Camels? In Israel? Sorry, Bible.

[houghtam]

I won't dispute most of what you say, but the analogy now becomes, who, due to his mythological references, disputes every account of Tacitus until otherwise proven by the archaeological record?

Or put another way, what exactly is the point of this thread? Not even getting into the fact that this study does basically nothing to establish what is being heralded throughout the secularist media. It's comical how little they understand.

Oh and since you said it takes social activism to put an end to these kinds of mythologies, which social activist was it that made Classical Rome suddenly realize that their myths were just myths?

First, once again, you are failing to read or understand...not sure which. Once one thing is disproven, all things must be viewed with the appropriate skepticism. For instance, I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus...I do doubt he rose from the dead three days after he was killed. My only beef is with the people like Ken Ham who regard EVERYTHING as true, even though much has been disproven, or people like barry who automatically think that if someone is skeptical of the Bible (and using it as a legislative basis), they are an atheist. Which of course, I am not.

Okay, so, social activism...we can start with Gaius Marius, although he of course was not the first. Marius was born with a Knight (equester) status. His family was successful and rich, but he was not of the patrician class. He was blocked at every turn from advancement because of his status, patricians being able to supposedly trace their heredity back (and here's the mythology part) to Aeneas through Romulus. It wasn't until he had proven himself on the battlefield that he became a New Man (novus homo), or the first in his House to serve in the Senate. After a long and treacherous path, he eventually rose to be consul...and then an unheard of six more times.

So what sorts of social activism was he responsible for, you ask? Well, until then only the nobility and land owners could serve in the military. He allowed all Roman citizens to enlist. He granted retirement benefits to all soldiers. He granted full citizenship to all Italians serving in the Roman military. Italians who, at the time, were looked down upon by Romans (which is why I find it hilarious that txtebow equates being Italian with Roman, but I digress). The whole time, he fought tooth and nail vs. the nobility, who referred to him as an "Italian hayseed with no Greek in him". There's that pesky mythology again.

I can go on. I could talk about the brothers Gracchi and I could talk about Christians like you were trying to get me to ()... But instead I'll talk about today. Since we realize that much of the bible is a complete and utter crock, we need people like the (for the time) liberal Marius to rise up and stand against the conservative leadership who base their theories and governance entirely on a book which isn't true and constantly contradicts even itself.

Anything else?

[BroncoBeavis]

First, once again, you are failing to read or understand...not sure which. Once one thing is disproven, all things must be viewed with the appropriate skepticism. For instance, I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus...I do doubt he rose from the dead three days after he was killed. My only beef is with the people like Ken Ham who regard EVERYTHING as true, even though much has been disproven, or people like barry who automatically think that if someone is skeptical of the Bible (and using it as a legislative basis), they are an atheist. Which of course, I am not.

Okay, so, social activism...we can start with Gaius Marius, although he of course was not the first. Marius was born with a Knight (equester) status. His family was successful and rich, but he was not of the patrician class. He was blocked at every turn from advancement because of his status, patricians being able to supposedly trace their heredity back (and here's the mythology part) to Aeneas through Romulus. It wasn't until he had proven himself on the battlefield that he became a New Man (novus homo), or the first in his House to serve in the Senate. After a long and treacherous path, he eventually rose to be consul...and then an unheard of six more times.

So what sorts of social activism was he responsible for, you ask? Well, until then only the nobility and land owners could serve in the military. He allowed all Roman citizens to enlist. He granted retirement benefits to all soldiers. He granted full citizenship to all Italians serving in the Roman military. Italians who, at the time, were looked down upon by Romans (which is why I find it hilarious that txtebow equates being Italian with Roman, but I digress). The whole time, he fought tooth and nail vs. the nobility, who referred to him as an "Italian hayseed with no Greek in him". There's that pesky mythology again.

I can go on. I could talk about the brothers Gracchi and I could talk about Christians like you were trying to get me to ()... But instead I'll talk about today. Since we realize that much of the bible is a complete and utter crock, we need people like the (for the time) liberal Marius to rise up and stand against the conservative leadership who base their theories and governance entirely on a book which isn't true and constantly contradicts even itself.

Anything else?

The Marian reforms (at the end of the Republic of all things) undermining the Roman religion is a stretch at best. I'd argue that the dawn of the Imperial cult of Rome is an odd time to draw a line about the death of the Roman religion.

Outside of that, throwing aside an old social order is not the same as discrediting a religion.

[houghtam]

The Marian reforms (at the end of the Republic of all things) undermining the Roman religion is a stretch at best. I'd argue that the dawn of the Imperial cult of Rome is an odd time to draw a line about the death of the Roman religion.

Outside of that, throwing aside an old social order is not the same as discrediting a religion.

Religion then =/= religion now, for one. In fact, there really was no "Roman religion", as we would know it today.

For two, when that social order is based upon myth (or as you refer to it, religious beliefs), then yes, it's pretty much the exact same.

Further, I never said nor even implied that Marius "brought about the death of the Roman religion", but he most certainly did contribute, just as many others did, including Christians.

[houghtam]

And right on cue, if there is any doubt to the danger of biblical legislation...

Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

"If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced," he said. "It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...usaolp00000592

"Biblical truths"...huh.

[BroncoBeavis]

And right on cue, if there is any doubt to the danger of biblical legislation...

Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

"If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced," he said. "It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...usaolp00000592

"Biblical truths"...huh.

Not sure what you're arguing here. Should religious speech against homosexuality be Federally silenced?

[houghtam]

Not sure what you're arguing here. Should religious speech against homosexuality be Federally silenced?

No.

Religion-based legislation should, however.

[DenverBrit]

No.

Religion-based legislation should, however.

+1

[cutthemdown]

No.

Religion-based legislation should, however.

What laws specifically are you upset about? Also you do support the right for a local community to make some of their own laws right? Like if they want to say no bars, no strip clubs right?

Religion based law should not be deemed illegal if thats what the people living there want. As long as it doesn't infringe on people rights under the constitution.

I think local communities need that power because not everyone wants to live the same way.

Our country is fairly liberal when it comes to religion so i don't see what the problem is. You all act like you are oppressed by religion which is utter BS.

[houghtam]

What laws specifically are you upset about? Also you do support the right for a local community to make some of their own laws right? Like if they want to say no bars, no strip clubs right?

Religion based law should not be deemed illegal if thats what the people living there want. As long as it doesn't infringe on people rights under the constitution.

I think local communities need that power because not everyone wants to live the same way.

Our country is fairly liberal when it comes to religion so i don't see what the problem is. You all act like you are oppressed by religion which is utter BS.

If I start with the currently 33 states that do not allow gay marriage, do I even need to continue?

Once again, these things don't just change on their own.

[houghtam]

Further, cut, how far are you willing to go? The city of Hamtramck, MI is largely muslim. Should they be allowed to enact sharia law as long as it doesn't infringe on someone's rights? And I'm not even talking about the "stone a woman who is raped" types of laws, I'm talking about how eyewitness testimony takes precedence over forensic evidence. How male witness testimonies are given more weight than female testimonies.

[Arkie]

Religion based law should not be deemed illegal if thats what the people living there want. As long as it doesn't infringe on people rights under the constitution.

Religion based law infringes on my rights under the constitution the same as you. It doesn't matter where in America I live. It's not right for powerful churches in certain underpopulated areas to set religious laws, and force others to love it or leave it.

[BroncoBeavis]

No.

Religion-based legislation should, however.

Huffpo headline notwithstanding, that doesn't appear to be what he's proposing.

If you view legislation shielding controversial religious speech as 'religious', then you might as well view the 1st Amendment as religious as well.

[houghtam]

Huffpo headline notwithstanding, that doesn't appear to be what he's proposing.

If you view legislation shielding controversial religious speech as 'religious', then you might as well view the 1st Amendment as religious as well.

And see, this is exactly the problem. You smugly hide behind "states' rights" arguments when the intent and effect are both clear. It's been done before, as I recall.

[Pony Boy]

And see, this is exactly the problem. You smugly hide behind "states' rights" arguments when the intent and effect are both clear. It's been done before, as I recall.

Speaking of 'States Rights"

What's your opinion on Colorado making marijuana legal when it clearly violates Federal law?

[cutthemdown]

Religion based law infringes on my rights under the constitution the same as you. It doesn't matter where in America I live. It's not right for powerful churches in certain underpopulated areas to set religious laws, and force others to love it or leave it.

Why people in all states and areas have to love it or leave it. We have tons of groups pushing laws, trying to get them voted on etc, you can't single out churches.

If the people in the area vote it, and Supreme Court doesn't rule in unconstitutional, then I don't see the difference if the law pushed by church, a union, a womans rights group, communists, socialists, tea partiers, the local affiliation of united hookers. It's all the same it's private citizens uniting together to push an agenda the agree with.