All Roads Lead to Rome

reply to post by Hemisphere

don't toil in the fields when you can "star and flag" until you run out of cash

another interesting point. if you're referring to people posting on these forums, such as myself, well it might be a good idea to consider why they are on the forums. if i wasn't on the forums, i'd be watching tv.

please mistah, don't send me back to the tv room. don't mind some tv when i'm not well but since i can't do much of anything else at the moment, ats is my preferred choice of mind expanding.

or perhaps your point was something else?

reply to post by Dock9


that's very true and false at the same time. it's true that paul and rome suppressed women but it was actually the norm for the 4000 years that preceeded yeshua. how many women were pharaohs (may be one or two?) out of a 3000 year dynasty? how many women buddhist priests (until recently, like a year ago,women were not allowed to become monks or priests)? how many women maharajis? in the israel of yeshua's time, the women were treated horribly. greece, ditto. in fact, much of ancient history, is replete with similar examples.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

so not one of us is capable of throwing the first stone.

now this is a good point.

in the context of the setting, the woman was about to be stoned to death for committing adultery with another man. however, the men all in attendance of the stoning, who were about to exercise their superior position in society over the woman, had also committed adultery.

yeshua looked at the situation, recognized the reality of it, and made a very simple (and brilliant) defense for the woman.

And by doing so intimated that none of us are devoid of instinct or desire. We are all human. And JC, being a living God, God made man, is the only one capable of meting out justice. Guilty! You are all guilty!

Yeshua never asked where the hell her husband was. He didn't care, because this was a fiction. How convenient that the stage was set with all the adulterous men of the neighborhood and one lone woman of ill repute. Very Hollywood. Too bad Palestinians didn't ride white horses back then. I would have cast Gene Autry to play Yeshua. (I'm no Polanski, it's obvious.) And so our hero, Yeshua, again reminds us that our human condition, the fact that we have all made at least one poor choice in our lives, prevents there from being any justice in this life. I repeat, "Bend over, take it and shut the hell up you spineless sinful nothing."

And so "No justice, no peace!"

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Dock9

 

what concerns me is the polar opposite of forgiveness. if'n ya know what i mean. people make mistakes of various kinds and for various reasons. our prisons are full of people that actually need a good doctor not a jail cell. we treat people with mental/emotional diseases and disorders as if it their own fault.

this is why judgment can only be truly reserved by a caring and omniscient god, because anything less would not be real justice.

I do know what you mean and it's always occupied my thoughts

However, in this, we must return to Proto's remarks (which echo my own) insofar as we cannot expect human society -- with everything it's required to cope with, minute to minutes --- to exercise Godlike understanding, mercy, justice. We cannot expect society to inflict dangerous individuals upon society despite we may recognise (and most do) that the 'offender' is in fact blameless and simply the product of his genetic inheritance/damaged or faulty brain/sociopathic and other tendencies. Can we ?

If I were a member of a parole board, sitting there in my panelled office along with others of my rank, sure, I could play God and decide this or that multiple murderer or child rapist can't be held responsible for what he is. As a member of a parole board, advised by lunatic-fringe professionals (psychiatrists, psychologists and their ilk), I might decide this or that serial killer has 'responded well to treatment' and can no longer be judged a danger to society'.

So I might sign the release of that sociopath. Then I'll go to lunch at my club, swelling with pride at my accomplishments and visible evidence of my exalted position and humane disposition

Too bad for you, though, huh ? Too bad for your family in being chosen by the sociopath as the victims of his next psychotic episode

But, as an anonymous member of a parole board and because I'm wealthy beyond counting and because this provides me the sort of personal and other security that you and your little family couldn't even imagine --- the sociopath is no danger to me or mine. And the buck for the serial-killers re-offending will never come to rest at my door. Nope. It came to yours. Too bad. It must have been God's Will. Either that, or the sociopath's exercise of his 'free will'. You understand, yes, the plebs have no choice but to understand. They're powerless

So, because I care for the welfar of you and your family and all the other powerless, misled plebs out there, I would vote to remove that sociopath from society in as humane a manner as possibile. And I would consign him to God. Up to God to sort it all out. Up to God to make the moral choice: is it the sociopath's fault he is the way he is ? Or is it yet more evidence of faulty-design and failure of God to properly monitor what goes on here on planet Earth ? We'll leave that for God.

Some people cannot be rehabilitated. In fact, this was the conclusion of a 20 year study in the UK several years ago. Afater spending millions on 'rehabilitation', the researchers were forced very reluctantly to admit that there's actually no such thing as rehabilitation, certainly not as the average pleb understands it.

Instead, claimed the researchers (who were 'experts' in their field; criminologists, pyschiatrists, pscyhologists, etc) 'rehabilitation' exists only insofar as fear of the consequences to themselves is the only thing which prevents criminals from reoffending. Few people are awaer of that

Which is fine if the offence most favoured by the criminal in question is simpley petty theft, car-stealing, embezzlement or even flashing of their private parts. Society can deal with that. Because it's the sort of crime that only really impacts on the plebs anyway, in terms of inconvenience, loss of irreplacable property (family photos burned or tossed into rivers, stuff like that) and increased insurance premiums

But it's when the criminal's favoured crime is rape and murder of your child or your grandmother, that we have to draw the line

The criminal is a psycho. Right minded people don't spend their energy scouting out children and old people to rape and kill

And as a society, we can't allow that to happen. It's wrong. Old fashioned term, but there you go. It's wrong. It's not right

And as the offender won't stop until society stops him and locks him up again, we have no reason to keep on locking him up, letting him loose, locking him up again, etc. with all the costs and suffering which accompany this.

The offender is not fit to live amongst us. That's my view.

So what are the choices .. to keep him locked up ? Is that humane ?

Or to put him down and consign him to his alleged creator ? To get him to somewhere where he won't be able to keep hurting the rest of society who are going to die themselves within 80 to 100 years anyway, as would the offender were he allowed to remain alive ?

I vote for getting him off-planet. Send him back to God. He's God's reponsibility, imo, so let God shoulder it ... or not

reply to post by may_be_true

The zinger is, if Rome is irrevocably victorious and the whole world is now Rome, there is no longer any reason for Rome to treat it's American slaves any better than it's Chinese slaves, is there? If they desire to start new projects in any part of the world or finance the wars against the natives of another land, there is no reason why they should not take 28 trillion dollars of THEIR money from THEIR North American territories and spend it as it suits their needs. Isn't that what Governments do?

There truly isn't and that is why we are being systematically stripped of our wealth my friend.

What we are seeing is the U.S. goes into Iraq and the Chinese Reserve Bank controlled by the House of Dan loans us the money, and then we award them the Leases on the Oil Wells and Fields, in exchange.

Meanwhile, the American Tax Payers get to pick up the tab, by having to pay off the huge debt.

Iraq gets hurt, millions die, and they are enslaved to a puppet government.

China gets hurt as they are enslaved to becoming more and more oil dependent as people trade in their bicycles and carts for Cars!

We get hurt, through a lesser loss of life tha the Iraqis, but a greater slavery to foreign debt, and the interest on it to the Reserve Banks owned by the Roman/Rothschild Banking cartel.

Everyone actually looses, but Rome, everyone gets weaker in some way but Rome!

It's really incredible what is happening in the world, and how it is being manipulated, even while they create an illusion, that China could be a threat to us, after selling us the illusion that Iraq could be a threat to us.

Great post my friend.

reply to post by Hemisphere


being female, i happen to know that what he did for her was very important and a perfect example of how the laws regarding women at the time, were not good. it was seriously out of balance.

women were not allowed on the main floor of synagogue, much less allowed to address the men of the congregation. yeshua took a woman in synagogue and brought her up to the front to speak, which shocked the men in attendance. that was a no-no. the first two people to "proclaim the gospel," were women. the church has historically ignored yeshua's examples because of paul and the near global low status afforded women, most of which was a result of survival of the fittest, which is natural instinct. natural instinct will gravitate to women being treated like house pets again without a moral reason to do otherwise. it's just the nature of things, ya know?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

don't toil in the fields when you can "star and flag" until you run out of cash

another interesting point. if you're referring to people posting on these forums, such as myself, well it might be a good idea to consider why they are on the forums. if i wasn't on the forums, i'd be watching tv.

please mistah, don't send me back to the tv room. don't mind some tv when i'm not well but since i can't do much of anything else at the moment, ats is my preferred choice of mind expanding.

or perhaps your point was something else?

Sorry undo. I am not that clever. It was not a slight at you or anyone posting on ATS. I just substituted "starring and flagging" for carousing in general, a bit too cute I now know. Wow, look what I did, that was nearly Biblical in double-entendre. Imagine if I were awake!

Screw the television. I'm glad you're here. My posts don't always sound like it but I have no animosity toward you and most others here. I say most as I am not without sin you know. But Jesus still loves me! The Bible tells me so, or does it?

I wonder is Rome protecting the lambs they want the people to be or is it fleecing them of everything and turning them into pure gold?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7856387b7233.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Dock9


egads. i don't believe in capital punishment, so your words are not resonating with me at all, on this topic. i keep thinking of the "do unto others" thing. i've had the opportunity to view life from the perspective of extreme poverty, to mental illness brought on by gulf war syndrome, to spoiled teenager, to old menopausal softie, and all the points in between. if life has taught me nothing it has taught me that everyone deserves a chance, although i can't provide those chances, i can certainly state for the record that i don't agree with taking life. i goof around in video games, but in real life, nottachance.

reply to post by undo


Of course. But the Romans were instigating what was purported to be a new and enlightened religion and belief system, based on the most humane and woman-friendly god so far

Helena-Salome, for example. Peter castigated her as a 'witch'. Yet she was a close confidante of Jesus' mother and was with her at the crucifixion

Helena (Salome) was the consort of Simon Zelotes and the 'mother' of the apostles James and John. And Helena was a member of the Order of Asher in which women quite openly owned property and in which priestesses were regarded as sacred-women. Helena herself was a high-priestess and this entitled her to wear the same sort of robes still worn today by Roman Catholoc cardinals. She was no 'harlot' and no 'witch' --- unless we adopt the term of 'witch' to describe the current hierarchy of the Roman church

Mary Magdalene was know as a 'Miriam' was the equivalent of today's senior bishops

Yet these exalted and learned women were defamed by Paul as 'scarlet women' as 'harlots'. Misogeny, pure and simple. He was afraid of them, afraid of their intellect and knowledge

Rome fancied itself as enlightened. It was in the process of inventing and imposing a new religion. It spend hundreds of years and tens of thousands, even millions of lives in its determination to destroy all possible rival religions. It preached the alleged message and doctrines of a Christ, with emphasis on compassion, undersanding, forgiveness, mercy, equality. Yet at the same time, it demonised 50% of its intended forced adherents

If Rome had chosen instead to divorce itself of the misogyny rampant in previous religions (which it was in any evet plagiarising) and to embrace 100% of the human race, rather than lift 50% above the rest -- think how the past 2000 years might have been. And think of what we might have achieved if men had not been not only encouraged but instructed to regard females as 'lesser'

We've all lost through this, all the way through



.

(edited to correct one spelling mistake. The rest have to stay ...typing too fast, too much I should be doing offline. Apologies)



[edit on 29-4-2010 by Dock9]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Well that would be bad strategy from Rome in my opinion. Why have Eastern Christianity and Roman Catholic Christianity (not to mentioned the further deviations that were created later on) when they would be more powerful united under one banner. I know what you will say, its about divide and conquer, but divide and conquer tactics will work just as well, if not better against Islam/Judaism and whoever else you claimed were the enemies of Rome, with one Christian front, and not a divided one. Don't you think?

I've still got more reading to do, but with what you've presented and with what I've learned so far, I do think that Rome's presence and power is exaggerated in your opening post. Certainly they have influence, the Vatican and its cohorts are evidence of that, but there are competing powers at play that cannot all be attributed to a systemic creation of a divide and conquer system. If that were the case, we should all have been conquered long ago. And if that isn't the case, well then Rome must be a HEAVY procrastinator.

reply to post by Dock9


i don't think he was afraid of her knowledge. i think he was afraid of sinning because of her gender. this is why the muslims have such strict laws regarding women. there's even examples in judaism in which the men who encountered women on the street, would avert or even close their eyes to keep from sinning, even to the point of stumbling over objects. i do believe it's an example of the roman church not paying attention to what yeshua said and did. the lesson being that you are responsible for your thoughts, not the person next to you or across the street from you. you have to bring your own thoughts under submission, not force the person who is offending you, to do so. it makes sense but who said peoples is sensible?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Dock9

 

egads. i don't believe in capital punishment, so your words are not resonating with me at all, on this topic. i keep thinking of the "do unto others" thing. i've had the opportunity to view life from the perspective of extreme poverty, to mental illness brought on by gulf war syndrome, to spoiled teenager, to old menopausal softie, and all the points in between. if life has taught me nothing it has taught me that everyone deserves a chance, although i can't provide those chances, i can certainly state for the record that i don't agree with taking life. i goof around in video games, but in real life, nottachance.

We've all seen it, Undo

You play war-games ? So you symbollically kill

But you don't have the gonads to take it to real life ?

What does that make you, other than a hypocrite ?


War-games, 'real' war --- what are they ? They are the killing of others who've done you no personal injury, sanctioned by exactly the sort of state-run death games in which people are first indoctrinated to loyalty for a piece of rag and a tune, or where they're indoctrinated by the church to kill in defence of their own religion/belief system.

And that's what this thread is about, strangely enough

This is the insanity into which we've been propelled for at least 2000 years under the guise of 'Christianty'

We don't gain. We do not gain from the deaths of people we don't know, in order Rome can grow richer and more powerful

It' SO insane that middle-aged women play 'war games' ! What is that telling you ?

Yet you profess to draw the line at removing sociopaths with the potential to END dozens of lives, from the gene pool. And to consign them to their alleged creator ?

So you prefer to sit in your chair, symbolically killing others

and at teh same time you believe yourself righteous for not being willing to remove ACTUAL dangers from the society IN WHICH YOU LIVE

Well. We differ

reply to post by Dock9


In all fairness to Rome, the Patrician law it utilized prior to Christianity did give the Male head of household complete power of life and death over everyone in it, his wife, his children, his slaves.

Roman law, ended at your front door, and the Master of the House's law began.

It was unquestioned, so it was a radical break, from what Rome, and Roman men, especially Roman men of any wealth or means were used to.

It was just one of many reasons why Pagan Rome had to have Christianity forced on it.

There really weren't many free Romans who saw any virtue in piousness and equality, and charity, and humbleness.

In fact most Romans thought Christians to be insane based on the religion's teachings.

Now two things to consider, you can only take people so far so fast in their attitudes, we see this on these boards all the time.

The other thing to consider though, is like the end of the Civil War, the Blacks could no longer be owned by Whites, but both black and whites became incorporated property of the state, at the end of the Civil War under the 14th amendment.

Blacks deserved to be equal, but in that process of making them equal, those who weren't black were stripped of their sovereign citizen status under the original constitution, and made property of the State bringing them down actually several rungs on the latter, while Blacks just went from being property of White owners, to being property of the State, which at best was just a step up the latter.

The freedoms Rome has granted as illusions to one race, group or sex, has always come at the expense of taking freedoms away from a truly free or much freer group and making them significantly less free, and that all started with the imposition of Christianity, where a free Roman man, had absolute unquestioned freedom in his own home.

And ones out on the streets and in the world, unrivaled even in today's America, or even in the initial aftermath of the Revolutionary war.

Rome has been working on making us all equal, but all equal as slaves!

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Dock9

 

i don't think he was afraid of her knowledge. i think he was afraid of sinning because of her gender. this is why the muslims have such strict laws regarding women. there's even examples in judaism in which the men who encountered women on the street, would avert or even close their eyes to keep from sinning, even to the point of stumbling over objects. i do believe it's an example of the roman church not paying attention to what yeshua said and did. the lesson being that you are responsible for your thoughts, not the person next to you or across the street from you. you have to bring your own thoughts under submission, not force the person who is offending you, to do so. it makes sense but who said peoples is sensible?

Afraid of 'sinning because of her gender' ??

Whose 'sin' are we referring to here, first of all ?

Paul was afraid he'd 'sin' by falling for female priestesses ?

Or Paul was afraid that because they were female, the priesteses would sin ?

It's all BS anyway

And how are you able to translate this rampant misogyny (fear and hatred of women, terror that women might hold power) to the stubborn insistence TODAY, still active in the Roman church, that women cannot hold office ?

It's BS

It was the eradication of the potential contributions to the Roman church, of females

It was the belief that females were inherently 'inferior' ... as taught in that blaasted tome, the Bible ... which claimed Adam was 'first' and Even was created from him/his rib

It derived from Biblical teachings which blamed Eve for Adam's fall.

What rubbish

If ever a book needed banning, it's that bible. It's a satanic treatise that's corrupted and bloodied this globe and hamstrung humanity's discovery of itself and the environment in which it exists

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

being female, i happen to know that what he did for her was very important and a perfect example of how the laws regarding women at the time, were not good. it was seriously out of balance.

women were not allowed on the main floor of synagogue, much less allowed to address the men of the congregation. yeshua took a woman in synagogue and brought her up to the front to speak, which shocked the men in attendance. that was a no-no. the first two people to "proclaim the gospel," were women. the church has historically ignored yeshua's examples because of paul and the near global low status afforded women, most of which was a result of survival of the fittest, which is natural instinct. natural instinct will gravitate to women being treated like house pets again without a moral reason to do otherwise. it's just the nature of things, ya know?

I understand your interpretation. I wish for you and the world that consideration for women's equality was never necessary. I am not attacking the passage on the superficial message. I have a mother (obviously), a wife and a daughter. I have a dog in this fight, pardon the expression. What this was in my opinion was attacking the leaders of Judaism and they were all men obviously. Shaming them in the New Testament that Rome was authoring. This was the Romans "pantsing" the Jewish leaders, their long time adversaries, as hypocrites. The Romans, in the guise of Yeshua, were undermining the Jewish authority for self-rule. By extension they undermined everyone's authority for self-rule. Mind you the Romans were committing the same damned sinful acts, they just never considered them sinful. That's the joke, no guilt. You've never heard the term "Roman guilt". They did however know exactly what buttons to push with others and guilt was big as I've alluded. The Romans were unencumbered by the belief in an invisible, vengeful God.

And as I've mentioned I think this was all written long after the scripted events supposedly occurred. One point of proof for that is all of these "Yeshua" events were undocumented anywhere else and the person of "Yeshua" likewise but for the written works of Titus Flavius Josephus who I think was likely one of the authors, if not the main, of the New Testament. He was providing historical documentation for his own fictional character. Again, my opinion.

Oops, again I've forgotten Paul. Paul was so inspired by his visions, or whatever it was, that he also reverted back to ignoring women. This is where when you are producing a movie they have someone checking continuity.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by Hemisphere]

Gotta go. Real life takes priority

See you again later, maybe

reply to post by serbsta

Well that would be bad strategy from Rome in my opinion. Why have Eastern Christianity and Roman Catholic Christianity (not to mentioned the further deviations that were created later on) when they would be more powerful united under one banner. I know what you will say, its about divide and conquer, but divide and conquer tactics will work just as well, if not better against Islam/Judaism and whoever else you claimed were the enemies of Rome, with one Christian front, and not a divided one. Don't you think?

Actually I think it's sheer brilliance, because the truth is that Christians will rally around the Christian banner in Crusades and when the entire religion is made to appear under attack.

You also have to understand, forced migrations needed to take place, as well as some exterminations, so by breaking up Christianity into several different sects, the whole wouldn't be tarnished by just the actions of one group. For instance most of the Germans were Christian, but the nasty stuff pinned on Germany during World War II wasn't pinned by and large on Christianity.

Them all being Christian could be used to draw on the whole mass, if need be, when it came to uniting them in a Crusade against another religion, but worked great in getting them to fight regional wars, to force migrations and exterminations, when it was time to cull the population.

Catholics really don't want to kill other catholics, but hey a Protestand?

That's cool!

Yet Catholics and Protestants will fight together to kill Islamists!

See how that works.

Sadly what has happened to most of us, is we simply have been disenfranchised from our true devious Roman nature, and no longer understand how a real Roman thinks.

Divide and conquer, divide and conquer.

To Rome every nation is an Estate, the people are slaves, like any other group of livestock they need managed so they don't over graze, and they don't stray or wander, except where you want them too, dividing the religion into sects, had the same effect as dividing the lands into estates (states/nations) you could get people to fight over these things, cull the herds, and force herds to other grazing grounds too.

Rome is devious, Rome is rutheless, Rome has no compunctions, and Rome has no mercy!

Thanks for asking.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Koen Stroobant has posted this to a blog, word for word.

So who wrote it?

wemustknow.net...

reply to post by glitchinmymatrix


I did, and gave it to some other people provided they cited ATS, please link the blog, and check the timestamps, they tell all.

Thanks!

Edit to add, no I did not give him permission, and he posted it three days after I wrote it.

Thanks for alerting me.

[edit on 29/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]