Author
|
Topic: Cool Comic Booklets. (Read 73604 times)
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
 Offline
Posts: 72
|
Ivan Ivanov:
Vanoha:
Hm... now I'm confused Do you mind explaining how did you arrive at this modification of my nickname?
well my russian friends explained that ivan is usually shortened (although it isn't really shorter... ) to Vanoha, Vladimir to Vova, Alexander to Sasha and so on and so forth. i can stop however, if you don't like it 
Ok, but then you have to prove that before Judaism/Christianity moral codes actally were so prone to change and selectiviely applied.
if you equate a civilization with morality and claim that the laws it states originate in their idea of morality and the king makes the rules and is exempt from them then you lack the concept that judeo-christianity-islam (you know what, from now on , i'll simply refer to them as JCI, it'll shorten things a bit...  ) introduced - a widely accpeted code which isn't easily accesible to kings and therefore not easily changed that applies to everyone including the kings themselves.
It happened in one place but it didn't in another.
what happened where, i lost you a bit...
I think part of the diagreement may lie in the way you worded your original answer.
"It gave us a moral code"
you are right, i did word myself a tad unclear, ill reprhase: it gave us an important modification to existing moral codes on the way to ours which wasn't to be found up until then.
Who do you mean by "us". Europeans? Well, we arrived at a quite nice moral code before Judaism even had the chance of reaching us and Christianity didn't even exist.
Do you mean mankind? If so, I suupose I could agree, but it could only be true in a small irrelevant part of the world.
The rest of the world discovered their moral codes independently, so saying things like "it gave us a moral code" is not really accurate, is it?
like i said in the beggining, ancient history is not my forte... however, were those two ideas independantly evolved elsewhere in the world? to the best of my knowledge they were not.
in addition notice that i'm not neccasarily saying that those ideas were implemented then and there but rather that JCI conceived of those ideas and with time they were gradually implemented
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3619
The Ancient One
|
People are always afraid of what they don't understand...
What scares me at this stage is actually your nonexistant understanding, rather than mine.
It's not an accusation, it is an observation. Have you ever heard of Mao Tse-tung? Guy wrote the book on "How to SCREW Your Country's Economy and Set Their Technology Back by About a Thousand Years." Are you familiar with the Qin Dynasty? They got into power around the turn of the second century A.D. About 190 I think. They burned not only Confucian and Daoist books but also the Confucians and Daoists. Mao got some of his worst ideas from these guys, calling themselves the "legalists." It took China about a thousand years to partially recover from this attack.
And as an observation, it is totally correct. I'm not sure how "the chinese did some bad things" is supposed to prove the inherit superiority of christianity though. I mean, sure, if you could follow up with ".. while christians did not.", you'd be on firmer ground. But you're not.
They achieved quite a bit of dominance around 16c, but lost it due to their own reclusiveness, which the evangelical attitude of Christianity would have diffused, had they been Christian.
Out of curiosity, how can you be sure of this?
I'm proving that it is very successful and that it makes cultures and nations who adhere to it successful. Give me some counter-examples if you don't like my proof. What are some nations that got successful without Christianity or at least Judaism at their heart? Japan? Japan was bunch of fragmented, feudal, warring clans until they were contacted by the Christian world. Then, they copied Germany and the UK, and later got boosted by the U.S. after WWII. Much of their success they owe to Christian nations. Korea? Korea was pretty successful at staying right where it was, but again, it became a major player more by contact with Christian nations than anything else. The Aztecs? They couldn't stand up to Spain. Sub-Saharan Africa? You mean the guys who sold their brethren as slaves to the Westerners? Yeah, they did well up through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
What you're doing here is looking at a lot of successful countries, and deciding that one factor they have in common is what made them superior to everyone else. If you're interested in the subject of why the christian countries of europe were so successful in defeating their neighbours and exporting their influence and beliefs, I'd recommend taking a look at this. The factors that enabled europeans to conquer and convert the rest of the world were present long before christianity made it's appearance, and very probably any aggressive religion would have served them equally well.
How about some nations that stuck with Christianity, and now are doing poorly? Russia? Russia was doing fine until guys like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin tanked the economy and chased off the Christians.
Er.. what? The Russian tsardom was working horrifyingly badly at any rate. They had a weak tsar, and internal strife. It's not like if a modern day US suddenly and without warning dismantled religion and democracy.
Ummm... Latin America? Latin America didn't really convert because they believed in any sort of Christianity, they converted because they didn't want the Spanish to kill them. And they're really starting to pick up, too.
Latin America was largely wiped out by the spanish. After that kind of population and cultural loss, it'd take any country a long time to get back ont heir feet.
Remember, in order for my point to be valid, it doesn't have to hold true with every single culture on earth. It has to hold true with a lot of them. There has to be a significant relationship, that's all. Look at the list of first-world countries. Which ones are Christian? Which ones aren't?
No, in order for your point to hold true, there has to be some sort of evidence that it was the christianity that gave them these advantages. Otherwise you're just playing with statistics. For example, if I have 10 cubes that are made out of different hard materials (steel, iron, diamond and so forth) and paint them all grey, I could similarly claim that all grey cubes are hard, and that the grey colour must thus make them hard.
In an analog fashion, I could even claim that almost every successful culture on earth has had a lot of contact with white europeans, and that this thus proves that no country can be succesful without the help of white europeans. Thus white europeans must be superior to any other race. Go white power!
I'm also trying to say that the Bible is way more consistent than what people think. But no one's listening or talking intelligently to me about that because they haven't actually looked at it objectively. That's okay.
I'm glad that you are objective enough to decide that noone else is. Especially since you are fairly clearly taking sides on the issue.
I never said that. I know for a fact that it helps (U.S. history alone proves it), but I never claimed that it is necessary to be Christian in order to have a successful society. I believe the Aztecs, Toltecs, and Mayans worshipped the same God I do not because of their success, but for dozens of other reasons that I really can't share without a long, boring lecture on Mesoamerican history. Suffice it to say that I believe they did worship the same God, and when they apostacized from the commandments, they fell into a Dark Age. Hmm... where have we seen this before? Europe, maybe?
Can you provide any sort of references to this mesoamerican dark age? It soudns quite interesting, though I've never heard of it. I'm also confused about the "successful culture" part. Originally, you seemed to be making the point that chrisianity has made our culture as successful as it is. Now you're making the point that other religion may serve equally well. This seems illogical.
Yup. That kind. It would have gotten a lot worse, too, had Christianity not had a "back to it's roots" revival. Have you ever heard of names like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Calvin or Erasmus? You owe them for the society you live in. Big time. Show a little gratitude.
So it's alright for christianity to be barbaric,and then bounce bask, but not for other religions/cultures such as the Chinese?
The Romans were not divided by Christianity. They would have had to really believe in Christianity for this to be the case. They were divided by Constantine. The point I was making is the one you have completely passed over. The moral decay of these people was precisely WHY they stagnanted economically and technologically. When people are placated by fornication and decadence, they tend to place less emphasis on important things like working and defending their realms against gobs of invading Goths and Vandals. Yes, the stagnation killed the Empire.
I'm glad too see you skipped his point about greece altogether. Also, don't you think it might have anything to do with the decay of the roman empire that they were.
1. Basing their model of economics on expansion of their empire, something that became impossible as the empire grew.
2. In their later years under severe pressure from large groups of nomads that had left asia.
3. Using lead pipes for their water system. 
But what caused the stagnation? I firmly believe that it was heavy moral decay, combined with apathy and complacency.
I think "I firmly believe" are the key words here. Unless that you can present some sort of reference that states that the ONLY reason the roman empire fell was their moral decay, that really only is your opinion. A tale about how the soldiers were having homosexual intercourse instead of fighting the enemy at the gates would be acceptable.
God gave Adam and Eve a CHOICE. He's all about choices. The choice was to either reproduce, or not partake of the fruit. A very simple, yet elegant choice. It's amazing, when you think about it.
So explain to me what choice his followers, supposedly following his commandment gave the rest of the world when they conquered them and forced them to convert.
Has the thought crossed your mind that I might be capable of independant research? Just asking.
I notice you'tre not actually answering the question. But tell me, how did you determine, through your own research, which books that were real and which were false? Have you actually read all the books from that time period, and used some method to find out which are really the word of god, and which are just the opinions of some writer. And if you've really done this, and drawn the conclusion that exactly the right books were chosen, why haven't you published a paper on this? It is an enormous amount of research to undertake after all, surely the rest of the world could benefit from it.
To finish this off, I'd like to state that I'm only critical to Lance's opinions here, and not to the christian faith as a whole. I believe that christianity, as any religion can be a unifying force, and bring forth much good. Of course, in the wrong hands it can equally well bring forth darkness. I simply don't agree with the premise that christianity in specific is responsible for our culture being as stable as it is. If nothing else, the dark ages, with their strong religious presence and total lack of any progress are a clear indication of this.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 08:53:00 am by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
Bah, Lukipela spoiled my fun.
If I replied to you, Lance, I'd be only repeating what he said, but I guess there's something left for me.
Yup. That kind. It would have gotten a lot worse, too, had Christianity not had a "back to it's roots" revival. Have you ever heard of names like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Calvin or Erasmus? You owe them for the society you live in. Big time. Show a little gratitude.
The same Luther that spent a good deal of his time writing anti-semitic rants?
The same Calvin responsible for the murder of Servetus?
God gave Adam and Eve a CHOICE. He's all about choices. The choice was to either reproduce, or not partake of the fruit.
You are directly contradicting your own holy book here.
They were commanded to reproduce regardless of partaking the fruit:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
A very simple, yet elegant choice. It's amazing, when you think about it. Even if you think it came from the mind of some ancient hebrew storyteller.
Not really 
I see nothing elegant nor amazing about it, care to explain?
A&E, BTW, were not supposed to know it was wrong to eat the fruit, but that God had told them not to. There's a difference, in this case.
So their disobedience could not be a sin, since they didn't know it was wrong.
They were warned of the concequences of their actions, but the warning was formed in a way they couldn't understand (not to mention it wasn't entirely true either).
If you want an example of that, please try to imagine an engineer who ignores or defies the theory of gravity. He isn't nearly as powerful as the engineer who accepts gravity.
That is a really poor example, as I can't imagine what you can mean by "powerful" when referring to an engineer.
Is the power of the engineer meassured by the things he is able to construct, then the gravity defying one is clearly the more 'powerful'
What, you don't think God knew what would happen? He's smarter than you give credit. And the situation perfectly accomplished what it was supposed to. I don't see why you're whining.
So why bother with the garden and everthing, and create everything as it is?
Keep in mind your "god can't create anything imperfect" argument just fell.
How did it fall? God can't create things that are imperfect, but He DID create things that could EVOLVE into an imperfect state. Where's the hole?
Exactly this.
That in time it can become imperfect.
There really is no difference between creating something imperfect and creating something that you KNOW will become imperfect.
The latter, actually, would be a cowardly attempt to avert responsibility.
Has the thought crossed your mind that I might be capable of independant research? Just asking.
Indeed I see you are capable of research, but at the same time you aren't.
You have already shown that you have knowledge in ancient history (and possibly other areas as well), that's why you must be capable of researching things on your own.
But at the same time, it is painfully visible that you have already arrived at your conclusion, and you do your 'research' only to find things to back it up, and ignore those that go against it.
But this is irrelevant. As Luki mentioned you didn't really answer my question, and I would also like to see your answer to his comment.
The Book of Genesis is narrative. Narrative means that it's just trying to tell us what happened. As far as they know, that's what happened. It's not saying "Do this!" or "This is a good idea!" In fact, books like Judges were written to show Israel how far they had fallen, and to call them back to repentance.
Forget the Judges, I am talking about Leviticus, where god directly tells the Jews that a man loving another man is an abomination, and should be stoned, that disobedient children should be stoned, that it's a sin to have sex with a woman during her period, that raping someone's daughter is OK as long as you provide monetary compensation or marry her later.
Tons of commendments that today would be consider stupid or downright evil, and the book of Leviticus is meant to say "Do this!" and "This is a good idea!", too bad hardly anything in it is.
well my russian friends explained that ivan is usually shortened (although it isn't really shorter... ) to Vanoha, Vladimir to Vova, Alexander to Sasha and so on and so forth. i can stop however, if you don't like it
Oh, now I get it... tough I would never imagine that is the way you would spell it.
Shouldn't it be something like "Vania"?
if you equate a civilization with morality and claim that the laws it states originate in their idea of morality and the king makes the rules and is exempt from them then you lack the concept that judeo-christianity-islam (you know what, from now on , i'll simply refer to them as JCI, it'll shorten things a bit... Wink) introduced - a widely accpeted code which isn't easily accesible to kings and therefore not easily changed that applies to everyone including the kings themselves.
Well... not really, even during Christianity (or maybe especially then) there were different rules for kings, different rules for nobles, and different for other puny mortals. But I guess you might argue that even tough different rules applied to different people, SOME rules applied to all.
I agree that decisions about morality were taken out of the reach of kings, but that didn't do much, because it was now the pope's whim that chaned everything (and if not the pope then some other big cahoona of another Christian sect).
what happened where, i lost you a bit...
Oh sorry, sometimes I'm a bit too chaotic.
The god-king changing morality scenrio happened in a few places (like Egypt) and in other places it didn't (Greece, Rome, and I'm pretty sure that most of barbarian Europe, if not the world)
like i said in the beggining, ancient history is not my forte... however, were those two ideas independantly evolved elsewhere in the world? to the best of my knowledge they were not.
I'm not sure I always thought these two ideas were here for quite a long time, and the god-kings where exceptions rather then the rule.
But even if they weren't you have the example of Greeks and Romans, that didn't have anything to do with the Jews for most of their time. You have India, you have China and Japan which, as you pointed out erlier, int the most important aspects weren't different from Europe (pre and post Christian).
I believe that christianity, as any religion can be a unifying force, and bring forth much good.
I am wary of any 'unifying' movement or force. It is something strange in our human nature, but it seems that what unifies us in one place divides us in another.
That's why I don't really like Freethinker, Secular Humanist, Bright, or whatever they wish to call themselves movements. They can say all they wish about the brotherhood of mankind, I *know* that if by some way the whole world was persuaded to their way of thinking, then they'd just start fighting among themselves.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 10:35:55 am by Ivan Ivanov »
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
Lukipela:
3. Using lead pipes for their water system.
i saw this program on the history channel sometime ago. apparently they had this wildly popular dressing which they used with just about anything edible (frutrum, or something...) and they cooked it in lead pots which leached lead into the food...
Vania:
(as per request...)
Well... not really, even during Christianity (or maybe especially then) there were different rules for kings, different rules for nobles, and different for other puny mortals. But I guess you might argue that even tough different rules applied to different people, SOME rules applied to all.
I agree that decisions about morality were taken out of the reach of kings, but that didn't do much, because it was now the pope's whim that chaned everything (and if not the pope then some other big cahoona of another Christian sect).
i'm not saying the idea was implemented straight away, but it was there and developed with time
The god-king changing morality scenrio happened in a few places (like Egypt) and in other places it didn't (Greece, Rome, and I'm pretty sure that most of barbarian Europe, if not the world)
the scenario is a possible one, not mandatory. but you are ignoring the fact that it doens't have to be a god-king one for it to happen.
But even if they weren't you have the example of Greeks and Romans, that didn't have anything to do with the Jews for most of their time. You have India, you have China and Japan which, as you pointed out erlier, int the most important aspects weren't different from Europe (pre and post Christian).
first of all, about greece and rome, i don't know wether the idea of one law for all / a set of base laws which cannot be changed by whim of one man was developed with no outside interference. i would think the idea migrated over the years, but i may be wrong. however, it should be noted that the greek and roman ideas did not carry on while the religion carried the ideas through the dark ages.
i don't know about india in ancient times, but weren't china and japan god-king goverments?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3619
The Ancient One
|
Bah, Lukipela spoiled my fun.
If I replied to you, Lance, I'd be only repeating what he said, but I guess there's something left for me.
Sorry about that. I really try to stay out of theological debates, but I responded to the parts that weren't grounded in theology, but rather based on assumptions. I left all the tiresome "is truth beauty and is beatuy truth" stuff to you, as I can't really see the point in debating the actual contents of the bible.
I am wary of any 'unifying' movement or force. It is something strange in our human nature, but it seems that what unifies us in one place divides us in another.
That's why I don't really like Freethinker, Secular Humanist, Bright, or whatever they wish to call themselves movements. They can say all they wish about the brotherhood of mankind, I *know* that if by some way the whole world was persuaded to their way of thinking, then they'd just start fighting among themselves.
There is a difference between a unifying movement and a unifying force. The former is something actively campaigning to bring people together under one banner/belief. I agree that this kind of venture is mostly doomed to fail, as any movement that grows big enough will develop all sorts of splinter fractions. Christianity is a good example of this, it was (once upon a time) a movement to bring all the people of the world into the same fold, under God. At this stage though, even though they've absorbed a lot of people, the different fractions have become separated enough to basically be smaller religions in their own.
A unifying force however, is not intent upon persuading people to join it. It is something you feel, and believe in. If enough people feel the same, you will have a bond with these people and be part of a group. A good example of this might be a small parish, or similar. While they are definetly not trying to actively recruit other parishes, they are united in their belief and as such, their quality of life is improved and the burden of loneliness made a little lighter. A marriage might be another example, where love is the uniting factor. Of course, a unifying force may become a unifying movement, but at that stage it's really lost what made it special to begin with.
So religion can be both a unifying force, and a unifying movement. Oneside has the capacity to enrich your life, whilst the other side has the capability to make a lot of people suffer.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 12:26:43 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
first of all, about greece and rome, i don't know wether the idea of one law for all / a set of base laws which cannot be changed by whim of one man was developed with no outside interference. i would think the idea migrated over the years, but i may be wrong. however, it should be noted that the greek and roman ideas did not carry on while the religion carried the ideas through the dark ages.
There is a little flaw in this reasoning... if it wasn't for this religion there would be no darkages in the first place.
Secondly, the memory of Greek and Roman empires, were was carried through darkages. The renaissance started because people re-descivored ancient culture.
i don't know about india in ancient times, but weren't china and japan god-king goverments?
I don't know about China, but Japan surely was, i think it wasn't until the 50's 60's of the 20'th century that the emporor surrender his godhood
Anyways I think your argument is pretty weak, because of one little thing.
I admit, the whole evolution of morality could have happened the way your describe, but the problem is you didn't present any evidence that it did, which means a number of different equally plausible explanations could be true.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 01:39:51 pm by Ivan Ivanov »
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
Vania:
There is a little flaw in this reasoning... if it wasn't for this religion there would be no darkages in the first place.
Secondly, the memory of Greek and Roman empires, were was carried through darkages. The renaissance started because people re-descivored ancient culture
that's possible. but that doesn't change the fact that it did carry those ideas.
as for the greeks and the romans, their ideas of art, philosophy and science were carried on, not their ideas about democracy. else, why was florence ruled by a duke and wasn't a democracy?
Anyways I think your argument is pretty weak, because of one little thing.
I admit, the whole evolution of morality could have happened the way your describe, but the problem is you didn't present any evidence that it did, which means a number of different equally plausible explanations could be true.
to tell you the truth this argument was so abstract i didn't think there was any kind of proof. what would you accept as such?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3619
The Ancient One
|
that's possible. but that doesn't change the fact that it did carry those ideas.
I don't understand this. If I understood correctly, Ivan argues that the memory of Rome and Greece were carried through the dark ages and blossomed once religion freed it's oppressive hold. Your counter argument, if I understand correctly is exactly the same thing.
as for the greeks and the romans, their ideas of art, philosophy and science were carried on, not their ideas about democracy. else, why was florence ruled by a duke and wasn't a democracy?
In that case, would you care to enlighten us as to where the concept of democracy came from, if it is not based on the hellenistic principle. did someone reinvent it along the way? Your argument might as well be that greek science was not caried on, since europeans believed in a geocentric universe. Some things took much longer than others to reclaim the acceptance they had had in ancient times.
to tell you the truth this argument was so abstract i didn't think there was any kind of proof. what would you accept as such?
Well, if you could show that previous to christian times all cultures were devoid of laws and ethical values, that would be pretty effective. Of course, most of the ancient civilisations we are aware of did have laws, and from what little trace we've found of them, a moral code as well. It has not always been the same moral code as we use now, but that isn't really the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
Lukipela:
I don't understand this. If I understood correctly, Ivan argues that the memory of Rome and Greece were carried through the dark ages and blossomed once religion freed it's oppressive hold. Your counter argument, if I understand correctly is exactly the same thing.
In that case, would you care to enlighten us as to where the concept of democracy came from, if it is not based on the hellenistic principle. did someone reinvent it along the way? Your argument might as well be that greek science was not caried on, since europeans believed in a geocentric universe. Some things took much longer than others to reclaim the acceptance they had had in ancient times.
what i meant was that while JCI had sideffects in certain areas (the dark ages were specific to europe, were they not?) it did provide a long lasting preservance of the ideas. however, i will concede that you have a point in the second part i quoted. let's try something else, would you agree that JCI spread those ideas much better than the memory of greece and rome did?
Well, if you could show that previous to christian times all cultures were devoid of laws and ethical values, that would be pretty effective.
but that wasn't my argument. i claimed that the idea: "one law for all / a set of base laws which cannot be changed by whim of one man" didn't exist beforehand. now, how could i prove that? it woud seem that i would have to prove it by way of negation - showing that no culture before hand possesed such ideas. it would be like i claimed that there is a finite number of primal numbers and in order to prove it i would have to count the numbers to infinty and prove it... (just to clarify, i won't!  )
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
Sorry about that. I really try to stay out of theological debates, but I responded to the parts that weren't grounded in theology, but rather based on assumptions. I left all the tiresome "is truth beauty and is beatuy truth" stuff to you, as I can't really see the point in debating the actual contents of the bible.
It didn't really bother me. You saved me the effort of writing half my post
Plus, you seem to be good at keeping your temper, while I was a bit... excited about the whole thing even after I had a good night's sleep after reading Lance's post.
A unifying force however, is not intent upon persuading people to join it. It is something you feel, and believe in. If enough people feel the same, you will have a bond with these people and be part of a group. A good example of this might be a small parish, or similar. While they are definetly not trying to actively recruit other parishes, they are united in their belief and as such, their quality of life is improved and the burden of loneliness made a little lighter. A marriage might be another example, where love is the uniting factor.
You might have a point but the way I see it is when people are beeing unified then at the same time they are beeing devided, but on a different scale.
On the other hand, the example with marriage is a good one, tough I'm having trouble imagining how you could relate it to religion.
that's possible. but that doesn't change the fact that it did carry those ideas.
as for the greeks and the romans, their ideas of art, philosophy and science were carried on, not their ideas about democracy. else, why was florence ruled by a duke and wasn't a democracy?
Because feudalism was the system that got implemented during the darkages, and the people in power weren't so keen on giving away their power?
It took quite some time before democracy was re-introduced in Europe, and it was fought fiercely by absolut rulers.
to tell you the truth this argument was so abstract i didn't think there was any kind of proof. what would you accept as such?
The thing that would persuade me instantly would be something that Luki described.
Other then that coming up with evidence will be hard. If you can't show that there was a significant change in moral codes around the time of birth of Christianity/Judaism, there is no reason to think they were the deciding factors.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 04:26:40 pm by Ivan Ivanov »
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, why don't you have a go at it. what do you think religion gave us, if anything at all?