Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

What is the most powerful empire ever to grace us?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>
Poll Question: Wich empire could kill the rest?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
8 [15.09%]
20 [37.74%]
1 [1.89%]
3 [5.66%]
2 [3.77%]
3 [5.66%]
0 [0.00%]
4 [7.55%]
6 [11.32%]
4 [7.55%]
2 [3.77%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Goblin Monkey View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 11-Oct-2008
Location: Little Rock, AR
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 122 		  Quote Goblin Monkey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What is the most powerful empire ever to grace us?
    Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 23:59
The romans revoulutionised meaning of empire.Most empires had been for land and money.Rome invented great things.They used new profound battle tactics.They are the building blocks of empire today.
Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me?
Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 00:32
Originally posted by IamJoseph

Also, most historians consider the Byzantines separate from Rome, although I tend to disagree.
 
Its the same people, in the same space-time, using the same divine man doctrine, and it continued the same decree of heresy. Then it crowned itself with the prefix of 'ROMAN' Catholicism. If there are differences, these would be very subtle and subjective.
 
Cry
Uh, the byzantines were eastern orthrodox


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
Husaria View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150 		  Quote Husaria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 00:41
You can't compare i am pretty sure German empire Hitler time period could wreck all the other ones because of simple things like automatic weapons and tanks ect.
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine.
Back to Top
Goblin Monkey View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 11-Oct-2008
Location: Little Rock, AR
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 122 		  Quote Goblin Monkey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 00:44
Im pretty sure my empire  is most dominent.When I conqured the ant colony in my back yard I sent a message to the rest of the world.Like "dont mess with me!", or"potatoes!"
Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me?
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800 		  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 03:08
Originally posted by IamJoseph

Q: Can anyone explain what is 'ALTERNATIVE FORUM'; no such thing in any Dictionary.
 
I have already explained this to you once.  It is a subforum here at All Empires:
 
 
Originally posted by IamJoseph

Its the same people, in the same space-time, using the same divine man doctrine, and it continued the same decree of heresy. Then it crowned itself with the prefix of 'ROMAN' Catholicism. If there are differences, these would be very subtle and subjective.
 
According to your position, who determines what is heresy and what is orthodoxy?  Definitionally, what is heresy and orthodoxy according to your position?  Although one might say God determines this in Judaism and Christianity, citing God or saying "because God said so" is a circular form of begging the question.  Your reasoning is already suspect because of your statement that confuses the ecclesiology and historical theology of medieval Western Europe with the Byzantine Empire.
 
Also, my challenge for you to examine and explain the passages of Scripture which I have provided in the "creatonism or evolution" thread still remains unanswered.  Despite the thread's recent moving, I do not think my argument or question is in the realm of alternative history and does still require an answer from you.
 
Here is the direct link once again for your ease of access:
 
 
Late Byzantine Military
Ottoman perceptions of the Americas
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 04:28
According to your position, who determines what is heresy and what is orthodoxy?  Definitionally, what is heresy and orthodoxy according to your position?  Although one might say God determines this in Judaism and Christianity, citing God or saying "because God said so" is a circular form of begging the question. 
 
The issue is ultimately about the right to freedom of belief, and this is the failure of christianity [better, the European Church] in following Rome's ways. Judaism differs from christianity and the NT in that its laws mandate equal rights to the stranger as the native inhabitant, irrespective of one's status, king or commoner. This situation changed when America, founded as a christian nation, established its Consitution on the OT laws, and thereby is a true savier of chrstianity - saving it from medevial Europe.
 
Also, my challenge for you to examine and explain the passages of Scripture which I have provided in the "creatonism or evolution" thread still remains unanswered.  Despite the thread's recent moving, I do not think my argument or question is in the realm of alternative history and does still require an answer from you.
 
I answered all questions addressed to me. The thread was siezed without notice or warning, with the Mod positing a pov w/o giving anyone an op to respond.
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 04:31
Governments DON'T work when its peoples fear death. This is what caused Rome's fall.
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 04:45
The romans revoulutionised meaning of empire.Most empires had been for land and money.Rome invented great things.They used new profound battle tactics.They are the building blocks of empire today.
 
Rome did NOT invent great things, and the few it did [4], were for reasons of continueing its brutal, self-serving rule:
 
Tarred roads to more speedilly conquer and control [as opposed giving its citizens better thoroughfare], inter-marraige [because its conquered nations' women would be deemed in violation for refusuing marraige to a Roman], the right to appeal [hardly of merit with a one party rule by decrees], can't remember the last one.
 
Rome ruled only by might, and it is a regret it never used its mind to allign with what was a great power; the same occured with Nazi Germany - it used its otherwise great powers wrongly. These are hostorical syndromes which pointed humanity in the wrong path, consituting mass murders in the billions.
 
Most Roman rulers were grotesquely depraved - introducing crucifixion, where upto 800 were strung on crosses in town squares - as an example. Its Emperors and war Generals laughing in carraiges and performing sex with concubine women, and ordering the victim's families to be beheaded before them as they hung in crosses. This was not a great empire, and has no good lessons for humanity. 
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800 		  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 04:55
Originally posted by IamJoseph

The issue is ultimately about the right to freedom of belief, and this is the failure of christianity [better, the European Church] in following Rome's ways. Judaism differs from christianity and the NT in that its laws mandate equal rights to the stranger as the native inhabitant, irrespective of one's status, king or commoner. This situation changed when America, founded as a christian nation, established its Consitution on the OT laws, and thereby is a true savier of chrstianity - saving it from medevial Europe.
 
Again, by changing the subject, you did not answer my questions from the previous post.  Let me repeat my questions:
 
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

According to your position, who determines what is heresy and what is orthodoxy?  Definitionally, what is heresy and orthodoxy according to your position?  Although one might say God determines this in Judaism and Christianity, citing God or saying "because God said so" is a circular form of begging the question.
 
We need to know the foundation or epistemological basis from which you are arguing.  Please be specific (not cryptic) so we understand where you are coming from.
 
Late Byzantine Military
Ottoman perceptions of the Americas
Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 05:41
Originally posted by IamJoseph

The romans revoulutionised meaning of empire.Most empires had been for land and money.Rome invented great things.They used new profound battle tactics.They are the building blocks of empire today.
 
Rome did NOT invent great things, and the few it did [4], were for reasons of continueing its brutal, self-serving rule:
 
Tarred roads to more speedilly conquer and control [as opposed giving its citizens better thoroughfare], inter-marraige [because its conquered nations' women would be deemed in violation for refusuing marraige to a Roman], the right to appeal [hardly of merit with a one party rule by decrees], can't remember the last one.
 
Rome ruled only by might, and it is a regret it never used its mind to allign with what was a great power; the same occured with Nazi Germany - it used its otherwise great powers wrongly. These are hostorical syndromes which pointed humanity in the wrong path, consituting mass murders in the billions.
 
Most Roman rulers were grotesquely depraved - introducing crucifixion, where upto 800 were strung on crosses in town squares - as an example. Its Emperors and war Generals laughing in carraiges and performing sex with concubine women, and ordering the victim's families to be beheaded before them as they hung in crosses. This was not a great empire, and has no good lessons for humanity. 
 
 
They had to be doing somehting right since they lasted a thousand years and the byzantines lasted another thousand years not to mention the fact that in the early htird century the romans were christian and only a few officers and rulers were that depraved and you're forgetting that everyone is different and unique


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800 		  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 06:26
Originally posted by IamJoseph

Rome did NOT invent great things, and the few it did [4], were for reasons of continueing its brutal, self-serving rule:
 
Tarred roads to more speedilly conquer and control [as opposed giving its citizens better thoroughfare], inter-marraige [because its conquered nations' women would be deemed in violation for refusuing marraige to a Roman], the right to appeal [hardly of merit with a one party rule by decrees], can't remember the last one.
 
You are making a value judgment that is absolutely outside the context of ancient Greco-Roman concepts of authority and legitimacy.  Therefore it is anachronistic and constitutes nothing more than an opinion. 
 
In the Roman Republic and the Empire, what authority decided who was permitted to have access to the imperial post?  From where was this authority derived and how was it enforced?
 
Originally posted by IamJoseph

Rome ruled only by might, and it is a regret it never used its mind to allign with what was a great power; the same occured with Nazi Germany - it used its otherwise great powers wrongly. These are hostorical syndromes which pointed humanity in the wrong path, consituting mass murders in the billions.
 
Here, once again, you are making an anachronistic value judgment, although now it consitutes a fallacy of guilt by association, and a dubious one at that.
 
Do you have any concept of how the Romans built their "Empire?"  Please don't just say by killing tons of people.  How did Roman law, which both enemies and allies respected for the most part, guide how they treated the conquered?  How did the Romans interact with their allies?  Also, would the "hapless victims" of the Roman war machine have treated the Romans any differently if they had defeated them, according to common practice in the ancient Mediterranean (not the rules of 20th-21st century Geneva Convention or UN Security Council)?
 
Originally posted by IamJoseph

Most Roman rulers were grotesquely depraved - introducing crucifixion, where upto 800 were strung on crosses in town squares - as an example. Its Emperors and war Generals laughing in carraiges and performing sex with concubine women, and ordering the victim's families to be beheaded before them as they hung in crosses. This was not a great empire, and has no good lessons for humanity.
 
Here you are using invalid logic by projecting a generalization of the particulars or exceptions to the rule onto the "most Roman rulers."  How do you account for the good rules (by Roman standards) of Augustus, the Antonine emperors,  Diocletian, or even as far up as the Macedonian dynasty and the Laskarids?  You cannot project the "immorality" or "insanity" of Nero, Caligula, and Elagabalus onto "most Roman emperors."
 
Speaking of crucifixion, for whom was this punishment prescribed according to Roman law and general practice?  What was the result of such a brutal punishment for those observing and for those who had the authority to inflict it?
 
Late Byzantine Military
Ottoman perceptions of the Americas
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 07:26
Byzantines were ROMAN Catholics? LOL You never cease to amaze.
 
It became so - which is not amazing considering it was an enforced religion.
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 07:35
Here you are using invalid logic by projecting a generalization of the particulars or exceptions to the rule onto the "most Roman rulers." 
 
I listed relevent factors which cannot be divorced from any depictions of Rome. The reasons you site as Rome being tolerent is a hoax: despite paying all taxes and adhering to all its demands, Vespasian invoked the 40 BCE Caligula decree of heresy, because he wanted a 'win' to enabe him to be appointed Emperor, and he picked on a small nation all previous Roman Emperors knew such a decree would never be accepted. It was not.
 
You have agrandised Rome's powers, while you neglected totally its total human rights abuses. A mighty power should have been at the forefront of elevating humanity, not emulating the Pharoahs. The war between Rome and Judea is perhaps the most significant event in history: the right to freedom of belief began here. It is hardly a dismissive or reducable factor, as we see it unpardonably omitted in the NT.
 
 


Edited by IamJoseph - 14-Oct-2008 at 07:37
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 07:49
Also, would the "hapless victims" of the Roman war machine have treated the Romans any differently if they had defeated them, according to common practice in the ancient Mediterranean (not the rules of 20th-21st century Geneva Convention or UN Security Council)?
Judea was not inclined to invade nations and enforce their beliefs upon them. Its a moot point, with no justification of an analogy.
Here you are using invalid logic by projecting a generalization of the particulars or exceptions to the rule onto the "most Roman rulers."  How do you account for the good rules (by Roman standards) of Augustus, the Antonine emperors,  Diocletian, or even as far up as the Macedonian dynasty and the Laskarids?  You cannot project the "immorality" or "insanity" of Nero, Caligula, and Elagabalus onto "most Roman emperors."
 
Here, the relatively good emperors expose who was bad only. There is no invalid logic, only a runaway from better logic: the Romans laughed at the OT laws against killing off a baby deemed not pretty. This empire fell because of its base treatment of humanity - and the good you cling to were only vested in its own self. Humanity must be thankful such an empire has vanished, and those who followed it also harken to Rome's errors and not emulate them. What continued in Europe, and what Islam did in Asia, is a telling lesson how humanity went wrong.
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943 		  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 08:57
Originally posted by IamJoseph

It became so - which is not amazing considering it was an enforced religion.


Christianity was only halfway forced on the Roman empire. By the time it was decreed as the official religion of the state many if not the majority of the Roman elite were already Christian. Being a pagan in the 4th century was decidedly unfashionable, and Constantine's sons did introduce the death penalty for those who did not cease to worship in the old way, but even in medieval times you could find "pagan" enclaves in remote regions in Italy.

Originally posted by IamJoseph

You have agrandised Rome's powers, while you neglected totally its total human rights abuses. A mighty power should have been at the forefront of elevating humanity, not emulating the Pharoahs. The war between Rome and Judea is perhaps the most significant event in history: the right to freedom of belief began here. It is hardly a dismissive or reducable factor, as we see it unpardonably omitted in the NT.


The Romans could not further human rights when no such concept existed at the time. You might as well ask why the crusaders didn't fight in the name of scientology.

The Judean war happened because the Jews' strict monotheism prevented them from performing rites in the name of the emperor. Partition in the imperial cult was how the empire's subjects acknowledged the legitimacy of its rule, refusing to do so undermined the foundation of the empire and was considered an act of open rebellion, much like a vassal refusing to pay homage to his lord. In other words this was not so much about religion as the legitimacy of the state, and a state whose citizens do not recognize its legitimacy will simply disintegrate.

Originally posted by IamJoseph

Judea was not inclined to invade nations and enforce their beliefs upon them. Its a moot point, with no justification of an analogy.


The Jews too conquered and forced their beliefs on others, which was how the Jewish states on the Levant were created in the first place, according to the OT. This type of behavior is natural for all human societies, the only reason they didn't do it to the same extent as Rome was because they couldn't.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 10:52
Christianity was only halfway forced on the Roman empire. By the time it was decreed as the official religion of the state many if not the majority of the Roman elite were already Christian. Being a pagan in the 4th century was decidedly unfashionable, and Constantine's sons did introduce the death penalty for those who did not cease to worship in the old way, but even in medieval times you could find "pagan" enclaves in remote regions in Italy.
 
There is a mix of yes and no there. While paganism was to cease, Christianity also cast all its venom on the jews, introducing what became global antisemitism, and exploiting the Hebrew bible as its own, which its adherents [Europeans] never followed or understood. It was evident the NT could not impress without the Hebrew bible as its foundation. At this point, Jesus was 'voted' as a diety, and all who rejected this were persecuted, the decree of heresy was utilised far more than did Rome, and millions were murdered and turned to thrid class humans. How Jews survived the church is a miracle.
 
This was in absolute contradiction of its doctrine of love and Godliness: it is tested only how it acted with the Jews, and cannot warrant any merit from any other avenue. The cross was a pre-christian jewish symbol, used as a warning against Roman crucifixion, and the Messiah [Christos] was never a European doctrine. Basically, christianity Romanised the Hebrew bible, embellishing it with false stories of a Roman trial and the release of Barabus - nothing of the sort occured. Today's believing christians are the hapless victims of these falsehoods.
 

The Romans could not further human rights when no such concept existed at the time. You might as well ask why the crusaders didn't fight in the name of scientology.
 
Not true. The Hebrew bible, with its laws, had already been translated in 300 BCE, and there was an active aspiration by the greeks to unionize their beliefs according to the OT: they saught to make Moses a universal figure. This great proposal fell when the Greeks also insisted that images of Zeus and the God of Israel be melted and made into one. The Greeks never forgave the jews for rejecting this proposal, and a great war, followed by continueing animosity, resulted - all prior to the Roman Empire's invasion in this region.
 
The Greeks got their revenge via the Gospels, a Greek document, rather than the false premise it was written by Jews. Basically, it is incorrect to say there were no good laws - the OT laws were considered the most superior treatise of all nation's laws, and began to spread throughout the middle-east, eventually emerging via islam. The church's delete and retain only those OT laws which could allign with the Gospels is a great tragedy, but a battle which christianity lost: all these laws are active today in the world's judiciary institutions - not a single NT law was accepted. It just happens a series of false stories were spread, because Israel was deemed destroyed, and today there is a worldly non-acceptance or formidable bewilderment of real history.
 


The Judean war happened because the Jews' strict monotheism prevented them from performing rites in the name of the emperor. Partition in the imperial cult was how the empire's subjects acknowledged the legitimacy of its rule, refusing to do so undermined the foundation of the empire and was considered an act of open rebellion, much like a vassal refusing to pay homage to his lord. In other words this was not so much about religion as the legitimacy of the state, and a state whose citizens do not recognize its legitimacy will simply disintegrate.
 
This is also not correct. The Romans never insisted on the jews abandoning their Monotheist beliefs, even after Caligula, agreeing with their own conclusion it predated Rome and thus not directed against the Empire. The situation changed because of Hellenist Greeks instigating the Romans against the jews, which began in an event in Ceasara in 66 CE, namely they started sacrificing pigs outside the Synagogues as a provocation. They then went to Nero and said the jews stopped them from sacrificing unto Nero, and obtained a decree in favour of them. Here, 50,000 jews were massacred by Vespasian on Nero's orders.
 
Upto this time, the Jews honored Rome by sacrificing outside the Temple, but now this was ceased [rebelion], following the Cesaera massacre, an event which began the war which culminated in 70 CE.  All of the villifications and antisemitism in the Gospels is the Greek input, and nothing therein is based on factual history. Its not true that the jews rebelled for no reason than Monotheism - this was not the case for a 100 years under Rome before this time.
 
If one examines history even further back, one will see that this was the same which occured in ancient Egypt and babylon: the priests of those nations becamse diminished by the OT and a great animosity resulted. The Greek hellenist priests were also affronted by Alexander's decision to esteem the OT and have it translated: this made the intelligent greeks prefer the OT to their own beliefs, but the priests changed the course by manufactring formidable stories. The drowing of first born Hebrew males by the Egyptian preists, the Babylonian Arab Haman who told the Persian King Darius the jews insulted the king by not worshipping him, are the kind of reports which resulted in the previous history and that of the Gospels.
 
The Jews too conquered and forced their beliefs on others, which was how the Jewish states on the Levant were created in the first place, according to the OT. This type of behavior is natural for all human societies, the only reason they didn't do it to the same extent as Rome was because they couldn't.
 
Again, not true. The only incidence of a war concerned Canaan, and this was not due to any conversion goal. The Hebrews were 100% Canaanites themselves, the belief and nation of Israel being incepted in Canaan, and living side by side with different Canaanite belief systems. The Canaanites refused entry to the Hebrew Canaanites when they returned to their land. This was a legitimate war, where two of the 8 Canaanite kingdoms sided with the Hebrews, and lived there for many centuries. The Jews have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history, nor did they enforce their religion on others, despite being a most dispersed peoples throughout the world's nations. There appears no reason for the christian and islamic antisemitism, other than those religions feel affronted that Israel exists, and this is a suspicious syndrome.
 
 
 
 
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226 		  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 11:20

Folks, the topic here is the greatest empire.  Lets get back on topic shall we.  IAJoseph, I will not allow this thread to be hijacked.  Start another thread.

BTW-  I did not "seize" the other thread.  I merely moved it from one forum to another in order to keep order, something we can do without warning anyone.Smile  And no, you did'nt answer BE's questions. In fact you slickly avoided them for over a page of posts.
 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943 		  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 13:19
Originally posted by IamJoseph

Today's believing christians are the hapless victims of these falsehoods.


Surely this is against the forum codes, good sir.

Originally posted by IamJoseph

Not true. The Hebrew bible, with its laws, had already been translated in 300 BCE, and there was an active aspiration by the greeks to unionize their beliefs according to the OT: they saught to make Moses a universal figure.


You consider the OT to be a human rights document!? Shocked It is the story of a capricious and jealous God who both perpetrates and condones one atrocity (in light of modern human rights) after the other. When the Jews misbehave, God massacres them, when infidels threaten the Jews, God massacres them, when the Jews massacre infidels, God condones it. "Thou shalt not kill" ends up sounding somewhat hypocritical coming from this God, or coming from Moses, who surely brought up a hammer and chisel up Mt. Sinai.

Originally posted by IamJoseph

Upto this time, the Jews honored Rome by sacrificing outside the Temple, but now this was ceased [rebelion], following the Cesaera massacre, an event which began the war which culminated in 70 CE.


This is just going one step back on the chain of events though. The massacre triggered a Jewish counterreaction which caused them to become more conservative in their beliefs, even fanatic (zealots), and refuse the imperial cult. Of course partition in the imperial cult can't have been considered as proper behavior for an orthodox Jew at any point.

Originally posted by IamJosephus

The Jews have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history, nor did they enforce their religion on others, despite being a most dispersed peoples throughout the world's nations. There appears no reason for the christian and islamic antisemitism, other than those religions feel affronted that Israel exists, and this is a suspicious syndrome.


I'm not saying Israel shouldn't exist, even though that's another debate. What can't be denied however is how both modern and ancient Israel have been created with blood.

Originally posted by red clay

Folks, the topic here is the greatest empire.  Lets get back on topic shall we.  IAJoseph, I will not allow this thread to be hijacked.  Start another thread.


But why? This thread was just another juvenile wankfest over who would beat up who until IamJoseph posted. Now we have an interesting discussion on the moral legitimacy of the Roman empire, judged by both contemporary and past standards.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 14:53
You consider the OT to be a human rights document!? Shocked
 
All human rights come from the OT - exclusively. Name me another source? All womens rights and animal rights also come from the OT.
 
 
It is the story of a capricious and jealous God who both perpetrates and condones one atrocity (in light of modern human rights) after the other.
 
Zealous [fastidious; requiring truth] The OT is true to history - ancient times were like that - nations engaged in wars of anihilation, out of a superstitition. The OT's historical stats are factual and vindicated - the NT is not, despite being 2000 years later.
 
When the Jews misbehave, God massacres them, when infidels threaten the Jews, God massacres them, when the Jews massacre infidels, God condones it. "Thou shalt not kill" ends up sounding somewhat hypocritical coming from this God, or coming from Moses, who surely brought up a hammer and chisel up Mt. Sinai.
 
Your assessment is wanting. Jews have subsisted and should be grateful, while 1000s of older and mightier did not. It is not credible that the NT assures automatic salvation for signing on a name, while all laws of truth and justice are flaunted. There can be no credibility of the NT where it flaunts the OT, which it claims to believe in. More innocent humans were killed under the Gospels and in JC's name than any other - so how can you even assess the OT?
 
This is just going one step back on the chain of events though. The massacre triggered a Jewish counterreaction which caused them to become more conservative in their beliefs, even fanatic (zealots), and refuse the imperial cult. Of course partition in the imperial cult can't have been considered as proper behavior for an orthodox Jew at any point.
 
Not at all. This was a war to sustain the most vital factor, and it would be a crime not to defend against Rome. The early nazerite christians went that-away. What you call Zealots were majestic people who did not agree with Rome's depraved decrees, and they sacrificed their and their families for it - over a million sacrificed themselves. That this is not mentioned in the Gospels, makes it a lie-by-omission.
 
I'm not saying Israel shouldn't exist
 
Christianity does say that, and act out is deeds covertly today, at the UN:
 
'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* - BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - Pope not so Pious.
 
That is a genocidal doctrine, notwithstnding it also persecuted Jews in Europe. I doubt JC will tap him on the shoulder...he was not a christian u know!
 
"Thou shalt not kill" ends up sounding somewhat hypocritical coming from this God, or coming from Moses, who surely brought up a hammer and chisel up Mt. Sinai.
 
Thou shalt not murder. Yes, it came with majestic laws - not a free bonus for signing a VIP club. This was the first time a sector of humanity was given such controversial, but majestic  laws, when the world was quote savage. But comparatively, Christianity massacred a million times more - while chanting love is all u need. Critical mass applies. first assess christianity's record - then the OT God. The Hebrews erred - they witnessed greater proof than anyone else, and were also sorely tested. They eventually passed the tests. Would you have?
 
But why? This thread was just another juvenile wankfest over who would beat up who until IamJoseph posted. Now we have an interesting discussion on the moral legitimacy of the Roman empire, judged by both contemporary and past standards.
 
There is a false picture painted of Rome, as if she was rght to massacre over 1.5 million people for defending their beliefs, and destroy Jerusalem and a 2000 year archive of history: a largess far greater than what Rome represented. Fortunately, the scrolls were saved from the fire - evidence the Jews respected books more than the booty aspired by Rome. The divine man is BS - no matter who it comes from. This was defended against the Pharoahs and a host of other sharlatans - so there is no credence in either Rome or Roman's catholics' premises. The issue who ultimately rules the universe is humanity's most pivotal one, even for atheists.
 
Its correct that Rome went down. as did the Pharoahs - all roads did not lead there, and humanity was inclined in a wrong path. You should be hailing, not rediculing Jews for their stand against the world's greatest super-power: there is no greater example in history of the defense against Rome. But you probably been fed the false versions of History the past 2000 years, and now appear shocked some alternative truths are emerging - but how can the NT & Quran both be true against their claims of the OT - they're mutually exclusive, in their beliefs as well their depictions of History, remember?
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 15:05
Originally posted by IamJoseph

Byzantines were ROMAN Catholics? LOL You never cease to amaze.
 
It became so - which is not amazing considering it was an enforced religion.
 
What does 'it' refer to? Who was enforcing what on whom?
 
The very concept of ROMAN Catholicism doesn't actually emerge till after the fall of the western empire (long after depending on how you see the schism starting). Byzantium never recognised the primacy of the Roman Pope, apart arguably from the short period of the Latin Empire, during which time it wasn't really 'Byzantine'.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.