4951,4961,497. . .1,6181,619»
Advertisement
