Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Analysis Of Roman Epitaphs Alters Concept Of 'Family'
University Of Calgary ^ | 2-11-2004 | Dr Hanne Sigismund

Posted on 02/29/2004 4:36:28 PM PST by blam

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last
To: Burkeman1
But indirectly it is propaganda, since the Left has a major campaign to "redefine" the family to include all kinds of variable forms of living arrangements.
21 posted on 02/29/2004 5:27:13 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SolutionsOnly
It's been that way for the last forty years or so.
22 posted on 02/29/2004 5:27:39 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Homo-propaganda.

Beat me to it.

23 posted on 02/29/2004 5:27:55 PM PST by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
How many of us actuall remember living in a home with three blood generations?

My wife's parents live a mile down the road from us -- my daughter stays there as much as she's at our house. My parents just retired and are five miles away. Not to mention that two of my wife's 3 sisters live in town. Not exactly the same thing, but pretty close.

24 posted on 02/29/2004 5:29:53 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian (Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SolutionsOnly
I've seen it once or twice before and suspect it's intentional- the agenda being to eliminate all Christian references from our daily lives.

I like to define it as:

CE = Christian Era
BCE = Before the Christian Era

It's fun to exasperate the enemy.

25 posted on 02/29/2004 5:32:04 PM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
By extended family are talking about grandparents and inlaws in the same house?

It is not just hispanics.

(not exactly on point, but My Big Fat Greek Wedding did display the truth of the grandmother living in the house)
26 posted on 02/29/2004 5:33:10 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
I don't think so- it is just history- if anything family bonds were far tighter in Roman times and loyatly to the family was seen as a primary virtue. The core of a Roman family was the "nuclear" unit obviously- but in order to survive families had to include as many "supporters" as they could. Life was short and brutal and the bigger the family- the more protection you enjoyed. This is a far cry from accepting "Gay marriage" which Romans would have thought preposterous.
27 posted on 02/29/2004 5:33:23 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blam
Odd spin on this. I know something about the previous ideas about the Roman family, and this fits easily within. Sure it may provide some more solid evidence to support it. And it may elevate the importance of certain relationships. But it's definitely not a major change.

Methinks I sense the hand of the "progressives" cooking up something related to this.

28 posted on 02/29/2004 5:33:51 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Not at the universities I atttended
29 posted on 02/29/2004 5:36:10 PM PST by SolutionsOnly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
I know of one Greek father who gave his blessing to a marrige based on the fact the future son in law was going to be living close.

I think newlyweds need a liiiitle distance in the begining.
30 posted on 02/29/2004 5:36:30 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
There is no year Zero. The year of the supposed birth was the year 1CE. the year before that was 1 BCE.

Part of the reason why one doesnt use BC and AD is because the monk who did the calculation made a mistake. It was a tough piece of work because he was after the fact trying to make sense of all the partial years where the end of one emperors life was the same year as the first year of the next emperor. We are still finding out emperors who ruled briefly, or ruled while another emperor ruled.

By using BCE and CE you date it back to the Herod the Great. The gospel record relates the birth to Herod the great (4 BC) in Matthew, to the great census (6AD) with Mark and John not taking a position.
31 posted on 02/29/2004 5:40:17 PM PST by donmeaker (Duty is the most sublime word in the English language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; irv; blam
Actually, the origins of CE/BCE are Jewish scholarship with its use started at least in the 19th Century. Since Jews consider Jesus neither "the anointed one" or "Our Lord," it is considered inappropriate to use those terms. The use spread through academia, particularly through Jewish scholars in it.

It may be P.C. now, but it wasn't a recently invented academic term.
32 posted on 02/29/2004 5:40:25 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian (Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: elli1
I'm reading Colleen McCullough's The First Man In Rome. Good book.

An understatement. It's an amazing book. And astonishingly faithful to history (allowing for the fact that a lot of the action takes place in areas where we have no direct historical ecords). Every time I thought I found a historical error in it, I went back to historical sources and found she was right and my own recollection was faulty.

Read the whole series.

33 posted on 02/29/2004 5:40:31 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper
***" CE = Christian Era
BCE = Before the Christian Era"**

Very good! I'm with you on that!

34 posted on 02/29/2004 5:42:45 PM PST by SolutionsOnly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
You talk about the lifestyle of 0.1% of a civilization that was decadent on the verge of collapse as if it were the norm of the day, or any other day. And this article talks as if we could draw some generalizations from that.

Pah! ~

35 posted on 02/29/2004 5:43:00 PM PST by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
I am a practicing Roman pagan, and live with my exwife, her husband, and two children with one on the way. We do not practice polyandry/polygamy, but family chores are split. It is practical, and I recommend it.
36 posted on 02/29/2004 5:43:04 PM PST by donmeaker (Duty is the most sublime word in the English language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: SolutionsOnly
See #32. It has been the case in Britian for as long as I can remember.
38 posted on 02/29/2004 5:48:17 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Yeti
"Decadent"? Get over the Caligula movies and the lifestyles of the Emporers you see on the History Channel- the men who built the Roman Empire were not perfect but neither were they wine slushing hedonists. And it was hardly .01 percent of the population. Roman Soldiers were free Citizens at the time of Ceaser and that was a heck of a lot of families. This was the system- and it is hardly unique to Roman civiliazation- the greater or extended family- was the norm for most of human history. Our little families now- in which it is a miracle if we know our paternal Great Grandmother's maiden name have not even a tenth of the strength of a middle class ancient Roman family in which every member of the family could trace back their line for hundreds of years and worshipped and respected their ancestors.

Ask an ancient Roman if two "gays" could bet married and he wouldn't even know what the heck you were talking about as "Gay" wasn't even a concept. Two men "marrying"? He wouldn't even understand you and think you were crazy.

It is our time in which we entertain this idiocy- not theirs.
39 posted on 02/29/2004 5:55:22 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I don't see the connection from extended family to gay marriage, but I hardly call this discovery groundbreaking. It is well known that the Roman family included adopted slaves and other domestic help. Also Roman concepts of marriage were remarkably similar to ours, including such customs as the wedding ring worn on the middle finger of the left hand and carrying the bride over the threshold.
40 posted on 02/29/2004 6:03:47 PM PST by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus,Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson