Re: Religious Book Discusion Groups

In article <SVVIj.20940$Ps1.8736@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, B says...


[snip]

>B = pagan comes from the latin paganus which was used by the Romans to
>put down the simple country folk who did not wor****p the way they and
>the city folk did.

Who is doing the "put down" here? Was it the ancient Romans, or is it
Bren,
putting down the ancient Romans with this accusation of a 'put down'? The
word
did not have any 'put down' to it, at least not at first. Only possibly
later,
with the stubborn impenitence of the pagans, did it pick up any 'put
down'.

[snip]

>Since in those days no one thought a man
>could be a god...

This is patently false. We should take this error as an example of how
very
unreliable Bren's opinions are.

Of _course_ the people of those days thought men could be gods. Didn't you
know
that the Roman Senate routinely declared emperors gods after their death?
Didn't
you know that the Pharaohs were considered living gods? Didn't you know
that St.
Clement of Alexandria listed a _long_ list of mere men who were declared
to be
gods?

You have outdone yourself in bold ignorance, Bren. No plea of "in my
opinion"
can make up for the blatant falsehood of _this_ 'opinion'.

[snip]


-- 
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)