Self-Gratification vs Self-Maintenance

I have been reading a bit of the fragmentum, the remembrance of Romulous and those who honoured his traditions. In that society of patrons and clientele, the mores seemed to dictate forbadence of gratification unto plebs and sought to teach men the ways subjects could live up to their own patrons or ancestors.

I have studied the Bible fragments and the history of the Hebrew people, but up until now I had not been interested in the pre-Christian traditions of Rome. But then I thought, "how could Yehudai-ism founded on the conception of a Matreon-Deity (El Shekinah)" eventuate a concept of Deity which identifies God as Patron?

such fragmentum of old Roman Censors and Jurists, would have comparable value to those scripts which had been amalgamated into the Vulgate, now that we identify JEsus also as a Roman Patron.

It is said that the collapse of the Roma-based Roman empire was precipitated upon capitulation to public demands: excess gratification. A nation too occupied in feeding its subjects is vulnerable to theft, and is not focused on expanding. The collapse of Rome is one thing but in the modern world the costs of collapse will be somewhat unendurable. As in the original quotations of this thread.

This is like in America, when leaders expect programmes such as welfare and foodstamps might be used as maintenance goals, end up creating self-gratification. These pose as forms of remuneration, and there is no cost of national-loyalty to receive the programme, but simply socioeconomic prequalifications which often involve fraud. What do I mean cost of national-loyalty it is either an oral agreement or a service agreement such as the CCC.

Units such as food-stamp are not as effectual as the USD currency, but they cost more than 1:1 USD to disburse. And they are even used in black-market barter, and self-maintenance policies for individual citizens "running out" at the end of the month. The food-stamps often goes towards a set of foodproducts consigned by the grocer, which have a greater cost-per-pound and more materials packaging and distance shipping overall (than convenient items which are usually more perishable such as produce and meat). And the conditions are subsidized "from the inside" (the growers and producers of food and product) through other government programmes, resulting in a type of conflation which has made annual-crop cultivation seem to be more profitable than perennial-crop cultivation in america.

What does it say in Americathat annual-crop monoculture farms are financed in a way that appears to be more profitable than perennial cultivation? The economic security is pointing to collapse: too much effluviation, foreclosure of legitimate householders (small farms), and contractural relationship of insurance-type guarantees between producers and sellers.

Instead of counseling citizens how to achieve the national-goals, the American Government often sets up new institutions to fulfill its goals of self maintenance. In other words, we see the American Government paying those who gratify their stated goals of civil progress.

When Jesus made his pilgrimage to Roma, along the way he explained to one Jurist, that people should support the government, and it is not as necessary that the government should support the people. We should consider whether any public employee or any contractee of the government, should have the privelege of salary beyond assigned housing and utilities. Why should the government pay to have its goals effectuated, when better goals can be brought forth from loyal volunteers, subjects of such nation. How do you know that a salaried professional has contributed to the nation and not his own estate, at the end of the service?

I have been thinking about Matreon versus Patron, the East versus the West, and I woke up in the middle of the night with the idea of Rome representing the Occident and the Jewish Nation of David (Ruth) representing the Orient. What is it about Abner, and the other twelve Apostles, which represents that body which simply trusted Jesus' words and carried them forward, more or less without comprimising them for sociopolitical gain.

It is time to ask: was the relationship that Jesus assumed over the Apostles that of Patron and clientele? The fragmentum seem to have ethical provision for how one might logically assume this responsibility. And as such it is reasonable to assume that Abner too, along with Peter, was a lawfully abiding citizen of Rome, despite the fact that he live on the frontier of the Empire.

In the original Roman system, if you were born to a patron, you are nevertheless the subject of him. The Patron is as a state-holder in himself, much as Sachemi of America were obligated to assume lawful responsibility for every member their tribe. Patrons had the authority to own other citizens slaves, and this is actually something of a merciful act, since the acquirement of slave implied in those times that one's life had been spared. A slave could also be granted freedom by the Patron, a most judicious act. Patrons formed a confederacy of representation within the Roman senate. Beyond this, the culture espoused such strong more that the Patron was compelled to teach his own ethics to his family, being seen as something like an eternal tradition rather than a job.

Urantia Book Forum

Who is online