|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 5, 2022 20:55:11 GMT
Brothels were common place within antiquity and were often placed between houses of respected Roman families. Far from being perceived as taboo, brothels were one of the most common gathering places for Roman men. It was seen as antisocial for men not to engage in activities with prostitutes. There are two ways archaeologists know whether a building discovered is a brothel or not. The first is by signage — with names and prices on one side and “occupata” (“occupied” in Latin) on the reverse. Or obvious inscriptions like “cellae meretriciae” (prostitute’s cot) which marked out the purpose of the location. The other way is the discovery of the mass graves of children. In Roman Antiquity children were not considered real people until they were at least two. Fathers were legally allowed to kill their children without legal repercussion. This made infanticide rampant in the ancient world. The presence of fetal and newborn skeletons in mass graves give archaeologists an indication that what they’re excavating could very well be a brothel. There was no ethical dilemma in the ancient world with these situations because children had been fully dehumanized in antiquity. They “looked human” but were “non complere personas” (not fully persons yet), as one ancient writer put it. Infanticidal practices were considered acceptable, justifiable, and necessary due to the lack of contraception and the adult who was (unlike children of course) a “full person” and therefore within their rights to do as they pleased. The concept of intrinsic human value — that you have dignity, worth, and purpose by nature of simply being human — is foreign to the vast majority of human history. It has only recently been broadly accepted, and only due to the Judea-Christian ethic, that the value of the human being no matter what size, stage, situation, race, gender, etc., etc., came into fruition as a societal norm. I’m seeing a lot of very relevant conversations that both sadden and worry me. Worry me about the state of how we view human worth, dignity, and value - concepts which only have a leg to stand on via historical biblical grounding. As a historian I spend a lot of my time reading the writings of ancient pagans and sometimes their arguments justifying their dehumanizations and sacrifices (literal sacrifices in many cases) don’t sound nearly as ancient as they ought to be. The ancients had no qualms with child sacrifice because they had utterly dehumanized babies. Another reminder that societal assumptions do not equate with truth, morality, or justice. ——————————————— Relevant sources: Harris, W. V. “Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire.” The Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994): 1–22. Shaw, Brent D., Raising and Killing Children: Two Roman Myths, Fourth Series, Vol. 54, Fasc. 1 (Feb., 2001), pp. 31-77, Brill. H. Bennett, "The Exposure of Infants in Ancient Rome" The Classical Journal, Vol. 18, No. 6 (Mar., 1923), pp. 341-351 (11 pages) John Hopkins University Press. Crook, John, Patria Potestas. Vol. 17, No. 1 (May, 1967), pp. 113-122 (10 pages), Cambridge University Press. Boswell, John Eastburn. ìExpositio and Oblatio: The Abandonment of Children and the Ancient and Medieval Family,î American Historical Review 89 (1984): 10-33. Dixon, Suzanne. The Roman Family. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Golden, Mark ìDemography, The Exposure of Girls at Athens,î Phoenix 35 (1981): 316-331. Golden, Mark ìDemography, Did the Ancients Care When Their Children Died? Greece & Rome 35 (1988): 152-163. O. M. Bakke, "When Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity," 2005. Rawson, Beryl, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxford University., Press, 2003. bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/.../the-babies-and.../www.bbc.com/news/10384460www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42911813Written by Wesley Huff and shared on his Facebook page. See www.wesleyhuff.com/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2022 9:17:50 GMT
What I find characteristic is the unspoken implication that Christianity put a stop to those practices when I have known forever that for example infanticide and child prostitution were common practices by the aristocracy up until the French revolution and that mass graves of fetuses were commonly found under convents proving that not only did the nuns failed their vows of chastity but that they would also use abortion as a common means of birth control. Also that in practice these people would believe even less than I do (and I don't believe at all).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2022 9:22:07 GMT
Also never forget that even as we "speak" the catholic church protects pedophiles and keeps them out of reach of the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 6, 2022 21:42:04 GMT
The disregard for fetus and just born is much older than Romans ..
14 The Lord said to Moses in the Desert of Sinai, 15 “Count the Levites by their families and clans. Count every male a month old or more.”
-Numbers 3:14-15
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2022 21:52:04 GMT
The disregard for fetus and just born is much older than Romans ..
14 The Lord said to Moses in the Desert of Sinai, 15 “Count the Levites by their families and clans. Count every male a month old or more.”
-Numbers 3:14-15
"Disregard for fetuses"? Probably an honest awareness of childhood mortality rates. It's a census.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2022 22:08:55 GMT
The disregard for fetus and just born is much older than Romans ..
14 The Lord said to Moses in the Desert of Sinai, 15 “Count the Levites by their families and clans. Count every male a month old or more.”
-Numbers 3:14-15
What I like is the king Solomon's story. I mean he said to split a baby in half to settle a dispute between mothers in a maternity ward and every one thinks it's clever and wise of him but if you stop to think about it. It's absurd for a plethora of reasons. 1) Why was a king doing something so petty as that? One would think he'd have bigger fish to fry. 2) That kind of bluff can only work once so what if he had failed? The mother who wasn't the real mother of the kid wanted it to be split while the other conceded, right? What if neither was the real mother? what if she had died giving birth which wasn't very uncommon back then. If we follow the "logic" of that story both would have wanted the child to be cut. So Solomon would have had to choose between two bad alternatives. Either he would have said "Hey, gals, I was just kidding" and looked like an idiot or go through with it and be forever remembered as a barbaric despot. 3) If anything that story shows the barbaric ways of back then... I mean first the fact that he even gave such an order. Can you imagine the shock if someone had tried something so outrageous today? Plus the fact that one of the mothers was willing and that for his bluff to work he had to be almost certain that the false mother would. I mean what if both mothers the real one and the false one had said no? It must have seem almost inconceivable that they would back then. Anyway, for all these reasons it's very likely that that story is ridiculously apocryphal. It's only in the imaginary world of legends that that kind of bluff works. For all we know King Solomon was a crazy despot a la Ivan The Terrible and he simply had a good PR.
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jul 13, 2022 16:26:46 GMT
Where were these "Judeo-Christian" ethics in the mass graves of children at church-run Canadian residential schools? Or at the Irish church-run homes for unmarried mothers?
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 13, 2022 19:58:16 GMT
Where were these "Judeo-Christian" ethics in the mass graves of children at church-run Canadian residential schools? Or at the Irish church-run homes for unmarried mothers? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jul 15, 2022 15:10:04 GMT
Where were these "Judeo-Christian" ethics in the mass graves of children at church-run Canadian residential schools? Or at the Irish church-run homes for unmarried mothers? What do you think? Pretty much the same thing I've said for years: religious beliefs and goodness have little to do with one another.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 15, 2022 17:25:44 GMT
Pretty much the same thing I've said for years: religious beliefs and goodness have little to do with one another. I think it's easy to trace the reasonable expected outcome from biblical examples and teaching and see the obvious lack of congruency between them and the things you've described. I know, someone will respond with "no true Scotsman fallacy..." That doesn't go very far. If I call out some astrologer out for claiming to represent NASA, that is not a "no true Scotsman fallacy." So...does the behaviour and outcome match the biblical prescription? If not, then how does it qualify as representative? And how does the prescriptive text allow for these discrepancies (if at all)? (The same could be said about any other religion.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2022 20:03:12 GMT
Pretty much the same thing I've said for years: religious beliefs and goodness have little to do with one another. I think it's easy to trace the reasonable expected outcome from biblical examples and teaching and see the obvious lack of congruency between them and the things you've described. I know, someone will respond with "no true Scotsman fallacy..." That doesn't go very far. If I call out some astrologer out for claiming to represent NASA, that is not a "no true Scotsman fallacy." So...does the behaviour and outcome match the biblical prescription? If not, then how does it qualify as representative? And how does the prescriptive text allow for these discrepancies (if at all)? (The same could be said about any other religion.) Biblical prescription? Are you kidding me? According to the bible god asked "his people" to massacre their enemies, to the last man, woman and child with the exception of the virgin girls that they were to use as basically sex slaves. That's some prescription!
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jul 18, 2022 19:27:54 GMT
I think it's easy to trace the reasonable expected outcome from biblical examples and teaching and see the obvious lack of congruency between them and the things you've described. Depends on which part of the Bible we're talking about. The Tanakh has some truly horrifying things, and eternal torment from the NT is even worse than that! Of course, religions are more than just a holy book; they're communities. Even sola scriptura churches and denominations are communities of practice and interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 18, 2022 20:42:45 GMT
I think it's easy to trace the reasonable expected outcome from biblical examples and teaching and see the obvious lack of congruency between them and the things you've described. Depends on which part of the Bible we're talking about. The Tanakh has some truly horrifying things, and eternal torment from the NT is even worse than that! Of course, religions are more than just a holy book; they're communities. Even sola scriptura churches and denominations are communities of practice and interpretation. Well, except the New Testament doesn't actually say "eternal torment" except in the cases of the Devil and his angels, so not sure that "the New Testament is worse." Certainly everything in the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the New Testament (something many North American Christians neglect to do—it's more like "picking and choosing which Old Testament passages are helpful for you at this time").
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2022 21:07:41 GMT
Depends on which part of the Bible we're talking about. The Tanakh has some truly horrifying things, and eternal torment from the NT is even worse than that! Of course, religions are more than just a holy book; they're communities. Even sola scriptura churches and denominations are communities of practice and interpretation. Well, except the New Testament doesn't actually say "eternal torment" except in the cases of the Devil and his angels, so not sure that "the New Testament is worse." Certainly everything in the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the New Testament (something many North American Christians neglect to do—it's more like "picking and choosing which Old Testament passages are helpful for you at this time"). Isn't the Quran a sort of New New Testament? I know some Muslims who think of it this way. In which case both the Old and New Testaments should be interpreted in light of the Quran.
|
|
rosies
Uber Noob
Partisan Courtesan
Posts: 23
|
Post by rosies on Jul 22, 2022 7:01:02 GMT
Depends on which part of the Bible we're talking about. The Tanakh has some truly horrifying things, and eternal torment from the NT is even worse than that! Of course, religions are more than just a holy book; they're communities. Even sola scriptura churches and denominations are communities of practice and interpretation. Well, except the New Testament doesn't actually say "eternal torment" except in the cases of the Devil and his angels, so not sure that "the New Testament is worse." Certainly everything in the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the New Testament (something many North American Christians neglect to do—it's more like "picking and choosing which Old Testament passages are helpful for you at this time"). Ancient teachings have moral and ethical lessons that are as important as ever to life today. One example is 'when does life begin and end' A huge deal in the US these days. Jewish teaching is that life ends after the final breath and begins after the first breath. Judaism also teaches that the life and well-being of the pregnant person has priority. Here in the US Xtianity is being imposed without regard to the original source: the Judeo- part. That is asking for grief. And also, Roman women used an herb to induce abortions; it is in their copious histories. Romans were fanatics about documentation. But we don't know what that plant is because the Romans drove it to extinction.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,411
|
Post by thor on Jul 28, 2022 17:14:05 GMT
Well, except the New Testament doesn't actually say "eternal torment" except in the cases of the Devil and his angels, so not sure that "the New Testament is worse." Certainly everything in the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the New Testament (something many North American Christians neglect to do—it's more like "picking and choosing which Old Testament passages are helpful for you at this time"). Isn't the Quran a sort of New New Testament? I know some Muslims who think of it this way. In which case both the Old and New Testaments should be interpreted in light of the Quran. I think it might be worth noting here that of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the only one that recognizes the validity of the other two.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 28, 2022 17:30:40 GMT
Isn't the Quran a sort of New New Testament? I know some Muslims who think of it this way. In which case both the Old and New Testaments should be interpreted in light of the Quran. I think it might be worth noting here that of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the only one that recognizes the validity of the other two. Recognizes the validity...to some extent, but not really. Islam would recognize the "prophets" of Christianity and Judaism but would claim that Judaism and Christianity are distorted to a fault. Mohammed expected that Christians and Jews would flock to Islam once "the truth" was revealed, then got pretty vindictive when they didn't. You know who else did that? Martin Luther.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2022 19:09:34 GMT
I think it might be worth noting here that of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the only one that recognizes the validity of the other two. Recognizes the validity...to some extent, but not really. Islam would recognize the "prophets" of Christianity and Judaism but would claim that Judaism and Christianity are distorted to a fault. Mohammed expected that Christians and Jews would flock to Islam once "the truth" was revealed, then got pretty vindictive when they didn't. You know who else did that? Martin Luther. While Christians waged war on heretics, that is people with a slightly different view on Christianity.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Aug 2, 2022 3:17:34 GMT
Isn't the Quran a sort of New New Testament? I know some Muslims who think of it this way. In which case both the Old and New Testaments should be interpreted in light of the Quran. I think it might be worth noting here that of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the only one that recognizes the validity of the other two. Feel free to refer to them as Judeochrislam.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,411
|
Post by thor on Aug 2, 2022 4:53:37 GMT
I think it might be worth noting here that of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the only one that recognizes the validity of the other two. Feel free to refer to them as Judeochrislam. They are distinct from each other. They DO, however, have the same roots.
|
|