DDickey
-
Posts
142 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by DDickey
-
-
This may be a little silly, but I thought I'd ask it anyway: If you could somehow magically get your hands on an ancient book that now no longer exists, which would you want to read? For my money, I'd love to read three things: Sulla's autobiography; Polybius' missing work on dictators; and Appian's missing history of Egypt.
-
.
I'm assuming this guy is a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove that the world is only 6,000 years old. Still, it's worth a watch because it's both infuriating and hilarious. It's particularly worth watching about 5 minutes in, when he talks about Julius Caesar.
. Infuriating, I tell you. -
I spoke to the administrator at a local private University and after looking up the American Public University he told me that their accreditation is from completely respected accrediting bodies. This was very encouraging to me.
Yeah, I've looked into myself and it's legitimate. I'm seriously considering doing it. My only concern is their history class is broad; I would like to focus on ancient history.
-
Can anyone point me to a scholarly book or article about education during the Republic, especially during the period 170-140 BC? Thanks.
-
I agree. Some of the most interesting early Christian theological ideas can be found in the so-called apocryphal literature
-
This hypothesis is nothing new. I'm aware of two books that purport to uncover the same scenario. The books are: Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus! by Gary Courtney and Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill. From my understanding, it
-
CAIRO (AFP) - An alabaster head of Cleopatra and a mask thought to belong to her lover Mark Antony have been found near Egypt's Mediterranean city of Alexandria, antiquities chief Zahi Hawass said on Monday.
The two treasures, a bronze statue of Goddess Aphrodite and a headless royal statue from the Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled Egypt between 323 and 30 BC, were discovered by a joint Egyptian-Dominican Republic team of archeologists in the Tapsiris Magna temple, Hawass said.
Some 20 bronze coins stamped with Cleopatra's face were found in underground tunnels 50 metres (164 feet) deep in the archeological site, Hawass said.
The teams had originally been searching for Cleopatra's tomb but Hawass "categorically denied" that they were any closer to finding the queen's burial place.
"We have found nothing that indicates the presence of the tomb," he said, adding that the search for the tombs will restart in November.
The discovery of Cleopatra's tomb would be the biggest archaeological discovery in Egypt since Britain's Howard Carter found the tomb of boy king Tutankhamen in 1922.
Cleopatra and Mark Anthony are one of the most famous couples in history. They committed suicide after their defeat at the battle of Actium, which consolidated Octavian's rule of Rome.
-
So I had some extra money and splurged today. I bought a few books and now I have a dilemma: I can't figure out which one to read next. Can I get any opinions or suggestions?
Right now, I'm currently reading "Julius Caesar" by Philip Freeman.
The Books I purchased are:
Persian Fire by Tom Holland
Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox
A Short History of Byzantium by John Julius Norwich
On Sparta by Plutarch
The Spartans by Paul Cartledge
The Crusades: A History (second edition) by Jonathan Riley-Smith
The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton
Right now I'm leaning toward Persian Fire or A Short History of Byzantium. But I trust all of you and would like to know if anyone has read any of the above books. If so, what are your thoughts?
Thanks.
-
...DDickey, maybe you ordered just a bit too early, because we have currently a caesar giveaway for our newsletter readers http://www.unrv.com/newsletter/newsletter-edition14.php The give away closes today...
cheers
viggen
Ugh. That sucks. I guess that'll teach me.
-
I picked up that new Julius Caesar book that came out this week. I could have sworn I saw it on here. I thumbed through it and it seems 'light.' Still, I look forward to reading it. But I have to finish a book before I tackle it.
-
I know nothing about her other then was presented above and I don't like to much people like her but I have some arguments with the critics made.
1. Not spending money. For an NGO spending surplus money means expanding his operations and that takes time. Donations are uneven and hard to predict while expanses are constant so saving money for low periods it's wise. I'm sure that those money are handy now for the organisation when their marketing icon it's gone.
But she was spending money. She opened nunneries across the world in her name. She opened foster homes and homes for the dying everywhere. The point is that she had raised millions of dollars under the pretense that it would go to those who needed it; to those she was charged with helping. That money didn’t go to them at all. In providing for them, she wanted no money spent. She believed in relying on God’s providence. If they needed something, money wasn’t to be spent because, she hoped, or more truthfully, she hoped God would provide it. Not, it should be noted, for their sakes, but for her sake. Because she wanted to believe and yet she found no reason to believe other than the basic desire to do so.
2. Low quality of medical support. The medic prefers a hospital to her place, but for the pacients it was an option beetwen bad medical asistence and no medical asistence. I know what I prefer.First, there is little distinction between "bad medical assistance" and "no medical assistance."
Men and women, young and old, wound up dying under her care, sometimes in cases in which they would have been spared with simple antibiotics or relatively simple medical procedures. Once someone went to her facility, they were not allowed to leave; nor were they allowed visitors; no one with whom they were familiar or intimate were allowed to visit then. Under no circumstances were they allowed to be transported to a hospital. People needlessly died because Mother Teresa was seeking confirmation of God’s existence, of Jesus’ existence. If you don’t find that sentence appalling, please, read it again. And again. And again. Until you realize the breadth of her crimes.
3. AIDS in Africa. If those people did not listen to her preaching about sex partners why did they listen about the use of condoms? It's not like she said "don't use condoms when you go to a brothel!" What could a catholic leader say anyway?The point is: Christian missionaries are condemning condom use on a continent plagued by AIDS. Catholic dogma insists that contraction of AIDS through premarital sex is less sinful than using a condom to protect oneself from contracting AIDS. But allow me to address you question more head on: She, and people like her, condemn condom use in African villages, to villagers whose only exposure to condoms, and the knowledge thereof, comes from Christian missionaries. They are exploiting people’s ignorance in order to disseminate their socio-political ideology. It is appalling; it is immoral.
4. Human rights. Human rights are not part of the catholic dogma and were outside the scope of her activity. There are already to many championing those. Anyway, dictators receive honors from many people including leaders of democracies. If hostile to the leaders she could not do her bussiness there. BTW in 1990 Albania was the only "Balkan Stalinist state" and the regime was reforming not opressing.This line of reasoning has the distinction of both appalling and baffling me. Human rights are part of Catholic dogma. The entire theological message behind the anti-abortion movement, for example, is predicated on human rights. But let’s say that you are right. Let’s say that Catholic dogma existed outside of the notion of human rights. This is no excuse. It’s not even an argument. Under that line of reasoning, you could excuse everyone from Osama bin Laden to Hamas to the Nazi party because “human rights were outside of their scope of activity.” Again, I’m baffled. Absolutely baffled.
-
A very true statement, by Dawkins!
Sam Harris puts it, I think, much more eloquently. I am an admirer of Dawkins, though. Anyone who hasn't, should read Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" and/or "The Selfish Gene." Fasntastic books.
As for everything you say, I agree completely.
-
DD, now that YOU have revealed all, how could I have fallen into such error! Now this journalist, Greg Szymanski, where have I heard this name before? Is he a defrocked Orthodox priest? As all this is most reliable, please close this case and I shall amend my ways. Down with Mother Theresa! OK?
Your argument is fallacious. Discrediting the journalist does not discredit the message. Susan Shields’s testimonial is more common than you’re probably aware; one can find a number of denouncements offered by former nuns and secularists on meeting Mother Teresa, and on spending time with her in Calcutta.
Doctor Robin Fox, editor of the British medical journal, The Lancet, visited Mother Teresa’s Home for Dying Destitute in Calcutta and was appalled by what he saw. Fox wrote about his experience in the September 1994 issue of the journal. Below is an excerpt.
There are doctors who call in from time to time but usually the sisters and volunteers (some of whom have medical knowledge) make decisions as best they can. I saw a young woman who had been admitted in poor shape with high fever, and the drugs prescribed had been tetracycline and paracetamol. Later a visiting doctor diagnosed probable malaria and substituted chloroquine. Could not someone have looked at a blood film? Investigations, I was told, are seldom permissible. How about simple algorithms that might help the sisters and volunteers distinguish the curable from the incurable? Again no. Such systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. Mother Teresa prefers providence to planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards materialism: the sisters must remain on equal terms with the poor. … Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa’s approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.Here are some more tidbits to swallow:
• In 1981 Mother Teresa journeyed to Haiti, to accept that nation's highest award, the Legion d'Honneur. She received it from the Duvalier family, and made a glowing speech in which she said that dictator "Baby Doc" and his wife Michele not only loved the poor, but were loved by the poor in return.• In 1990 she made a trip to Albania, then the most oppressive of the Balkan Stalinist states, and laid a wreath on the grave of the dictator Enver Hoxha as well as on the irredentist monument to "Mother Albania". She was herself of Albanian descent (born in Skopje, Macedonia), but many Albanians were shocked by her embrace of Hoxha's widow and her silence on human rights.
• In 1992 she intervened with a court in Los Angeles, which was about to sentence Charles Keating, the biggest fraud and embezzler in American history. His S & L racket stole a total of $252 million, mainly from small and poor depositors. A strong Catholic and right-wing campaigner against pornography in his spare time, Keating gave Mother Teresa $1,250,000 in cash and the use of a private jet, in return for which she gave him many useful endorsements, including a character reference to the court. The court had asked Mother Teresa to return
Keating's donations, which may well have been stolen, but she never replied to the request.
Mother Teresa was a fraud and a phony. My problem with her is the same as with any huckster who gains fame for fooling people. But it’s taboo in the West to call a Catholic spade a spade simply because she was Catholic; religion is off the table in terms of criticism, even when the complaints are valid—and that, I think, should stop. We live in an age in which we’re forced to tolerate the intolerant, and we who find nothing sacred, who criticize those seemingly above criticism, are, strangely enough, not tolerated; we’re told to show respect and tolerance or we’re chastised or silenced. This, I think, is something that has to change. Discourse is all we have, and nothing, or no one, is above criticism.
-
Just for the heavens of it, which of you maliglinators has ever contributed a scosh of what MT has contributed to mankind? Her contribution need not be seen as a religious thing. Get a grip!
Well, okay; I wasn't going to say anything, but I figured: what the heck. It's a common misconception that Mother Teresa made any contribution to mankind. The majority of money raised did not go to the poor in Calcutta; it went to building nunneries to indoctrinate women into Mother Teresa's unique brand of 'compassion.' She mistreated those she was charged to help; she allowed countless people to die who could easily have been saved through modern medicine. She was a vicious, phony fraud. And we recently found out that for fifty years she didn't believe in God or Jesus; she tried to, she wanted to, but she couldn't feel their presence. This serves to illustrate her motives: she did what she did for two reasons. One, to fight off her demons, and, Two, in a selfish attempt to feel the presence of God and Jesus.
Don
-
1
-
-
Christopher Hitchens has a wicked sense of humor.
I agree. I've become a huge fan of Hitchens recently. And in response to my conundrum as stated above, I've decided on another Hitchens book before I tackle one of the above mentioned. Currently, I'm reading "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" by Hitchens, and it's an explosive polemic.
-
Wow, nice! History and religion.
"Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" - this title it's hillarious
It's a great little book, too. And I say 'little' because it's only around 92 pages, but, man, is it vicious; it does a fantastic job in a limited space of completely abolishing Mother Teresa's so-called piety. She was a fraud, and this is a great place to start if one is interested in reading about her--an updated version would be nice, though, especially in light of the revelation that Mother Teresa held about as much belief in God as I do.
As an aside: I finished up a book last night and am struggling with what to read next. I've got a large queue, but the three I'm setting my sights on are: On War by Carl Von Clausewitz, The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper, and the Elgin Marbles by Christopher Hitchens--that one might wait, though, because a new revised edition is coming out soon.
-
DDickey ... what's your status? We're at the end of the 1st quarter already!
I've been reading a lot this year, but so far I've managed to completely stay away from fiction. I find myself watching virtually no television and reading more than one book at a time. Here's a list of books I've read so far.
1. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
-
Thanks for the list MPC.
I've read quite a few of the books on the list but I've never had the chance to read anything on Gaius Marius before so when I saw the link I instantly clicked on it with every intention of purchasing the book..........That is until I saw the price!!!
-
I'm currently reading the new translation of Sallust. It's a pretty smooth translation. I've been comparing it to the Loeb translation as I read it--this is my first reading of Sallust--and find it better than Loeb is some spots and Loeb better in others. I also have Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic by P.A. Brunt queued up to read next.
-
This is the best I could find. I couldn't find the year in which it was taken, though--aside from "19th century," which is about as vague as one can get.
-
My problem with creationism vs. evolution is that the theists assume that creationism is the default theory. How are evolutionists different in this regard?
Evolution is a theory that explains things, that answers these questions. It is the default theory by virtue of the fact that there are no other theories to explain these things. As I've explained elsewhere, creationism isn't a theory; it's a hypothesis. So evolution is the default theory because there are no other legitimate theories to explain these things. If a theory arose that better explained these events, than that would become the new, best theory we have. If, on the other hand, evolution was utterly annihilated, that in no way, shape, or form validates creationism.
If evolution can be disproved--which will never happen--they assume that the only other explanation is creationism--which is no explanation at all. Why can't evolution be disproven? Is your religion inately superior?Evolution is not a religion. It requires no blind belief in the supernatural or the paranormal. It is logical conjecture based on observable evidence--some will say, and have said, overwhelming observable evidence. Scientific theory is the antithesis of religious belief. To refer to science as a religion is to show how little you know about both.
Scientific theories are always changing, evolving if you will. They are constantly expanded and often disproved. Look at Quantum Physics, and Chaos Theory. Both of these are new areas in science and disprove older theories.That is the nature of human understanding. What we know now differs from what we knew during the enlightenment, for example. It is a testament to the evolution of our understanding. Which is one of my base complaints with religion. We are in the twenty-first century, and we're being taught and preached ideas that were conceived during the Bronze Age. We who trust in science have evolved beyond the need to rely on fairy tales; you who belief in the 'scriptures' are still stuck in the intellectual birth canal.
Disproving evolution does not add to the validity of creationism Agreed. Disproving one theory dose not vallidate another. Never has. Only proof makes a theory fact and as I have stated repeatedly, Creationism is a religious belief and uses a different set of proofs to vallidate it. People who make Creationism a science are every bit a ignorant as people who make Evolutionism a Religion.See my previous post about the difference between theory and fact.
There is no validity to creationism. Prove it. No ranting, please. I only want empirical data.In Genesis 1:25-27, it is stated that animals were created before humans. In Genesis 2:18-19, it is stated that humans were created before animals. In Genesis 1:27, it is stated that man and women were created at the same time. In Genesis 2:18-22, it is stated that man is created first, then animals, then woman. In Genesis, God creates day and night on the first day--and differentiates and defines them by naming them. Yet he didn't create the objects in the sky--the sun, stars, etc.--until the fourth day. How can light exist when there is no sun? Genesis one states that plants were created on the third day. But the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. This may have been plausible during the Bronze Age, but now that we know about a little thing called photosynthesis, we know that that order would be reversed: the sun would come before the plants.
Now you dare to call anything mentioned above valid? You mean to suggest that something that is so internally contradictory and in defiance of logic and reason yields a perfectly acceptable hypothesis? Surely, sir, you are joking.
This, of course, is an unnecessary argument. As you should know, sir, the burden of proof does not reside with me. The burden is on your shoulders to prove these claims. As the great Carl Sagan once remarked: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can provide no evidence outside of faith--which, itself, isn't evidence; it is a cop-out that proves or disproves nothing. You ask me to prove that creationism is invalid, but the burden of proof lies with you. So you, sir, must prove your claims or concede the point.
It is simply a silly Bronze Age fairy tale and nothing more. There's a polite and tolerant statement.I hold nothing but contempt for religion. The time to respect religious beliefs is drawing to a close. The zeitgeist is changing, and a new revolution is growing. If you, and people like you, think that their appalling beliefs should be taught to our children in the public sphere then you'd better get used to criticism; because I will fight until my dying day to make certain that my child will never have to be forcibly exposed to this obnoxious nonsense.
To invoke God as the answer to how everything started is to present the problem of an infinite regress. Who made God? Who made God's creator? And so on.Funny that you didn't respond to this. But then theists never do. Where did God come from?
-
When it gets down to it, religion requires faith, and science requires proof. The Creationists have faith to back their religious theory. The Evolutionists, on the other hand, do not have proof of evolution. They have evidence, but they do not have conclusive, solid proof. Unless they can document evolution in it's entirety, and replicate their experiments it is not sufficent proof to be declared fact. I know this is impossible, but science has rigid standards and they must be upheld.
My own opinion: I find Evolution credible, but largely unprovable. It has logic but no solid proof so I view it as a philosophy, not necessarily science. Religiously, I have faith in God, so if the scripture supports Creationism than I believe in it. Either way, I do not find either theory mutually exclusive of one another.
First, let's define our terms. Creationism is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory. There's a huge difference. A theory yields verifiable predictions. A hypothesis is, at best, a cute thought experiment. Evolution, more over, is a fact. Current theories of evolution are simply designed to explain the fact of evolution. Fact and theory are two different things. Take gravity as an example. It is a fact that gravity exists. The theory of relativity is a theory designed to explain gravity. If Einstein's theory was disproven tomorrow, would you come out and denounce gravity or those who believe in gravity? Would you say that it lacks credibility? And how can one who states "if the scripture supports Creationism than I believe in it" discuss credibility in the first place? The scriptures also state that the earth is flat; that it's held up by four pillars. Do you believe that, too? Do you also believe that we should stone to death disobedient children, or that a man who, on his wedding night, discovers that his wife isn't a virgin should stone her to death on her fathers doorstep? Do you believe in a virgin birth? Do you believe in the story of Exodus, which has not yielded a single shred of archaeological evidence?
And on the issue of credibility, read the first two books of Genesis. We are presented with two conflicting stories of creation within the span of a single page.
The bottom line is this: If you don't believe in evolution I want you to do me a favor. The next time you're sick with a viral infection, go to a doctor. When he prescribes antibiotics, request a form that was developed thirty years ago. What will happen? He will laugh at you. Why? Because viruses evolve an immunity to antibiotics. A small percentage of our genome consists of viruses, so would it be a radical statement to suggest that, if viruses can evolve, then so can we? I think not. I think it's more than probable.
-
No one who denounced abortion while simultaneously denouncing condoms in AIDS ravaged Africa should appear on such a list. Ever.
I believe you're objecting to the inclusion of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu for the wrong reasons.
"Influential" does not necessarily equal "benign." Note that Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, etc. are also on the list.
-- Nephele
Well, I see your point and I concede that point. But, as Cato pointed out, Mother Teresa did nothing globally influential. She was a much hyped figure who, as it turns out, had about as much faith in God as I do.
-
Just to add to Nephele's list, what about Mother Teresa?....... She founded the Missionaries of Charity and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for her humanitarian work. For over forty years she ministered to the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying in Kolkata (Calcutta), India.
As the Missionaries of Charity grew under Mother Teresa's leadership, they expanded their ministry to other countries. By the 1970s she had become internationally famed as a humanitarian and advocate for the poor and helpless. Surely she deserves a mention?
Mother Teresa already gets more attention that she deserves. She was a pious stooge for god who thrived on the exploits of the impoverished. No one who denounced abortion while simultaneously denouncing condoms in AIDS ravaged Africa should appear on such a list. Ever.
Was Jesus Caesar?
in Templum Romae - Temple of Rome
Posted
All of the gaps were filled in largely with Old Testament prophecy. The four gospels, which were written between 30 and 60 years after Jesus' death, go out of their way to squeeze old Testament myths into Jesus' story. A good example is Jesus' birth in Bethelem. Mighty contrivances were made in order to present him as having been born there, contrivances that aren't factually accurate or make little sense--like the absurd notion in "Luke" that Augustus had ordered an empire-wide census, and, as part of that census, everyone in the empire had to return to the land of their ancestors in order to participate in the census; so, according to "Luke," Joseph and Mary returned to Bethelem, which was where Joseph's ancenstors were from, ancenstors from a thousand years previous.