QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 9 2009, 11:37 PM) 
...All two of them.
I would say more than two...
The roots of Ancient Paganism and Necromancy, for example, date to before the birth of Christ...
Just two among many...
Full Version: What's the deal with 4th Edition spirits?!?
I would say more than two...
The roots of Ancient Paganism and Necromancy, for example, date to before the birth of Christ...
Just two among many...
Not to forget the thousand offshots of said paganism christianity borrowd rigourosly it's holy days from. Then you have greek Mysticism, the Egyptian Pantheon and whatnot. And that's only some of the beliefs that originated in middle east/europe/north africa. Just imagine what happened in India, Japan and the Americas.
QUOTE (GreyBrother @ Apr 12 2009, 12:53 PM)
Not to forget the thousand offshots of said paganism christianity borrowd rigourosly it's holy days from. Then you have greek Mysticism, the Egyptian Pantheon and whatnot. And that's only some of the beliefs that originated in middle east/europe/north africa. Just imagine what happened in India, Japan and the Americas.
No Doubt...
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 9 2009, 11:37 PM)
...All two of them.
Excuse me?!
QUOTE (Tyro @ Apr 12 2009, 07:57 PM)
Excuse me?!
He just is unaware of the VAST number of possible religions and magical traditions that could originate from before the advent of Chrisianity would be my guess...
Especially in the Asiatic and Egyptian Provinces where civilization has been prevelant for some 5,000 years or more...
Every body gotta learn sometime though...
I guess I'm just used to comparative religions (as opposed to bible study).
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 9 2009, 11:37 PM)
...All two of them.
QUOTE (Tyro @ Apr 12 2009, 07:57 PM)
Excuse me?!
You know, the right one and the wrong one.
QUOTE (pbangarth @ Apr 12 2009, 10:22 PM)
You know, the right one and the wrong one.
People people..
Evidently you people forget what you post, and what context it's in. I was not saying there were only two religions. I was not saying the world was only two thousand years old.
I was saying all two thousand years of Christianity.
It's nice to know that both of you hate me so much though.
Oh, and Tyro, you can't compare any religion to Christianity unless you actually look at the Bible. So Bible study would be part of a "comparative" study of Christianity.
L34RN 2 R34S34RC|-|
Evidently you people forget what you post, and what context it's in. I was not saying there were only two religions. I was not saying the world was only two thousand years old.
QUOTE
What is the intrinsic difference between the mainstream Christian religions?... They have mostly the same beliefs, and yet, they are COMPLETELY different. Dogma, Rituals, Beliefs that have been formed over the last several thousand years... all from a very basic core concept...
I was saying all two thousand years of Christianity.
It's nice to know that both of you hate me so much though.
Oh, and Tyro, you can't compare any religion to Christianity unless you actually look at the Bible. So Bible study would be part of a "comparative" study of Christianity.
QUOTE
Not to forget the thousand offshots of said paganism christianity borrowd rigourosly it's holy days from. Then you have greek Mysticism, the Egyptian Pantheon and whatnot. And that's only some of the beliefs that originated in middle east/europe/north africa. Just imagine what happened in India, Japan and the Americas.
That's really interesting, seeing as Jesus Christ was actually crucified on the Passover, and the Passover was near the celebration of the goddess Eoster (or something like that). Not taken from that celebration, just near it.L34RN 2 R34S34RC|-|
Now, now, Neraph, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to. I was running with the play, that's all. I dislike those little smileys, but I dislike even more the propensity for emailing/blogging to be misunderstood. I'll try to use smileys more consistently to try to point out innocent humour.
QUOTE (pbangarth @ Apr 12 2009, 11:22 PM)
You know, the right one and the wrong one.
Touche
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 13 2009, 05:12 PM)
People people..
Evidently you people forget what you post, and what context it's in. I was not saying there were only two religions. I was not saying the world was only two thousand years old.
I was saying all two thousand years of Christianity.
It's nice to know that both of you hate me so much though.
Oh, and Tyro, you can't compare any religion to Christianity unless you actually look at the Bible. So Bible study would be part of a "comparative" study of Christianity.
That's really interesting, seeing as Jesus Christ was actually crucified on the Passover, and the Passover was near the celebration of the goddess Eoster (or something like that). Not taken from that celebration, just near it.
L34RN 2 R34S34RC|-|
Evidently you people forget what you post, and what context it's in. I was not saying there were only two religions. I was not saying the world was only two thousand years old.
I was saying all two thousand years of Christianity.
It's nice to know that both of you hate me so much though.
Oh, and Tyro, you can't compare any religion to Christianity unless you actually look at the Bible. So Bible study would be part of a "comparative" study of Christianity.
That's really interesting, seeing as Jesus Christ was actually crucified on the Passover, and the Passover was near the celebration of the goddess Eoster (or something like that). Not taken from that celebration, just near it.
L34RN 2 R34S34RC|-|
Not to nitpick here or anything but...
A fair number, if not a majority, of the Holy Days in Christianity are (forgive me) bastardizations of pagan holidays... Yule and the Birth of Christ being one that immediately comes to mind... there are others of course...
This was done to make the new emerging religion of Christianity more palatable to those who had been practicing pagans up tpo that time... by using "pagan" holidays as the root for Christian Holidays, the early church was able to bring familiarity to the new religion. Conversions were therefore MUCH easier.
My Two Cents...
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 13 2009, 05:12 PM)
People people..
I was saying all two thousand years of Christianity.
It's nice to know that both of you hate me so much though.
I was saying all two thousand years of Christianity.
It's nice to know that both of you hate me so much though.
And Neraph... Not hate intended or implied...
I just wante to make myself a little more clear on the intent of the previous posts... Which was that there were a myriad number of religions that are MUCH older than Christianity/Islam/Jewish Faith...
Also, Neraph, your reply of "All two of them" to the text you quoted heavily implied that there were 2 "dogmas, rituals and and beliefs", not that it was only 2 thousand years. Obviously a number of people interpreted it this way. I'm glad you clarified it to show you meant the last half of the statement, rather than the first half. Given the volatility of religious discussions, I'd simply offer a sliver of advice to be more specific when making corrections in the future. Prevents all the flare ups you saw.
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin @ Apr 14 2009, 03:25 PM)
Also, Neraph, your reply of "All two of them" to the text you quoted heavily implied that there were 2 "dogmas, rituals and and beliefs", not that it was only 2 thousand years. Obviously a number of people interpreted it this way.
Yep. It is, in fact, the correct way to interpret such a construct. The phrase "dogmas, rituals, and beliefs" was the subject of the sentence, and, without any other guidance in the form of context or determiners (of which there were none in Neraph's post), it is assumed that the pronoun refers to the subject of a previous sentence.
This is especially true when the sentence or phrase containing the pronoun directly contradicts what it was actually referring to. "All two of them [thousand years]" directly contradicts the phrase it was referring to, "over the last several thousand years", as "two" is not a valid number within "several" (indeed, the very first definition at dictionary.com defines it as "more than two") -- yet Neraph's post contained neither context for nor support of the contradiction.
This left readers unable to form any reasonable conclusion other than that "them" referred to "dogmas, rituals, and beliefs" rather than "thousand years".
WOW...
QUOTE (Zurai @ Apr 14 2009, 02:54 PM)
Yep. It is, in fact, the correct way to interpret such a construct. The phrase "dogmas, rituals, and beliefs" was the subject of the sentence, and, without any other guidance in the form of context or determiners (of which there were none in Neraph's post), it is assumed that the pronoun refers to the subject of a previous sentence.
This is especially true when the sentence or phrase containing the pronoun directly contradicts what it was actually referring to. "All two of them [thousand years]" directly contradicts the phrase it was referring to, "over the last several thousand years", as "two" is not a valid number within "several" (indeed, the very first definition at dictionary.com defines it as "more than two") -- yet Neraph's post contained neither context for nor support of the contradiction.
This left readers unable to form any reasonable conclusion other than that "them" referred to "dogmas, rituals, and beliefs" rather than "thousand years".
This is especially true when the sentence or phrase containing the pronoun directly contradicts what it was actually referring to. "All two of them [thousand years]" directly contradicts the phrase it was referring to, "over the last several thousand years", as "two" is not a valid number within "several" (indeed, the very first definition at dictionary.com defines it as "more than two") -- yet Neraph's post contained neither context for nor support of the contradiction.
This left readers unable to form any reasonable conclusion other than that "them" referred to "dogmas, rituals, and beliefs" rather than "thousand years".
Well said!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.